ple of questions. I'm hoping that council or Mr. Machado can answer these questions before you move forward with this ordinance. The Santa Cruz Sentinel had an accompanying article this morning where they stated that the county can get reimbursed for this work. I read through the ordinance this morning and couldn't find anything about reimbursement. Sentinel may have been mistaken. But if there is reimbursement, it's important to know what that means. Is that reimbursement in the form of grants from state and federal agencies to the county? Or are they talking about reimbursement from private landowners for work that the county does on private property? If it is that, then I'd argue that the specifics of that reimbursement from landowners needs to be in the ordinance with an opportunity for people to look at that and for landowners to provide public comment before you pass the ordinance. That's the first thing. Second thing, our company has personnel and equipment and the ability to deal with debris flows. And I'm just wondering how this ordinance could potentially impact our ability to do that or even if we'd be allowed to do that. And lastly, the ordinance calls for workers, county workers, perhaps state workers, federal workers, or even subcontractors could go on the property to accomplish this work. We have a question about the liability of people that the county has sent on to private property. If someone's injured on those properties conducting that work, is the county solely responsible or does liability lie elsewhere? I'm sure that's a concern that not only Big Creek but other landowners would want to know. And lastly, very curious how the county is going to ascertain where these debris flows occur. Because a lot of that stuff's up in canyons and not very accessible, certainly not visible from roads. So I'm curious how that's going to be, information is going to be developed. So we'd like answers those questions and I'm happy to answer any questions that your board might have. If I may term and answer some of those questions. So I heard four questions in there. The first one is with regard to reimbursement. And so it is not reimbursement from private landowners. We would be pursuing reimbursement from state and federal sources if a disaster declaration does happen. And this ordinance does allow us that ability, which is helpful. The second question was the liability, I believe. And so that liability will fall on the contractor that we hire or on the county of themselves. If it's our own forces. And then what was the, I think I missed the second one actually. Can we turn our company and our equipment personnel? So with regard to that, I think coordination with local forces such as theirs, we'll always entertain that if there's an opportunity. And so maybe we could coordinate on that. Extra resources is a good thing. And then I think the last question was, was your last one? Oh yeah, the location, thank you. So the, what we envision this to be helpful for is if debris flows, especially some of the smaller ones start coming down these channels and creeks and they hold up at roadways, culverts, bridges and such. We want to be able to clear those. Now those, those debris blockages are on private property, but they're up against the roadway. So we'll see them and we want to clear those before they build up into a larger dammed type situation with a larger potential of threat downstream. And so we'll be focused on the ones that are up against roadways and such infrastructure that we maintain. So I think that answers the questions. Thank you. For the questions I have, and I'll check in with Mr. Schauder. Right. Thank you. My name is Becky Steinbruner. I live in the mountains too. And I'm sorry for your loss, Mr. Boulage and for everyone that lost their homes. I appreciate the questions that Mr. Boulage asked. I continue to have concerns that the debris flows are being modeled on what happened after the Thomas fire in 2017 in Southern California. I pointed out to you before that we are in a different habitat. The redwood forests are different. There was already a lot of sprouting going on out there that will help hold the soils. So I urge you to take a cautionary, don't assume that that's gonna happen the same as it did in Santa Barbara. That's what I wanna say. And to that end, I'm concerned that I didn't see anything in the language of this urgency ordinance that private property owners would be consulted with the plans on clearing. I didn't see anything about the Resource Conservation District, which has gone out and told people not to remove trees to let them stay. And that has been my experience too, working with that agency in my rural community that opening up stream channels allows the water to move very fast and can actually cause more damage. So I appreciate the clarification from Mr. Machado that the focus will be on culverts and bridges. And I wanna know that that is the only place really where the state, federal, contractors, county workers would be working and not going on to private property to clear stream beds, because that's how I read the documentation in the packet. I wanna know how the work would be prioritized. And I'm assuming now that you will prioritize monitoring and clearing at culverts and bridges, but will it be more extensive? And if so, how will that be prioritized? Going back to Mr. Borlaja's question is how would these debris flow areas be identified? And I wanna say prioritized. I really appreciate council's respect of private property rights. And I again want to say that we need to include the property owners in any plan to clear because they know the land, they know the drainage, they probably already know where there could be problems and getting the resources to help do work that may be needed would be the best. But I cringe at the thought of federal, state and contractors just coming in on private property and doing what they want to do without the property owners consent or input. Thank you. Hi, Marilyn. Hi. Yeah, as I was listening, I had some of the very same serious questions that are needing to be responded to before something like this has passed. When there are these urgency or emergency measures, how many have we got now going in the county? I think it enables policies that are very questionable. And I'm the conservation group, Becky was mentioning and others who know the ecology of streams and wants to be done. Culvert bridges, blockages on the road, that makes total sense. And that's what the county should do. But where are the property owners on this to give input or even know? I mean, and we in this country, it's like, oh, private property is so sacred. And yet this seems like a violation of those private property rights. So those are very questionable to me. And I have a friend who lives by a stream, I don't, but there are creatures there that come by and I don't know if they're beavers or what they'll block. The river changes course each year where she lives depending on the rain, that the waterfall, how things move and it's just constant. So to think of someone coming in who doesn't know the river or have a sense of the ecology and just go in, they've been like increased flooding when things are just cleared like that. So it seems like this needs to be put on a future agenda after these serious issues are really looked into and resolve, thank you. Yes, thank you. Any other comments? Yes, we have a couple of web comments. First one is from Jessica Peters, Dear Board of Supervisors. I urge you to vote no on this recommended action. What preventive measures are being put into place ahead of the rains? Forcing people out of their homes multiple times is not the answer, nor is tramping on citizens' property rights under the guise of public interest. It is unreasonable to continue to use the events in Santa Barbara County to push this agenda. The conditions and geography do not compare, thank you. And then we have one from Ken Davenport, Dear Supervisors. Why do we need a new ordinance that allows county workers to enter private property and declare a nuisance? Last year, a planning department inspector was caught red-handed on video trespassing on a lady's property. I believe he was fired, but why would you vote to sidestep current citizen protection in the county code? In a bona fide and declared emergency, the government has all the authority it needs to enter the property. I do not support this, and you shouldn't either, thank you. And that's it. Okay. Thank you. Just a quick question, Jason, on an ordinance such as this, does it require four-fifths or does it? Yes, yes, Supervisor, this is a four-fifth vote. I'm assuming it's gonna be unanimous, but I'm just curious. Okay, thank you. Yes.  I would move the recommended actions. Okay. Second. And we have a second, if we call the vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Now that'll take us to item number eight, consider a report on the establishment of- Chair Caput, we're gonna do 7.1 and 7.2. Yes, 7.1. We'll do eight after the break. Later on this afternoon. 7.1 is for the consent items. Yes. It's normally item 21. You're right. Okay. 7.1 removal of, we put them together, 21 and 23 for comment on- I think you probably need to read- Affordable housing on Capitol Road. Chair, do you wanna read it in or do you want me to read it in?  Accept and file the report on the use of property taxes received by the county related to the disposition of the Capitol Road commercial site is recommended by the county administrative officer. And as the board of the supervisors for the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Successor Agency approve revised affordable housing and property disposition agreement by and between the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Successor Agency and Midpen Live Oak Associates LP, a partnership between Midpen Housing, authorize the county administrative officer to execute the agreement and take related actions that recommended by the county administrative officer. You're the one who pulled the item. I don't know whether you had questions that you wanted to have addressed. I pulled it for the transparency part, but I like the, I'm gonna probably vote yes because we're gonna clean up a mess that's been there for years. But anyway, go ahead, open it up for any comment. Go ahead, Becky. Yeah, could you please wear your mask over your nose? Thank you. My name is Becky Steinbruner, Supervisor Caput. Thank you for pulling this, these two items. They are in tandem. And I wanted you to bring them to public discussion because this is a serious matter that needs public discussion, not just shoved under the rug on a consent agenda. The problem I have with it is the contamination that was discovered that's put out in the document is an attachment. The contaminant is PCE. It's a carcinogen. The studies have determined that it's in the water the ground water for the area. The studies have determined that it is extremely high levels of the contaminant. It's perchloroethylene that sticks around. It doesn't degrade in the soil. It is taken into the body via breathing, via soil, via showering in the water and via food. This affordable housing would sit right on top of it. I looked on some of the environmental sites and the main cause of people getting affected by it are from buildings sitting on top of contaminated sites. Now, Supervisor Caput, you've said that the county is going to clean it up. That's not what I read. The county would put in a vapor barrier and just seal it off. How do we know that that vapor barrier would be effective? It's not addressing the contamination in the ground water. The problem I also have is the numbers of contamination that were reported. In the initial two borings, the levels were 8,200 micrograms per meter squared. The second boring was 40,000 micrograms per meter squared. The state allowable limit for commercial buildings to be in sites like this is 67 micrograms. For residential, it's 15. Look at the levels we've got here. So that caused some other borings to be done. In the ground water, it was found to be 192 micrograms per meter squared and the maximum contaminant level allowed by the state is five. I don't think we should be forcing poor people to live here. My other concern is that Mid-County, Mid-Penance Housing has not shown in the documents that they will have the funding moving forward to make sure that they continue to monitor this problem. That is the problem stated in the EPA documents that is a persistent failure that there isn't funding to move it forward. It will be permanent funding that they have to have for the vapor management monitoring. But that's not shown in their operational budget. I also have questions that the county is going to loan the developer three and a half million dollars to develop this land, a million and a half more than it was. The county has also agreed to reduce the cost of the land by a million and a half because of this contamination. Who's going to pay for this? The county has to pay, but I don't see that happening. With the county's finances the way they are, I don't see how the county can afford it. By reducing the amount that you get from this land, you're also reducing the taxes that you would get and that's part of 21. I also, in closing, I just want to say an important part of this was the historic preservation there is absolutely no mention at all of requiring that to be in there. I have a lot more questions. Zero tax credits. Thank you. Please put it on hold. Thank you. Thank you, Becky Steinbrenner. Well, that's a major disclosure of research that Becky has done from the documents in the county that to me seem imperative that you put this on hold. I think when we hear cleanup, when things are toxic forever in the environment, you might move them around or put them in the air, but they're still there. And I've mentioned before to you how it was part of the lawsuit in 1969 to ban a lawsuit of nursing mothers to ban the carcinogenic pesticide DDT, which is long lasting. I was horrified. We all had DDT in our milk. We all have contaminants in us and babies umbilical cords are loaded with something like 200 different chemicals. These productions, this harm should be prevented in the first place. And once it's out there to put it where it's going to contaminate more seems to me just more deadly. So I think this does need to be put on hold. That should not go forward. And I also have a friend who grew up in an area where the housing was over contaminated soil and she suffers all kinds of ill health effects. So this is plus the county or taxpayer money incurring more costs for a project that seems like it should not proceed at all. So I, you know, I see Becky come here. She reads through the documents and what I would like to see is the board like previous boards. I remember when Marty Warmhouse was chair of the board of supervisors because I've been coming here 20 years and she really examined the issues, the facts, listened to the public, put things on hold, didn't proceed with projects that were detrimental to the people and the well-being of this county. And I would urge you to follow in her footsteps. This should not proceed in my opinion. Thank you. Thank you. Could staff come forward and just address the issues about the environmental monitoring and the plan for cleanup? Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. I'm Peter Deltliffe and I'm representing the Office for Economic Development. And I'm joined with Joanna Carpin from Mid-Pen Housing and Suzanne Issa from County Housing. And so in January of early this year, Mid-Pen as part of their development completed a phase two environmental analysis on the site and discovered the dry cleaning solvents through the course of working with Weber Hayes and the Regional Water Quality Control Board from the state. We have gone through a process of identifying, characterizing the extent of the contamination as well as developing a method to mitigate and the contamination for the project as well as ongoing monitoring and management. And so as part of that, we are discounting the price of the land for Mid-Pen to assume the cost of the mitigation and the ongoing monitoring and management. And that plan has the approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Correct. And our Environmental Health Center. Correct. Was the contamination in the past caused by, was it a dry cleaning facility or something? So the source of the contamination was a dry cleaner located on the, excuse me, on the adjacent parcel. And it's our understanding that since the discovery that the water control board is in communication with the owner of the neighboring parcel and working on a cleanup plan with them. How long ago was that, that it's not been used? Oh, yeah, the dry cleaner closed sometime in the 70s. Yeah. Okay. It's been operating as a laundromat since then. Will we be seeking any remuneration from the neighboring property owner, which is the source of the contamination for the contamination of our property? So not at this point. I mean, at this point, the Regional Water Quality Control Board is working with the property owners to find grant resources for them to do the cleanup on their site because they don't have the resources in order to do the cleanup. Well, I think that we should do, you know, that we had hoped to actually develop that property as well. And maybe if they were willing to do a good development, that would be an opportunity to clean up the site as well. Right. To benefit to the entire neighborhood. Correct. In the Water Quality Control Board analysis, do they feel as though the people who are living at this site are in danger? So this kind of contamination is very common. It's one of the most common in the state. And most, you know, urban developments at this point are often dealing with cleanups from gas stations and dry cleaners. And in fact, mid-pen is working on other projects right now. Do you want to speak about that? Sure. Yeah, so thank you guys so much for taking this before. And thank you for all of your leadership and support in affordable housing in general and also here at 1500 Capitola Road. To reiterate, you know, the purchase price reduction does include, it does include not just the cost for the foundation, which is this vapor mitigation system is actually the preferred form of mitigation for contaminants of this type by the Water Board and by DTSC, the state agency as well at this time. Since that's been for the last handful of years, this is their preferred measure. We're even going a little bit above that. And we are going with the more active foundation system. This foundation system will trap, this is for all of the buildings on the site, not just the affordable housing, so for the clinics as well. The foundation system will trap any source of off gassing of this, of the soil. And it will also have monitoring. So to that question, there is the purchase price reduction includes the construction cost to create this foundational system that would trap and make sure it does not go into the buildings, as well as reserves to account for a 30 year monitoring plan associated with this. So we have gone through great lengths and we really appreciate the county has worked, staff has worked with us so closely and making sure that we are working closely with the Water Board in hand. And so we've gone through this every step of the way with all partners on board, making sure we are doing everything up to the levels and standards that we would require at this site. So thank you again. Yes, given our earlier discussion today about the difficulty in securing housing and having a variety of housing opportunities in our community, this site becomes as important as any site that we have here in Santa Cruz County. This is not trying to put something under the rug as has been claimed. This was all the information that was shared with us today was available in publicly available documents in which the midpen housing and two health clinics who serve their clients fairly well and care about their clients have reviewed this information with their own environmental health experts and the Regional Water Quality Board has approved a plan of mitigation. It's not taking it unseriously, reducing the price by over $2 million to ensure that the agency has enough money for a long-term maintenance and mitigation of this is incredibly important. And that will mean loss of revenue to the county, which would have received 18% of that money. It means loss of revenue for the school district and the fire district and the library who would have received a portion of this money. But it's important that midpen housing and their LP would have the resources necessary to create this foundation and mitigate this problem. This is gonna be a great resource for our community. And to that point, I would like to highlight some of the community benefits associated with this project. The partnership is a really innovative partnership between midpen housing and also Santa Cruz Community Health and Dientes Community Dental. The new site will be providing services, health and dental services to 10,000 county residents, as well as 57 homes for low-income families, of which, and to the point from the study session earlier, 15 of those units will be for supportive housing. And so it is a really valuable resource and I just want to reiterate that there is a lot of benefit to this for the community as well. Yes, this project went through extensive public discussion. It involved hundreds of people. We approved this in November of 2019 and it would be under construction, if not for the discovery of this contamination and the planning necessary to protect people from this contamination. To believe that somehow we're trying to pull the rug over people, you'd have to believe that midpen housing doesn't care about the people that they serve. The Santa Cruz Community Health Center doesn't care about the people that they serve. The Dientes Dental Clinic doesn't care about they serves and the county of Santa Cruz doesn't care about they serve. It's not realistic. It's the kind of conspiracy thinking that blocks projects and as we mentioned earlier, in the sighting of projects, people always look for something to stop projects. This is a good project at a great location and will be a welcome addition to our community. I move approval of both these items. Anyway, thank you for showing up and sharing the information here on this item. I appreciate you coming. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, we have some web comments. We do have a motion. We have some web comments first. Okay, yes. This one is from Laura Marcus. I'm writing on behalf of Dientes Community Dental Clinic and Dientes Community Dental Care, a partner of Santa Cruz Community Health and Midpen in the development of the property at 1500 Capitola Road to establish a health and housing hub in the heart of Live Oak. I am writing in support of Consent Item Number 23 and approval of the AHPDA. We have been working together since 2017 to establish plans for this property, holding community meetings to gather neighborhood input, working with the county of Santa Cruz to establish appropriate use of this site and with our boards and donors to ensure funding is in place for a successful implementation. I am confident that we are the right partners for this property and this project to serve the community. I cannot stress the importance of approving this item today as it will impact our ability to move forward with the purchase permitting, lending and start of construction on a timeline that will impact many funding milestones. Thank you for your partnership and your consideration. Thank you to the CEO, Diantha's Community Dental Care. We have another one from Leslie Connor, a CEO of the Santa Cruz Community Health. I am writing in support of Consent Item Number 23. This has been pulled for further discussion today. It is fitting that your board's approval of the AHPDA follows such a lengthy discussion on preventing and reducing homelessness in Santa Cruz County. Three partners at the 1500 Capitola Road Project Santa Cruz Community Health, Diantha's Community Dental and Mid-Pin Housing are all committed to promoting the health, safety and prosperity of the low income members of our community. Our project plan includes increasing access to high quality integrated healthcare for 10,000 people a year plus 57 units of affordable housing that are sorely needed and play a part of the county's strategic strategy to increase housing stock.  We are working hard to secure site ownership and permit approval so we can break ground in April 2021. We cannot afford additional delays at this time because such delays may cause us to the forfeit funding that is eminent. We respectfully ask the county to continue to support it, continue its support of the 1500 Capitola Road Development by approving the AHPDA. This effort will have lasting impact for generations to come. We sincerely appreciate the collaboration and support of the county's supervisors and staff have shown us to date. Thank you Leslie Connor. And that is it. Thank you. Chair, we actually need to take this as two when we go to a call for a vote on this, we need to take this as two separate motions. We cannot combine both of them. So if we can take it at 7.1 and then the next one is 7.2. A motion on 21 and a motion on 25. Correct. I think Supervisor McPherson wanted to weigh in. Yep, by Bruce. I don't know if the supervisor Leopold had made the motion on 23. I was just going to second it. If that's proper or do you want to go to 21 first? Well, let's do 21 first. I'll make the motion on item, the recommended action to accept and file the report on, on item 21. I'll second that. Okay, we'll call for. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Chair Crapit. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Motion 21, 23. I would just say recently I had Betsy Wilson on my town hall and I likened her to Indiana Jones. And you remember that scene in Indiana Jones in the first movie Raiders of the Lost Ark where he's in a cave and he's going to grab the statue. And then all of a sudden the arrows are flying and the ball is rolling and the earth is opening up. That's like affordable, building an affordable housing complex. There is just hurdle after hurdle after hurdle that is presented to you in order to get it done. Sometimes they're not very dramatic. They, they involve funding hurdles. Sometimes they involve neighborhood backlash. Sometimes they're environmental. But there is never an easy path and there's never affordable housing developer that goes in and says, yes, I'd like to do this. And everybody goes, yes. And they throw money at it and it gets built. It takes a lot of work. We should be proud of the work that we did to engage the community, find a project that's going to actually contribute to the health and welfare and address our housing shortage here in Santa Cruz County. And I'm confident that the, this environmental issue has been addressed seriously and safely for the people who will live there. I move approval of what was formerly item 23 and the recommended actions. Second. Okay. We'll call for the vote. The Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Chair Caput. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. We'll now go to item number. Chair Caput, I think we're going to take a break for closed session and lunch. We are scheduled to return at 130 for item 11 and then we'll take up item eight and nine. Okay. That'll be fine. And there's nothing reportable out of closed session. Pardon. Is there anything reportable? There's no reportable item out of closed session. Thank you. We'll come back at 130. I need your help again, John.  It's item number 11. You want me to read it in? We're going to go to eight. No, we're going to do the 130 scheduled item. We're going to go to 11 first. 11. Okay. Item number 11. Consider approval and concept of ordinance adding chapter 2.13 to the Santa Cruz County Code to establish a public defender's office in a position of public defender. Schedule the ordinance for second reading and final adoption on November 17, 2020. And direct the county administrative office to continue to work with key stakeholders and return in February 2021 with the detailed transition plan as outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative officer ordinance adding SCCC chapter 2.13 public defender. Any questions from board members on this item? Chair Caput, I have a presentation and then we'll go to the public comment and your questions. So good afternoon. I'm Nicole Cover, an assistant CAO. I'm joined here today by principal administrative analyst, Sven Stafford, and together we're going to walk you through a very brief presentation. This is our agenda for this afternoon. We're going to provide an update on board direction from the October 6th meeting and information that we were asked to provide. Then we'll go over the ordinance that's being proposed today and discuss recommendations and next steps. So just as a reminder on October 6th, the Board of Supervisors heard a presentation from our office on transitioning towards a public model and during that meeting the Board provided some additional direction and requests of us. We were asked to meet with the criminal justice partners. We were also asked to work on creating a clear hiring policy for the existing staff within the public defense firms and we were asked to report on what California counties are meeting national standards and the cost of meeting those standards and we were also asked to return in November with an update and that's what we're here to do today. So since we last met with you we have arranged weekly meetings with our criminal justice partners. We've so far met four times since October 6th. This includes the Bigham law firm, the conflicts law firms, the Superior Court, the criminal defense program and personnel, our personnel director and our county administrative office. Everyone who's been participating in these meetings I believe have really appreciated the improved communication and the outreach to everyone. Everyone we've walked through and been very transparent about our plans so far and asked to get some feedback from them on those plans. We're trying to address any concerns that they have before we come back to the board with a final transition plan. All of the partners in these meetings have read or in support of the ordinance being proposed today so that we could start to move towards a public model. The work underway has been to work out a detailed transition plan. We're trying to work through addressing the concerns raised with the process for hiring and retaining staff within the firms and addressing what that might look like for the Bigham firm as well as the conflicts firms. Discussions are well underway on staffing and we're also trying to figure out the best timing of the public defender recruitment. Like I mentioned, we presented our plans as we had proposed them and the partners have responded with their concerns and we're trying to find consensus by the end of this calendar year and work on an item to bring back a more detailed plan next calendar year in February. So I'm going to turn it over to Sven who's going to discuss our research on the national standards. Alright, thanks Nicole. Good afternoon board. So to address a couple of the other directions from the October 6th meeting, we did do research on 11 other counties with public systems that we thought were similar and represented in close comparisons to Santa Cruz County. None of those 11 publicly report caseload standards of the handful that we were able to talk or email directly with. There was a general fear of those data being misunderstood by the public or potentially misused by other law firms and attempts to potentially get their boards to favor a contract model away from a publicly funded model. There was one county similar in population that does have a public model that did say they took national standards and used those to guide their local standards. In doing so, they have a standard of attorneys closing out no more than 400 misdemeanors per year and attorneys closing out no more than 100 felonies per year which tracks fairly closely to what the national standards are. And finally in Fresno County which is a historically underfunded county and doesn't compare to Santa Cruz County in that sense they did settle with the American Civil Liberties Union a couple years ago and in their settlement they are required to meet those national standards and report quarterly on those. In terms of funding a public office we were asked to come back with the cost of fully funding the 6AC recommendation. A couple of caveats first is that we still believe that we don't have good enough local caseload data to make the staffing determination. We do believe that we need to bring the attorneys over to get a caseload management system and build those local standards. There's additional uncertainty created right now by the diminishing caseloads that are able to happen in the court due to COVID-19 some changes in the state law. Additionally a lot of the caseload impact cited in the 6AC report was in the misdemeanor filings. Currently the district attorney is embarking on a neighborhood court program to help reduce the amount of cases that even get to the misdemeanor court so that could have hopefully would have an impact on the number of cases and the caseloads going forward. On the other side there is just continuing complexity created by the extensive digital profiles that people are creating through emails and phones and other devices that makes trying cases more complex. There's also the continued use of specialty courts such as the behavioral health court where those cases take more time and on the other hand they do provide for potentially more sustainable justice for those clients that enter them. So there are factors on both sides that drive caseload numbers locally. In terms of the budget you can see in the table here that the current contracts we have provide about 13 million dollars of funding that provides for about 35 attorneys who actually carry a caseload. We don't know the exact number of support staff in those current contracts. To fully fund the 6AC recommendation would be about 16.6 million. It would have 44 attorneys carrying a caseload and 54 support staff which would include in this case the public defender, supervising attorneys, paralegals, investigators, social workers and other administrative staff. In the CAO recommendation we said that we could fit a reasonable office within our current budget envelope of 13 million dollars that provides for about 38 attorneys to carry a caseload and about 39 support staff. We also want to note that in comparing Santa Cruz County's funding of indigent defense to other counties we compare pretty favorably with the other 11 counties that we looked at both in terms of per capita or the second highest funded indigent defense system among those 11 counties and in terms of looking at the public defender budget as a percentage of the district attorney budget it's actually the best funded of those 11 counties. So the ordinance that we're bringing before your board today is the same ordinance that we brought on October 6th. It's supported by all the partners including the Superior Court and the Bigham law firm. It creates authority for the board to establish a public defender's office and establish the position of the public defender and it's simply the first step towards that office. The ordinance doesn't in and of itself implement a transition plan or begin a public defender recruitment or in any way supersede the process that we're undertaking with our partners in the court and the public defender law firms. And with that I'll give it back to Nicole to talk about the recommendations and next steps. So today we're asking the board to approve the recommended action shown here. One is to approve in concept the ordinance establishing a public defender's office and the position of public defender. The ordinance would be brought back for a second reading and final adoption on November 17th if approved by the board today in concept. And then of course our office would like to continue to collaborate with the justice partners and return with a detailed transition plan no later than next February. We feel like we've had really productive conversations so far. We've been able to hear their concerns and I believe we have ways to address them and come back with consensus. And so we appreciate all of the guidance of Larry Bingham our public defender and the conflicts firms in the superior court and we would ask that the board approve these actions today. And we're happy to answer any of your questions. Okay. Thank you. We'll open it up to the board for questions. Supervisor McPherson. Yeah, okay. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. And I'm glad that the parties were able to get together and our goal here is really to serve the community the best of our ability. So I think we're on the road to doing that. I believe creating this office as an accessory agency to the great work that's been done by our public defender is the right way to go. I want to thank you again to our CAO and their leadership in bringing this item to the board and spending some additional time. As I mentioned, to that end, I'd like to know what additional information has been gleaned. I think you probably mentioned some of this, but from those conversations since early October and just the shape, you pretty much explained that, but are you pretty confident you can do this under the same spending envelope that we have existing today? Provisor McPherson, to answer your first question on the additional information we've gleaned, we spent each meeting with the partners to hear all of their concerns, and I think we've learned about their concerns related to not wanting to disrupt operations and limit the impact on current operations. So we've heard that loud and clear and we're trying to figure out how's forward to try to limit those disruptions. A lot of the concerns relate to how we're going to hire and retain the staff at the firms, and so we're trying to address those concerns. And then the timing of the public defender recruitment, there's concern about when that's going to take place and whether it might impact, whether attorneys stay or go. So we're trying to address that as well. And so all in all, it really has to do with trying to keep things moving forward and limiting disruptions to the greatest extent possible. And so hopefully that answers your question. And then in regards to the second question regarding the budget, we do believe we can establish a public office within our current budget envelope, and it will be something, you know, as we get a case management system and get a better handle on our local data and standards that we want to implement, we can build out the office from there. Okay, thank you. Supervisor Coonerty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have any questions. I appreciate the outreach that's been done and the collaboration to get us to a good end point. So I want to appreciate all the meetings that have happened since our last meeting and look forward to moving this forward. Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you also for your continued collaboration with our justice partners. I think that we need to have a smooth of the transition as possible. I also appreciate the work you did reaching out to other counties and get a deeper dive into the Sixth Amendment Center's findings. I do think that the report probably had some findings that really weren't practical for our community to implement and aren't realistic. And so I think it's important that we do do a local review as Mr. Seford had mentioned, which is to once we finish this transition, really do a case analysis internally to determine a best practice model for us. Because I think some of these nationalized standards of which it, I mean, I think one of the reasons that other communities weren't willing to communicate them was because it's because they're not meeting them. I mean, I think if they were, if they were meeting some of these standards that the Sixth Amendment Center had outlined, I think people, and I respect what they were trying to do about being concerned about releasing the information, but realistically, I just don't think that many communities across the country are meeting these expectations that were outlined in that report. And I don't think that our community would be necessarily any different. So I do think it's important for us to outline ways to improve within our own metrics that are actionable and doable. And so I appreciate that. I actually look forward to hearing it also for members of the community about this continued process and ways that we can ensure that this transition be as seamless as possible. But thank you to Ms. Koberin and thank you, Sven, for your work on this. Okay. Thank you, Supervisor Leopold. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for this update. I take it as a good sign that the judiciary is not here challenging us about what we're doing. That's probably, we're probably moving in the right direction with that. I do think it would be worthwhile to include some of this information about what other counties are doing as an addendum to the report. So when people, that report is going to come back to haunt the County of Santa Cruz. That's Sixth Amendment Center report because it may mischaracterize something in the judiciary. I don't have the information to know that, but we heard very clearly from the judges that that was misrepresented and getting this comparison information from the other counties also is helpful to contextualize what that information is because I think that the idea that we would be held to a standard that no one else is meeting, it's just going to be a problem down the line. And so I think it's important to have that as an addendum to make sure that any electronic copies that go out, that it has that information, so it better reflects what the actual situation is. You know, it's nice that if we spend the money that we can actually have more attorneys and support staff or possibly more support staff, we don't know. But we're actually putting less money in instead of more money in even with that. And my hope when we started this process is that we were actually going to invest more money in. You pointed out in this that we're spending relatively to the DA's office more than anybody else. But we got a 200 page report that told us about all the failings of our system. So the fact that we're spending more doesn't give me any feelings of contentment that we're actually meeting the needs of the community and when it comes to their public defense. And so while we can feel good that we might be spending more comparatively, if we're trying to meet the needs of the report that we paid for, we should actually be investing more money into the system. And so, you know, that'll be for our future board to make a decision about. But it's going to, you know, it's, you can find these measures, right? You know, it's always, you can present something and without the context, it makes it seem like you're doing a lot. But if you look at the whole package, you would say, well, we're not. I mean, here's a report that told us all the problems we had and either we're doing better than most or we're not using our money well. So you can't have it always. So you have to consider that and that should have been thought about in the context of the report. I'm looking forward to hearing the comments in the public and I may have more questions after that. Yeah, I'll thank you. I'll make a few comments and questions, but we'll have the public defenders and the, you know, have their say also. But timing is a key thing with everything. Ever since I've been chairman of the board, everything has fallen apart as far as county government we know. Now that might be my fault, right? Yeah. I don't know, but I'll tell you. That's the way the rest of us are all considering it. I don't know. But I'd like to, you know, cancel the year and start it over, but we can't do that. And I think we're doing the best we can. I don't like the timing of this. Okay. Nicole, you've been doing a wonderful job stepping in for Carlos Palacios. Well, he's recovering from an operation, but we not only don't have a regular CAO, but we have an interim CAO and that's putting a lot of responsibility on you and a lot of blame on you actually from people that disagree with the decision. We had fires, COVID-19, everything breaking out. We have a full plate. We're dealing with all kinds of different things that are coming at us from different directions. And if it's working, everybody's saying it's working. Nobody wants to say a bad thing about the public defender's office. If it's working, what's the rush? Why are we rushing? We can take our time and look at this one year from now and then everything hopefully will be more calm. We're going to make the same decision and time, especially, I don't know, when you're raising kids, one day they're like five years old and a week later they're 10 years old. Time goes by quick. All of a sudden things you go, God, it couldn't have been just, it seems like it was a year ago and it was five years ago. So I'd like to put it off until like a year from now and I might agree then that it's time for a changer and have everybody agree. I like also the idea of public defenders being independent. Somehow the legality, I'm sure it's legal probably, but the legality of having your district attorney on county payroll, same entity as paying for them and then also having the public defender's office under the same entity getting paid by the same payroll. You have both sides, the prosecutor and the defendant. There's a lack of independence that seems to be glaring in my opinion and national standards. I saw that in there in the report. National standards, the current public defenders are meeting national standards? Our current firms, based on the current staffing ratios and case loads, they do not meet national standards. They are not? They do not. No, based on the current case loads and staffing levels, they do not. But staff was unable to find any county that is meeting those standards? They might disagree with that. Is that our determination? That was a calculation that was made. Well, we'll let them answer that. You know, I went along with district attorney's neighborhood court that will take some of the case load off of smaller cases that might come before us. So that'll, we'll be able to look at bigger cases a little bit closer. But anyway, I'm going to either, I don't agree with it. The timing is very bad. And if we waited a little longer a year, that's, they're going to go by real quick. Then I could, we can all look at it and we can make a decision then. It would also allow the current public defenders, they have families, they have problems, the same problems we do. And this is a big change. This is not like, you know, some little nudge changing a little bit here and there. This is the total transition, total change and everything. And it would give them time and us time to look at it closer. So anyway, I'll open it up to, I guess what's the next step? I'll let the public defender speak. Public comment would be next. First them and then we'll open it up to the public. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I'm Larry Bigum, your contract public defender. And I want to thank the CIO staff for reaching out and making this process more collaborative. The communication and the cooperation has clearly improved. And I'm grateful. I have no issue with today's ordinance giving the County the ability or the eventual option to create a public public defender's office, but do not change our defense delivery system. Simply because you believe the current contractual model is somehow broken or defective or even unethical as that Boston report suggested or inferred. In fact, today's CIO's report on page two repeats a portion of that report when it says at least four states have also banned flat fee contracts for indigent defense akin to those currently administered by the County of Santa Cruz. We have no kinship with those flat fee contracts. We are not a flat fee contract in Santa Cruz County. We are a flexible fee contract and we always have been. Let me explain. In a flat fee contract, all the cost come out of the contracted amount including investigators and experts. So the firm's profit margin is reduced by the expenditures on experts and investigators. That would de-incentivize the hiring of experts and investigators. That would de-incentivize vigorous, thorough and effective advocacy. Those flat fee contracts should be banned in all states. But that's not what we are in Santa Cruz. I am contractually obligated to provide seven full-time investigators. It's a fixed cost in my contract whether I use them or not, and we use them. If I want an expert, I have to go to Tamara Rice and explain why it's relevant and required and if she grants that request or if a court grants that request it comes out of a separate budget bucket separate from my firm. Using investigators and experts in Santa Cruz County does not reduce our bottom line. We also have a clause and escape clause for extraordinary fee cases such as capital cases that could really bankrupt a firm. On extraordinary fee cases, which are rare but we have one now, they are billed outside of the contract. The fact that four states have banned flat fee contracts is frankly irrelevant to Santa Cruz County and misleading. We shouldn't confuse or conflate these two and I just want to make that very clear today. Our system of providing an indigent defense is ethical, it's performance effective and it's cost effective. On page four of the CAO's report today it talks about spending for a hundred thousands of residents and we're toward the top with Napa and Marin but there's a big asterisk that should be behind that fact. Our crime rate is very hyper capita. Our population can double on the weekends just ask the sheriff. They know far better than I. We are the playground for the Bay Area and on Tuesday and Monday morning we have a lot of orange jumpsuits in our criminal courts that hide too hard. We have more crime per capita than Napa and Marin. Our cost per case in defense spending is much less than the Bay Area Public Defender Offices including Napa and Marin. With respect to a percentage of the DA's budget Santa Cruz is the highest in the state I heard or I read we need to be careful with this data and yes we could use more but it's apples to oranges we're a private firm in our budget that includes janitorial and lighting and equipment and parking and IT and personnel a lot of those costs are not in the DA's budget they're in the county budget you gotta be careful here but of the 13 million spent on indigent defense our firm which does 89% of the cases cost 7.5 million which is about 60% of the dollars plus whatever it is for experts and frankly I don't have that so you're getting a very good bang for the buck right now with the bigam firm which does the vast majority of this work my concern look there are good and bad aspects to any delivery system the public model or the private model and I've said this before my concern is really not the delivery system the quality of defense services depends less on the delivery system and more on the leadership and the staff and the resources and the political support that Fresno office which just got sued recently by the ACLU was a public model I hire people out of that office I still don't think they need the national standards anecdotally I'm informed they don't but I don't have the data in front of me my concern today is less about moving to a public model eventually my concern is the timing of such a transition or a move which can affect the ecosystem of the criminal justice system I've been told there's never a good time to make a change like this but there is a bad time and that time is now we're in a pandemic the courts are dealing with an avalanche of unresolved cases that keeps building every day and we have no exit ramps or jury trials we just started jury trials and we're going to do one a week that won't cut it that won't cut it so we've got this we're running from this avalanche of unresolved cases that keeps building and it's a pandemic which is triggered it changes and delays and stress in both the courthouse and in the jail to the extent that we've survived as we have it's due to the relationships and the trust and the stability in the system right now I think changing your public defenders in the middle of this crisis is risky and unnecessary I don't speak for the judges and the DAs obviously but I think they would agree with me I believe we'll be prudent to delay the transition for at least a year perhaps two so we can catch up and hopefully get back to some sense of normalcy as you noted earlier Chair Cabot this is a big move which affects a lot of justice partners besides my office and my staff and my clients including the jail and the DA's office and the judges and probation but regardless of when this move is made I intend to keep working with Fen and Nicole and your board and the judges to make this transition as smooth and successful as humanly possible under all these circumstances thank you Mr. Bingham could you just say a little bit more about why you think a year or two from now things will be different enough one could argue that right now when there's fewer trials going on that that might provide an opportunity to work out some of these details so I'm just I wonder if you could say more about that I think there's a lot of chaos right now in the system and a lot of moving parts and I'm concerned that the clients are getting lost in the shuffle today John and if you start changing lawyers and in this context I'm afraid that the clients are going to be lost and lose that relationship with their lawyer and obviously their lives and liberty or mostly their liberty are at risk that's a concern it's hard to keep a track keep a track on what's going on right now and I just think if I lose lawyers in the transition when I lose a lawyer I don't lose just an employee I lose they lose their lawyer 100 clients who lose their lawyer so if I lose a lawyer I've got 100 clients who've lost their lawyer and how do I backfill if I've got 6 months or 8 months go it's hard to go hire a lawyer no one's going to move to Santa Cruz for that kind of job assurance I just think we need to move slowly here well I know our direction at the last meeting was to come up with a maturity about the hiring of the existing public defenders into our new system and it seemed at least from the report here was that there was positive movement on that that we don't obviously have anything here in front of us but the idea that we're going to try to have as good of a transition with those folks so it does not impact your firm in the meantime was the goal I think I'm not sure if anybody wants to weigh in on that I think you've stated it correctly and we are working we laid out a plan that would involve some orientations starting in the new year and ending in job offers by next summer so that's what we would like to work on we're still talking about that and I think Nicole and Sven understand the need to keep my lawyers down on the farm so they can do their job and get us to a lawyer during these tumultuous times if I lose staff it's very, it's going to be traumatic not only for the clients but for the courts because that triggers delays further than what we already have and we already have the shelf life for these cases now is doubled what it was two years ago and they understand the issue I just want to make sure that I can keep the staff down and I'm just saying every week we get new changes the court process we're all trying to surf these tumultuous waves right now alright thank you I really appreciate it thank you for all you've done for us I have a question too as far as independence goes any of you can answer I don't have the term in my mind when somebody doesn't think they had good representation sometimes they go after their attorney what's that called it's called a Marsden hearing if you feel you need you're not getting along with the lawyer and the relationship is broken down you can ask the court to appoint a new lawyer under a case called Marsden they blame like the result on the attorney well we get blamed a lot sometimes yeah I know with the independence if that were to happen hypothetically you would have to deal with it if it was a county employee then county council would be involved also is that correct I don't know I think that would be taken up by the public defender's office we'd have to defend somebody that's our employee right in county council would probably have an attorney assigned to the public defender's office a lot of times in closed session or whatever there's a deal so what I'm getting at is the cost is more if we have to deal with it we have the liability then if we don't it depends what the situation is and yeah it's solely hypothetical the issue though is critical and you did bring it up and one part of the Sixth Amendment project that I actually agree with is when they said the public defender needs to have a good cause only for him or her termination and I really think independence is critical because we speak truth to power we try to keep the cops the judges and the DA's on the rails so they don't take constitutional shortcuts so sometimes we're not very popular and if I'm the public defender with an at will to you guys or to the CIO it could neuter my advocacy that's my concern independence is critical to a good public defender office that's one thing that we have and if we're going to change it I would hope you give your public public defender a contract with a good cause only termination so that the sheriff or the judges can't call you some night and say get rid of these guys there are pain in the back so I'm just saying we need to work carefully and then we are I'm working now and talking with Nicole and Sven and we're trying to work out some of these issues yeah I guess the last thing too is I remember I got called for jury duty about two years ago and I showed up I knew I would probably end up being I could have got out of it I could have said I'm a supervisor or whatever but anyway I went through the process and I almost expected they go well you know what's your relationship with the sheriff's department what's your relationship with the district attorney's office and I told them we're familiar I mean I say hi I consider all good you know guys and whatever and anyway they excuse me they said thank you that was the right thing to do because of the familiarity of myself and the DA's office just saying hello it's not like we're going out for dinner or going to a movie together or something and also with the sheriff's department so what I'm getting at is the independence is hard to break when you're looking next door to fellow employees of the county of Santa Cruz anyway that's just a little inside of my own I wouldn't qualify to be on that jury because of my familiarity and so if I was independent of the county I was a supervisor or somewhere else then it would be okay I wouldn't be familiar with anybody so anyway that's the important thing to me about independence if I wouldn't qualify to be on the jury I wouldn't qualify to you know have to deal with the district attorney's office and the public defender's office all under the same umbrella county of Santa Cruz anyway we'll open it up to the public for public questions or comments we have any we have no public comment and anyway I'd like to just put this off there's really no reason to rush and no reason to have hard feelings on anybody's part I'll make an amendment or a motion that we look at this one year from now after the COVID-19 is over and also after people have somewhat recovered from having the huge fires that we've had in the county of Santa Cruz everything is finally somewhat getting back to normal this is not a little change this is a big change and it's something that needs to be looked at under a calm atmosphere without all kinds of pressure coming from all sides and a year will go by like and we'll be looking at it so I don't know Chair Caput the motions need to come from one of the other members but I did want to reiterate that you know we've been looking at this and thinking about this for quite some time now and this ordinance would allow us to you know think about how we're going to make this transition so this is not something you know that we've taken lightly this is something we've been seriously considering for quite some time and you know I would urge the board to push forward with this ordinance so that we can move forward and make this the first step toward implementing the transition now how that transition looks and the timing of it we're going to come back to the board in February with that plan back in what? February no I saw that I'm saying that we actually look at it put it off for a year and then come back and look at the whole thing and hopefully everybody be totally at ease with the whole thing the CAO's office and the public defenders and the judges for that matter I don't know but I can't make a motion right no but if somebody makes that I can second it I can ask if any board member would consider putting the transition from going from private to public employees on this for one year you don't all have to rush it at the same time Mr. Chair Supervisor I hear what you're saying and I do understand it although I still think that what's before us today is the creation of a process something that I heard Mr. Bigum say that he supports in concept the creation of the process the concern is with the details over the transition and the timeline of the transition and how the transition will look which are concerns that I share so but what's before us today is the initiation of a process that allows the work behind the scenes to ensure that this can actually happen at all so I'm going to move the recommended actions and this is an additional direction this is just additional commentary and just say that the board still wants to ensure that these voices are at the table and that they're taken seriously as it sounds like those discussions have been occurring for the last four weeks because the issues around the staffing and issues around the timing are very important issues I know to the entire judiciary not just the public defender directly so anyway I'll move the recommended actions the recommended action with comments also comments are not additional direction there's just I think that Ms. Coburn I think that Nicole and Sven are understanding that the board that what the board asked for a few weeks ago has not changed in our concerns regarding how this transition will take place this is just a support in the initiation of the creation of a public defender's office but it's the very initial stages in the February what really will be of interest again is what comes back in February with the outlines of the transition so I'm supportive of the initiation today which is what's before us which is why I'm moving the recommended actions I'll second that okay I guess that concludes public comment and we're ready for a vote call for a vote Leopold aye friend aye McPherson aye no here we go to item number 8 is it 8? consider the report on the establishment of the office of response recovery and resiliency of approved transfer of funds from contingencies in the amount of $600,000 for the OR-3 in fiscal year 2020 and 2021 approved addition of two full-time equivalent positions to staff OR-3 programs and operations and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative office or CSU fire recovery framework AUD-74 transfer of funds for OR-3 we have a report and then we'll have questions from the board okay good afternoon board members I'm Melody Serino this is Matt Machado and we're both deputy CAOs we're here to follow up on the intrusion that the board members are needed I'll say it yes okay we'll start over again good afternoon I'm Melody Serino this is Matt Machado we're both deputy CAOs and we're here to follow up on your direction from October 6 to establish an office of recovery and resilience in order to chart our roads recovery following the CCU lightning complex fire this is our agenda recovery encompasses many complex and interdependent activities some of which are technical in nature are known as adaptive challenges we're going to go through our recommendations regarding the proposed new division of the county administrative office based on the agenda right here thank you Melody so a framework was established in the fire aftermath to address the immediate needs of human care such as connecting fire victims to services and financial support and working with our state and federal partners to begin the cleanup process also incorporated the critical community needs of emergency preparedness and community resilience as a means to assist in stabilizing our community now and in the future the framework was designed to utilize current staff with these assignments added to their current duties the framework was created based upon FEMA guiding principles of disaster recovery I'll direct your attention to the segment of human care very critical to human life also to the segment of rebuilding recovery which is very visible which includes the physical elements of public and private infrastructure and the segment of emergency preparedness and community resilience which is very essential to our future this effort will be important for years to come we must be able to sustain this level of effort leading to an adjusted framework you're the runner of the machine thank you given the board's direction on October 6 to establish the new division with dedicated full-time staff as well as the addition of the ad hoc committee staff recommends keeping the current framework as a way as a way as a way to operationalize the work at the department level and overlaying the new division on top of this framework for maximum effectiveness all work will flow through the assistant CAO to ensure appropriate coordination of efforts this effort includes core capabilities of recovery and preparedness this adjusted and recommended framework addresses the county needs of emergency response rebuild and resiliency the budget hearings in August place the office of emergency services under the CAO and restructured this division while the board's direction on October 6 identified a number of duties for the office of resilience and recovery staff believes there is critical interdependencies between the work of emergency services and this new office for example the coordination of information during an emergency across federal state and local agencies is also critical during the post emergency recovery stage as well OR3 as we're calling it also incorporates aspects of the climate change responsibilities particularly as they relate to the development of community resilience activities recognizing these interdependencies and in order to ensure successful coordinated efforts staff recommends combining the duties of the emergency services and the office of resiliency and recovery into one division in the CAO office pre and post disaster operational coordination crosses all mission areas and is critical to the efficient and effective recovery activities as noted by the board the work ahead cannot be done by adding part-time duties to current staff while the board requested that staff seek to staff the ORR with current employees the analysis of the work to be done indicates that removing staff from departments already reduced to retirements furloughs and layoffs is not advisable instead staff recommends the addition of two additional staff a director and an additional analyst with the restructuring of the office of emergency services at budget hearings an analyst position and the current administrative aid were already budgeted for OES work the additional staff will take on the work of recovery and resilience including some aspects identified previously for the climate action manager such as seeking out grant opportunities to fund resilience projects in relation to climate change activities all of the duties outlined by the board in October 6th direction are included as duties in the proposed new structure under this structure duties previously the responsibility of the director of emergency services such as grants grants writing and management FEMA and Cal OES coordination and disaster preparedness training and staffing will be transferred to an analyst position leaving the director time to concentrate on managing efforts to prepare for and respond during and post-emergency to community needs while specific job classifications and descriptions need to be created it is anticipated that each position will also be assigned a specific role in the emergency operations center in operations center incident command structure to ensure continuity of operations pre, during and post disaster as we recruit a new director and incident commander Mr. Benson will be our recovery coordinator working closely with our framework managers so we can speak as a single coordinated voice the budget information here reflects anticipated cost from December 1 through the end of the current fiscal year funding of $600,959 would be allocated from contingencies for the purposes of establishing this division of course this budget does not reflect the responsibility of costs that will be devoted to the recovery efforts additional costs such as our local match for response repairs to infrastructure and debris removal as well as costs for consultants to assist with permitting and you'll be hearing about that next week and FEMA reimbursements must also be covered through contingencies we will be actively and continually pursuing grants to support the functions of this office and their projects this will help sustainability of the office studies have indicated that the single biggest failure of leadership is to treat adaptive challenges as technical problems preparing for responding to and recovering from a disaster involves both technical and adaptive challenges however vastly different skills timelines and actions are necessary for technical versus adaptive challenges a simple example is responding to high blood pressure a technical solution would be to take medication to lower your blood pressure while an adaptive solution would be to change your lifestyle to incorporate more exercise different eating habits or reducing your level of stress these are some examples of the differences between technical and adaptive work in charting our efforts over the course of recovery and particularly for resiliency both technical and adaptive work will be required much of the adaptive work will be difficult involving numerous conversations with lots of stakeholders require the weighing of competing values and sometimes may take longer than we like yet it is the adaptive work that will define our future resiliency and influence the work of those who come after us it will take courageous conversations listening with the open minds and the practice of adaptive leadership not just from you our elected officials but from our community members as well we believe Santa Cruz County is up to the challenge and the Office of Response Recovery and Resiliency is the first step in building that foundation of work OR3 will lead, coordinate and drive the recovery process it will coordinate and leverage recovery core capability resources it will integrate the interest of the whole community into ongoing recovery efforts and future initiatives it will ensure cross mission and cross capability integration through information sharing and coordination it will establish mechanisms to more effectively engage whole community partners it will improve future operational coordination through continual process improvement this is not status quo positive impacts to our community the item before you includes three recommendations I'll read those and then we can conclude in open questions first accept and file report on the establishment of the Office of Response Recovery and Resiliency second approve transfer of funds from contingencies in the amount of $600,959 for establishment of the OR3 in fiscal year 2021 and approve addition of two full-time equivalent positions to the county administrative office budget to staff OR3 programs and operations one director and one analyst and direct the CAO to refer the positions to the personnel department for classification recruitment and hiring this concludes our presentation and we look forward to your comments on this proposal additional colleagues are available to help answer your questions well maybe I'll start off with some questions if that's okay chair okay just a couple different things one is I think this is a really good move that we're making I think it will help us in the short term with those folks who are trying to move back into their homes that were destroyed and I think it helps us in the long term when we look at the issues of emergency preparedness and resiliency one of the things I didn't see in that long-term plan was looking at our climate action strategy and adaptation plan which I think is going to be critical to that long-term planning it will not only be critical for us to start thinking about how extreme weather events like the lightning storms that we saw this year or sea level rise will affect us but having a document prepared with those adaptation strategies will make it more attractive to acquire that grant money that will hopefully be coming from the state and federal government so I just think it needs to be included as part of the work here I also think that it's going to be really important to do everything we can and I know we're going to hear an item next week at our board meeting about what we're doing about the permitting process staffing in order to expedite that process and I think that this office is going to have to work hand in glove with the contractors that we're bringing in with our planning department staff to make sure that we meet the needs of the community as quickly as possible and there are people who are ready to move in yesterday and there's obviously a process that has to be followed some of it is not determined by us but by state and federal authorities but I'm looking forward to seeing this office be staffed and meet the needs of the community and I appreciate the work you put into thinking about it and I like the three elements of this plan and the way in which you've conceived it so thank you Mr. Chair Supervisor McPherson I want to you can hear me alright okay we can hear you okay I want to thank the CAO and the departments of planning and environmental health building out the structure for this new office it's critical to be established in a way that meets the urgent needs that we have for our fire survivors right now will also mean the challenges of the future emergency management and climate preparedness and I really take to heart the comments made by Supervisor Leopold I think it's very important that we be very inclusive and before we're looking at what we might be experiencing in the future when Supervisor Coonerty and I brought the creation of this office to the board we did so with the intent of ensuring that our residents experienced an efficient and predictable affordable rebuilding process in addition to the other goals that we had set out to achieve for strengthening resilience and to that end I think it is important to point out that the sizable investment we will be making in hiring a site firm to manage the permitting process is very very important and I'd like to reiterate how important it will be for the public to have a single point of contact to ask questions and resolve conflicts as they move through this process as we know we've had 940 plus people lose their homes families and so forth so it's really important that we get them the answer as straightforward and as efficiently and politely as we can with that said I'd like to be better understand how rebuilding will be prioritized within this structure in the near term considering that phase 2 starts in a matter of weeks now and we're not likely to have this office staffed right away Thank you Supervisor McPherson this is Matt Machado to answer your question we've structured this such that there is a standalone segment for the rebuild effort the physical environment the public and private infrastructure rebuild and that single segment will have a single voice and that's how we've structured it with a single management style and I think that will respond to not only your question and concerns but the public's questions and concerns and so we've structured it to have that point of contact there is other coordination but when you're speaking to just that one segment that one segment is quite clear okay very well that gives me a little more comfort I feel comfortable anyway but that's great to hear thank you Mr. Chair Mr. Chair and this Ryan Coonerty I guess I don't have any questions I want to thank the staff for their collaborative effort to build this office I appreciate what Mr. Sereno is talking about in terms of adaptive versus technical challenges or meeting those challenges I guess my only comment because I think as Supervisor Leopold mentioned this is going to be an excellent resource in both the short term but also in the long term as we move into a new reality of stronger storms, more disaster events more need for recovery in partnering with our federal and state partners is to really emphasize that while our current staff has done an absolutely amazing job and been very responsive I am worried if this takes too long to staff up as we go into winter and we have debris flows and increase in COVID impacts, property issues the rebuilding process and God forbid any other natural disasters occurring in our region that the current point people will be already are working with full plates and we're adding this and a growing list to those concerns and so the sooner we get somebody in there to build those relationships because one of the best ways to address both technical and adaptive challenges is to have relationships to be able to quickly solve problems we need to get staff in there who can focus and build a relationship so that we aren't balancing around with a lot of different calls in already challenging times so anything we can do to expedite the hiring and staffing up I appreciate the current staff I just know that they have a lot on their plates and more to come Supervisor Coonerty this is Melody Serino we appreciate the urgency of this we already have meeting scheduled with personnel for this week if you approve this going forward to go over job descriptions and prepare for the recruitments and of course all staff that have been working this continue to remain committed to working through these issues with the needs of the community until appropriate staff is hired thank you the only thing we're adding two full-time positions is that correct? that is correct let's say everything is going well there would be under the county administrative officers that's correct so let's say we have many disasters there's good years and bad years and let's say we have like three or four years where nothing much is going on once they've established their responses and things where they have everything organized what do they do? so I'll chime in on that and so there's always a need to be constantly prepared and trained for climate change and the need for resiliency that will be a continual effort that will be needed forever and so that will fall upon the shoulders of this new group these two new employees and so they'll be doing emergency preparedness and they'll be doing pursuit of grants which will be for climate action and resiliency together and so there's a lot to do in that area those are full-time jobs by themselves you're probably right every three years or so we seem to have an emergency and so that's nearly a full-time job because just as in the situation of the fires we're going to be three to five years for a full rebuild that's a full-time job for quite a few years to come I'm all for being prepared I'm all for everything but I just I can't see them spending a lot of time working when maybe a few years go by and everything's going well it's kind of like the National Guard I was in that we only really got together after training and stuff one weekend a month but we were supposedly ready for a disaster so I'm wondering about the down time of the job we're still rebuilding from 2017 you can tell you don't have roads affected by the 2017 storms we're still trying to get them we just put a bridge on Redwood Lodge from the 2017 storms because of the amount of paperwork it takes to get that done and then the pursuit of reimbursement and the continual paperwork that follows the chains of disaster so it's ongoing I would also I'm only asking this because we've just got through laying off or terminating 39 positions out of our county staff and then here we're adding two full time it's kind of like saying well these two full time positions are much more important than the other 39 that we eliminated but anyway I'm okay I just had one more quick question that just came up as part of this is if we have another incident like the 2017 storm incident which primarily affected public infrastructure is that going to be a DPW only or is this office of resource recovery and resilience going to be involved with that I mean what are you envisioning? I think that's one of the advantages of the OR3 we're creating coordination and we're creating cross training and a team and so future disasters there may be a primary lead like you say if it's a road centric it would be led by DPW but this team that we're creating is going to have the reinforcements and the knowledge and kind of the reinforcements to be more successful in the future and even in those situations the most you know in the moment of the disaster the team is going to be absolutely critical to address those needs and be more prepared for the response that follows after the disaster is over so that's where the value of this team comes in great, great yeah and I would just point out to my colleague that we're a county that sees fires, floods earthquakes sea level rise and tsunamis I mean all of that is it's not just history it's the last 10-12 years almost all of those I would only add in response to Supervisor Caput's earlier question the work to do within the community is a lot of work as you know dealing with constituents as part of the main part of your job and so downtime it really is about making sure we're connecting with the community making sure that we understand their needs whether we're in a disaster or not or recovering from a disaster or preparing for a disaster making sure we can maintain those connections and that we have that infrastructure in place so that when a disaster occurs it isn't just the county government that's responding, it's this network that we've created that enables the response to be successful I'm not sure whether Supervisor McPherson had something his hands up I'm not sure if he's thank you for seeing that from afar I appreciate Mr. Caput it was a nightmare going through this budget this year I understand but I was going to mention the 2017 storms and Sonoma which had gone through a disaster six years ago and they're still on the road to recovery so this takes a long time if this could get done in a year or two boy I'd love it it's going to be a long haul and I think another important part of that is the resiliency factor just everything from informing people about vegetation management and the importance of that around their homes and so forth that could all be part of this message that we're doing while we're building we can let people know what they can do to avoid a disaster that might take their house down maybe they could take some action or parts to this and it's absolutely necessary as beautiful as Santa Cruz County is to live in and I've been here in my life somehow we're at the eye of the tiger sometimes they want to come by with a storm or a flood or a fire or whatever so I am really I know we're all set that we need this to happen and I wish it could be done and said and done and we could feel comfortable in a year or two but that's just not it's going to take a long time and God knows what's ahead so I do appreciate the work that's been done and to bring this forward it's absolutely necessary and I don't know if we've gone through the public comment yet but I would be ready to move the recommended actions public comment yes ok if there's no other comments I'll open it up to the public for public comment and that's your opportunity and we have no web comments ok so let's see the bring it back to the board we do have a motion I'll second it and we have a second and if we can have a vote Supervisor Leopold I Friend Supervisor Friend Supervisor Coonerty I Supervisor McPherson Friend I think he accidentally he dropped off his connection wasn't so great ok yeah and Chair Caput aye thank you motion passes yeah ok that'll take us to item number nine consider final appointment of Stephen Allen to the assessment appeals board as an at-launch representative for a term to expire September 6 2021 I move approval ok we have a motion let's see any public comment ok we have a motion and a second I'll call for the vote Supervisor Leopold I Friend Coonerty McPherson I Chair Caput I ok we've done a closed session and we also now the next regular meeting will be 9 a.m. Tuesday one week from today November 17th 2020 I want to wish everybody a happy and proud Veteran's Day tomorrow November 11th ok thank you


Welcome, this is Melissa Arma with the stocks. What should I review in the market market cap down today? But I did not short it again. I love to short him an expert in shorting. I didn't want to short this I don't think this drops. I don't think this falls. We haven't been falling Every time the market falls it gets bought. It's pretty much the fact of life and again things are just too Strong right now that are affecting the market and for whatever reason people want to believe that race are gonna keep steady or drop and Personally, I don't think that things are gonna turn out to be the way that people think but because it's an election year I really don't think the feds gonna come out and do anything this year or state anything this year other than to keep the Market lifted up. So that's my two cents on that It's being built into the market that the Fed is gonna lower rates a couple times I don't know if it's gonna happen. And if it does it'll be very late in the year and They still may not But they're gonna give the impression that they're going to to keep the market propped up. So again, what do I do? I trade gaps so you would say well if I trade gaps I should short the crap out of this today. No, I didn't like it as a short and we're not fine And we look like we're gonna close green but again at the same point. I don't go long bearish gaps So I'm not along here this market either, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised and I wouldn't be shocked at all and in fact I Probably is the case unless something happens tomorrow morning that the market's gonna be up. So I Wouldn't be surprised if we're up tomorrow Wouldn't be surprised if we rally tomorrow wouldn't be surprised in the next week or so or the next couple of days We make another new high the market just doesn't want to fall and there's nothing that's that's coming up recently in the next couple of days It's gonna break this market make it crash make it do anything to the downside in every single opportunity of report That comes out that looks like the market's gonna fall or even when we start to go red it flips We got bought yesterday. We actually gapped up yesterday fell got bought Gapped down today not falling refuses to fall actually so My take on the market here is between today and tomorrow We're gonna rally and possibly between now and the end of the week So we'll see a lot of dated out Thursday morning. There usually is tomorrow's no exception If you're interested in learning how to rate gaps and play gaps email me at Melissa at the stocks wish dot com Have a great day everyone