Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Testing one, two, three. Testing one, two.

Welcome, everyone, to the Napa County Board of Supervisors meeting. I'm calling this meeting of June 2nd, 2026 to order.

May I have roll call, please? Vice Chair Lecce, present.

Supervisor Ramos? Here. Supervisor Gallagher? Here. Supervisor Cushaw? Here. Chair Manfrey?

Here. I would like to select Kara Mae Woolwich to lead us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,

Thank you. Our next item is Pet of the Week. And I welcome Luis to join us with the Pet of the Week, who I understand is a kitten. I know. I know. I felt the same way. Hi, Luis. What can you tell us about this animal, which everyone already wants to take home?

Besides being really jealous at the reaction that he got, I mean, what am I even doing here? But yeah, so this is Hugh. Hugh has been at the shelter since he was a little bottle baby. He has three sisters that are currently at the clinic getting spayed. And then he will have his day tomorrow. But Hugh is an 8 to 10 week old kitten. You can see he's a little short haired. He's being really, really brave. He just went from the back being loved on, cuddling, to now he's just kind of like, where are all these people screaming about? But yeah, he is just another kitten, part of kitten season. Luckily, we had an amazing foster to take care of him, raise him, show him some manners, show him how to be gentle, loving, caring. as much as we can do when they have a specific personality. His sisters, I can't really say much because I haven't really met them yet. But he is up for adoption now because he is the pet of the week. His adoption fees are going to be waived. Typically, what that includes will be the spay and neuter surgery, microchip, vaccines, dewormers, and flea medication. And luckily, when they are in foster, they're already socialized to people, litter trained. Even the cats that live at the shelter will also remain litter trained. But, yeah, he's all set to go.

Okay, I bet he would like to chase some string. Okay, wonderful. Thank you, Louise. The next item on our agenda is Item 4, Approval of Proclamations and Commendations. We have two proclamations today. The first recognizing May 2026 as Pride Month and the second which is Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Awareness Month in Napa County. Do I have any public comment on either of these items? You don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone on the phones?

No?

Okay. May I please have a motion to approve the proclamations? So moved. Second. Okay. I have a motion by Supervisor Cottrell, a second by Vice Chair Alessio. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. And so for Pride Month, I welcome Coach Bailey, Director of Training and Technical Assistant LGBTQ Connection to... to receive the proclamation. And this one I wanted to have us read one by one by one, because I know we all support it so much. So I'll just start on the side of the dais. Supervisor Ramos, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all joining us. LGBTQ Pride Month, June 2026, whereas LGBTQ Plus Pride Month commemorates a history of courage, resilience, and collective action honoring those who have advocated for dignity, equality, and the right to live openly and authentically while recognizing the ongoing work to ensure

LGBTQ plus individuals are seen, valued, protected, and celebrated in every community, and Whereas for more than two decades, Napa Pride has served as a cornerstone of visibility, celebration, and connection for LGBTQ plus people in Napa County, cultivating an inclusive community grounded in resilience, mutual care, and a sense of belonging, and

Whereas NAPA Pride 2026, taking place June 7th through 20th, 2026, with the theme Love Out Loud, stands as both a celebration and a declaration encouraging individuals and communities to show up visibly, support one another, and create spaces where LGBTQ plus people, families, and allies can experience joy, safety, and belonging together.

Whereas every June, residents from up and down the valley unite in celebration of Pride Month, honoring the resilience, achievements, and aspirations of LGBTQ plus individuals while affirming an ongoing commitment to justice and equality. Efforts also contribute meaningfully to the cultural and economic vitality of Napa County by welcoming thousands of participants, supporting local businesses, and reinforcing Napa's identity as an open and welcoming community for all.

And whereas at a time when communities across the country continue to face rising discrimination, violence, censorship, and efforts to diminish hard-fought rights and visibility, Pride Month serves as a powerful affirmation that LGBTQ plus people belong in every neighborhood, school, workplace, and public space openly, safely, and without fear. And that Napa County remains committed to fostering a community where all people are treated with dignity, respect, and humanity.

Now, therefore, let it be proclaimed that this Board of Supervisors, County of Napa, State of California, on the second day of June 2026, does hereby recognize June 2026 as LGBTQ Plus Pride Month in Napa County and encourages all residents, businesses, and visitors to participate in Pride events and to support and uplift LGBTQ Plus individuals and communities. Yay. And I welcome you to make any comments. And then I think after that, we'll join you and anyone else who wants to participate in the wall for a photo.

That sounds great. Thank you so much. Good morning, supervisors, community members, friends, and neighbors. Thank you. Supervisor Gallagher may remember that seven years ago, a small group of LGBTQ plus residents and allies came together with a simple but ambitious goal. that every municipality in Napa County would recognize Pride Month with a proclamation and a pride flag raising. At that time, we were not asking for anything extravagant. We were asking to be seen. In 2019, we were still building visibility from the ground up. Today, Pride flags fly across Napa Valley. Proclamations are issued throughout the county. Businesses, nonprofits, schools, faith communities, public agencies, volunteers, families, elders, young people, and thousands of residents now participate in Pride Month. That did not happen by accident. It happened because ordinary people decided their LGBTQ plus neighbors mattered. My name is Bailey. I am a Napa resident and emerging leader at On the Move, a violence prevention educator, community organizer, and former director of LGBTQ Connection Napa, founder at Queer Leaders Coalition. And for the past three years, I've had the honor of sitting as a chair of Napa Pride. Underneath all of that, I am a late bloomer, non-binary, transgender person whose life has been changed by access to gender affirming care. And I stand here today because that care exists. And I also stand here knowing that too many people in our community still have to leave Napa County to find affirming healthcare, culturally responsive support, mental health services, and basic resources that should be available close to home. That should concern all of us. Because pride is not only about celebration. Pride is about whether people can survive here, access care here, go to school here, work here, grow old here, and be treated as fully human here. In 2024, shortly before leaving the training space, I facilitated a training in another county where I was interrupted during my introduction, called an abomination, and told I did not exist. And I often wonder, when was the last time being told you should not exist was a part of your workday? The misinformation, disinformation, and hostility directed towards LGBTQ plus people today, it's exhausting, everybody. It really is. And yet, that's not the whole story. Yesterday, I watched people gather beneath the rising sun, wearing pride shirts, carrying rainbow flags, hugging old friends, and introducing themselves to new neighbors. Some have been out for decades. Some are still figuring it out. Some came because they love someone who needed to know they are not alone. As a newly out transgender person, I do not take any single second of that for granted. That is what pride means. This year's Napa Pride theme is Love Out Loud. It's a celebration, yes, but it's also an invitation to choose courage over silence, visibility over fear, community over division, and real belonging and affirmation over polite tolerance. This year, Napa Pride runs from June 7th through June 20th, where events across Napa Valley include our first Thursday event at Oxbow Commons, our opening tea dance at Aunt Da's, the Pride Pet Parade and Block Potty at Deuce's Market, Yonville's Pride in the Park, and the Day of Solidarity in collaboration with the newly formed St. Helena Pride Team. The Pride car parade is coming back to downtown, and celebrations that bring togetherness and people of all ages to downtown to celebrate. Because joy matters. But joy cannot be the only thing that we ask of Pride, because the era of performative allyship is over. A rainbow logo on a brochure in June is not enough. A Pride proclamation, while important, is not enough. The way that Napa County Health and Human Services has prioritized LGBTQ plus inclusion is a great first step. Our community needs organizations where staff are trained, trauma informed, and ready to serve LGBTQ plus people, and all of the beautiful intersections of our identity with dignity. We need health care systems where transgender and gender diverse people can access care close to home. We need schools, workplaces, nonprofits, businesses, and public institutions where people do not have to make themselves smaller to be safe. That's why this year NAPA Pride and the Queer Leaders Coalition created our Community Agreements and Business and Hospitality Pride Guide to help organizations move beyond symbolism and toward meaningful inclusion. And this is our invitation. Respect people's names and pronouns. Assume good intent, but take responsibility for impact. Interrupt harm when you see it. Use your privilege in the service of community care and not saviorism. Make mistakes. Leave room for repair, learning, and accountability. And remember that belonging is not just a statement or words on paper. It is a practice every single day. Because none of this happens alone, I want to recognize the sponsors and partners helping make Pride possible this year, including the Napa Tourism Improvement District, Napa Hotels, North Bay Health, our official healthcare partner, Napa Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation, ONDAWS Napa, Deuces Market, The Garden, the Napa Pride Planning Committee, who are seated here today, LGBTQ connection, local businesses, volunteers, the donors who have given to us generously, and the community members who continue to show up for one another. Lastly, I want to close with this. Love has always been one answer to fear. Community has always been one answer to isolation. Visibility has always been one answer to shame. May we love out loud, may we protect one another out loud. May we become the neighbors we needed when we were younger. May every LGBTQ plus person in Napa County know you are here, you matter, you belong. Thank you so much. Go to NapaPride.com for more. Follow at Napa Pride or at Napa Queer Leaders Coalition. And thank you so much. Happy Pride.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. One, two, three. One, two, three. This is what you meant by the party downstairs.

Good thing I didn't announce anyone today.

Okay, thank you all. Our next proclamation is for Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Awareness Month, and I would like to invite Vice Chair Alessio to present that to Erin Cador, Deputy Director, Comprehensive Services for Older Adults, and Devereux Smith, Executive Director, Molly's Angels, who I believe, yes, are both here. So, yeah, so come on up. Perfect.

Just come on up here and join me as we read this together. Thank you, Chair, for this opportunity for Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Awareness Month, June 2026. Whereas, Napa County's older adults deserve to be treated with respect and dignity as valued leaders, mentors, volunteers, and community members who contribute greatly to the vitality and strength of our county. And whereas elder abuse is a silent epidemic, with 1 in 10 adults over the age of 60 experiencing some form of abuse in the United States, with cases still widely underreported. And whereas elder abuse can occur in public spaces or private homes. Addressing elder abuse requires bringing it into the light, raising awareness, and ensuring older adults and dependent adults can age with dignity, respect, and grace. And whereas on June 15, 2026, we joined communities around the globe in recognizing World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, reaffirming our commitment to understanding, preventing, and responding to the mistreatment of older adults. And whereas in 2025, Napa County Health and Human Services Agency received 1,508 reports of elder and dependent adult abuse and neglect through its Adult Protective Services Program, with self-neglect and financial exploitation being the most frequent reported concerns. And whereas Napa County, along with its extensive network of government and community-based organizations, offers a comprehensive range of service designed to proactively address risk factors, key partners such as the Napa County Health and Human Services Agency, APS program, the District Attorney's Office, and the Sheriff's Office collaborate closely to investigate abuse advocate for victims, and pursue justice on their behalf. Now, there it be proclaimed that this Board of Supervisors, County of Napa, State of California, on the second day of June 2026, does hereby recognize June as Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Awareness Month in Napa County. We urge all community members to unite in strengthening partnerships, developing innovative strategies for prevention and response, and reporting any suspected abuse or neglect to ensure that all older adult residents of Napa County can live and age in safety, health, and dignity. And so on that, I will let Aaron, you want to say a few words? And maybe Devereaux? Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Alessio.

So good morning, Chair Manfrey, Vice Chair Alessio, Honorable Board.

My name is Aaron Goddard, and I'm the HHSA Deputy Director for the Comprehensive Services for Older Adults Division, and it's a pleasure to be here this morning. I want to thank the Board for making the time and the space to recognize Elder Abuse Awareness Month. I started as an Adult Protective Services social worker, then became a supervisor, and now a deputy director. And I still remember being a social worker and responding to financial abuse cases. sitting at the kitchen table with an old adult client and that client realizing that a scammer stole a portion of their life savings. I also remember responding to physical abuse cases and talking to an old adult client at the door or in the living room and the client having bruises that they never should have had. I also remember helping those same old adult clients secure their accounts to prevent future financial abuse and secure their home environment to prevent future physical harm. The older adults I described could easily be our parents, our grandparents, or that kind neighbor who always looked out for us when we were kids. Elder abuse is a complex problem that requires complex solutions, and I'd like to thank the board for investing in those solutions. They include but aren't limited to HHSA and Adult Protective Services, the District Attorney's Office, the Sheriff's Office, and our many community partners, several of whom are here today. Together, we form a safety net that addresses elder abuse and, even more importantly, prevents elder abuse. And so with that, I'd like to hand it over to Devereux Smith, the Executive Director of Molly's Angels, to talk a bit more about the upcoming SAFE Conference, which focuses on financial abuse prevention for older adults in Napa County. Thank you.

Thank you, Aaron. Thank you, Supervisors, for having us here and for continuing to work to amplify the voices and concerns of older adults. It couldn't be more important. I'm here just to talk briefly about the SAFE Conference. The SAFE Conference, meaning Seniors Against Financial Exploitation, is an important community event focused on increasing awareness, education, and prevention efforts surrounding scams, fraud, and elder abuse. Approximately, as Supervisor Alessio said, 1 in 10 older adults experience some form of abuse each year, yet experts estimate that only 1 in 24 cases are ever reported. Abuse can include financial exploitation, neglect, emotional abuse, and physical abuse, with social isolation significantly increasing vulnerability. Consistent connection, transportation access, and wellness check-ins are proven ways to reduce isolation and help identify concerns before crises occur. At Molly's Angels, we work to keep our eyes and ears open for signs that an older adult may need support. Sometimes concerns surface through casual comments, such as, I want to give my caregiver a gift, or I've met a new friend online. or other conversations that may raise questions about possible financial exploitation or undue influence. Those moments can create opportunities to connect individuals with resources and, when appropriate, reach out to the Napa County District Attorney's Office for guidance and assistance. The 2026 SAFE Conference will take place on June 23rd at the Napa Valley College Performing Arts Center. This is a free event that features a morning session targeted for older adults and an afternoon session targeted towards professionals in the financial industry. Transportation assistance to the conference is always available through Molly's Angels. The SAFE conference is spearheaded by the Napa County District Attorney's Office and supported by Molly's Angels, Monarch Justice Center, the Napa County Commission on Aging, Napa County Health and Human Services Agency, and Providence, along with community volunteers and representatives from the financial industry, including Dodora Capital and F&M Bank. We are especially grateful for the continued leadership and hard work of the District Attorney's Office in addressing these crimes, supporting victims, and helping protect vulnerable older adults throughout our community. We have many members of the very amazing Elder Abuse Task Force here, and so I hope you join me in thanking them for their hard work.

Yeah, team, come. I invite anyone who's.

Last year, Mike there.

All right. One, two. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you all so much for being here this morning. Before we move on to regular business, I would like to note that public hearings today will be taken up in the afternoon after our closed session. So that is items 11A through 11E. So if you are here specifically for those items, just be aware that we won't hear them until after the lunch break or closed session break in our case. Our next item on the agenda is item five, consent calendar, including special districts items A through AA. Do we have any board comments or items to pull off of the consent calendar today? Not seeing anyone. Is there anyone wishing to make a public comment in the room on any item on consent? Not seeing anyone. Is there anyone on the phones?

Okay.

Then may I have a motion and a second to approve consent calendar items A through AA? So moved by Alessio.

Second by Cottrell.

Okay, I have a motion by Alessio and a second by Cottrell. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Our next item is item six, public comment. So at this time we'll take public comment for anyone wishing to speak on any item not on today's agenda and or on the closed session item on today's agenda. Welcome. Whenever you're ready, three minutes.

Patricia Damery from Napa, California. I mean, Dry Creek Road. I have communicated to some of you about an incident around AB 720 and the self-reporting of the width of the road in. which I think is really critical because this area in particular is in a high fire zone and a lot of Napa County is in high or very high fire zone. So it feels to me really important that when we are getting possibly more people into the vineyards, that we also really check, not just self-reporting, but check that it's true that the roads are, the driveways are wide enough for a fire truck to pass an exiting vehicle. But this comes... this idea of self reporting and self monitoring or voluntarily reducing our water consumption by 10%, I think we have to take another stance on this, particularly as things get tighter, as there is less water. And I know today when I came, I passed my neighbor getting water. A water truck was backed up. I know that I had to pull my well recently, and the level of water is lower than it's ever been. There is a problem. And I think we have some of the best farmers in the state, I really do. I think the kind of technology that's been using to monitor The dryness, how much water we need is good. But it's not completely working. We are going to have to meter and monitor the water. And I think the only way people are going to use less is to have to pay for how much we use. Because when I think that If you're paying more, you think more about how much you're using. So I really encourage us to use the government in a way that takes care of the larger county. And I think that includes our water situation and fire. Fire and water unite us is how we're connected with each other. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other public comments in the room on items not on the agenda? Is there anyone on the phones? No? Okay. Then we are going to move along to agenda item number 7, Board of Supervisors Reports and Announcements. And before we start with our individual announcements, I'd like to invite Agricultural Commissioner Tracy Cleveland to give us a brief update on the glassy wing sharpshooter situation in Napa County, which I know is on a lot of people's minds.

Okay, good morning, Chair Manfrey, members of the board, Tracy Cleveland, Napa County Ag Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures. I wanted to provide the board with an update on the status of the glassy-winged sharpshooter issue that we've been dealing with since last week. So just a quick recap, county ag commissioners across the state were made aware of multiple shipments of nursery stock that came from a Fresno nursery beginning on April 21st and then continuing through May 21st. These plant shipments were delivered to Costco's throughout California, including Napa County. And for Napa, it was over four separate shipments. All life stages of glassy-winged sharpshooter, so egg masses, nymphs, adults, have been detected on some of those shipments across multiple counties. The shipments were required to be shipped under blue tag. certification so for us that means that the blue tag is an indicator to county ad commissioners that are receiving nursery stock that you that it could be coming from an infested area and so you have to look at it a hundred percent we didn't receive that notification um and so So they weren't inspected in all of the counties, unfortunately. So there are a total of 23 counties with Costco's that received material. There are additional neighboring counties that do not have Costco's that also are concerned. It's not unusual for people to leave one county and to go to a neighboring county to shop at Costco. and then come back to their home county with things that they've purchased. So we're talking about 23 counties that received shipments, but really that number is larger because there are at least 15 or more counties without Costco's that also received material. So my team is taking calls from the public. We're gathering data. We're heading into the field to do site inspections at caller locations. We're inspecting the vines, plants, and then we're surveying the surrounding area. And we're focusing on host material, which is quite a large list. Favorite host material would be citrus, grapevines, fatinia, crepe myrtle, and more. In most cases, we're taking the vines and we're destroying them after we've inspected. Like I said, we're surveying the entire yard. We're providing notices of destruction for residents so they can show Costco that their plants were taken by my department, except that you don't necessarily need that. Costco is willing to reimburse residents that purchase fines, and that's really a paperwork thing for us that's tracking. Costco has your record, so they know what you've purchased. And then we're also placing additional detection traps up at those sites to continue to monitor for the presence of GUIS. So to date, we've had one egg mass confirmation and then two other samples that we've submitted to the state lab but have not heard back on. So we're waiting for identification from the California Department of Food and Ag. We've tracked down 92 vines so far, which leaves about 128 that are unaccounted for. Since our press release last week and additional messaging, we've had an amazing response from the community, which has been great. We've gotten over 100 calls over the course of the last week, 30 plus emails, and a lot of social media sharing. So Costco is also helping with our messaging. They're contacting customers directly through emails. And then they're interacting with local CACs, county ad commissioners. They've been a great partner, and they've been very engaged with our office. And frankly, they're not at fault in this scenario. They've been very supportive. So here's our ask to the public. um please share our messages on your social media accounts on your next door accounts with your neighbors if you have questions call us i can't say that enough call us if you have questions if you're not sure when you purchase plants call us if you know that it was in april or may call us if you purchase them in a neighboring county and you don't know who you should be contacting please call us we'll direct you to the appropriate county if it's not us So if you purchase any plants from Costco in April or May, give us a call. Our number is 707-253-4357. The other thing we're asking the public, if you purchase plants, keep them as isolated as possible. Keep them in the original container. If you haven't planted them yet, don't plant them if possible. Place them in secured trash bags, one inside of the other. Seal the trash bags. Call us. It's ideal if you do not take it back to Costco. Several folks have. And while you're getting it back to the place of origin, and Costco does have a mechanism for destruction, you're potentially spreading pests if you're moving it. And so that's less than ideal. So it's well-intentioned, but there's still a risk. Don't place them in the trash or the compost bin. We want to make sure that we're collecting any insect samples and we're able to have a chance to look at it and destroy any life stages that might be present. And then that also helps us keep track of and account for any plants. OK. If you give us a call, we'll send an inspector out the same day to inspect vines, fruit trees, any host plants. We're placing traps at the sites, at least two per site. And then we're monitoring those traps. We're going to be checking those traps two times for the initial couple weeks and then once a week after that. We've added about 100 in additional glassy-winged sharpshooter traps since last week, and so we'll continue to check those in addition to the existing traps that we have. So a little bit about glassy-winged sharpshooter, why should we care? It's not just an industry issue. Sharpshooters feed on grapevines. They spread a bacteria called Xylella fastidiosa. That bacteria causes Pierce's disease, which impacts grape quality and fruit production. Eventually, Pierce's disease will kill the grapevines. So that's an important impact to our local wine grape industry and economy. But it also has a huge host list, so it loves to live on citrus. create issues with citrus, almonds, olive, stone fruits, and then a lot of ornamental plants that we all have planted in our gardens. So it's important for everyone. Finish with the fact that we're working very closely with our industry partners. They've been very communicative and supportive. We're working with our state and federal partners, including CDFA and USDA, as well as other local partners and legislators. And of course, all of the county ad commissioners have an open line of communication. So this is a statewide issue. It's not specific to Napa, which is, I think, what is even more concerning. So it's a big lift, but with community support, I'm hopeful that we can track down all of the plants in question. And that is the end of my report. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about it, and then I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much for being here. Question?

Yeah, go ahead. Thank you for that report, I appreciate it. And great job in terms of getting the word out and reaching out and thank your staff for us too. Can residents purchase a glassy sharpshooter trap for their own place if they have crepe myrtles or is that just not needed or would that be helpful? because I think we have such an engaged community, they can purchase something and put something up. I think that many people would.

You know, that's a great question. I don't know if it's readily available to the public, but they can certainly contact our office, and that's something we can talk about and see if we have additional supplies. We're more than willing to come out and place traps if people have concerns. We can kind of walk them through what that looks like.

Thank you.

Yes.

Supervisor Cottrell?

Yeah, thank you so much, Ms. Cleveland, for all your work and all your staff's work. I wanted to share a couple of examples and then I had a question for you too. So I heard from one resident in Calistoga who said, I just cut and pasted what you shared and put it out in a newsletter. They read it, they called your office, your team was out there and helped them through it and destroyed the, they did have grape vines. And then in Angwin this weekend, I met a resident who had purchased citrus trees and he pointed to the two traps that your team got out there and put up. So it's visible out there. And for both of those residents, they felt like they got good education on the ground from your team. So thank you for that. So my question is with the traps, what is the lifespan of those traps? They'll be there for six months. You'll check them every, or tell us a little about that.

Typically, so the traps that we're adding to residences, those will, it's unknown how long we'll keep them up. I think for probably quite a while, honestly. There's seasonality to it, so it kind of depends on the season and the weather. So we'll follow the guidance of UC and CDFA, but initially we'll check them twice a week, and then we'll transition to once a week, and a typical rotation would be every two weeks. So we'll continue to monitor them to make sure that we're not missing anything or there's not a lot of time in between checking to make sure if there are populations, we're noticing it right away.

Got it. Thank you. And those bright yellow traps, I think, are a good reminder for the community, too, that we're on high alert. Yes. Thank you. Yes.

Okay. I think well said. We're on high alert. And I know that your office has been all over this. I'm sure everybody's been working extra. So thank you for being very conscientious and working so hard on addressing this emerging situation. Yes.

Yeah. Excellent. Thank you.

Thank you for all your support. Yeah. Great. Thank you for the update. Okay. So I welcome updates from my colleagues at the dais. Is there anyone wishing to speak? Vice Chair Alessio.

Thank you. Just a couple of things I thought might highlight that might be beneficial to the public and to the board here. I attended a PG&E training center tour in Winters. I recommend it. I was actually very impressed. I think it's the main center for all training for the PG&E workers and all elements of the work that they do. So if you get an invite, it's worthwhile. Also on that note, last week you probably read in the paper about PG&E did a tour up at Mount Veeder regarding the undergrounding project. And we had supervisors from all over that drove, that came here to Napa County to see this, and I thought that was also worthwhile and informative for supervisors. That work has started, as people know, and will continue this year. The majority of the work will be done this year, and then they'll be wrapping up the work next year for the undergrounding along Mount Veeder. On that note, the federal grant called the BEAD program, which is broadcast, I talked to Comcast, because Comcast representative, because for Mount Feeder and District 2, Comcast is going to be the carrier to receive the federal funding for this. And the latest news is that they're still expecting the funding to arrive any day. My understanding, according to her, is that just California and Illinois are the only two states left that have not received funding. So once that funding, they receive the funding, I think that we can have some updates and talk about planning in the different areas for people who are receiving the BEAD funding. And that would be true for AT&T and other carriers who are receiving the BEAD funding. Let's see here. Tonight I'll be at the Napa Valley College Hospitality Ribbon Cutting Program. I'm not sure if any other supervisors will be there, but I want to thank our local college for the continued expansion of programs that connect with our community and help provide professional jobs. Let's see here. Oh, this Saturday, just a heads up, I was hiking at Skyline on Sunday, And 4-H, the youth groups are doing a horse show at Skyline Park this Saturday from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. So if anybody wants to see the kids in action, they were practicing and it looks great. And then just a couple things coming up for people. I mentioned this, but I'll share again. Operation with Love From Home, where the community gets together to donate and fill care packages for service members that goes overseas. That's free and open to the public. It's going to be Saturday, June 13th at Crosswalk Church in the gymnasium from 10 until noon. So I invite people to attend that. Rock the Ride is coming up, and that's a great event, great community event, and for a great cause. And I just want to congratulate all the high school graduates this year and college graduates. Have fun and be safe. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Alessio. I see Supervisor Gallagher and then Supervisor Ramos after that.

Thank you. I just wanted to make 1 announcement. We are going to have a air district presentation at our next climate action committee meeting, which is Friday, June 26th and that starts at 930. I believe. The agenda will be on the county website week before. We are going to be discussing, actually we're going to get an informational presentation on Rule 9.6, the regulation for NOx-emitting appliances, specifically water heaters. And that will actually be a presentation, an informational educational presentation for the Climate Action Committee. The Climate Action Committee doesn't take any formal action on this particular role. It's an informational only, but I know this is... something that we're talking about a lot in the public. And so please know that if you want to know more or you'd like to see the presentation, tune in or come to the Climate Action Committee on June 26th. And I think that's it for today. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher. Supervisor Ramos. Thank you so much. I was absent at the last board meeting because I was in D.C. So I have a number of regional committee assignments to report on. So first, my apologies for that. But Supervisor Manfred will appreciate that I'm taking care of some of them for you. The first was on May 5th. I attended the Bay Conservation Development Commission in which we approved the bay permit for the first phase of the Sears Point to Mare Island improvement project on Highway 37, which is incredibly significant. And what I can say is This phase one, although temporary in nature, this phase one is actually an environmentally superior project to what we have right now with removal of concrete and allowing for better fish passage. So I'm very happy about that. On May 8th, I attended the ABAG MTC administration and legislative meetings where we talked about electric bike safety at length, and there will be more to come on that. On May 13th, I attended the Bay Area Toll Authority Oversight Committee, the MTC Administration Committee, the Program and Allocations Committee, and the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority Oversight and ABAG Housing Committees. We did have a proposed amendment to Regional Measure 3, and then we made a contribution into the BAFA Housing Program from an MTC now sort of outdated program. On May, as you know, I was absent because I was in D.C. from May 17th to May 20th. I was on an advocacy trip, and I was very delighted that we received incredible support on what is the ADAPT bill that was introduced by Congressmen Scaramendi and Thompson for treating Highway 37 as a pilot infrastructure project that's addressing climate change. And so very, very excited about that and also did advocacy for surface transportation reauthorization. And I can say that it was, although the scenery was odd, we were received, we had warm receptions this year as opposed to last year, which was not very positive being a California representative. From the 20th to the 21st, I attended the CSAC legislative conference. As my colleagues know, I serve as treasurer, so I had many budgets to present from foundation to the CSAC proper board, but also for our historic building remodel. And exciting news, we have transferred title into the nonprofit and the groundbreaking will be in two weeks. So we're moving forward on that. I did attend on May 21st and also on last Wednesday. a special meeting of ABAC executive board meeting. It is my last, they were my last meetings as president after six and a half years in leadership at ABAC. I'm moving on to the best title, which is immediate past president. And our new presidents for ABAC will be well represented in the North Bay. Our incoming president that will be to be ratified by the General Assembly is Sue Adams from Brenner Park. And the Vice President will be Wanda Williams from Solano County. We alternate between cities and counties. On the 27th, I attended the MTC, the Bay Area Toll Authority, also the Housing Finance Authority, SAFE, BAIFA, BAFA, and BAIFA Regional Toll Authority. We were all reviewing our budgets. So yeah, seven meetings on that day. And then on Friday, thank you to Supervisor Cottrell who was able to join us, I hosted the Bay Area Latino Elected Officials Conference here in Napa County. And it was a great convening of about 80 Latino elected and appointed officials from out the Bay Area. And we talked about leadership and advocacy, especially in these difficult moments. Yesterday, I did have the opportunity to attend our Airport Advisory Commission meeting. Our airport will be launching the community engagement website, which is where we're going to shepherd all information regarding that. What I will say is we do have really engaged residents that are continuing to inform us of the impacts, and we're taking that into consideration as we're presenting the possible alternative paths with Kauffman and Associates. And then one of two things, one by way of referral to the CEO. We, many of us, all of us, attended Generation Housing Solutions Summit. And there is going to be a report back and collection of what some thoughts are coming out for some possible housing solutions. And instead of it just being dropped on us, I think it would behoove us for the CEO's office to engage and figure out how we receive a presentation of what comes up. It was really done in more of a think tank style, which I think is great. But I think it also, understanding that with where we're at and taking our state of housing report and bringing it back as a presentation, I think would be good. And lastly, happy Election Day to two of my colleagues who are on the ballot today and to many others. And I just want to say to everyone who appears on the ballot, I think it takes tremendous courage to place yourself there. And I am grateful for every person that does put their name there. Last week, I had the opportunity to talk to four government classes. I took a straw poll on the governor's race. That was very, very interesting. And as far as our budgets go, I will just share that I polled all four classes and I said if there is something that the county can do better, they all said the same thing. And it's roads, so. Still. Still.

Does that conclude your remarks? Yes, yes. Thank you. I think it's still Tuesday. Okay. Supervisor Cottrell.

Thank you and thanks everyone for the updates. I first just wanted to flag, we're fortunate to have many different Memorial Day services and weekend services in the county. And thanks to Supervisor Alessio for your work with the one in Yountville. And thank you, Chair Manfrey, for traveling to Calistoga's Pioneer Cemetery. And my idea for next year is that we can ask our aides to work together, because there are so many, we can't all be at them. So, Vice Chair Alessio, I am looking at you to see if you would be willing to help me with some of the up-valley ones, too. That would be great. And then I also wanted to let the community know every year at the Veterans Home, not only do they have a Memorial Day ceremony on Monday, but they have an opportunity for the community to come up to a beautiful Veterans Cemetery there and place flags on Saturday. But more needed is flowers on Sunday. And I want to give a shout out to the new folks at Grocery Outlet and also Sal the Flower Guy for donating quite a few flowers. But they're always looking for more there. And then in my capacity as the board representative for CSAC and RCRC, I wanted to give an update on the status of the state response to HR1. And just to remind people, HR1, also known as the big beautiful bill, shifts responsibility for things like CalFresh funding and significantly reduces federal funding available for Medi-Cal to the states and to the counties. So counties including organizations like CSAC and RCRC and other agencies including the County Medical Services Program, which Director Yasumoto serves as a director on, which we are very fortunate for. Those groups formed a coalition to respond to what they saw in the original state budget as a real lack of funding and support for particularly indigent care and eligibility work. And to just explain a little bit of what that means, large numbers of Californians will lose Medi-Cal eligibility, and those folks will likely seek county indigent medical care. And that term is a little tricky. It doesn't make it clear that many, many of those folks folks have jobs, they're employed, and they don't have access to insurance through their employer. So Medi-Cal was a real, has been a real key support line for them. So it's important that we understand what that term means. But so in the first budget revise, as I mentioned, there were no dollars for indigent care for counties. And the good news is that this coalition has worked with both houses of the legislature and the assembly package in terms of indigent care does now provide some funding for it. So we're encouraged to see that. And we also hope that our State Senator who's been very supportive of the need and the ask here can work with his colleagues to bring the Senate side on board so that we can make sure we have funding for indigent care as well. And then the final thing I just wanted to mention was that I was not able to attend the housing summit. So I'm happy that folks here where this is a great thing about being part of a team. Because I was talking to a lot of people about the glassy-winged sharpshooter. And thanks again to Tracy and her staff on that. That's all.

Okay, that's all. Okay, that's a lot. That's plenty. So I will just say ditto on the MTC updates from... Supervisor Ramos, because we are on the same committees. And note that I attended Napa Valley Transportation Authority's meeting, and our topics were the Highway 29 American Canyon corridor improvements, and that Supervisor Ramos and I both attended a community meeting about that in American Canyon. And there's another one coming up, and I'm sorry I don't know the date, but you can check NVTA's website about that. That one will be here in the City of Napa, I believe. So, anyone concerned about Highway 29 improvements along American Canyon, I strongly encourage you to go to that and have your input because they are accepting public input at those meetings. So, it's a great way to make sure your voice is heard. We also talked about our budget and the work plan ahead, programming for the Silverado five-way intersection and the Vine-Up Valley link. So, making sure we have transportation in difficult-to-serve areas. And I attended Bay Conservation and Development Commission on May 21st on Supervisor Ramos' behalf because she was in another meeting we learned today. And at that meeting, we talked about the Transbay Cable, which is having – it delivers 40 percent of San Francisco's energy from the city of Pittsburgh, and it is laid across the bottom of the bay. So, it goes through Carquinez Strait and through the Bay of San Francisco, carrying a huge amount of electricity. And it's having some problems with erosion, notably for us at the outlet of the Napa River. And so, there was an interesting discussion about that. and the actions that the engineers are proposing to shore it up so that it doesn't have too much tension on it as there's erosion below it. And then we also discussed sea level rise funding and investment strategies and the strategic plan for BCDC in the year ahead. And, yeah, and I'll just close by saying, vote. Please vote. It is the last day to do so. You have until 8 p.m. this evening to get your ballots in. It is too late to put them in the mailbox and have them postmarked today, most likely, because of, as John Tudor explained at our last meeting, the way the post office is now sending mail to I believe, to Oakland before it gets postmarked. And so it won't necessarily, I see you nodding, thank you, won't necessarily get postmarked here in Napa right away at 5 p.m. like it might have years ago. So please turn your ballots in directly to the drop boxes, which are located all throughout our communities, and the locations are posted on the elections website. and you can also go directly to elections which is um in the former hall of justice building right next door to this one to turn in your ballot and that concludes my remarks so um we will move on oh oh go ahead

Is there anyone from elections in the room by any chance? And I don't know if this is a referral. I want to ask a question of John Tudor, and maybe our CEO can relay this. I'm wondering, this is really disturbing to me, this issue of... No hand cancellation unless you bring your ballot right into the post office. We talked to a lot of people this past weekend who had given their ballot to their mail carrier, and likely those will not be canceled. There's a good chance they won't be. So I want to know if we get a report, and if not, if we can get a report after the election of the number of ballots that are received but are not counted because they are not postmarked correctly. Thanks.

Okay. Good question. Thank you for raising that. We will move on to nothing was pulled from the consent calendar, so we're going to move on to item 9, which is administrative items. Item 9A is a presentation from Behavioral Health Services Act Integrated Plan. And also consideration of a resolution for the Board of Supervisors to approve the plan and authorize the Director of Health and Human Services Agency to make non-substantive revisions to the plan if further revisions are requested by the Department of Health Care Services. So I welcome a staff report from Jennifer Yasumoto, Director of our Health and Human Services Department Agency, Chelsea Stoner, and Jenna Bolliard, and please correct me, Bolliard, if I pronounced it wrong, please correct me. Yes, welcome, and you may begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair Manfrey and members of the Board of Supervisors. I'm Jennifer Yasumoto, Napa County Health and Human Services Agency Director. And I am joined here by the two individuals that you mentioned, Chelsea Stoner and Jenna Boyardee. And we are pleased to present on this monumental Behavioral Health Services Act. And just in terms of navigation here, we're going to kind of divide up the presentation. Oh, well, let's see. Oops. OK, here we go. So we have our presentation overview. And our presentation is really designed to kind of explain what is one of, I wouldn't say the most, but one of the many complicating funding streams that we have in the behavioral health system at the county level. So our presentation consists of 24 slides. Our goal is 20 minutes, so we're going to keep this moving along. And really, this is you have attached to the agenda item a behavioral health services plan integrated plan that is about over 160 pages. So this presentation is designed to really distill this down there to its very basics. So to make sense of this all, we are starting off with background and context. We'll kind of go over how the Behavioral Health Services Act fits into the overall ecosystem of county behavioral health system. what is required of counties, the process that we have to follow, and then we'll delve into our local Behavioral Health Services Act integrated plan, walk your board through the new funding components, the percentages, and our plan for how we navigate one of our funding streams among many. And this is on the path to submitting our integrated plan by the state deadline of June 30th of this year. So the first slide here, slide two, is really designed to highlight the Behavioral Health Services Act and how it fits into a myriad of California's major initiatives. As your board knows, since 2022, the state of California has been really aggressively looking to change the behavioral health system at the local level. And that happens through many initiatives. The main ones are there, and there's a whole host of others. But those are the big ones, and your board is familiar with them. Of course, CalAIM is a big one that was supposed to launch in 2021, and it was delayed a year because of the pandemic. So we started implementing CalAIM in 2022. Your board's aware, of course, of our Medi-Cal mobile crisis and our mobile response team. You'll hear a little bit about the Behavioral Health Connect Initiative. You are also familiar with 988 Expansion and the Children's, Youth, and Behavioral Health Initiative. And you're very familiar with the circle up there in the left top, which is the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program, also known as BCHIP. And your board is familiar with that because we have actually received two BCHIP grants. One of the grants was pre-Proposition 1, and that is for our Crisis Stabilization Unit, and the other is a post-Prop 1, and that is for our Behavioral Health Treatment Center. So this is just putting Behavioral Health Services Act into the broader context of what is happening statewide in this landscape. Highlighting all of those initiatives, this data actually has 14 statewide behavioral health goals. And they fall into sort of seven goals for improvement and seven goals for reduction. So in the prior slide when I highlighted just some of the initiatives in the state of California, All of those initiatives are really designed to move the needle in the positive or the reduction direction on these 14 statewide goals. Additionally, there's health equity that's embedded across all of those 14 statewide goals. In particular, there are priority goals for every county because some of those goals sit at the statewide level. And of course, some are more directly at the county level, but the county work is helping to move the needle statewide. So what you have here are the six statewide priority goals for every county. And then NAPA has a seventh goal. So walking through those just really briefly, some of them are going to be very familiar to you, I'm sure, as issues, but also because some of these goals actually directly relate to our community health assessment and our community health improvement plan. So we have access to care. That is a metric and a goal that sits on, I think, every single community health improvement plan, whether it's the counties or whether it's our hospital partners. We also have institutionalization. That is lowering institutionalization and providing treatment and services for people at the lowest level possible and in their communities. Of course, homelessness sits in every county's priority areas as well. And tied to that is our housing and our housing initiatives that you'll hear about in this presentation. Justice involvement, your board is also very familiar with that. That is directly tied to initiatives like under CalAIM having justice involvement and having Medi-Cal services start in the jail that are now actually billable in institutional settings that they were not previously. And then statewide goals, also removal of children from home. And that also directly ties to a lot of our work in our community health improvement plan. The more you can provide services and supports for families, the less likely are you to have removal of children from the home. And so your board heard about that. specifically even during child abuse prevention week. And then untreated behavioral health conditions, getting people involved in treatment at the earliest possible point, intervening sooner so that we avoid some of the downstream, not only more costly, but just more acute behavioral health conditions. And then Napa has every county is required to select a seventh goal. So for Napa County, through our community planning process, we had our community providers and stakeholders vote, and quality of life came in as Napa's selected goal. There are not metrics for a lot of these yet, but those are all in development by the state, and I'll talk a little bit later about that. the state's vision and goals for these outcomes locally and also at the statewide level. OK, so your board is very familiar, because for two plus decades, we've had the Mental Health Services Act that became effective in 2005. So here we are now, over two decades later, and the voters in March of 2024 voted for Proposition 1. Proposition 1 did two things. One of the things I had mentioned before, which is continuing and expanding upon the BCHIP grant program. The other piece of Prop 1 is reimagining the Mental Health Services Act, modernizing it, and it becoming the Behavioral Health Services Act. That happens in a couple of significant ways, which is changing the focus to the most acute population as well as adding options for funding substance use treatment services under the Behavioral Health Services Act as well as housing interventions. So this is a fun slide, whenever you see coins there. So the slide is titled No New Money in BHSA. And actually, what is probably more accurate is if we put a big X through no new and put less. And the reason for that is because in the right corner, we have a little flag that says 10% to state. And contextually, what that means is it's actually more money going to the state. So under the Mental Health Services Act, it was 5% that the state took off the top. that has now increased to 10%. So it is very accurate to say it is less money in VHSA. And I think that's really important because I think not only to manage expectations, but just to explain what the Behavioral Health Services Act. In different groups, sometimes people think this is brand new money that counties are getting. It is not brand new money. And I think that although it's designed to be administratively simpler, I think by the time we're done with this, but also in reading 161 page integrated plan, it is not actually administratively simpler. It is becoming increasingly more complex, layered into an increasingly complex behavioral health landscape for counties to navigate. I'm just making that point out the gate. The other point that this slide really nicely does is highlight the fluctuations over time. And I think those coins kind of do a good job at explaining the volume and magnitude of the fluctuation. But the reality is that the fluctuations that counties have seen, including Napa, if you look over the last six years, we've had a low of 6.2 million and a high of 12 million. That is a catastrophic change when you think year to year and you're trying to build a stable funding source, stable programs, not have these ebbs and flows where you're gutting programs, standing them up, gutting them again. That's just not practical and realistic. So the challenge for all counties, including Napa, always been and continues to be how to build sustainable programs and write out the create an even steady kind of flight pattern as you have a bunch of turbulence injected into the system. One question that I think has at least come up before has been the state trying to address the issue of volatility of the funding and the reality is that has not been um addressed there we are still dependent this is still the uh one percent tax on income over a million the funding source has not changed um the other thing that i think your board is acutely aware of and supervisor cattrall you talked about it just in terms of hr1 Because this funding stream is dependent on the economy and the economy is very much not going in the positive direction, the other thing that we will be anticipating is actually a decrease in the revenue. So again, you take the decrease because the state is taking 5%, you take the volatility in funding, and then you take the trajectory of a downward cycle. if you will in what we're projecting as revenue but also the lack of ability to truly predict until the books close so that is the landscape in which all of this gets navigated is creating stability in the system and right-sizing the system as we have a lot of headwinds not just coming in from the behavioral health services act funding but really from all of our funding sources So this slide here, I think, nicely displays what we're talking about when you get from that sort of macro, what's going on with this funding, its volatility, and then you bring it down to what is the shift that the Behavioral Health Services Act is really bringing in terms of what counties are allowed to do with the money and how we are required to spend it in very categorical, we call them funding buckets, but categories. So this also, I think, makes the point that if you look on the left side in that pie chart, that was your Mental Health Services Act. There are actually five categories, but two of them we kind of noted below because they are discretionary and you source them from the big pie, but they are not the lion's share of the programming. So under the Mental Health Services Act, we have those three categories. community services and supports, prevention and early intervention, which is probably the one that you've heard about the most because we've historically done RFPs related to our PEI contracts, and then innovations. But if you look at the percentages in that pie chart, the 76 plus the 19, which is 95%, that part of the pie, the 95% part of the pie, was really what was devoted to treatment programs. So that's most of the pie. Now when you move over to the Behavioral Health Services Act, the shift that we're making there is that pie gets divided up at the state level by requirement into 35% for the behavioral health services and supports, 35% for full service partnership programs, and then 30% for housing interventions. So right out the gate, we've gone from 95% on the left side to 70% for treatment programs, because the treatment programs live in the BHSS and the FSP buckets. So another key component of this shift is sort of the breaking apart of what we've known as PEI. So primary prevention now has been removed from, I would say, control at the local level and has gone from DHCS over to CDPH. And the state takes as part of that 10% that they're now taking, 4% comes off the top as part of that 10%. And it has been delegated over to the California Department of Public Health for them to manage and develop strategies that are prevention at the population level. So that's broad prevention programs. That leaves for counties the early intervention components. And so early intervention, again, used to have its own category under MHSA. Under BHSA, it comes out of that bucket called behavioral health services and support. So you fund early intervention programs through that 35%. Within the 35% that is the BHSS funding, 51% of that is early intervention. And that is a requirement by the state. And then the other 49% are for behavioral health services and supports. So getting to the kind of process that the state has laid out. And this, in some respects, does mirror MHSA. Because right now in MHSA, your board receives three-year MHSA plans. They come to your board. They're open for public comment. And then we come annually with annual updates to that plan. So this process is very similar to that process. The big shift, of course, is because we're making this behemoth transformation effective July 1. But we continue to have the same community planning process, which is shown in the first step there. We have a draft integrated plan that has been submitted to the state. It was due by March 31st. that contained all of the year plus long community planning process input input from our behavioral health board that supervisor alessio sits on and then our process is that we have to submit that to the department of health care services and then there's a process of getting feedback and comments from the department at the state level which we have gone through And then there is the public hearing. And the public hearing is preceded by a period of public comment. So the integrated plan was actually posted for public comment for the 30 days required. And then we held the public hearing before the Behavioral Health Board at a special meeting called on May 13th. And we are sort of sitting between steps four and five on our road to submitting our final IP by June 30th. So just a little bit more on the public comment period. Our public comment ran from April 1 to May 1. And I'm going to tell you we received no public comments. I attribute that in part to the fact we've had a lot of meetings around the behavioral health integrated plan. We have a lot of really engaged CBO partners and stakeholders. We're able to ask questions at different meetings that we've held. I think we had a couple meetings with the behavioral health board where questions and input could be provided. And I also think that the plan represents a good balance of how we continue to sustain this part of our behavioral health system at a period of time where I know not just counties but our CBO partners are very concerned about funding. So I'll also share a little bit more of that when we get to That slide. And now we're going to move from sort of the theoretical, how does this map out? What are the requirements that the state is imposing upon counties? And what is the process to get to the point that we're at today? So our integrated plan, of course, sets forth our priorities. It's designed to also, there's a portion of the integrated plan that goes through the budget and funding. So that's always kind of I think a part that people are maybe most interested in. The funding that we have budgeted each year across the three year integrated plan ranges from 13.6 million a year to 14.1 million a year. And I will tell you, and I will credit all the people in the room who were here, who were in Health and Human Services, because it's a continuous and iterative process. That's what we've set forward right now. And it consists of a really planful and strategic approach to how we're using the fund balance and the reserves that we had built up. So probably not uncommon in counties. Because of the volatility that you know exists in the behavioral, well, formerly the Mental Health Services Act funding stream, counties did build up reserves. And so we have reserves of about just short of $16 million for Behavioral Health Services Act. That is a really good thing because it allows us during this three-year integrated plan to continually right-size as the rest of the system is going through really a metamorphosis, increasingly pushing providers and everyone into the Medi-Cal system. So when we look at our budget over those three years, we're actually projecting revenue to come in at much lower than the 13.6 to 14.1. We're projecting revenue at $11 million a year, and that might even be too high. So when we look at the way we're approaching our use of fund balance, we are braiding in and bringing in fund balance. And again, we'll know at the end of years as each budget progresses, bringing in about 50% of the fund balance, using it during this first three-year plan. And of course, we also hope that during that three-year plan, while we're supporting the system using the Behavioral Health Services Act dollars very strategically, we are also continuing to push the system thoughtfully, gingerly into the medical system because the reality is this is one piece of a much bigger puzzle and you have to understand how the rest of the pieces and the levers you can pull to make the use of these funds strategic as they need to be and so that we're drawing down all the other revenue that is available. So that's, of course, where our partners come in. We work with a wide variety of our partners, not just the partners that we contract with, but the partners, the ecosystems getting larger and larger. And that's because under all of the behavioral health transformations and all those circles that were in the very first slide, more and more we have the role of our managed care plans. And by that we mean for Napa County, Partnership Health Plan, and Kaiser. They are also Medi-Cal providers and have entirely separate books of revenue that they can draw down and providers can seek reimbursement for different services through our MCPs. So what that really means is counties have to be really skilled at how you draw down and really push your system to maximizing both the drawdown that you can pull down through our managed care plans while also braiding it with funding sources like Behavioral Health Services Act. And I will just say the Behavioral Health Services Act is about 17% of the entire behavioral health budget. So, again, that just kind of highlights that this is one really complex funding stream that exists in a really complex funding stream within the county that exists within a really complex funding stream that is far outside the county but impacts the county by what you can bring into it. And then, of course, all of this is designed to drive outcomes that the state can see at the county level. And in order for the state to do that, it is requiring more data to be reported. And I will say, I think we're at the brink of maybe taxing our system and what it can actually digest and implement. But I have great empathy for our agency, but also our partners, because it is pushing more and more everybody into the Medi-Cal world. But it's also pushing everybody into very much a world of being able to track down to the individual level who's getting what and how much resources are coming in to provide services to that individual. So that is why we've actually met fairly recently with our CBO partners to really just explain even our early intervention contracts. Those are requiring individual service level data. But the why behind all of that is exactly that. Because the state wants to get to outcomes so they could see what's being spent in each county And what are the outcomes in each county? And what are the dollars, essentially, per person that you're serving? And if you don't have that individual service level data, you are unable to arrive at the outcomes that the state is looking for. So this is an overview of what's inside our 161-page integrated plan. Obviously, all of those six sections are really laid out nicely in that plan. I'm not going to go into it because I think we're just trying to do a summary here and hit the really high points. So this is probably the area maybe of most interest. And that is, how are we proposing to use our Behavioral Health Services Act funding here in Napa County? So you saw the prior slide for all counties. The starting point is 35% for BHSS, 35% for FSP, and 30% for housing interventions. Counties can and we have taken advantage of the flexibility within the structure to deviate from those percentages with justification and with the approval of the state. And I can tell you this is where the sausage making, but the teams worked really hard to arrive at a percentage and distribution that does not gut treatment. While housing interventions, nobody can disagree with that. The objection that counties had when Prop 1 was first on the ballot had everything to do with the fact that this isn't new money. So how are counties going to not get treatment because you're robbing from Peter to pay Paul with even less dollars? So for small counties, and Napa County qualifies as a small county, we can actually ask for an exemption and a deviation from the housing interventions to a lower number. All counties can move 7% from the categories. We've gone another, I guess, 6% beyond the 7%. And the state is satisfied. They see what we're doing, and they've approved this funding distribution. This funding distribution, though, is not sort of optional. It kind of is where you back into for the county. Because if we're not able to put additional funding into behavioral health services support and full service partnership, we will be getting treatment. And again, we have less money. So the state has approved that. I think in the next several slides that I'm going to turn over to my colleagues here, they'll kind of go over in more detail what we're funding under the behavioral health services and supports, the FSP, and the housing interventions. And I think you'll also see that we have been laying the foundation for being ready for this for a couple years now. And it's because of the infrastructure and the investments and the other dollars that we have pulled in, many of them grant dollars, that we're able to kind of make this glide path from current day to the Behavioral Health Services Act, which is exactly what the system was hoping we would do. And now I'm going to turn it over to Chelsea Stoner.

There we go. Good morning. Okay, I am going to walk the board through the service components that are outlined in the BHSA. And the first bucket, if you will, is Behavioral Health Services and Supports, or BHSS. And we have allocated 45% of our budget to BHSS. BHSS is really around connection and support and designing and utilizing programs that promote access, that support navigation through the system, and ensure that people stay connected to care once they enter services. We prioritized in BHSS outreach and engagement, our children and adult systems of care, and early intervention. And to support this, we prioritized programming, the first of which is system navigation. System navigation connects people to behavioral health services, provides referrals, connection to resources, helping people apply for mental health services, substance use disorder services, Medi-Cal and really works to link people and help them navigate the system to get the help that they need. We also use BHSS funding to support our Behavioral Health Treatment Center, which, as this board is very well aware, is designed to expand access to residential treatment, withdrawal management, sobering services, and really offering that step-down care and ensuring people get the right level of support at the right time. BHSS also will continue to support our hospital transition program for both adults and children. And this program supports people during and after psychiatric hospitalization, providing really intensive care coordination during psychiatric hospitalization and up to 30 days post-discharge, focusing on discharge planning, follow-up care, and connection to community-based services. And the goal around this program is to ensure that there are safer transitions back into the community. We also will continue to support the Innovations Community Center, which is a peer staff community-based mental health program that focuses on wellness, recovery, connection, and belonging for people who experience mental illness in the community. I want to highlight that system navigation, our hospital transition program, and innovation community center are all currently funded under MHSA, and it was a priority to make sure that this was continued to be funded as we transition to BHSA. As mentioned earlier, 45% of our funding under BHSS needs to go, 51% of that 45 needs to go to early intervention services. So in order to fulfill this, we prioritized We're continuing to fund our mobile response team, which is a 24-7 mobile behavioral crisis program that deploys out into the community and helps stabilize individuals who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis with a focus on safety planning and linkage to ongoing care. We also will continue to support our coordinated specialty care for first episode psychosis program. This also is a required evidence-based practice in BHSA under early intervention. The goals of the early psychosis program is to intervene early, reduce disruption, life disruptions, and support long-term recovery for people that are experiencing psychosis. This is a very rigorous and prescribed evidence-based program that has proven to be highly effective for individuals experiencing psychosis. And finally, we have prioritized ensuring that early intervention services continue to be offered throughout our community. And we issued an early intervention RFP, which is intended to continue to support brief, low-barrier community-based services. to help with navigating the system, identifying mental health issues early, screening for mental health challenges, and linking to specialty mental health services for long-term care. Our priority populations for this RFP were children, youth, and older adults in our underserved communities with a focus on culturally responsive services as well as bilingual services. And moving over to the next service category, which is full service partnership. Full service partnership is our highest intensity level of support that we offer. And 38% of our funding will be going to full service partnerships. It is intended for individuals and families with significant behavioral health needs and supports people who may be at risk of homelessness, institutionalization, who are involved in the justice system and have untreated behavioral health conditions. FSP is not one single program. Rather, it is a continuum of intensive services and support, which I will jump into in detail in just a minute. But I do want to highlight the areas that we will focus on in Napa County under full service partnership, the first of which is ACT and FACT, which stands for Assertive Community Treatment and Forensic Assertive Community Treatment. That is a program that is designed for adults. We also will provide High Fidelity Wraparound, which is an intensive wraparound service for children and youth. And we will have a lower level of FSP programming called Intensive Case Management for Children and Youth, which is designed to really be a bridge between traditional treatment and that higher level of service outlined by ACT and FACT and High Fidelity Wraparound. And I'll jump into those in just a minute. I do want to highlight that we will be initiating assertive field-based substance use disorder treatment through a program called RISE. RISE provides low threshold field-based substance use disorder support for people who are connected to traditional services in the community. And this program will deploy substance use disorder clinicians out into the field to help provide engagement, counseling, coordination, connection, and linkage to medication-assisted treatment. I want to highlight under the kind of the umbrella of FSP, the BHSA requires us to implement evidence-based practices. And we have three years to implement these practices to fidelity and are monitored closely by the state and provided with technical assistance to implement these programs to fidelity. The first is act in fact, which is a team-based approach that coordinates care on a very small caseload. Our clinicians have approximately, there's approximately 20, about 20 clients on a caseload, and it is staffed by a team of clinicians that include mental health support, substance use disorder support, a peer partner, and psychiatric support. We also will be needing to implement High Fidelity Wraparound, which is a program that is designed for children and youth with a goal of keeping kids in the community at the lowest level of care home with their families. High Fidelity Wraparound does just that. It wraps a family with support and services to help a child reach their behavioral health goals. Napa County implemented high fidelity wraparound a little over two years ago, so we believe that we are very well positioned to meet this requirement and we'll continue to work with our contracted provider to provide this service. And then there's intensive case management, which is the lower level of care within the full service partnership umbrella. And that provides really that bridge to traditional treatment as a person works towards their recovery goals and into a more traditional outpatient setting. So we will be working the next three years to implement these programs to fidelity as required by the BHSA. And I'm going to turn it over to Jenna to talk about our housing intervention program.

Good morning. So housing interventions is the newest component of BHSA, but it's housing, but it's nothing new to behavioral health. Behavioral health has been doing housing for quite a while. It just looks a little different from traditional housing as we know it. In our housing interventions bucket, we have, rather than duplicate services, have really worked to understand the the landscape of housing in Napa so that we are adding to the continuum rather than, you know, like I said, duplicating services. So we have added to the system recovery and shared housing models in a formal capacity so we're able to fund recovery residences and and other shared housing models. We have added interim housing, which is a completely new housing definition that California has created. And our investments in Griggs Lane and a couple other properties have added to that. We have housing placement supports now. We are utilizing community supports, which are coming through CalAIM. And we have our higher acuity housing, which has not traditionally been broadcasted. So those of us outside of behavioral health have not had insight into this system of care. So it really has been an amazing and eye-opening experience to join behavioral health from the housing world and to really see how far the continuum actually goes. Because outside of behavioral health, there's one continuum, but it goes for another six or seven types of housing. NAPA is ahead of the game. Behavioral Health decided to hire a housing program manager two years ahead of implementation of BHSA. And they hired somebody from the housing world, so somebody who was familiar with what happens in in the other systems of care in Napa. So in the last couple of years, we've created housing infrastructure, added an internal housing manager, expanded housing tools, and really strengthen partnerships so that we are making sure to not duplicate services. We are utilizing infrastructure that's in place in the housing and community services realm. And we are partnering with them to really access already existing contracts and processes that exist with MCPs managed care plans and BHSA is how we're planning on sustaining that So when Jenna just referred to the housing manager, that's of course Jenna I

We're fortunate to have her. Okay. What is next? Well, next is we submit the IP by June 30th. That's our three-year plan. As your board knows, we'll keep it current. We'll continue to iterate. We'll do the annual updates. Intermittent updates as well need to be made, particularly as we right-size, as I said before, That's our plan budget, but the goal for the three-year plan is to really increase or decrease the reliance on Behavioral Health Services Act funding while we're increasing what we can pull in across the system of care, working with other partners such as our managed care plans. So that nicely gets to this slide. So Jenna had sort of talked about the housing interventions. And one of the really critical ways in which we're planning to use the Behavioral Health Services Act dollars is to partner with our managed care plans and our providers. So I sort of think of it as a three-legged stool. And two legs of it are the government, and the third is our nonprofit partners. to braid in the funding from Behavioral Health Services Act and also what's known as the CalAIM Housing Trio and bring those both together to provide the funding needed to operationalize both the housing, the cost of the housing, the operations of any housing facility from the provider standpoint, and also the supportive services that need to be in there. We've, I think, done a really good job of laying the foundation of either pulling in what we'll call the community supports and, in other cases, drawing into our specialty mental health system where we can tap into treatment support for more acute needs. Part of that is, of course, encouraging our providers to use what we're calling the MCP funding. We have been long having conversations for the last two years about all of our providers needing to tap into the community supports, enhanced care management, community health workers. All of these are services and funding streams that come through a different system. But we have to, through our contracts, hold accountability so our providers are pulling in the revenue from that because that actually leaves more revenue for the things that still need to be done in counties for which there's no Medi-Cal revenue. Medi-Cal's great, but it doesn't fit everything that we need to do. So the more we can push providers who can draw down those other funding sources, it frees up the funding that we have to do the other work for which there is no Medi-Cal dollar. And of course, we're going to continue our coordination with our managed care plans. I think there's a total of 24 MOUs that are in the process of being executed across our two managed care plans. Some are mandatory, and some are discretionary. But they all seek to work to coordinate care together and better. And I can tell you that we're on a regular basis, particularly with Partnership Health Plan, because they have the lion's share of our clients that we serve who are Medi-Cal covered. Working with them closely, of course, not just to keep people on Medi-Cal, which is sort of a separate issue from now that you have your Medi-Cal, how are you going to use the benefit? So we continue to work with partnership health plan very closely. There's also, not to over complicate it, but there's other revenue streams that are also going to be made available to counties. And so we intend to use our broad based approach where we're marrying both our behavioral health services plan and our community health improvement plan and creating that alignment. And I think we're really lucky because two years ago when I came to your board, and shared that we were planning to use three different funding sources to operationalize our community health improvement plan. That really sets the stage for us to be well positioned for other revenue that is coming available. And now we have a process and an infrastructure and a method. So it minimizes the chaos. And I just say that because a lot of the funding that we're seeing coming available to us three weeks, put together your plan and have an robust stakeholder input process. That is not possible to digest that money that quickly and do it well. So we are as well positioned, I think, as the county can be because of the approach that we've taken because we can sort of dump it into the machine and we have it operationalized. So I feel really lucky, too, that we have a very good working relationship with Partnership Health Plan who we're coordinating. We've got some other projects sort of in the queue now. We're figuring out how to operationalize different opportunities to bring those to our clients so we are working hard to build a better continuity of care realizing what the opportunities are within our behavioral health system but again well now that we've got prevention coming through the California Department of Public Health and we've got our managed care plans who are mandated to make investments back in their communities there are new future drops of funding that are coming. And so we are figuring how to operationalize those pieces and bring them all together through our behavioral health services plan, but also our community health improvement plan. So our goals for the behavioral health system are the goals that I'm sure every logical human wants for a behavioral health system, which is that people are getting their help sooner. We're helping people stay housed and stable, which helps them to sustain their treatment goals and actually seek recovery and wellness that we hope. And then reducing the crisis and system of cycling. Your board's support and investment in projects like the Behavioral Treatment Center are part of that to intervene and create referral pathways, but also engagement opportunities with clients at the earliest possible points. Jenna had referred to our RISE program, which I think is going to really help us engage with people who have substance use disorders that are not necessarily ready for engagement into services, but with our help, hopefully they can be. We have a lot of other initiatives that we are working on, all in furtherance of reducing crisis and system cycling. But showing up to the crisis stabilization unit and trying to engage somebody who's seeking a psychiatric assistance, but their underlying root cause may be substance use, but also looking at ways that we can engage our substance use clients Through other incentives, through programs like contingency management, and that's pulling in from another funding source we have available to us. But all of this is part of the ecosystem that the Behavioral Health Services Act fits into. And our goal and hope is to have community health and well-being, which I know is also your board's hope. our public health hope it's really the hope for all of our community and so thank you very much for the opportunity to shed a little bit light on what we're trying to accomplish and one piece of it that is a very important piece but it's one piece of a bigger puzzle and a bigger picture i just want to also say thank you to the health and human services team we are all pinch hitting right now. We have some critical vacancies in the behavioral health space, part of why I'm here. And every single one of these funding streams, again, you can take it and you can look at it in isolation or you can take it and you can figure out how to braid it across the system and really look at the most strategic use of resources and where you know you can get more bang for your buck, so to speak. So I just really want to thank are the behavioral health team, the fiscal team, and administration. There are people like Joe Hallett, our assistant agency director, who's also our interim behavioral health director, who he's getting pulled six ways to Sunday as well. We have our chief fiscal officer, Kimberly Danner, and Susan Kingsford, our deputy CFO in the room here as well. We have Marlo Simmons, who's an assistant deputy director in behavioral health, along with Chelsea. And of course, we have Chelsea and Jenna here. And there are countless other people in behavioral health and fiscal who are not here today who have been a part of this, but also stuck with it and seen the vision about how you can dump this piece of funding and not just make it a funding source, but make it an opportunity for how we can improve the whole system. So thank you.

Thank you so much. At this time, I welcome public comment on this topic. Is there anyone in the room wishing to speak? Yes. Come on up to the podium. You'll have three minutes. That was Brian. Sorry. It seems like he's coming to the podium. Okay. Anyone else?

I'm not seeing anyone. Is there anyone on the phones?

Okay. Then I'll bring it back to the board for comments and questions. Anyone? Go ahead, Supervisor Alessio.

Well, first of all, thank you. That was a lot. I'm going to have to watch that a couple times over. And I think I'm kind of a no in some ways, right? Because I've just been around this for a while on the Beaver Health Board. Family has lived experience in this area to some respect, too. So I've seen it from different angles. But this was a lot. And you did a really good job. kind of giving us the foundation of where we've been and how we're shifting or you're shifting, your team is shifting in terms of what has been and is required in a very short time frame. Been a big load in a very short time frame. And I can't emphasize that enough. And I'm not here. I'm not where you are. So thank you to you and your team for rowing so hard and just keeping at it. So this is going to be ready in time. You know, as you were talking initially, I'm thinking about how we used to have whole person care, and we got that down here, you know, with the community-based organizations, the hospital, Health and Human Services, and then they shifted to CalAIM, and everybody's like, aw, we just got whole person care, we're excited, and it's running, and now we've got CalAIM. So, and then we see the shift from MHSA to BHSA, And, you know, we get the MHSA running and everybody's like running because it's not just our county. This impacts every community-based organization, every hospital, every ER, every family, every client that's trying to seek help and navigate and how to do it. It's a lot. So I just want to share that perspective with others from what I've seen and experienced. You know, we didn't talk about how many individuals a county actually cares for in this area. Do you have a rough count of individuals that we care for and potentially, like, how many occurrences? Because there's this heavy administrative side, which you talked about, which I think, frankly – I know there's a lot of tracking, but I think we need to track the tracking. We need to track how many hours it takes administratively to do all the tracking for the outcomes, which outcomes are important. It's important that we show outcomes, and we've been doing that here in the county for a long time. But, you know, if you can kind of – so on a side note, track the tracking in the administrative lift and the cost of that. I think we need to monetize that. We need to have a – we really need to daylight that for ourselves and back – to the state so they understand that impact. But in terms of really individuals in our communities and our families and neighborhoods, do you have a rough idea how many we're serving in this whole spectrum?

So I think that's a complex answer only because we have individuals that hit our system And they are hitting our contract providers and sort of to the point around the state making the shift under EI to have individual service level data where we don't have that right now. So currently under our PEI contracts, we don't necessarily know how many individuals are being touched. We will have better data. When we get to collecting the ISL data that starts January 1 of 2027, and then the first time the state is publishing, they're calling it the BOADER, which there's a long acronym for it, but it's basically Accountability Outcomes and Transparency. The first time I think that's going to be published will be June 30 of 2029. So this data collection is pretty heavy and weighty. It's also why we made a shift to a different electronic health record within the last 12 months to be able to have a system that actually can collect the data and then report it out without having manual little spreadsheets. I want to say off the top of my head that if we looked at our annual HHS report, we try to do an annual metric of how many individuals served in our different systems. And I want to say for behavioral health, it was around 2,000. And I think on the SUD side, if you add that, it gets us to about 2,500. And that's just, again, that's not full line of sight across the whole system.

Right, right.

So really, we're serving more.

The need continues to increase for many reasons generationally. And yet, you know, what I'm seeing here and hearing is that there's less funding and we have to be far more creative. But there's going to be a negative impact. The money's just not coming out there. You're being extremely creative in terms of how we seek that funding and smart in terms of how we draw down where there is funding already available, whether it be Medi-Cal. And then you touched on that with, you know, just having the eligibility that's now biannual versus annual and keeping people engaged. you know, eligible. So, yeah, it's a lot. In terms of your connection, and I love the broad-based network of connection, does that include our correctional facility and people who are transitioning out of the correctional facility? Because that wasn't mentioned. And then anything in terms of, like, you know, local hospitals and health clinics that are also touch points?

Yes. So that's a complex one. So sort of under justice involvement, sort of one of the state's goals. So as your board knows, we have our behavioral health clinicians are co-located in the jail, the old jail and the new beautiful jail. So they're co-located there, and they do partner with our sort of outside the four walls of the jail clinicians to ensure that there are good transitions to care from in the jail to outside the jail. Under CalAIM, one of the many initiatives, of course, the medical provider in the jail will be able to draw down Medi-Cal dollars. We also have a piece of that because we're in the jail and we provide the behavioral health linkage, which is the piece back into the community. So, that's sort of one really specific way. The other things, you mentioned hospitals. We spend a lot of time coordinating with our hospitals and our CSU provider, right, Crestwood Behavioral Health in the county, around how we support our emergency departments when we have people who are having psychiatric crisis there. That, of course, ties to our CSU expansion, which is one of the VCHIP grants to increase capacity. That also ties to the Behavioral Health Treatment Center because we'll create additional capacity in having a sobering center so we don't have people hitting the emergency department. So this is where you start to draw the lines of connection, and all of these are very much designed to support our hospitals, but more importantly, support the people who are in need of care and getting them to the right level of care.

Yeah, and I think it's important that we also talk about the spectrum of need and people where they are on the behavioral health journey, if you will. And, you know, the EI, early intervention, leaves out the P, which is prevention, which, if you ask me, is the best and most economic approach and most dignified approach in terms of caring for people in need. but we'll go I guess we'll stick with the EI for now and hope for the people come back at a later date another I know there's this is a whole nother topic but the state hospital you know people say there's a state hospital here how are they partnering with us Is there any potential opportunity to work with the state hospital system? And I know that's a whole complex issue too, but there are questions about that and confusion around access.

So we actually do partner with the state hospital system, and we partner with them when it comes to conservatorship. So we have clients who are actually placed in that state hospital. Okay. But we get in line sort of with everybody else around placements into state hospital systems. It is true that they are not a designated facility for taking people in psychiatric crisis, which at one point many decades ago they were. But we are using the state hospital system, I would say, to the same extent and very much need those beds to stay online because we have a statewide hospital bed shortage.

Yeah, I certainly do. Okay, well, that's, I mean, we can talk more if I have any more questions, but thank you again. This is an excellent presentation, and I appreciate all the hard work.

Thank you. I'm not seeing anyone else lining up. Supervisor Gallagher?

Thank you, and thank you for the presentation. Very complicated and complex issues, and I know that this isn't what we wanted to do. It's what we're doing because of the decision around Prop 1 and attempting to be creative. And I'm also concerned about the prevention services that We are likely not going to fund through this mechanism. We'll have to find some other way because, you know, population health prevention is really different. And I don't know if the public understands the differences. Maybe you could touch a little bit on what that looks like at a state level versus the kind of prevention that we have been able to do locally. But I wanted to ask also, with our contracted partners, pulling the individualized service level data. Is that something that we or the state or anyone is helping with in terms of technical assistance? How are we making sure that it's consistent across our contracted agencies? If you could dive a little bit more into that and how we're going to both collect and present that data.

Yeah, you're right. That is a big shift, which is why we have specifically had discussions and meetings with our CBO partners, because as Chelsea mentioned, we did the EIRFP in December. And in part, our timing was a couple of reasons. One, it takes a long time to get through the contracting process, but really we wanted our providers to also, I think at this time when we're reading headlines from other counties that are not great about contracts being canceled we wanted people to know that although we had to sunset contracts because they were mhsa funded and that's going away that we very much intended to continue and have that sort of transition and sort of offboarding and onboarding. So we are actually working right now on finalizing and drafting those contracts. They'll probably come to your board after the start of the fiscal year. But we're working with our providers to make it as painless as possible to collect the data, and then we will be inputting the data into our system in a way so we can get it digested and reported out ultimately. We have the first sort of six months of the contract It's sort of not required because it's a launch of 1-1 of 27, so it's a calendar launch versus our fiscal year contracts, but we are absolutely working on supporting our contractors, and that's really why we started the process so early, so that everybody could get educated to the new way of being. I think that, you know, in terms of prevention, I think we've been having these conversations for a couple years now with our CBO partners, and they've just done a really good job also figuring out how to modify programs so they are EI-focused but still prevention-focused at the same time. So I really commend them for their partnership and their work because it has been a journey, and I feel like in our county it's a journey we're doing together. It remains to be seen. The California Department of Public Health has issued their draft guidelines for their prevention. What they plan to do is have a third party vendor run an RFP process and then our CVO partners can apply. I think there's going to be some challenges just because they're looking at regional approaches too. I would say some funding is coming back down through the counties, not through a process that we manage, which would have been lovely because we know what we do and we can align it better locally. But it's unfortunate because we actually haven't seen that RFP come out yet, and we were expecting it would be out because many people are looking to a July 1 fiscal year. So we'll do our best to also support our CBOs as that RFP comes out. There are also, just under CalAIM, they had mentioned community health workers. There are also other opportunities where you can do prevention work. It just looks different, and you'd have to structure your sort of line of business differently and your staffing differently. But I know our CBOs are all working really hard at making that transition. So that's why I say there are transitions within transitions within transitions. This is a really complicated time. I think in my 23 years in this county, the last three or four years have been the most wicked for behavioral health, and I think that's going to continue, honestly, into the next three or four years at minimum. But there are a lot of things at play, including 1115 waivers at the state level. We have a lot pending with CMS as well. So I think we're all being as well educated as we can and also paying attention to what the changing ecosystem is going to bring because what's today is not going to be what's in three months. And that's just the reality of it.

Thank you. Supervisor Cottrell.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Director Yasumoto and the team, everyone in the room for the presentation today and all the work that you do. And I just wanted to compliment you on this slide deck. I think it's very... It's so much information there, but it's very well laid out. So I think my suggestion is when we hear from you again and you'll know more about actual numbers of clients, you'll know more about how the spend went, we'll know something about hopefully the efficacy of the state's prevention work. But I'm hoping that because we now have some familiarity with this layout, I think it would be a great overlay on what you bring back. And to your very point, things will be different in three months. And so to be able to say, here's the playbook that we had, here's the brand new things that we have, I think that'll be a nice anchor for us. But thanks again.

Okay. Thank you for the comments and questions from my colleagues and for your outstanding presentation. I would just like, I can't, I mean, these are great questions. I don't have any to add really on questions, but I just want to recognize the tremendous work involved in preparing this integrated plan and all the good it's going to do for the community. to have your attention to detail and really thinking through these issues from a systems perspective um so carefully it it's it's really wonderful so thank you so with that um may i have a motion in a second i'll move to approval with a welcome to jenna to the team second okay i have a motion from vice chair alessio a second from supervisor ramos all those in favor aye all right um the resolution is approved thank you so much for being here today Our next item is 9B, adopt a resolution amending Section 8 of the... Oh, could we just take breaks as needed because we have about an hour... Yeah, just go.

Take a break or...

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think we just need to take breaks as needed because we have a lot to get through still. And that goes for anyone joining us in the room as well. So Item 9B, adopt a resolution amending Section 8 of the Napa County Policy Manual to reflect three sets of administrative changes related to electronic signatures, disruptions to remote access to meetings of the Board of Supervisors, and budgeting for attendance at the Great Wine Capital's General Assembly. I welcome legislative and policy analyst Andrew Mize to present on this item.

Members of the board, good morning. My name is Andrew Mize. I'm the legislative and policy analyst for Napa County. I am also here today because of changes to California's law. I'm before you today with three sets of administrative changes to your board's policies for conducting business. The first set of changes relates to law passed last year that amended the Brown Act. These statutory changes set out in SB 707 require local governments to provide two-way telephonic or internet audiovisual services like Zoom for remote speakers at open and public meetings. SB 707 also requires that local governments adopt a policy regarding disruption of these telephonic or audiovisual services. that policy must by law be adopted prior to july 1 2026 at a regular notice public meeting in open session and cannot be adopted via the consent calendar that is all in the law thus i am here at a notice public meeting in open session on your board's regular calendar to outline plans in the event of disruption thank you to the california legislature By law, if there is a disruption to telephonic or internet audiovisual service that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual service, your board must now recess the open session of the meeting for at least one hour. and make a good faith attempt to restore the service. Your board may elect to meet in closed session during that time. Your board is not permitted to reconvene open session until at least one hour following the disruption or until telephonic or internet audiovisual services restored, whichever is earlier. These statutorily mandated changes are encompassed in a new Appendix D to Section 8. The changes proposed by staff in Appendix D are sourced largely from counsel for the rural county representatives of California who put together a model policy for use by member counties. Procedurally, here's an overview of what's staying the same and what's changing. Your board already offers telephonic remote access to the public for two-way remote participation. The clerk of the board already continuously monitors the meeting to ensure that remote access is functional. And the clerk already notifies the chair if remote access is disrupted. Now some new things. If telephonic remote access is disrupted, the chair will now be required to pause the proceedings. The chair will then have discretion to wait for a brief period during which no discussion or action may occur to determine if remote access can be reestablished without taking an hour long recess. If not, the chair shall then recess the meeting for one hour while staff attempt to restore remote access. Under the law, the meeting may resume once remote access is restored or one hour is elapsed, whichever is earlier. The board may elect at this time to go into closed session while the meeting is in recess. And then you've got kind of a binary. If remote access is restored, the clerk will so announce to remote attendees. If the board is in closed session when access is restored, the clerk will additionally so announce to remote attendees. If remote access is not restored after one hour lapses, the board may reconvene into open session subject to certain conditions. In order to reconvene without remote access, the chair shall make an initial verbal note of the following findings of fact, which can be subject to later legal challenge. Remote access was unable to be restored despite good faith efforts having been made in accordance with the board's policy for no less than one hour. Number two, provision of a description in full of the efforts taken by the clerk to restore remote access in accordance with the board's policy. And a characterization that those efforts are the full extent of our good faith effort. And finally, a statement that government code section 54953.4 and this policy allow the board to resume open session without remote access upon making both of the following specific findings by roll call vote which requires a majority vote of the board. First, that good faith efforts to restore the telephonic or internet service have been made in accordance with this policy. And two, that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote meeting access. Those are required by law, specifically, those two findings. Following these statements, any member of the board may move to adopt these findings and resume the open session of the meeting. Following a second on the motion, a roll call vote with the majority voting to resume the meeting is required. Should the motion not pass, your board's open session will immediately conclude. If the board met in closed session, any reportable action must be announced as otherwise required by the Brown Act. That's the precipitating change. That's really why I'm here. We also have, as staff, two sets of recommended changes, which are really administrative cleanup. Staff first recommend changes related to the use of the chair's electronic digital or facsimile signature. California law authorizes the use of the chair's electronic signature on official documents, including those resulting from the board's meetings and position letters transmitted by county legislative staff on behalf of the board pursuant to a prior action of the board. This change outlines that the chair may delegate the affixing of his or her electronic signature to the clerk of the board, to deputies of the clerk, and to the county's legislative staff by executing a document or documents approved by the county council, citing the delegation, and setting forth what shall be considered the chair's signature. Finally, our third change, staff recommend consolidation of the language relating to budgeting for great wine capitals. That is currently in section 2 of the board's policy manual. That's the agricultural commissioner's policy into this section 8 of the board's policy manual. Staff recommend this consolidation to keep all language related to great wine capitals in one policy, section 8. Staff will be bringing a project forward to the board in the near future to clean up and modernize the board's other administrative policies, which will include consolidation or elimination of some unnecessary policies, updating out-of-date policies, and improving public access to the board's policy manual. I am now happy to answer any clarifying questions from the board in advance of public comment and subsequent motion and, if needed, discussion on that motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mize. Are there any questions or comments from the board? I'm not seeing any. Is there anyone in the room wishing to speak in public comment on this item? Not seeing anyone. Is there anyone on the phones? No? Okay. Great. Well, I would like to thank the state legislature for bringing us Andrew Mize today. Thank you. And also for the additional topics that the staff have added to this. I think it's all good updates and I welcome a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second. Okay. I have a motion by Supervisor Cutrell, a second by Vice Chair Alessio. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. And thank you so much for that presentation. We'll move on to Item 9C, approval and authorization for the Chair to sign a letter requesting a waiver of repayment of loans made by the Napa County Berryessa Resort Improvement District, or NBRID, in the amount of $5 million pursuant to government code section 25214.4. And I have a staff report from engineering manager, Chris Silk. Welcome, Mr. Silk. Go ahead when you're ready.

Okay. Good morning, Governing Board of Napa Berry Esso Resort Improvement District, and good morning to the County Board of Supervisors, a rare instance where I get to issue dual salutations. So as you saw in your packet today, we have before you what I'm calling milestone number two for the renaissance of MBRID utilities. Milestone 1 was passed earlier this year, and that was Measure A, and that was a 72% yes vote by the residents of the community to enact a $1,560 parcel tax to which that revenue would augment our user rate and other minority revenue sources to balance the budget. Okay. MBRID, as I presented before the Board for several years, has been in financial turmoil with a series of loans issued to the utilities that began in 2008. I'm not going to go through the chronology of the loan issuance and the consolidation. I would just note that at least as it stands now, we have an aggregate Accrual of loans, promissory notes issued to the district from Napa County that amount to $5 million. The individual amounts are stated in the board letter that are addressed to both the governing board of the resort district as well as the county board of supervisors. The actions that are sought today are sequential, the first of which is a letter that would be signed by the Chair of the Governing Board of Napa Berry Esso Resort Improvement District. I'll read the specific actions after we have an open discussion related to the waiver of repayment of $5 million that is that is an encumbrance to the utilities at the district uh the one thing that i will say is that you know as a result of this being milestone two if in fact this passes this sets the stage for staff to pursue what we foresee is 20 million dollars in capital improvements uh accessing grant monies issued either by the state or the federal government We do have a precedent at various states to which we campaigned rigorously over, goodness, almost a 16-year period through ERA and various federal legislative programs. And we did so successfully, bringing in $22 million. The other thing that I also wanted to mention as a prelude to our discussion is is that back in December of 2013, I do have with me the board letter to which an action was sought relieving various estates of $1.67 million in indebtedness to the county. So there is a precedent for this type of action. We do want to continue You know, our mission here to fortify the infrastructure, the treatment plants are weak, as I've indicated before. I just learned last night that there potentially could be an algal bloom episode emerging at Steel Canyon. So the treatment process that is there now has genuinely concerned me since I arrived as an employee and being the engineering manager. for the county. So we want to switch out that process. We want to have something that's more adaptable to climate and provides for a better barrier of algae if this were to persist. And then also we need to do capital improvements to the wastewater side of the utilities to expand our treatment capacity and be prepared for resort development, if and when that should come. And we simply want to design these improvements so that they're turnkey. They're nothing more than pipes that are stubbed with blind flanges, instrumentation conduits, electrical conduits. So it's virtually plum plug and play. So that's our vision. We see this playing out over the next three to five years. We do have the Rural Community Assistance Corporation that has offered their labor assistance at no charge to help us put together these grant applications, which is a heavy lift. So it seems like we're moving in the right direction, but we do need to get through the bad here to get to the good. And so with that, I think what I'd like to do is pause and open it up to a general discussion amongst the board and myself, and then I can read to you the sequential recommended actions that would be taken at that time.

Okay, thank you. I see Supervisor Ramos.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and the little brief recap. We have found ourselves similarly in a position with the Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District of having to forgive loans that had previously been issued by the county in order to enable them to receive other funds. So not unusual in this sense. But I kind of want to take a step back and say that There's a greater discussion here that needs to happen. I mentioned this two meetings ago, and that is this board has to have a serious look at the development or proposed development, desired development, whatever. whatever's going on at Lake Berryessa at this point, because there are a couple of things. This system, notwithstanding the prior failings to have a capital fund to invest in that got this system and these residents into this situation, It is what it is right now. And we have to help position that area to be able to be sustainable. I'm very much questioning that right now of what that looks like. The costs continue to increase and I think we owe it to ourselves and to the residents to have a dual discussion about development at Berryessa and what that those impacts may have, especially here to Enbridge. Because the truth is we've gone out, we have hired staff to go out and recruit. We have this plan and we have some lukewarm interest, I guess. It seems, I don't know. I have a meeting next week. I'll find out more on Steel Canyon. So if that does not happen, We've been saying to ourselves, we've got to get the system ready for that development. And it's almost starting to feel when we look at the numbers and a forgiveness of $5 million is not insignificant. I don't want to at all minimize what that means. When we look at that type of a contribution into this system, because at this point that's what it is. It's an expenditure and contribution into the system. They're not paying us back. It seems like we're starting to treat Steel Canyon like it's going to be some savior. And I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about how this all is going to pencil out. So I understand the timing-wise that we do need to do this. But I also think that fiscally we need to look. what our policy is going to look like This should in fact run like an enterprise system. It should pay for itself, just like the airport. It is not. It never has. And so we need to start really looking at what comes next after that. This is a water system like many other water systems, and maybe this in fact comes to a next step referral perhaps that the board makes after looking at the sustainability of this. When we look at the county time that has been spent in managing this and what that looks like, maybe it's a referral for a second step supplemental report to LAFCO on water services and how we look at management of small water services and water companies. This does not look sustainable. This is not my first time forgiving loans. This is the largest loan I think I've forgiven at this point, whether it's LBRED or NBRED. But I also say this in the sense that we are getting to a place, and we heard public comment earlier this morning about for water, the abuse and how that goes into someone's calculation. I also say It's necessary for life, right? It most definitely is. Water is life. But this is coming at an incredibly high cost, and we need to make sure that we are looking to how do we reduce the cost, but also what comes next. because when I look at the amount of county time that is spent by staff managing this, it's starting to really be a lot, and I don't see an end in sight. So I just want to say I think that's a referral. I'm going ahead and say it. Bring all things Lake Berryessa with water and the water systems included for us to look at what does that look like and to start looking at how do we transition this into truly an enterprise fund that it's paying for itself. Thank you. MR.

Yes. Thank you. MS.

Okay. MS. Madam Chair, before we take further Board comment, can we take public comment?

MS. Sure.

MS. Okay. We skipped over public comment.

MS. Is there anyone in the room wishing to speak on this subject? I'm not seeing anyone. Is there anyone on the phone? No? Okay. Then we will continue with board comments. Supervisor Cottrell?

Thank you and thank you Mr. Silk for the presentation. I totally support Supervisor Ramos' referral because I think just having more discussion about what comes next here makes sense and at the same time remembering that we have an opportunity here and I think you've spoken to us before about the need to to take this this you know extreme step but but what that does is set this community up for being able to access grants that it could not do if it had this encumbrance, this outstanding loan.

That is correct, yes. And so the program, the funding programs that we intend to apply for When we submit the financial package, either at the onset or prior to notice of intent to obligate monies, obviously the finances were reviewed and it would show a heavy debt encumbrance to which they would not issue grant monies until such time that that the debt ratio was reduced. So that's what became a prerequisite for LBRD to secure its CWSRF funding agreement.

And then I just wanted to also point out that the voters in Enbridge service area approved a tax on themselves, Measure A, for 10 years to... provide something here so um and i'm in agreement that that having a a board-wide discussion and overview of um various i think makes sense so i'm supportive of this action

MS. Okay. Oh, Supervisor Alessio?

MS. Yeah, just real quick, I'll chime in also. Yeah, looking at the history of this, this has been an ongoing area of concern and financial concern with the old system that needs treatment. I think that the voters there, the district stepping up and saying yes, you know, we'll, you know, they're not, most of those folks aren't of high means. You know, this is not a very rich community, if you will, wealthy community. But they approved Measure A, so I think that that's their part saying, hey, We're in this too, so I think that's a great sign. We have to set ourselves up for being able to be eligible for other funding to address the issue. I also think ideally, if we can create this as an enterprise fund, Supervisor Ramos said. I mean, to me, that just kind of rings true. It feels true based on other enterprise funds I've known and been involved in. That would be the ideal. I do still have hope for the vision of that area. and all the time and energy and planning for the different parks and having some kind of economic stimulus out there. It takes one to try to get it going for another to bring more income into that area to help offset the different areas and the cost out there. It's a very interesting area just historically. It's an interesting area before it was even like, but it's I mean, I support this moving forward. Well, it caught my eye when we 1st looked at the board packet. I'm like, whoa. You know, it's a lot. But I understand the thought behind it, and so therefore I also support this and just continued efforts with what's going on out there with bringing in some kind of an economic anchor, some kind of vitality out there. I think it's going to be really important. So I want us to continue to do that, and hopefully we'll see something come out of that. But thank you for your presentation. Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher.

I'm just going to make a motion that we approve and authorize the chair to sign a letter requesting a waiver of repayment of loans made by Napa County to Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District in the amount of $5 million pursuant to government code section 25214.4. Second.

Okay. I would like to also make comments. Go for it. And it's my district, so I'll keep it quick. I know that things are going on this morning, but I see this loan forgiveness as a way of cutting losses for the county and a way of helping position this community to receive grants successfully because they, to my knowledge, cannot receive grants while they have debt. So So, that's a very important step for – and they've also taken the very admirable step of increasing the fees on their parcels to move the whole process forward. And so, I think they're doing the right things. This is a way for us to help them continue getting the resources they need to upgrade the systems and make sure they're working, and I am less confident about an enterprise fund being the right solution, but I would very much like to discuss it, so I absolutely support you know, a discussion about Lake Berry acid broadly and what the vision is for that area. I think it's high time we have a close look at that. This is an area that's been dealing with a lot of homes lost in fire recovery, and that is, in fact, part of the problem here, which is there's less revenue to support the system because there's so many fewer homes. You know, for the people who are still there, their property values are very important to them because, you know, as Supervisor Alessio said, this tends to be a less wealthy community. So, you know, it's not something that we just get to walk away from. We have to work, you know, diligently to make sure that it's as stable as possible. And with that, you know, I'll just say I support forgiving the loan as well. So I have a motion by Supervisor Gallagher and a second by, was it Cottrell? It was Ramos. Second by Ramos. My mistake?

Chair, just if I could interject, there are two requested actions on behalf of the governing board. In addition to the authorized submission of the attached letter, there's also authorized the auditor controller to make necessary budgetary adjustments. sorry, amendments in accounting transactions to clear the outstanding loan liability with a corresponding revenue for the forgiveness in the amount of $5 million plus accrued interest. So just wanted to make that clear.

Chair Manvree. And I don't know if Mr. Silk was going on to the next item, but we purposely separated the county's action from So in bread's action is to approve a letter and then we'll move on to the next one and do the county's piece.

Thank you. That was my understanding. So right now we're looking at approval and authorization for the chair to sign a letter requesting waiver of repayment loans made by Napa County to end bread in the amount of 5Million dollars pursuant to government code section 25214.4 and that's a motion by Gallagher second by Ramos. those in favor aye that passes unanimously and now we have item 9d consideration and possible adoption of a resolution waiving the repayment of loans made to the napa berry essa resort improvements district in the amount of five million dollars pursuant to government code section 25214.4 and for this one i have a staff report by michael kleinman listed i don't know if If we've already discussed it thoroughly enough, but okay. Welcome, Micah, Ms. Klyman, and I welcome your report.

MS.

I don't have anything additional to report, but we are obviously here to take the, if we're moving forward, there's two additional actions by the Board of Supervisors, and I can read that to you. So the requested action as county board of supervisors is adopt the resolution waiving repayment of the outstanding loans to the district in the amount of $5 million plus accrued interest and authorize the auditor controller to make the necessary budgetary amendments and accounting transactions to clear the outstanding loan receivable and with the corresponding expenditure for the forgiveness in the general fund in the amount of $2,449,000 And in the capital projects fund, accumulated capital outlay in the amount of $2,551,000 plus interest.

Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this item? Not seeing anyone in the room approaching the podium. Is there anyone on the phones? No. Okay. Then are there any additional? Okay. I have an additional.

I have something too. I'm just procedural.

I don't see that 2nd part on the agenda, nor is it in the staff report.

I don't think the only thing on the agenda is resolution waving the repayment of loans. Oh, you know what?

It showed up at the end of it.

It's not in the requested action. Yeah, at the end of the staff agenda.

It just didn't make it into the recommendation.

Yeah, let's make sure everything's on. Yeah.

Thank you. Good point for clarity. Supervisor?

All right. I'll make that motion.

Supervisor Alessio, did you have a comment?

No, I just thought you might want to make the motion. I want to make sure that Gallagher had her question answered because I see that you're focused and Gallagher had questions.

Just being your Vice Chair. Thank you, Vice Chair. All right. I have a motion by Cottrell. Do I have a second? Second. What? I'll second. Okay. Motion by control. Second by Supervisor Alessio. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you. okay thank you very much yes i can tell we've been uh having a long morning okay um so let's just check in about time here we have item nine items nine e and nine f nine e is possibly a 30 to 40 minute item and the same for 9f and it is 11 45 so um we also have a closed session and numerous public hearings this afternoon which will probably go fairly quickly, maybe 20 minutes after that. So we could take the public hearings now? No?

We have a lot of public here for E. I was just going to say, I think we should do that.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We're going to go to Item 9E, approved transmittal of the proposed response to the 2526 Grand Jury Report, Fear of Ice in the Valley, Napa County law enforcement's response to the presiding judge of the Napa County Superior Court as prescribed by Section 933 of the Penal Code. And for this one, we have a staff report from legislative and policy analyst Andrew Mize. Whenever you're ready.

Members of the Board, thank you for your time today. My name is Andrew Mize. I'm the Legislative and Policy Analyst for Napa County. I'm before your Board today to provide the proposed response of the Board's Ad Hoc Committee on Inclusivity to the April 13, 2026 Napa County Civil Grand Jury Report, Fear of Ice in the Valley, Napa County Law Enforcement's Response. Should your board approve these recommendations, staff will transmit the proposed response to the presiding judge of the Napa County Superior Court as prescribed by Section 933 of the California Penal Code. I want to pause for a moment to thank the members and foreperson of the Civil Grand Jury for their time and attention in researching and producing this report. It is cogent and pertinent and reflects careful attention to detail. The matter at hand is emotionally charged and complex. Further, California law on local government interactions with federal immigration enforcement authorities is ever shifting and subject to frequent litigation. The substance of the proposed response reinforces this organization's compelling and narrowly tailored interest in public safety as the bottom line purpose of local law enforcement. This compelling local interest frames the decisions proposed in the response. The proposed response lays out three operational changes of which the CEO will direct immediate implementation if approved by the board today. The first policy change of your board's ad hoc committee is to no longer exercise the full extent of the county's statutory authority to respond to federal detainer requests based on prior misdemeanor convictions that could have been charged as a felony or misdemeanor. These kinds of crimes are known as wobbler offenses because they can wobble between felony and misdemeanor based on prosecutorial, judicial, and jury discretion. Although responses to detainer requests based on misdemeanor wobbler offenses are permitted by California law, the proposal proscribes future responses to detainer requests that could otherwise be made using a misdemeanor wobbler offense as a qualifying charge. The second policy change is a restriction on the felony wobbler look back period. California law permits local personnel to look back 15 years on felony wobbler convictions for qualified charges. However, the proposal prescribes future responses to detainer requests for felony wobbler convictions older than 10 years. This proposed change recognizes that it is appropriate to respond accordingly and proportionally to broader societal changes. In this moment, the proposal acknowledges that the maximum allowable look back period permitted by California law no longer furthers the original purpose of this policy. Finally, the grand jury recommended that the board conduct more frequent and evening Truth Act hearings and also disclose additional categories of information about individuals, including age, gender, country of origin, and recidivism. As to more frequent hearing, the ad hoc committee recommends and staff have, in the interest of responsiveness and transparency, already developed and executed a real-time dashboard with information about responses to detainer requests. This goes above and beyond the grand jury's recommendation to hold more frequent hearings and exceeds any of our sister counties in the Bay Area in terms of its transparency. The dashboard is publicly available on the Napa County website and reinforcing our interest in transparency is easily accessed by clicking the dedicated permanent California Values Act link on the Department of Corrections in custody menu. Department of Corrections staff have populated the database back to January 1, 2026, and continue to update the page in an ongoing fashion, including, if applicable, the charge qualifying an individual for a response to a detainer request. I am happy to answer any clarifying questions from the board in advance of public comment and subsequent motion and, as needed, discussion of that motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mize. Do we have any, I'm sorry, I'll take public comment first. Is there anyone in the room wishing to comment? Welcome up. You'll have three minutes.

still morning good morning everyone my name is adrian malinado and i'm the director of the community leaders coalition and a partner of the napa valley together collaborative first i just want to say thank you to all of you and your staff also sheriff ortiz and the county department heads for taking the time to engage in conversations and recognizing community-based organizations like our collaborative Napa Valley Together as partners in this work. Also, I acknowledge the board for being thoughtful, getting clear, and aligned on their policy. It's not an easy decision nor easy conversations to have, but what really shines through is the importance of having open lines of communication. It is important that together we work to be a Napa that is safe for all residents and ensure mixed status and immigrant neighbors feel welcomed and like they belong unconditionally. The issues raised in the grand jury report touch on important questions around public safety, transparency, trust, and belonging. So thank you again to all the members and advocates who share their experiences and their expertise throughout that process. Community knowledge is an important part of understanding how policies are experienced on the ground. Through our work in the Strengthening Immigrant Families Committee, we have heard from many residents across Napa County that they are retreating from public life, avoiding services, and becoming increasingly isolated out of concern and fear for themselves and for others. When people retreat into the shadows, our entire community loses our opportunities for connection, trust, and participation. We're also hearing our community wants to trust our elected officials and law enforcement, but would like clear and concise communication in order to feel supported and better understand the law. Information that is lengthy, fragmented, or not in their primary language is often bypassed and seen as unreliable. That is why transparency and communication and community engagement matters so much. So I encourage the board to revisit the recommendations provided by the Napa Valley Together team, in addition to providing clarity on SB 54, how it will be enforced locally, and suggestions for a collective way forward to our organizations for the benefit of our larger community. I am also grateful for the work that the Language Access Committee and all of the progress that has been made. So thank you for that work. However, the constant change in policy environment creates an environment of confusion. So I believe there's still an opportunity to strengthen language justice by continuing to partner with community organizations and residents to co-create solutions that are accessible, culturally responsive, and grounded in lived experience.

Thank you, Mr. Maldonado.

Hello. Good morning, supervisors and county staff. My name is Madeline Hernandez, and I am the directing attorney for IIBA, partner in Napa Valley Together and member of the CLC. I would like to thank the supervisors, sheriff, and Department of Corrections for your partnership. Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully respond to the grand jury report. We applaud your response and agree with the proposed implemented changes. We encourage the county to consider aligning its practices even more with other Bay Area counties that place a greater emphasis on due process, rehabilitation, and the passage of time since a criminal conviction. Our first recommendation is to consider the amount of time that has elapsed since an individual's criminal conviction, not just for the wobblers, but also for the violent felonies and serious felonies. A conviction that has occurred many years ago does not accurately reflect a person's current relationship to public safety. Incorporating the age of a conviction into policy and decisions promotes fairness, supports evidence based correctional practices and principles of rehabilitation. And allows resources to be focused on cases involving recent serious criminal conduct. Our second recommendation is that ICE notification requests not be honored when an individual has pending charges only and no qualifying criminal conviction. This recommendation is grounded in the principle that individuals facing pending charges are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. A policy that distinguishes between pending charges and qualifying criminal convictions would promote fairness, consistency, and public confidence in the administration of justice. We must respect and uphold our court procedures and processes, and Napa County should not hold non-US citizens to a higher or different standard than others. Our last recommendation is to have an immigration attorney within the Napa County Public Defender's Office. Sonoma, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, Marin, and Santa Clara counties have recognized that immigration consequences are often among the most serious outcomes a person can face after a criminal case. These counties have invested in specialized immigration expertise to ensure that non-citizen residents receive constitutionally effective representation. Napa County has a diverse immigrant community that contributes significantly to our economy, our workforce, and our culture. Yet individuals facing criminal charges here may not have access to the same level of specialized immigration defense support available in neighboring counties. A dedicated immigration attorney would provide expert guidance on immigration consequences and representation in immigration court because there are no court-appointed attorneys for those who cannot afford one in immigration court. This investment would promote fairness, improve the quality of representation, and bring Napa County into alignment with neighboring jurisdictions. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Welcome. Good morning, Board of Supervisors and community members. My name is Esmeralda Gil. I am the Executive Director of Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center. We are also a Napa Valley Together partner organization and member of the Community Leaders Coalition. And I also want to say thank you for your thoughtful attention that you have given to the Grand Jury Report and for continuing to engage with the community in these important conversations. At Puertas Abiertas, we spend every day listening to community members, and what we continue to hear from many immigrant and mixed-status families is uncertainty and fear, not because they have done something wrong or because they are a threat to anyone, but because they are trying to understand what comes next in an environment where policies, information, and rhetoric seem to be changing constantly. We hear it from parents wondering whether it's safe to attend community events or take their kids to the park, from older adults who are hesitant to seek services so they don't draw attention to themselves, and from families who are unsure where to turn to for information they can trust. What concerns us most is not simply the fear itself, but it's what happens because of it. People begin to withdraw from community life, become isolated, and disconnect from the resources and relationships that are helping them thrive. That is why belonging matters. Immigrant families are deeply woven into the fabric of Napa County. They are our neighbors, coworkers, students, business owners, volunteers, friends, and parents. They make Napa what it is. Every person deserves to feel safe and know that they belong, not simply because of the labor they provide, the language they speak, or the documents they carry, but because they are human and part of this community. Over the past year, Puertas Abiertas and our partners in Napa Valley Together have worked tirelessly to be visible and available to provide accurate information, trusted resources, and safe spaces that our immigrant community can turn to during these times. We know that trusted relationships matter, and we are already seeing what is possible when people come together. Hundreds of community members have stepped forward to become legal observers. Neighbors have volunteered to accompany families to appointments and court hearings. Organizations have come together to share information and resources and build strategies that protect our community. People have asked not only how do I protect myself, but how do I support my neighbors? That is the solidarity we are talking about, the community action we need, and that is the Napa that we are. That is also why decisions made in rooms like this matter. The way we talk about our community, the partnerships we build, the investments we make, and the messages we send all help shape whether people feel welcome to valued and connected. So I just want to reiterate how important it is for our Board of Supervisors to continue creating compassionate spaces for dialogue, engagement, and partnership with the community, because the community does want to continue hearing from you. And I'll just end with that we all share a responsibility for shaping the kind of Napa that we want to live in, and a Napa where people don't have to earn their belonging or prove their worth, where every person is treated with humanity, and a Napa rooted in dignity, belonging, safety, and care for one another. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Gill. Is there a welcome? Yeah.

Good morning. Chris Keeley, Napa County Public Defender. And I don't think it comes to anyone's surprise that I would like none of our clients turned over to ICE. That being said, I am very grateful that you all were willing to go over Policy 604 with a fine-tooth comb and really analyze which offenders and which offenses really should be reported to ICE so that ICE will come to our community and potentially pick them up. I have two suggestions. The first, and it piggybacks on Ms. Hernandez's statement, when it comes to people who have only had a preliminary hearing or only been indicted by a grand jury, If they are taken into ICE custody and remain in ICE custody, you are inadvertently thwarting their criminal justice rights. They have a right to have a jury trial, a speedy jury trial, where jurors determine their guilt, where their attorney can advocate for their innocence, where witnesses will testify before guilt is determined. If they remain in ICE custody, They can't have that. It's gone. And justice delayed can be justice denied. So I would ask that you reconsider the policy permitting disclosure when there is only a preliminary hearing or indictment. And the second suggestion I have is to supplement the disclosure so that the attorney who was in criminal court with the offender who was convicted of a crime would be notified. People don't understand their due process rights. If we can assist them, even though we will not defend them in immigration court because we don't have the staffing, we would like to do that. The current policy, I believe, is that either family or the attorney can be notified. I would like to be notified. I have never been notified. Thank you.

Okay, thank you for those very helpful comments. Is there anyone else in the room? I'm not seeing anyone. Is there anyone on the phone? No? Okay. Then I will bring this back to the board for questions. Is there anyone on the board with questions or, I guess, comments at this time? Supervisor Cottrell?

Well, I want to say thank you to everyone who came today and spoke, and also thanks to our board colleagues who are serving on the ad hoc on this. So I would love to hear from them. We've heard a couple of new ideas. My first thought, honestly, is to say, do you want some time to consider those suggestions and come back to us? But I'd love to hear from them. MS. Supervisor Ramos. MS.

Thank you. I'm happy to respond and to provide some insight into how we went through this. In addition to myself and Supervisor Gallagher, we've had a number of meetings, first meeting with the Napa Valley Together group and to understand some of the concerns, but also we looked in staff and we had the sheriff, we had our director of corrections, we had the CEO at times, we had Mr. Mize at times, and we really did look at the implications, I guess, to provide a little background. When SB 54 came about originally, a prior board, a predecessor board, one that I was not a part of, swung the pendulum very, very light. would say on very light responses in terms of what is allowable in the spectrum that is SB 54 when we had an officer involved shooting that involved a probationer that was undocumented in that moment where our community was coming at and coming together, and to meet that moment at that time, understanding what immigration enforcement was at that moment, we moved on the spectrum. And I would say probably probably on the more conservative side, that we had moved. And what I really see us doing at this moment is to look at how do we respond to the current moment and what is happening as requested by the grand jury. When it comes to, I'll touch upon a couple of the things and the changes that we have made. You know, when we look at the misdemeanors This change really comes about because of changes in Prop 36. So the last time that we had reviewed this policy in regards to responses and, you know, it's. There's some language that I've heard, and it's interactions, cooperation I've heard should be reported. None of that is happening. We respond to requests from immigration, and what we are doing here is narrowing the scope of what that permissible response is and providing certainty to our correctional officers so that everyone knows how to accurately respond to these requests. When we look at what happened from a timing standpoint, Prop 36 has been a big shift in criminal justice. When SB 54 was originally put on the books, Prior iterations of what were misdemeanors were actually felonies. And so this wobbler idea really comes about from we've had shifts in criminal justice law through initiative that have happened in California that it really did cover that well if Prop and Sheriff 45, was it? What was the prior iteration? 47. Thank you. Prop 47 made some felonies misdemeanors. And this is where this wobbler language came up. And it was like, well, a year ago, it was a different categorization of crime. prop 36 then has another shift and prop 36 has these great language complications that frankly as a committee we looked and decided that it would be it would be difficult and and and really I will say on my part I would say overly burdensome for our staff to try and interpret what in fact meets that standard and so aided by the grand jury's recommendation, the wobblers are out. So that there is, it's literally wobbler being in that gray area. There's no gray area. When we look at the prior iteration of our policy, had a look back on felonies, not the serious felonies on the Appendix 1. On Appendix 2, had a look back of 15 years. And when we kind of discussed as a committee, we had left that untouched. After having an opportunity to meet with advocates from the Napa Valley Together group, Supervisor Gallagher and I caucused a bit. we looked at where we could find a middle ground. And one of the things where we relied upon is in immigration, when you're applying for adjustment and citizenship, There's a question in regards to crimes of moral turpitude, and that's a 10-year look back. And so we utilize that standard. Again, it's not anything that is set in stone. SB 54 allows us to go to 15. We're recommending that we come down. In regards to... The preliminary hearing. We've had many discussions about this with the sheriff, with corrections, with counsel as well. I don't see Cory in the room, but is she in the room? I don't know. Cory in the room? I don't think so. And we've had many, many discussions in regards to preliminary hearings. Ultimately, what you have before you is the result of our group thinking and what we do believe is a best practice at this moment. The preliminary hearing process does, in fact, already have a hearing by a judicial officer. It is not just a holdover on a declaration of an officer. There is, in fact, a hearing. perspective looking at SB 54 what is allowable in SB 54 and trying to balance the interests that have been raised as concerns with some slight modifications we do feel that they that we haven't reached it and what we are referring for your approval is a middle of the road in regards to The other question was council. We acknowledge that, in fact, other counties are able to provide council. At this moment, as we see our budget and revenue standpoint, that is a restraint on us to be able to make that recommendation. If that is what the board wishes, see you here in two weeks. We could talk about it then with that big budget book that you have. And if the board is interested in knowing that, I think then we need to make a referral to the CEO to tell us what that cost would be. But I will say, we do not have a... a structure in place right now to provide legal services beyond those that are required, right? This is not just adding an attorney to the Public Defender's Office. It's actually looking at scope of work as well and to provide some parameters and policies to support that, not something that we felt at this moment we were able to recommend for your consideration. What I will say in that regard, and Supervisor Gallagher and I have talked a little bit, you know, through various grant programs, we have, in fact, done this before through initiatives to support greater expungement efforts through the probation department, right, if someone is able to clean up their record. when allowable by law that can also provide a protection for them as well. And so that is something that we can look at separately and work in a coordinated fashion with the Public Defender Probation and the District Attorney's Office. to make that happen. I think that there are other steps that we are able to take before we go through a full-fledged really bringing in an in-house legal aid. In regards to the question posed by our public defender, Ms. Keeley, for the form notification, the I hesitate, and there was discussion about automatic notification. That, I think, is the troublesome part. If the person that is in custody does not choose to have you notified, that we struggle with. We did provide a form to ensure that there is a notification and opportunity, but also making sure that it's not an elaborate list. That is the recommendation that we're making at this time. I think I answered the questions and concerns, and I'd be happy to answer anything else that you want. My favorite color is purple.

Thank you. It's illuminating to hear some of the background conversations for Supervisor Gallagher. Thank you.

So, yes, we had a lot of meetings and we worked hard to get this to a place where we felt we could bring it to the board. And I am actually still very interested in hearing what my colleagues think of our recommendation. I actually agree with a lot of what Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Keeley have suggested. I do have a problem. I have had these concerns within our meetings and I expressed those concerns. Again, we were trying to weave a lot of things together and get it to a place where we could get our colleagues to weigh in as well. I do believe that Ms. Keeley is very thoughtful in saying that if someone who has had a preliminary hearing ends up in ICE custody, There is a big question about whether we are thwarting that due process and allowing that person to actually go through our criminal justice system and be held to account for the crime they committed in our community. So I am definitely open to looking at that. I also think that it's really important that people understand that they can make a disclosure to their attorney. I think that it is not unreasonable to say, you know, here's the form. Who would you like notified, family, friend, and what attorney would you like notified?

I don't think that that would be difficult or excessive in any way.

I also, I brought this up probably at least a year ago or more. I'm very interested in continuing to look at opportunities to bring an immigration attorney into our public defender's office. I think it's Uh, very, very important and we have a lot of examples, um, and neighboring counties as miss Hernandez mentioned, and I think it's a really important service and we should continue to look at that. I understand we don't have the budget currently for that. Um, but, you know, a budget is stating our priorities and I think we should have a discussion about what those priorities are and how we might go about providing that service. Let's see what else I think that might be most of what was asked for. So. I am happy to have participated in the process, worked with everyone and I'm happy to bring this to our board. I want to thank the sheriff. I want to thank our corrections. Director, everyone was extremely collaborative and transparent and we had excellent. Many, many hours of discussion and I think I just want to remind everybody that unlike anywhere else in California, the board of supervisors in this county has responsibility for the policies of corrections. And so we take those responsibilities very, very seriously, and we need to make sure that those policies reflect our values. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. And I guess I don't know if this is a question or just a comment, but what we're looking at right now is approving the transmittal of the proposed response. And I do think there's some room for future discussion. I don't. but maybe more as a referral and coming back.

So, Supervisor Alessio. Thank you. I appreciate everybody listening to everybody first on this, and thank you, Supervisor Ramos and Gallagher, for your work on the ad hoc with everybody. I do think it's important, well, two things I'd like to know, really, if staff knows, and I'd like to call the sheriff up, who's been listening and partaking in this entire meeting today, is the number of detainees that we've seen last year and this year versus prior years because I'm just kind of wanting to gauge in terms of the number of that has potentially increased because I think that's important I think it's because for me it's it allows me to see what if what we're doing is if you will, not calling too much attention to ourselves and therefore maybe because we've been taking small moves that are still progressive and still trying to get to the goal has allowed for a safer community for everybody in this community versus some that make a big swing and call attention. if you will. And then the distinction, I'm hoping the sheriff can provide the distinction in terms of what is our local authority, what can we do locally, and what's beyond our authority that's really federal. And I think, is the sheriff still here? Oh, okay, if I can ask the sheriff to kind of help us with that. I don't know which part you can answer, but okay, thank you. And do we need to pause for a minute? Because I see that we've got work over here with the clerk.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead to chair I am asking staff to pull up our live tracker to answer your question as to the number I think that that will be helpful for you to see and then Very helpful to have a down.

Okay, so then maybe didn't just kind of discuss the distinction between our authority and federal authority that's beyond what we the scope of what we can

Well, yeah, first of all, I just want to shout out Napa Valley Together and the group that we met with, just fantastic people, very sincere concern, and a lot of empathy for the community, which I share that empathy and that concern. And we had very productive meetings with them. And they've been wonderful for the last year and a half when we've had to go back and forth. My concern is also sincere, and I'm also empathetic to this community. It is my community. I have lots of friends in this community. And really, The suggestions made today, I can totally understand. And as Supervisor Gallagher pointed out, it's your jail. It's your policy. You guys get to make the decision. However, I just want to throw a little warning light out there that sometimes decisions have unintended consequences. And what I mean by that is regardless of what decision you make today, and I'm here to support whatever decision you make, what we do know is then when federal ICE agents, when you end up on their list of somebody that they want to get, because everything they've done thus far has been targeted, we've learned that they're persistent. If they don't get you the first time they come to Napa, they'll come and find you again two or three days later. What that looks like is if somebody's on their list and they're at the jail, it's two ICE agents, one car, and they pick up the person on those rare occasions where it qualifies under Senate Bill 54. If they're not in the jail and it's on their list, it's four or five cars and eight or ten agents wearing masks in the parking lot of the apartment complex where the person lives. it's a very very different operation and that is the operation that really creates a lot of disruption in the community and that operation that i don't i that i'm afraid of because my phone blows up on those and people get very scared and kids don't go to school and people don't leave their house So whatever decision you make, just look at it through the lens of are we pushing ICE to go do and find the people they want to find in the community versus the rare occasion, and AJ can speak to the number of occasions, when they can just pick somebody up at the jail with just two ICE agents in one car. So, again, it's your decision to make, but just there could be some unintended consequences depending on where you land. And I think that answers your question.

In terms of any of the requests from NEP Valley Forward, together, sorry, NEP Valley Together, and Chris Keeley, our public defender director, do any of those cross over where we don't have the authority to address those, or any of those cross into the federal

arena where i just want to make sure we're well where the authority is and the bigger the bigger debate is how to get how do people end up on that list right how ice is prioritizing who they want to find um how do you end up on that list as an undocumented immigrant and that's really out of all of our hands that's a federal thing but obviously policy shift administration shift and then those lists get bigger or shorter by that so i don't know that we have any authority on who ICE decides to target. I know we hear the narrative of the worst of the worst. I think that's debatable. I think we've seen some low-hanging fruit, easy-to-find folks with convictions that have made it to their list. Those aren't really jail transfer. Those are some of the ones we've seen in the community, but that is really out of our purview.

Okay, thank you for that. And then, I don't know, AJ, did you, or are we going to put up the tracker in terms of just looking at, I'm just looking at, is there a trend? Is it really, are we seeing a big shift and a big increase in the county just overall?

at this time we can show you how what we've done on the ticker tape so if you go to any anybody in the public can go to the department of corrections website now and if you scroll down you can click the in custody button right there and then and you look out on the table you see one of the bullets right there says california values act sb54 and members of the public can click on that and see and it's a live ticker tape and then they can put the date range in And like we had discussed earlier, that we started as January 1st and as of today, July 2nd, which I put up on the board for you. So at this time, out of the people, ICE has taken in three – there's been three responses. And if you scroll to the right, I think it'll have – yeah, minimize it a little bit. There should be one more. It's too small. It's too small. So, like, as you can see right there, out of the three that we've complied with, they've taken two into custody. They did not take one into custody. So, at this time, we've had three as of this year that have been picked up by ICE.

I see two here. There was one prior to this? No. Is this like two, but there's only two picked up?

There was three that we responded to the request.

Yes.

Yeah, there was two, and out of the three, they did not pick up one. Correct. Okay. Yeah, so there's two that they've picked up so far and one that they did not.

And how does that, is that fairly consistent with past years that you might recall?

I think when I do the presentation, I think we were about nine last year if I've looked at from my responses with the grand jury when they were inquiring about that.

That never sounds familiar.

Yeah. And so at this point, we're halfway through the year, which, you know, we're at three.

Yeah.

Or two per se. And so it hasn't, we haven't seen a huge, huge increase in that regard.

Okay. And thank you for that. And kudos to IT and your work with IT to provide this to the public and the new website on the other side to IT, too.

Okay.

You know, I'm here as a – and again, this is – I want us to do what's right and best for the greater good. And I really appreciate the time that Napa Valley Forward had with me. Napa Valley Together, Forward, Together. Kumbaya. That we had recently. And, you know, I think about this in a couple different ways. One, how do we keep our community safe? How do we prevent further trauma and injustice in our community? And that's for folks who live in our community and fear now, which furies me. And that includes victims of violent crimes. Child abuse, domestic violence, elder abuse that we know are all way underserved and people reacting and retracting also makes it difficult for them to get the help or feel like they can get the help that they need to keep themselves safe too and the system, the criminal justice system to work. I'm looking at this. I don't have a clear view of the best steps forward. I have on face value, you know, what Napa Valley together has proposed. I hear you. That's, you know, that sounds good on face value, the deputy public defender. Same thing, but I am very concerned about making too big of moves to draw too much attention to bring more people from outside in here to creating more fear in our community, more fear in the neighborhoods as the sheriff described, and again, the victims of crime in our community. So I don't have a recommendation. I'm not sure what to do at this point, but that's just kind of where I'm at. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Alessio. Supervisor Cottrell?

Thank you. Again, thanks to Napa Valley Together. Really appreciated that meeting. And I think one of the things hearing from you about snapshots of what's in the community. I mean, we are ground level electeds. And so it's really important for us to know what's happening on the ground. And then we have the opportunity to communicate it up to folks at the state level, too. So thank you for that and know that your messaging goes all the way up there. So, I want to, again, thank you to my colleagues for this recommendation, and I hear what you're both saying about trying to find the middle line. And I also, you know, the things that I'm wondering about are, I appreciate the public defender's point about funding an immigration attorney and the notification piece. Back to Supervisor Ramos' point about we're going to be dealing with the budget in two weeks. So at this point, I can't support the new FTE request. The notification one seems like an easier ask. But then I'm also hearing the sheriff's point about unintended consequences. So I think where I go here is I want to support the work that the ad hoc has done. So I am willing to make a motion to support what the recommendations as presented.

Thank you for that motion. I see. Second. I hear second. And I see Supervisor Gallagher.

Thank you. And I think it helps to frame this. I think as one of my colleagues did, that this is putting this response forward to the grand jury. This is just a piece of what it is we're doing today. That is important. That's our only action today is to do that. And I know our discussion has gone beyond that. And I think that... It warrants more discussion, so I'm in favor of moving the grand jury response forward. I do want to point out, though, that I don't believe that any of the recommendations that came from Napa Valley Together or from our public defender make our community less safe or make us more visible in some way to the federal government. These are internal policies and They are ways of working with SB 54 and doing what we have to do while not exposing people in a way that could harm their human rights. And so I don't think that that doesn't connect for me. I don't think that this opens us up to federal scrutiny or anything like that. So that's just not something that resonates for me. Um, and I do think that. It's incumbent upon us at, you know, to continue the conversation, but also be able to respond to the request of Napa Valley together and to our public defender and have more discussion about it because. It is our duty to do that. These policies are our policies. And so we have to be able to read and examine those and make decisions about them, whether or not we feel we're the experts. We don't have to be the experts. We have lots of people that we can consult with. But ultimately, they land on us. But I'm happy to move the recommendations forward to the grand jury. or responses, sorry.

Okay. So, similarly, I appreciate and support the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, and I presume the Ad Hoc Committee is continuing?

You haven't fired us. Yeah.

Yeah. So great. We think you want us to continue. I'm just making sure because I think this is an ongoing conversation. And that's really what I'm trying to say there, which is that I think that this is ongoing work. Things continually change. And I appreciate the work that's gone on so far and the points that were brought forward today. So I have a motion from Supervisor Cottrell on the floor with a second by Supervisor Ramos. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. And we can continue the conversation and also move on to the next item. Also, it's 1230. Our next item is receiving a presentation from the Sheriff's Office 2025 Annual Report. So this is probably a 30-minute item. Are we good pushing through? Yeah? Okay. So take a comfort break if you need one, and we're going to go ahead and receive a presentation from Sheriff Ortiz. Welcome. Thank you for being with us for this very long morning, which is now the afternoon.

good morning or good afternoon i guess yeah thank you good morning after good afternoon chair and supervisors um today i'm asking for uh or i'm bringing forth the our annual report something um i've done since 2021 our annual report is uh there's a lot of work that goes into that so i would want to extend appreciation for the undersheriff and all the command staff, as well as Deputy Cummings, who did a lot of the work in putting together some of the data. We use this to tell our story to the community from year to year, but we also use it so we can look for trends, look to see where we're at and what we need to kind of focus our resources going forward, whether it's training or positions, as we kind of see what's happening in the community. As sheriff, I'll often get asked, how are things looking? Is crime up or is crime down? Those types of questions. So it's a good opportunity to publish something, put it out to all our community and stakeholder partners up and down the valley, and let people know what their sheriff's office is up to. So a couple of things. I do want to, when we think Sheriff's Office, we think just traditional law enforcement. And I think the simple answer is crime is flat. It's not up. It's not really down. We're still going to do calls for service. We're definitely, we have a lot of what we describe in our vernacular as 10-8 time, which is available time so that we can actually be out there with our head on a swivel while I don't work graveyard anymore. So while we all sleep at night, your deputies are out there looking for nefarious activity so that people aren't breaking into cars or breaking into businesses. So we have plenty of 10-8 times still. It's been a little challenging with some of the staffing shortage, and I'll speak to that in a little bit. But the deputies are really out there doing great work and keeping us all safe. I do want to point out some statistics that our statistic gathering has changed. We just caught this this morning, thanks to Mr. Everling, from the Universal Crime Reporting, which is a catch-all under the title Rape. And it includes a lot of other violent sexual assaults that aren't narrow as the narrow definition of what a rape is. To the Nyberg reporting, which we've transitioned to, which is a narrow definition of what constitutes a rape. So the actual number, if we were to compare past years, if we're comparing apples to apples, is for 2024, the number should read 24, not 9. And for 2023, the number should read 19. So we just caught that error this morning when we transitioned to neighbors from UCR. But again, crime is essentially flat. We also provide our services division. That's restraining orders, serving paperwork, and evictions, as well as our coroner's bureau. So we're still trying to figure out where we're going to land on our evictions number because of a little disruption called COVID. So obviously, evictions were almost nonexistent for a while. And then there was a kind of a true up period when we came out of COVID where we saw a artificial spike in the number of evictions. And it appears we're kind of settling back into a 2019 norm, 2018 norm numbers of evictions. I do want to point out a few highlights. There's more highlighted cases in your annual report publication. I put one up at the dais for each of you. But the internet crimes against children, ICAC cases, we have specially trained detectives who do this crime fighting from behind a screen, internet crime fighting. And these cases are very interesting. troubling when you have people looking to trade child pornography or create child pornography that they can trade, which is even worse, which we had a case in March involving that type of case as kind of one of the worst of the worst kinds of cases, if you will. I also want to point out in June of 2025, there's a seven-hour standoff in Engwin involving our SWAT team and much of our advanced military equipment, or what would be described as air quotes military equipment in the prior consent item you had today. I always say we don't really have any military equipment. All our equipment is law enforcement equipment, but it's all for safety. And we did have a seven-hour standoff with an individual that was armed and shot at a relative and then shot at our deputies. And that resulted in a peaceful resolution. It's making its way through the courts now. So very proud of the team and the assistance we got also from Santa Elena Police Department on that call for service. It was a very high-stress, critical incident that resolved peacefully. As you all know, August of 2025, we had the Pickett Fire. um we were fortunate and that there wasn't a lot of evacuations or populated area it was an impact to calistoga and pope valley um but again the uh the the deputies working together with our friends at cal fire i think had a good response to a very large a very fast growing fire and some rough terrain and we were able to exercise some of our systems in place in terms of evacuation, evacuation communications, working in unified command. And that is something we continue to work on and train on with our partners at CAL FIRE. And then the September one that I'm highlighting, and I'll just give you a quick synopsis. This was an absolute suicide by cop attempt. We knew that the person had threatened that they wanted law enforcement to kill them. The person was threatening that they were armed with a firearm. It turned out they were unarmed. And in an encounter with your deputies, this person very purposely, quickly, and violently reached for his waistband, hoping to elicit a response. In this particular incident, time was on our side. So there was a plan in place. And there were tools in place. Again, some of the tools that were mentioned in the consent item today were in place. And the deputies were able to execute that plan, take this person into custody without shooting him. And that case is working its way through the courts. But the video actually made me jump when I watched the video, because I was very surprised that the shots weren't fired. But very high level of training from the deputies, and just excellent job on their part on that September 2025 incident. We have a sheriff's posse and a search and rescue. These are community volunteers. And the one I want to highlight today, there's other ones mentioned in your report, is the community emergency response team. These green vest teams are up and down. We have Barry S. American Cane is a very well-trained and good participation, one of the top teams in the county. But we have one in Napa and Calistoga. And then we now have one that I'm very proud of, and that's a Spanish CERT, or CERT del Valle. So we've been offering classes in Spanish for basic CERT certification. They've been well attended. And then the follow up, because people go to class and they kind of give up on CERT and they don't participate anymore. But our CERT del Valle is quickly becoming one of our top performing CERT teams. You might see them at a parade doing traffic control or at other functions, but they meet monthly. And they're just a great group. We're very proud to bring that program on. And it's really grown into a successful Spanish-speaking CERT program here in Napa County. This slide, I'll go over it quickly. But I spoke to the September incident with the suicide by cop attempt, or I spoke to the picket fire training, training, training. And that's kind of this capturing some of that data of how much training deputies go through to really deliver a top level of law enforcement to the community we serve. All of you on the board are familiar with our POP team, our Problem-Oriented Policing team. That's the teams you see at some of the town halls you may host or when you have a quality of life issue in your district, whether it's a garbage dump happening somewhere in your district or a particular vandalism. This really, this POP team, oftentimes it's kind of the team that solves these problems that aren't necessarily responding to a 911 call, but it's more of a, it's exactly what the title says, problem-oriented policing. So it's problem solving. And as you can see, they're very busy, 36 events. That might even be an underestimate. They might have done more than that. So staffing, this topic, I spoke to it a couple of weeks ago. But currently, we're at 10 vacancies. That is due in part to retirements. But it's also due, we've grown. Our contract, American Canyon, has grown. We now have four additional positions to move incarcerated people from the new jail to court. So the department is growing, the retirements are happening, and we've been struggling to keep up. In 2025, we processed 776 applications. Four or five years ago, we were doing less than 300. So we essentially doubled. our number for 2025. And we're going to double again thanks to our joinnapasheriff.gov page. We just had probably 40 prospective candidates show up yesterday. I was able to meet with several of them to do some of the pre-testing, the physical agility testing. And that is happening about every month. So our number of applications, the program is working. We're getting lots of applications. we reserved several police academy spots for this summer at three different police academies and we're confident we're going to fill all the spots that we reserve so that is um we plan to continue that that relationship with all-star recruiting for at least another year and try to come back next year with current vacancies be well low into this low single digits is my hope so The other thing that affects windchill is not just vacancies or injuries, but if somebody's in the academy or somebody's still on training, they're not really staffing a shift. So when I say it feels like 19 vacancies, that means we have people that are still training or people that are in the academy, so they're not really filling a shift yet. So we're still feeling a staffing shortage because they're not on their own. As to the earlier slide, there's a lot of training before somebody is on their own, given a patrol car to work by themselves. So that's the minute report. I think I met it under a half hour, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. So, well, your portion was, okay, so do I, let's see, where are we? Oh, my gosh. Is there any public comment on this item on the phones? Because there is no member of the public in the room. Okay. Thank you. No one on the phones. Are there any questions or comments from the board related to this item? see Supervisor Ramos, and then after that, Supervisor Gallagher. MS.

Thank you. Thank you, Sheriff, for this report. I really wanted to focus on a couple of things that you've said in terms of I think I saw in the budget book that American Canyon is adding two deputies. Is that correct? In the contract?

So the way that, no, kind of. And I'll explain it.

They're paying for two.

The way we structured this fiscal year of the contract, because there's so many unknowns on development and house building and also on our staffing challenges, is we wanted to put language in there that if it works for the city, and it works for the county we would add up to two people in this upcoming fiscal year we've been talking to city hall in american canyon we are adding a plus one effective july one uh we were slated to add another plus one at mid-year at january and at this time city hall um which i appreciate because of our we're still training people is gonna is gonna push that off at least till july so we're gonna be plus one for 26 27. not plus two

The other part is, you know, when you talk about 10 vacancies feels like 19, I would like, I've asked this before, I think we need to start really looking at and how we track and maybe it is outside of this. How the workers comp changes. In regards to safety are affecting that versus, you know, you still have a good chunk of your. your rank that is in the retirement of 50, but you're shifting over on the safety PEPRA side. And so, I think, you know, it would be helpful for us to kind of make sure, I can say, you know, back in 2012, one of the warnings that we were given was that the changes in the retirement age to those that have jobs like deputies and firefighters that are far more taxing on their bodies might not be so much realized if we have a lot of workers' comp issues. So I think it would be helpful to understand how much that might be playing into your wind chill and your vacancy factors here.

Yeah, I don't have those specifics for you today. But I can tell you a lot of that windshield is we just had somebody graduate the Academy last Friday. We have three others that are still in the Academy. And we have three that are on FTO. So that's, what, seven? Quick math in my head of people that are adding to that windshield. But we do have people out on injury. I don't know off the top of my head if they're PEPRA or Classic. But again, that windchill includes people that just aren't able to staff a shift yet because they're not fully trained.

OK. And maybe this one's more HR. I don't know. CEO can tell me. Why do we include those that are at academy in your deputy ranking list. They're not able to staff. Why are we including that? Because it feels like we are skewing our own numbers if we know they're not ready to respond.

Yeah, I can speak to that a little bit. And starting in fiscal year 22-23, the board authorized an over-hire plus three because of that exact issue. So while the Sheriff's Office has allocated 116 sworn positions, we can recruit up to 119. Those three kind of bonus positions are essentially a limited term a trainee position so that they don't count against us so that is and that is why we were able to go from 250 applications to 760 is having that over hire by three authorization for the training position

OK. And in terms of, I'll stick on this part first. So you said we added four for transportation, for movement from the correctional facility. And could you speak to that? That's the Monday through Friday going to the courthouse, I'm assuming?

Correct. So we already had, prior to the move of the new jail, we already had a team of deputies. And they're taking incarcerated people to medical appointments outside the facility. They're picking up fugitive people from other jails and bringing them back to Napa to face Napa charges when they have warrants. And they're taking people to state prison every couple of months, a busload at state prison. So with the move of the new jail not being one tunnel away from court when it was here in downtown Napa, we're having to move morning runs and then mid-day or mid-morning afternoon runs back and forth to the new facility. And then sometimes if court gets late, if an incarcerated person is in court late, they might not be getting back over to the jail until after 5 o'clock. So that constant movement back and forth is the four positions. Only one of those four is staffed by an FTE, and I can share that a lot of the work in that space at this time, and it's not a long-term solution, is we're using retired and new intent deputy sheriffs, deputies that are retired, and they're kind of keeping us whole and plugging those gaps until we get our staffing up.

Thank you. And I think this is one of the interesting parts of when we relocated our correctional facility, understanding the additional impacts that would occur. I think it's, I'll just say, maybe I'm going to go ahead and just lob this over as a referral. I think it behooves us to look at We're going to get to a year mark here in August. We'll get to a year mark of the move-in into the correctional facility to understand what those staffing demands are, especially on those routine court appearances. Now that we have the medical clinic and we have providers coming in, certainly the transportation on that side has decreased, but we've increased it over on the correctional side. on hearings and required court appearances. So I think it would be helpful for us to kind of quantify that and understand it. And to just say, we used to, when Corrections was at Hall of Justice, there actually, back in the day, there was a hearing room inside of the building. and to be able to handle some of those appearances. And this may in fact be a moment for us to look at what the demands are for transportation and if it makes sense for us to even add like a court annex, much like we have at Juvenile Hall, and to add a court annex at the correctional facility. We have plenty of space there to be able to address the due process concerns, the holding concerns, and also the transportation concerns. So I'll just put that out there. And then on the All Star, you said All Star is a contract that we have for, that's the, not the recruiting, that's the marketing side of it, correct?

Correct. Well, it's a recruitment and marketing. So they push out our job announcement. You know, they'll invade somebody's cell phone video game or YouTube channel or social media that, hey, Napa Sheriff is hiring, just to kind of pique that interest. And that seems to be, you know, there isn't no newspaper. One ads is not really where it's at anymore.

Sure. And that's working, and you think that that is positive. And I mean, I know you said we've increased this looks like three times our prior applications. What is the quality of the applications that we are receiving?

Thanks for the question. It's a big net. So we have had some of the academy spots we hope to fill this summer are all coming from that recruitment. So that recruitment is not reflected in the 2025 annual report because the website didn't go live until January. So it'll be in next year's annual report. But the people that we're giving job offers to and putting in academies today are coming from those efforts. And they're quality candidates that I feel good about. But it is a big net. And I'll just leave it at that. We're getting some that aren't great. But bigger numbers is good.

Excellent. And then my final question, we had four canine retirements. And I was hoping you could talk a little bit about how you're going to scope out building that's more than half, right? How you're going to look at building the canine program. And I know in the past, we've I would say out loud, you know, if there's that option of adding a canine to the lake after the homicide that took place at the lake, certainly it seems from a deputy safety standpoint that that might be an enhancement. But that's just peanut gallery over on this side. I'd love to hear some more about the canine program, where that's going in light of these retirements.

some of those retirements were happened throughout the year and they've already been replaced and we have one handler and and dog training as we speak so they'll be hitting the street soon and then we have plans to bring on another dog and team in 26-27 fiscal year probably later this summer as you may know it takes about a five-week academy for the handler and the dog So it's a big commitment. It's a big staffing commitment to send somebody off to train with their dog for five weeks. So some of that is in play as well as when we do it. Summer can be pretty busy season for us. Generally, between Memorial Day and Labor Day, we have Bottle Rock and Lake Berryessa on 4th of July. So we try to wait till closer to Labor Day or post-Labor Day to send somebody off for five weeks. But we have all those things either happening as we speak or in the works for later this summer.

Okay, thank you. I have supervisor, oh, I'm sorry, CEO Alsop, go ahead.

I'm very happy to wait, but thank you for the opportunity. Sheriff, I just want to say congrats on all the success with your recruitment efforts. That's great. For the thousands of young men and women tuning in today who might be looking for a career, I just wanted to know if you could quickly go over Who are you looking for in terms of a recruit? Can you describe what the restrictions are, the age restrictions, anything like that? Can you give a general sense of who you're trying to recruit?

There's no age restrictions. So in case HR is watching, we're not doing age restrictions. But we are looking for, we like local. but we're not restricted local we've had people from other counties apply here and do well here we want we hire human beings who can problem solve and that's really what we want that and sometimes that takes life experience so minimum age is 21 and then again there's no maximum age but for these uh 21 year olds they can actually apply at age 20 and a half because by the time They get through the selection process and get to the academy. When they graduate the academy, they'll be 21. So 20 and a half is kind of when we can start taking applications. And we've had some success with that. But historically, we find through the screening process that a lot of 20 and a half and 21-year-olds are not ready to do that level of problem solving that's required of the job. So oftentimes, we just say, hey, come back in a couple of years. And I can tell you, I certainly wasn't there when I was 20 and a half myself. So we want people that want to serve, and specifically they want to serve in Napa County, a very law enforcement supportive community, which is not necessarily true across the country, but Napa County it is. So we want people that appreciate this community and want to serve in this community.

Okay, thank you. I also see Supervisor Gallagher and then after that Supervisor Cottrell.

Great, thanks. And thank you, Sheriff, for the report. And I just wanted to comment that I attended the K-9 unit of the Citizens Academy and it was so fun and interesting and I really enjoyed hanging out with Ruger and seeing the incredible work of the canines and their handlers. It was really, really inspiring and exciting to watch them in action. And I also wanted to say that there were so many uh, young adults that were in the citizens Academy. And I was, I was asking people, you know, how did you hear about this and why are you here? And, you know, they were like, I don't know. I heard about it and social media and it looked cool. And I just, I thought that was great. I was really, really surprised at how many, um, young people there were there. And I thought this is a such a great opportunity for them, whether or not they're looking at it as something they might look toward as a career, just to learn about law enforcement. So thank you for that and congratulations.

Yeah, what I'll share with you proudly is two of the students in the Citizens Academy used to be amateur boxers of mine. So it was really cool to see them there. And historically, the Citizens Academy, we dissuaded people from going through Citizens Academy if their intention is to look into a career in law enforcement. This isn't the purpose of the Citizens Academy. So we kind of pushed them away and kind of steer them in a different direction. We did have somebody go through the Citizens Academy and then decide to apply. And then they're now filling a vacancy. They're on their own, driving up black and white. So we shifted for this particular class that just graduated. It was like, hey, whatever. If you're interested, this might be a good way to explore this. And that had I think the result of a lot of very To your point a lot of young people in our class and it was it was it was a fun class to work with Thanks supervisor control

Thank you. It's always great to see this report because I think there's always more stories that you can tell about your team that the community can hear to better understand the work you're all doing. So I particularly just want to call out the one that you just mentioned, that seven-hour standoff in Angwin that really did not get very much coverage because no one was killed. And so just a shout-out to that team, that SWAT team, because that's a long time, and it's good to hear about St. Helena's support. And again, during the picket fire, saw your deputies everywhere there, so we're so fortunate here to have that unified – that quick move to unified command. I think that makes a big difference. Thank you for explaining the vacancy situation, and clearly you're working hard on that one too. I wanted to flag, I like that you mentioned the CERT program and great to hear about CERT Del Valle too. OES is part of your team because we gave them to you and they are also so critical for community safety. So I would love for them to get a picture and I think a lot of what they do in the community, the disaster response, is what all of your deputies are working on too. And I think it's a good way for people to connect with your team through them. So always like seeing them out in the community as well. And I think the other thing I would flag we've talked before about, we have done two partner events out at Berryessa Estates. And I think those are really valuable in building relationships. community support and trust for your teams, too. So I know we're about to embark into budget season, but I just wanted to flag that. So and really, we're really lucky to have you on the team.

Thank you.

Okay, that will bring us to about a half hour. I see. I tried. I know you did your part. Yeah, you did your part. But I think there's just resounding support here from the board is what you're hearing. And it's so appreciated all the work that you do. And I'll just reflect that I really enjoyed the off-highway vehicle cleanup. uh which i participated in this year at knoxville and uh i was able to attend one a couple of citizens academy days and one was the graduation and uh as described it was a wonderful bunch of people and it's a great program um for the thousands of people listening i encourage you to attend and um and also i wanted to give you a really big shout out for uh being personally present and bringing people to town halls, which you're consistently very available for. And I see that and I appreciate it. And I think it helps a lot to just keep people updated on emergency evacuations and the other good work you're doing in the community. So thank you for that. And thanks to your deputies.

Thank you.

Yeah. And I think that's it because this is just a report. So we are going to break for closed session. We're going to be taking up items 10A and 10C. And after closed session, we will return for public hearings in item 11, 11A through 11E.

Madam Chair, real quick. It's items 10A through 10C. So 10A, 10B, and 10C. And this is expected to take between 60 and 90 minutes. For staff listening out there waiting to come back, I would err on caution of the 90 minutes. Okay, thank you.

Yes, the closed session item is 10. 90 minutes expected. Thank you.

Madam Vice Chair, we're live.

Yes, thank you. Chair Manfrey was called away to a prior commitment. And so before we get started with our public hearing, I'd like to ask our county council, do we have any report from the private session?

Thank you, Vice Chair Alessio. The board met in closed session today on item 10A, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation in the name of the case Julian Contreras versus Napa County Department of Corrections. No reportable action was taken the board also met in closed session today on item 10 B Conference with legal counsel existing litigation the name of the case Phillips v County of Napa No reportable action was taken and the board also met in closed session on item 10 C with labor negotiators regarding the Napa County Probation Professionals Association. Direction was given to the agency's designated representative. No reportable action was taken. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that. We'll start this public hearing process. We have four public hearings. Let's start with the 11A, and that's with conducting public hearing to consider any objections or protests with respect to the assessment proposed for the Wine Grape Pest and Disease Control District for fiscal year 26-27 and adopt a resolution authorizing a levy assessment for fiscal year 26-27. on qualifying properties. Tracy Cleveland, our Ag Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures representative is here for this presentation.

Perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the board. Tracy Cleveland, Napa County Ag Commissioner, Sealer of Weights and Measures. I'm here today to hear any objections about the proposed assessment for fiscal year 26-27 for the Napa County Wine, Grape, Pest, and Disease Control District. The engineer's report recommends the levying of the assessment at $12 per planted vineyard acre, totaling 46,039 acres. The last fiscal year, the assessment was set at $11.50 per acre, so this is a $0.50 per acre increase. As a reminder, the Wine, Grape, Pest, and Disease Control District was reauthorized in 2022 for an additional five-year term. Expiring in 2027, we will begin working on the reauthorization this year. The pest district was formed in 2002 for the purposes of funding the prevention of Pierce's disease, preventing the potential spread of glassy-winged sharpshooter, and was ultimately expanded in 2006 to include activities to control additional wine-grade pests. The pest district has a great board of directors with no board vacancies currently. Some of the good work that the pest district does includes funding various pest trapping programs, including vine mealybug, glassy-winged sharpshooter, spotted lanternfly, and a sentinel trapping pest, which is intended for early detection of wine grape pests that are not known to exist in California. Early detection allows for immediate response and eradication efforts. The pest district supports various exclusion activities, including nursery plant inspections, biocontrol releases for vine mealybug, in addition to trapping for vine mealybug, It supports University of California research, headed up by Dr. Cooper of UCCE locally and her team. And that, of course, is also related to wine grape pests and diseases. And it also supports outreach and education seminars for growers and industry professionals. And we actually have a workshop coming up on June 23rd. Assessment funds are collected and used to support these county-specific programs as well as enhance existing state-supported programs. That concludes my brief staff report. I'm happy to hear any comments or questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Cleveland. Do we have any public comment on this item? Not seeing any here. Do we have any on the phone? Not seeing any. So go ahead and close this public hearing. Do we have any board comments or questions? And not seeing any there. Do we have a vote to have a motion to adopt the resolution?

Yes, I will move to adopt a resolution authorizing and levying assessments for fiscal year 26-27 on qualifying properties.

And a second by anybody? Second? Okay, we have a motion by Cottrell, second by Ramos. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. And there's no nays, so that was unanimous. Thank you very much. Moving on to our next item, 11B. This is another public hearing. This is to consider any objections or protests with respect to the proposed assessment for fiscal year 26-27 for county services area number four and adopt a resolution authorizing a levy assessment on qualifying property owners in the amount of $14 per planted acre. And we have Emma Moyer here, interim director for the housing programs manager that's going to provide a staff report. Thank you, so I'm gonna officially open the public hearing by the way. Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you so much. My name is Emma I'm the interim director at housing community services before you today is a resolution to levy the county service area agreement number four assessment against grape growers and parcel owners here in the county just as just a quick background a lot of you most of you know about this, but it is a really unique public-private partnership. It was established in 2002. The growers in the valley elected to self-assess per acre for every parcel that has planted grapes. Those funds raised go back into the community to develop or operate farm worker housing, farm worker centers. In 2002, when it was originally proposed, the assessment started at $10 an acre. Today, it is $14 an acre. We are not increasing that, so it's the same as last year. It is not a reauthorization year. That will begin in this new fiscal year. It's renewed every five years. And then the amount of that assessment is actually determined by the engineer's report that was before you in May. That report looks at the annual operating budget for the centers and then what we anticipate coming in from the assessment. And that helps us build our budget and understand what the gap funding is to operate the county farmworker centers. In fiscal year 26-27, coming up, we have an assessment of 46,000, a little over, excuse me, 46,000 acres assessed. In this past fiscal year, the current fiscal year we're in, we saw 47,000, so we did see a little bit of a reduction, about 2%. And just over the past 20 years since it was established, more than $11 million has been raised to put back into the operation of the three county-run farmworker centers that we oversee. And just to give you a high-level overview of what those centers are, there are three currently in the county right now that we oversee. There are 60 beds each, so 180 lodgers reside in those beds at any one time. They're open 11 months out of the year. We do stagger their closure per state regulation, but there's always one operating at any time. We are planning to increase the amount that the lodgers pay. So they do pay a nightly rental to stay there. It comes with their meals. They get three meals a day and laundry facilities. It's $19 a night currently. or it will be, excuse me, this upcoming fiscal year. We also partner with agencies like the Farmworker Foundation to provide onsite services for the lodgers, like ESL classes. Public health has come and done screening, so there are services provided onsite. The budget for these centers to run them is just over $2 million annually. 50% of that is raised through that lodger rent, so we rely on that and ensuring that we keep occupancy at those centers. 30% of it comes through this assessment, the CSA-4, and the remaining 20% is a mix of donations. The Napa Farm Workers Centers Alliance, they rebranded this year, but they host a golf outing for us every year, and that funding goes back into the centers as well, along with Joe Cerna funding that we receive from the state. We get about $250,000 annually, hoping that will increase, though. So that is just a little bit about CSA 4. The item before you today is to levy that assessment and authorize the resolution to levy it. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I appreciate your report. Do we have any public comment on this item? Not seeing any in the chambers. Do we have anybody on the line? All right. I'll go ahead and close this public hearing and ask the board for any comments, questions, or emotions. I see any comments or questions.

I will move that we, uh, where are we reauthorize? Yes. Adopt a resolution authorizing and levying assessments on qualifying property owners in the amount of $14 per planted acre for the CSA area. Number four.

Okay.

Okay. We have a motion by Gallagher, a second by Ramos. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. No nays. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you, Emily. All right, moving on to our third public hearing, item 11C, open and move to continue the public hearing for Huggoff and Sellers Winery Appeal, filed by Arianne Matulot, Weathervane Ranch, LLC, who is the appellant. And let me know if I miscommunicated that or... said that, concerning the decision made by Napa County Planning Commission on April 1st, 2026, to find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approve use permit major modification P19-00121-MOD. So we've got Michael Parker here, looks like, from planning, who's going to be presenting this item. And did I pronounce that correctly? Probably not. The Arian Machulot? Machulot. Okay. We'll take it. All right. Thank you. I'm opening the public hearing on this.

Thank you, Vice Chair Alessio, members of the board. Today's requested action is that you open the public hearing, accept any public comment, and then a motion by a board member, second by another, and a vote by the board to continue the hearing to a date certain of August 11th, 2026 at 9 a.m. I'm available if there's any questions.

Great. Short and sweet. Do we have any public comment on this item? We don't. Okay. Very good. And I'm on the phone.

So do we have a motion or any board comments or questions? I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing of item 11C to August 11th, 2026.

I'll second that. Great. We have a motion by Ramos, a second by Cottrell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. And that's unanimous. Thank you very much. Moving on to our last hearing item, 11D. This is conduct a public hearing to consider testimony for county services area number three. on the fiscal year 26-27 assessment of $150,811 and adopt a resolution authorizing the assessment levy. We've got, it looks like we've got our Director of Public Works here, Steve Litter, and so therefore I'm going to open the public hearing.

Thank you, Vice Chair Alessio. The action we're actually looking for from the board today is to continue this item to June 16th at 9 a.m. But in deference to any member of the public who might have turned up for this, we suggest you open the public hearing, which you already did, and ask if there's any public comment before you take the continuance action.

Thank you for that. Do we have any public comment? Not seeing any in the room, none on the phone. Okay, so we've got staff is requesting the hearing to be continued to the June 16th, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting. We have no public comment. Do we have any comments or questions or a motion on the board?

I do have a question as to why it's being continued. Okay.

The item actually there was kind of a little confusion with the noticing so the item got noticed for today But the intention was to do it on the 16th since it was noticed for today.

It's on today's agenda So we need to formally continue it to the 16th so that we don't break that chain from the from the notice and our notice period Well, the notification will continue with the continuance action for today as long as we open it today. Thank you I'll make a motion to continue to June 16th and 98

We have a motion by Ramos. I will second that. I will also just make a note that the recommendation doesn't include the continuance piece. So maybe next time like a correction memo or something. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you for that. So we have a second by Cottrell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. And that's unanimous. So that concludes our public hearing on that. Correct? Oh, we have one more. Oh, look, there's one more. And there's more. Okay, we're moving quickly here. This is item 11E, and this is to conduct a public hearing to consider any objections or protests with respect to special taxes for the Silverado Community Services District. Accept the annual special tax report for fiscal year 26-27 and adopt the recommended maximum special tax totaling $230,026. for fiscal year 26-27. I'm opening the public hearing on this, and again, we'll receive another report by our staff public works director, Steve Leder.

Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. I think you pretty much covered what I was going to say. I'll just mention that the Silverado Community Services District does provide services in the Silverado Country Club area, primarily landscaping, also sidewalk landscaping. services. The engineer's report covered the planned work for this year and set the assessment. Looking forward, this district has historically been underfunded on the sidewalk maintenance side. So one of our goals for this year is to do an analysis of all the sidewalks and the necessary funding that would be needed to bring all the sidewalks up to speed and then address that with a funding request based on what we find in next year's budget.

That's a great idea. Thank you for that. So then I'll go and ask for a public comment. Anybody in the chambers? Anybody on vote? Okay, great. So I'll close this public hearing. Do we have any board members with questions or comments? Do we have any board members who would like to make a motion?

I will move that we accept the annual special tax report for fiscal year 26-27 and that we adopt the recommended maximum special tax totaling $230,026 for fiscal year 26-27.

We have a motion by Cottrell and a second by Ramos. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. And that's unanimous. Okay. Now we finished the public hearings and we are on to adjournment. We will now adjourn to the next Board of Supervisors meeting, which will be Monday, June 15th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Is that correct? Okay. That is correct. Thank you. So we're adjourning this meeting at 3.15 p.m. Thank you.