ensive report on the last five years of service. Looking forward depending on whatever your board approves today we would be giving an update on establishing the new contracts. The process in place, the accountability measures in them but it would be too early to actually have a quote report card just a few months into the contract cycle that would probably be after that where we'd talk about the future contracts and what services are being provided. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. There are no other comments or questions from the board. Sorry, Supervisor McPherson. Yeah, I was gonna wait to hear from public comment but I just wanna thank again the human services departments and all the participants and the rating panels, very difficult situation that you had. Thank you to all the organizations who supplied for core funding, 127 proposals that just a fraction of the nonprofit or community organizations we have in the county. It's in the hundreds probably certainly more than 500 closer to 1,000. So it's a tough thing that we have at the department has the rating panel had to address simply put there's not enough money to support everything we want or that it was requested. I think there was about $16 million worth of requests and we have just sort of $6 million to allocate. So I think that our staff intends to work previously funded program organizations to see if there are non-core dollars available and I'm glad that we went to that extent. And there's been a lot of work that has gone into laying the groundwork for this shift of funding that we have seen and my sense is that we're gonna continue to see and what could be done and learn from it and be responsive to the feedback. The biggest concern I've heard about in my office is the fact that no services were directly allocated to the Santa Rosa Valley in the Fifth District but it's also my understanding that the number of organizations recommended for funding have identified their applications that they would serve the Valley as a percentage of their client base. For instance, the United Way, it's application for cradle to career, one third of that allocation is going to the Santa Rosa Valley. So it's, you've got to look into it deeply to find out where the money is being allocated, where it's going and how it's serving. I'd like our staff to get more specifics about how we can assure through our contracting process that organizations will be successful and I think you're going to do that in December. But overall, I appreciate Mr. or Supervisor Friend's recommendation but it's getting late in the game and that's not to the fold of his. We didn't know what was going to come up with this extra hundred or $500,000 but I can support both of the options as they are presented today either separately and I think it should be separate or to realign the original funding to include the capacity for bringing additional or on additional organizations that were mentioned and adding the new funding to support the three month bridge. You're right, it's not going to go on forever but we really have to be careful with recession looming if it's not upon us already what we were going to be able to do next year with the funds that we have and it's going to be coming in from the state. So I would, I think it's really late to try to refocus how we're going to allocate that $500,000 that was mentioned. And I think the proposal by the Human Services Department is on target and I would be willing to support either. I think we should support them in a separate motions. That's my thoughts. Thank you Supervisor McPherson. I want to open it for public comment now. I know you've all been waiting patiently so if you have a comment to make please approach the podium. Good morning chair supervisors and staff. I'm Helen you in story. I'm the acting executive director of the community action board. As you know, Cabez the County's designated community action agency charged with eliminating poverty and creating social change through advocacy and essential services. We serve over 10,000 low-income people annually including through our youth and adult employment services and our Davenport Resource Service Center on the County's isolated North Coast. I'm also here today with my colleagues from Caps Immigration Project and Homelessness Prevention and Intervention Services. We'll speak in a little bit. We're here today to thank you and let you know that we support the adjusted recommendations for Caps Corps proposals which will support thousands of low-income people including at risk, at promise youth, and adults, day workers and farm workers to access needed services and supports to more fully thrive in our community. We also appreciate that this is a challenging year for the County as we continue to recover from the pandemic, from the fire as well as the current economic situation we're in and we know that we're facing a recession as well. However, I just wanna say we know that this is also when safety net services are needed the most when the community is hurting. So I really do want to respectfully encourage you to continue to look for additional funding to support safety net services for children, seniors, you know, mental and physical health, many of our colleagues in the community that provide very valuable services in order to keep our community strong as we weather these difficult times. Cap, thanks you. And we continue to look forward to our continued partnership to equitably serve our community. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Story. Good morning, Chair, supervisors. My name is Paz Padilla. The Housing Prevention and Intervention Service Director for Community Action Board. We serve hundreds of low-income and diverse homeless households per year, providing vital services such as rental assistance to avoid eviction, homeless intervention and stability support for vulnerable youth and young adults. We appreciate it and we support the core recommendation for CAB's Housing Prevention and Intervention Service. We understand this is a difficult year in our community and are thankful for the recommendations so that we may continue providing rental assistance to avoid eviction and prevent homelessness for our low-income families, seniors and disabled households throughout the county, including South County with our partners, California Rural Legal Assistance, Families and Transitions, PV-USD Healthy Start and PV Shelter. Again, thank you so much for your support, your partnership, your commitment to equity in our community. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and supervisors. My name is Kate Hinenkamp. I'm Operations Manager for the Community Action Board Immigration Project. And we serve at the Immigration Project over 6,000 immigrants and family members from diverse low-income households. We provide community education and immigration legal services county for people from all over the county. And we're grateful to the HSD for the core recommendation to fund CAB's Immigration Project. We know this is a difficult year as we've just heard that there's some difficult decisions in front of you. And we support the recommendation of funds to our Immigration Project at CAB. This would allow us to launch the very first non-profit immigration services office in the city of Santa Cruz. And it will also allow us to expand DACA and citizenship services countywide to take advantage of $600,000 that we've been awarded by the state for scholarships for DACA and citizenship. So this would really help your funds to go further to help folks, immigrant families and the community. At the same time, we strongly encourage you to look for additional funding to support other needed services for a strong, effective safety net. Our programs are interconnected. We've been working for decades with partners like Community Bridges that helps us extend our reach. So immigration, right now we subcontract with Community Bridges for referrals to our program. And if program agencies like Community Bridges and others are not funded, all of our work is truncated. We can accomplish less. So we encourage you to continue to look for options. And we just wanna thank you once more for your support, your partnership and your commitment to equity in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hannon-Kam. Good morning, Board of Supervisors. It's a pleasure joining you today. My name is Maria Cadenas. I'm the Executive Director of Ventures. We're very honored to be recommended for funding for Semi-Guitas, which is the college savings account program throughout the county that supports kids by creating a college savings account and additional contributions until they turn five. I'm also excited to say that's part of that program we're aligning with the state program that's to launch this summer. So hopefully your kids get $1,000 by the time they enter Kinder for the future education. This is a huge growth and it will leverage the county's investment. In addition, as a new recommended program is including organic income pilot, which we call ALAS, which we launch with the hope of trying to prove ways to enhance and support our safety net programs so that people can move out of poverty and have economic mobility. The program itself, I just got an email right now that the IRB process has been approved by UC Santa Cruz. So we'll be partnering with UC Santa Cruz who will pay for the evaluation of program that hopefully will give this county tools to look at and how we best leverage and work together to get people out of poverty in an equitable, sustainable way. Again, I'm thankful for the support, thankful for the efforts that have been made to continue to support the safety nets and here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Ms. Cardenas. Morning, Supervisors. Before I start, is it possible and appropriate to provide just some letters from some community members in a district map? Sure, if you're on record, please. Thank you. Welcome to hand those to the clerk. Good morning, Chairman Koenig, Supervisors, Director Morris, Nicole. I'm sorry. Yes, the Nicole's are on my mind today. I wonder why. Thank you so much. My name is Steven Matzi. I am the Santa Cruz County Long-Term Care ombudsman program coordinator operating under Advocacy Inc, which had not been recommended for funding, which was very disheartening considering the uniqueness of our program and the only provider of ombudsman services to the 1800 beds in skilled nursing and residential care facilities in the community. However, I'm here to say thank you. Thank you to Director Morris and to County staff for finding some money to recommend some bridge transition money to our program. That will certainly be helpful. I do want to remind everybody that we are still in the current pandemic. And if we've learned anything over the last two and a half years, that our older adults living in long-term care have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic and continue to suffer through lockdowns, up and down lockdowns. Low staffing at facilities as a historic staffing levels have been reduced because of pandemic. And as those staff members and facilities are leaving, our ombudsmen, including myself, are going in, donning N95s, face shields when necessary, gloves and full PPE to protect ourselves and to protect our community members and those residents living in long-term care. So again, this is just a reminder to everyone here today that those folks often get overlooked because the doors are closed on those facilities, please do not forget about them. I will be honored to come back on a regular basis to speak to you more about our program and offer an invitation to each of you to join me on a drive-by into a facility in your district to meet the residents that are your constituents. Thank you so much for the funding recommendation for the bridge transition. We do certainly appreciate that. I want to personally thank you also. Unfortunately, you got left out and that hurt. And I guess what I'm saying is you're one of my favorite programs that are out there helping the community. And going through the whole COVID thing must have been very difficult because not only were the people in the rest homes, you know, they couldn't even have visitors. And it must have been very, very difficult. And I want to thank you for in the past helping out South County. I went out there with Wayne Norton and he's doing good in retirement, I guess. And we had some big battles down there with a couple of rest homes. So without an ombudsman, we wouldn't have been able to fix things. Supervisor Caput, thank you so much for your support of our program and for all of the board members that are here today. And we're still fighting the good fight. We'll still do that regardless of where the funding is coming from. Thank you. I'll give you a call sometime. Maybe we'll get coffee, okay? I'd love that. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Cheryl Frenzel. I am the executive director at the Diversity Center and we're here just with the great privilege and honor of saying thank you for looking for ways to fund more organizations. We are being considered for funding in the new recommendations and we wanted to personally show up and say thank you so much. I can't imagine the job that you've had to do and it's been something to watch. And so we really heartfully thank you because what we're gonna be able to do is work with the crisis and the LGBTQ community around mental health. And we're also gonna be able to be a strong and important partner with all of the organizations who meet on a monthly basis to try to address the mental health crisis within the youth. And so now we get to utilize these funds to support not only ourselves but other organizations struggling with the same issue. And so we're here with some of our community just to say thank you. Thank you very much and please approve the new recommendations. Thank you, Ms. Frenzel. Good morning. My name is Larry Friedman. I've been a resident of the county for 50 years and I've lived in the unincorporated areas as well as in the city and I've been a taxpayer for over 40 years. I'm a member of the Diversity Center community. I'm a longtime volunteer. I was one of the people that started the First Gate Pride in Santa Cruz, 1975. I've been here fighting the good fight and I wanna thank you all for considering the Diversity Center for some funding in this next round here. There's so much need. I've been a volunteer at the front desk at the Diversity Center for years and between old seniors who are coming in or who are isolated and don't have support and youth and trans kids who are needing mental health support. It's really a godsend to have you supporting us. I was a social worker at Watsonville Hospital for 13 years, social worker at Dominican Hospital for about 20 years and the need for mental health services has never been greater throughout. So I know it's been a hard job. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Friedman. Hello, my name is Barb Jordan. I'm a resident of District One and I'm also a donor to the Diversity Center and I brought Roof here today just to work me. I wanna commend Ken Staff for really working creatively to try to adjust the recommendations in response to community input and also to find additional money. I think that's really incredible work. There are so many worthy entities here and I appreciate hearing appreciation from you about the work that all of these nonprofits are doing. But finally, I wanna urge the Board of Supervisors to act today to approve the funding for the core grant program, including the Diversity Center and also the additional $500,000, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Jordan. Hello, my name is Andrea Damon. I run parent groups for trans families of Santa Cruz County and we have not applied for funding for you but I'm here today to speak to the importance of the Diversity Center programs for our youth and I'm so heartened to see that you've decided to include them in your grant program this year. As you know, the pandemic has taken an incredible toll on the mental health of all youth but trans and LGBTQ youth in particular. And as a group facilitator talking to parents every day, I've been a first person witness to the mental health struggles of these young people and also can attest to the really life-saving programs that they have been offered at the Diversity Center. Having the youth groups has been a lifeline for LGBTQ youth in our community and I'm so glad that their work is being recognized and I want just to stand here and help you understand how valuable and critical it is. So thank you so much for including them in your revised proposals, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Damon. I just wanted to express gratitude for the Mountain Resource Center and what it's done for me. I was illegally evicted during COVID. In other words, I paid taxes for law enforcement to come out and break their own laws. And so not everybody who goes homeless is with the stereotype deserving it or have brought it on themselves. We mentioned veterans earlier, people mentioned people with mental health problems and that sort of thing. And so I feel like it's necessary and helpful and I just wanted to say that I was thankful for what they've done for me and I hope that they're able to continue. Thanks. My name is Corey, I'm an advocate at Mountain Community Resources and I've worked with Jim and he actually was and still is working at Safeway and I'm using our showers and laundry and has transferred back and forth from different locations still able to use our services still needing assistance to try to find housing in the Watsonville area now. So using more than one of our centers. I have a question for Bruce for the Cradle to Career program. Does that include any help for the homeless? And that's a huge question because we built these showers from housing matters, monies years ago right during the CZU fires. So we have these showers and laundry that are gonna go empty. I would support a 50% one year rather than the bridge funding so that we could at least try to find a way to continue that service and not have wasted services. Thanks. Thank you, Corey. My name is Sandra Rudello and there's no translator today. My name is Sandra Rudello, my name is Sandra Rudello. I just wanted to share some of the art that my clients had up bring through these years and it is heartwarming. My clients have grown with my parenting classes through the years that have been there. And they come with a lot of issues like any other agency. I do thank you for finding additional funding but I do hope that you could continue looking because as you see, I just not serve now the one child or a member of the community I serve the whole family and they do appreciate with words, with actions they leave those for me to remember them. And when I see them in the community they say thank you for transforming my life. Again, thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Myra. I'm here in representation of Community Bridges Family Resource Centers. I work as an advocate and I just wanna support additional funding to be relocated to these centers since we do have more centers across the county that are serving a wide range of individuals of different ages, backgrounds and different services. And I think it's highly important that we kind of look that these are evidence-based funding recommendations. So we have to look at the prospective statistics that will come up when these centers are closed and reduced hours are being created. There are currently long lines our Watsonville Center which serves a lot of vulnerable families specifically those that work in the fields and it is highly important that we kind of provide a lot of funding for these families since we have the human services agency right across the street. Yeah, we still see a wide range of individuals come and look for assistance for their disability, for their unemployment and for the CalFresh. And it's really critical to look at that statistics of like our wide range of impact and or outcomes because then that kind of shows you that there is a reason why a lot of individuals are seeking our services and we do not discriminate and we do not and we provide a whole range something as simple as providing a charging station, making a phone call and we really have to look outside of our neighborhoods and outside of our perspectives and see that just because it's not a need that we need or that we see around our community, it does not mean that other people in the outskirts of our towns are not needing these services. So any additional funds would be great because it provides a little bit of a safety net while these people help try to find something else in the meanwhile. Thank you. Thank you, Myra. All right, seeing no one else here in chambers which is to address us on this item, is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair, we do have speakers on Zoom. Colin, user one, your microphone is now available. Marilyn, Garrett and Santa Cruz County is not alone in this misery and war on the poor. A book that puts us in a framework is titled The Real Anthony Fauci Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. This is part of a global war on democracy and public health. And listening to people who are doing vital work for the community, who are being made more poor by these cuts shows the county's miss direction in priorities while millions of dollars literally go to wireless microwave, 4G, 5G technology. People are going hungry and being harmed at the same time. This title here is Collective of Results and Evidence-Based Core Investments. What are the results? And looking more deeply into where the money is misappropriated in this county, like for Verizon, Cruzio, all that, it's all backwards and it's a retired teacher of 30 years. I think of that bumper sticker, it'll be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and we could add social services. And the Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber. This is all backwards. We're fighting over crimes left after approximately half our tax dollars. Thank you, Ms. Karen. LS, your microphone is now available. Leah Samuels, Executive Director of the Human Care Alliance. Thank you for the amended recommendations. Having a response to these public comments in the form of action really helps move forward to collaborate and meet our shared goal of an equitable Santa Cruz. Some nonprofits now have time to get their bearings as we go to the next phase of this work. Despite the release of additional information and I thank you, Randy, for that, there's still a feeling we need more information to sort what happened. There's some trust that needs to be rebuilt and even some funded organizations have reached out with concerns. HCA proposes that you officially authorize HCA to partner with Randy Morris in his work leading up to December. Mr. Morris has been generous with his time and I can't speak for him, but my impression is our conversations have been mutually beneficial. Please also include in direction to staff that consider nonprofits that have not previously been funded, for instance, in considering ways nonprofits can get specific contracts outside of core. Those previously not funded, mostly smaller, should have the same opportunity in details. HCA accepts all nonprofits that educate or provide services in Santa Cruz. We make membership accessible regardless of the size of agency. Current membership represents a meaningful number of large nonprofits and a fairly balanced cross-section of provider categories. I hope you allow me to use that access that I have not only to members, but beyond to be an official part of the process. More can be done, but we can't get into the details now. As a working mom, even as I speak, I've got two young children at home, so the hit to childcare is particularly painful and a disruption to micro opportunities. Both nonprofits and government have work to do. Personally, I feel I failed my members in a way not being involved throughout this process more. It was largely due to us not having funding for more work and more help. It's hard for me to see this play out and not wonder if I could do more. I hope you'll seriously consider our offer. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sammels. David, your microphone is now available. Okay. This is David Bianchi, Executive Director for Family Service Agency. Good morning, chair, members of the board. I appreciate the original funding for those that are not scheduled to receive funding, but that had been funded. I think I do believe based on my 35 years of doing this process, that this particular version had some serious flaws, but that everybody involved had the best intentions. It used to be for many years that county staff would take the time to visit and audit our programs in order to know and understand them. That doesn't create bias, that's just a foundation for any good relationship. I am obviously disappointed that five of our programs that were contained in one application will go unfunded. Those programs are the result of four smaller agencies merging with us, which was a long held community goal to provide services in the most efficient and cost effective way possible. I don't believe that we failed this test. I think the test failed us in the community, and I don't think our panel was able to process our proposal with multiple mental health programs and services that shared common objectives and outcomes. I also don't think that disenfranchising the over 400 clients, including family, children and seniors in counseling and women with cancer, survivors of child sexual abuse and care facility residents advances the stated cause of equity that this process represented. So I hope you will take the time to look for additional resources and support us in whatever way you can as we try to figure out the future on how to serve the needs of these clients that had been served for decades with county and city support. Thank you for your time. Thank you, David. Serge, your microphone is now available. Thank you. Good morning again, Board of Supervisors. My name is Serge Kagnu. I'm the executive director of the recovery cafe Santa Cruz. We were one of the new agencies to make our first application and appeal for core funding. We were not selected for funding, but we appreciate the integrity and sincerity of county staff and the creation and management of this process. For future iterations, we look forward to collaboration to use lessons learned to improve this process. For where to go from here, we would like to state our appreciation for Mr. Morris's fourth recommendation. Each of the nonprofits works hard to diversify their revenue streams. As Mr. Morris is referring, there are other funds which county departments have access to. Departments make contracts with nonprofits for needed services. Departments co-sign grant applications with nonprofits. Departments see grants which they do not apply but could suggest nonprofits apply. We simply ask that the Board of Supervisors include in its direction to staff to include those nonprofits not recommended for funding who have not previously been funded by core. Mr. Morris's recommendation is a momentous step towards officially collaborating between the county and local nonprofits to finding opportunities to meet the goals of our county departments as well as supporting our local nonprofits. Our ask is for a modification of recommendation number four to both include the Human Care Alliance and exploring other funding sources and to include all agencies who did not receive core 2223 funding regardless of whether or not they previously received core funding. We also ask that if the $500,000 is not used for three month bridge funding as mentioned in Supervisor Friend's comments that the Recovery Cafe Santa Cruz is considered for some funding so that we can provide the needed service to support the healing of both house and unhoused partner participants dealing with mental health, substance use, domestic violence, justice involvement, previously foster youth and the LGBT community. Thank you for your time. Allison, your microphone is now available. Thank you and good afternoon Supervisors and fellow community members. My name is Allison Guevara. I'm the director of Cradle to Careers Santa Cruz County. I'm a social impact consultant and mom of three children. And I just wanna thank you again for your recommendation to invest in Cradle to Careers expansion. We're really excited to be growing into several additional communities outside of Live Oak. I feel that we've heard from several folks today just talking about the needs specifically for example in underserved areas like in San Lorenzo Valley and leading up to our application. We did talk to Superintendent Chris Schiermeyer about the needs that he sees showing up at their schools every day. There are a hundred families that are still living in trailers or housing insecure as a result of the CCU fires. And that has implications for how the children show up at school and impact learning for everybody within that school community. And Cradle to Careers is going to be able to strengthen the relationships with those families, identify their needs and link them to vital services in a much stronger way. But of course we don't do that in a vacuum and I really appreciate the deep thinking and the deep care that I'm hearing from everybody today to really look holistically at our community's needs and services. And Cradle to Careers is really committed to helping be part of addressing the root causes of adversity and working together to deliver more sustainable, robust solutions so that every child and every family can thrive. So again, I want to really thank you for your investment, for your hard thinking and planning around this and really excited to see all that we are gonna accomplish together over the next three years. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Guevara. We have no additional speakers for this item, Chair. All right, thank you. Then I'll return into the board for deliberation and action. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Supervisor McPherson. I appreciate that comment from about the United Ways Cradle to Career. I think it's open to everyone. And I just want to assure everyone here that the Human Services Department and our Health Services Agency are searching for funds all the time. We're very open to it. We're a very aggressive Board of Supervisors to see and what is available, to direct them to see what's available and to go after it, which we have done successfully in this situation. So I just want to assure everyone we're not giving up this money that we're talking about is our general fund, money for the county, which we increased by a million dollars what, three years ago or so. So we would like to give more. And I hope that we can in the future, but I just want to assure everyone that we are searching our departments, the two major departments, Human Services and Health Services agencies are continually seeking funding for these types of human service programs. With that, I would, as I said, I appreciate and Supervisor Friend's suggestion, but I'm not sure how that would, we've got to put this, if we're going to have this bridge, we've got to let them know if they're going to have it or not. We're going to have to make a decision or would have to, I think, today on some other programs. But I, as I said, I support the options that have been presented. I think they're very well thought out and as fair as can be expected under the circumstances. And so I would be, I think that we should have these in two separate motion. First to realign the original funding to include the capacity to bring on additional organizations. And maybe I should just make that one motion and then go to the second one for the funding of the three month bridge for the others. So I would make the motion to follow with the recommendation of the Human Services Agency to realign the funding for the include the capacity for bringing on the additional organizations. So this is recommended action one, correct. Mr. Church, as a point of clarification, we have multiple recommendation number one. So under the board agenda packet, there's a set of four recommended actions. One of them is listed as number one. And then sub to that is what Supervisor McPherson is referring to, which are additional recommended actions, number one. And so I just think that we need to get a point of clarification of what the board is actually being asked to do right now because I think there's some just kind of clerical recommendations under the set of the original four that maybe can be folded into this. The ultimate discussion here is on the 500,000 funding as well as additional direction on the report back. That's where I think that there needs to be greater debate not on the thing that Supervisor McPherson is referring to. But I don't think that I actually don't think he's moving the correct recommendation. So I just want to make sure we're totally clear on where we are in this. Well, to clarify, I mean, and maybe I should, Mr. Morris will to reduce the allocations for those who were funded from the 3% reduction to 10% to allow for the new agencies that are listed here in the large tier and medium tier to get the funding that is requested under this recommendation one. That's my motion. And I think I'm making it correctly. And so it covers those that were in the original allocation reduced by 10% but adding these other five that have been recommended for funding. So I will share with you what I believe is under discussion and certainly welcome council to help if there's a technical issue I'm not tracking here. To Supervisor Friend's point, the published materials, the actual memo itself, recommended action number one is the modified awards that we've brought forward, the five additional within the confines of the RFP. And in looking at the recommended actions, number three actually bundles with it because if you approve the recommended awards within the RFP process, the additional five, recommend action three also then authorizes the auditor controller and HSD to immediately execute that package of contracts. So that could be one action. I would recommend keeping two and four separate because four, if you give additional direction to us, what you want to make sure we look into, there were some public comment asking us to look into things, I think you could leave two and four separate based on where your deliberations go and make sure in number four, we do whatever you direct us to do and the lessons learned and the report back in December. So that's the way I'm tracking one and three first, two and four second, council, I don't know if you have any other thoughts, but that's the way I read this. Supervisor Friend, yes, there was additional materials that had ones and twos in them, but those will get covered under the formal recommendation action number two. And I'm supportive of that Supervisor McPherson of his item one and three and a recommended actions, then I'll second that motion. Great, thank you. Okay, then we have a motion by Supervisor McPherson and a second by Supervisor Friend to adopt recommended actions one and three on the agenda memo. Any further discussion? Yes, first we're gonna have another one probably, right? Right, in regards to the $500,000 bridge funding. One, four. I'm happy to read it for you, Supervisor Caput. Correct, so the first motion here is to approve recommended actions one and three from our agenda packet. Recommended action one is to approve fiscal year 22, 23, collective of results and evidence-based investments requests for proposals, final recommended awards in attachment one, which include just proposed adjustments to those outlined to the board on June 7th, 2022 and delegate authority of the Human Services Department to execute agreements of all final recommended awards prior to September 30th, 2022. And then the other... No, no, I am reading it from the agenda here. All right, any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Recommended actions one and three, pass unanimously. All right, thank you. Then we'll continue discussion on items two and four. Supervisor Friend. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Supervisor McPherson, for that. So I just wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page with what I was actually proposing. What I'm proposing is an option that's before us. It's not, I'm not trying to do something that hasn't been transparently presented under the attachments that one of the options is policy option two, which is to fund additional proposals by the RFP rankings. It's to take $500,000 and break it up over various ways. The way that I would recommend is what's being proposed right in front of us, which is over one year to take the $500,000 and to fund it at 50% funding for the next ranked eight medium and one small, which would be just to read it, would be the hospice of Santa Cruz County, New Life for the Gemma House, the parent center, the senior citizens organization in the San Lorenzo Valley, the mentors program, PVPSA, Elder Day from Community Bridges, and then the faith community shelter program with the association of faith communities. And then the small tier would be the senior council project scout program. So that was my, what I was recommending as opposed to just doing a three month transition funding, doing something more meaningful, which is under our options that are being presented to provide an entire half funding for these programs that were in order of their rankings. Now, there are other options that are presented under those policies, but that's, that was what I was recommending doing. I just wanted to make sure you had made a statement of that this, in essence, there wasn't a policy option that was before us. I want to be clear that this is something that's being presented as an option. I'm just choosing a different option than just a three month bridge funding, providing a more meaningful 12 months of those programs. Is that a motion? I'm okay with continuing to have a dialogue before I have motion just thrown down. Thank you, Mr. Chair, but I wanted to hear Supervisor McPherson's thoughts. I think it's really important the board be united on this issue.  I just think this is a more meaningful investment if the board majority feels that the three month transition funding is more, is a better way to do it. I'm not opposed to that. I'm just making a policy decision that I think the 50% for that number is better. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Thank you. Supervisor McPherson? Yeah. I'd like to, I appreciate your recommendation. And I think I could get behind it. I'm just trying to get a sense of what it really means and how much to whom, I guess. I mean, obviously Supervisor Friend has those targeted. He has certainly not talked to me about those that he has brought up today and that's proper. Maybe he has with one other board member, but I just would like to get a sense of who is involved again. Supervisor Friend did mention it. I think there's some legitimate reasoning for following that. I mean, it just, it reestablishes or continues to establish those that, I think there's six agencies that he mentioned, but I know that the others for continuing for three months that some of the who were not getting the funding they wanted, they said, okay, we can at least go with the three month extension. So, well, it's one of those decisions we're just gonna have to make. Can you just reiterate what those agencies were and how much is involved? Survivors McPherson, this is Attachment 3B. I'm not picking and choosing organizations. Oh, I see, okay. This is outlined by the Human Services Department as the next highly ranked sets of agencies. So under the medium tier, if you fund it for 50% one year, that would be the first eight agencies. And for the small tier, that would be the first agency. That's just, that's how those agencies came about. So that's, that is Attachment 3B. Okay. Ms. Morris, could you just comment that you've been in this discussion with everybody and so I just wanna get your sense of where we'd be going with this. Yeah, and let me offer some full disclosure about the sequence of events. When we really late as we were finishing publishing the materials, we literally the last day or two came up with this $500,000 for the reasons I described. So the first action was to respond to what we would have been hearing from community providers about this transition that was really rushed and some form of transition funding would help. So that was what was published. I just wanna make sure for those who don't track this level of technical detail, we then submitted additional materials. So that's what came up as 3A. The reason we did that is literally we got the materials done at the very end and added that $500,000 reference. We immediately realized that because that $500,000 is not part of the RFP parameters, it's going to raise questions about, well, what else? So our staff recommendation remains three months of bridge funding. It was directly in response to community provider feedbacks about their concern about not having a bridge. But this is $500,000 that could be used differently. So then we submitted attachment 3A, which gave a few policy options. So they are very different policy options. And as is the whole core discussion, it's not in a month. We wish we had enough to all of them.  One is the bridge funding. That's our recommendation. Then to your question, Supervisor Marie Pearson, we broke down a few ways, sort of slicing and dicing and taking that $500,000 to do some different things. What Supervisor Friend is then referring to is what's attachment 3B. And I think due to the timing, it didn't actually get published in the materials, but is in the public record. So what all board members have is then the ranking list that you have in front of you of who was the next in rank. If that's the policy choice you choose, you would be saying, let's not give everybody three months of funding, let's instead go with those next ranked in that document 3B. I'm going to use that frame to turn it over to Kimberly and she can repeat. If Supervisor Friend, you can clarify the exact option in front of you, then Kimberly can read the names of those organizations from the 3B document for the public to hear. Yeah, it's a few, it would please you when you go to next rank order just down the line. Yes, I've got 3B. Go ahead, Ms. Peterson. Go ahead, I'm apologize. Oh, no, it's okay. So for the option that would be 50% funding for one year, that would cover access for hospice of Santa Cruz County access to end of life care for all. New life community services, Gemma House, the parent center, their parent center program, senior citizens organization of San Lorenzo, their senior citizens program, mentors driving for change, two generations service to strengthen relationships, Pajaro Valley Preventions to the assistance, Community Bridges Elder Day, and Association of Faith Communities of Santa Cruz and Project Scout, which is with the seniors council. So I just want to say, I appreciate that you took the first action because that sort of closes that budget. This is a different one time budget, one time only the money we have and the two choices in front of you are very different. Taking that 500,000 for a three month bridge or taking that 500,000 for one year of partial funding to the providers that can really list at two very different policy choices. Right. So I can be acceptable to that. The, but with the knowledge that it may not be there next year. Well, I think it, I have to say as a human services department director with every economist prediction of a recession coming, and our budget so dependent on federal and state funding. I think the community deserves transparency that this is for sure one time funding because the state economy is strong. And if the state economy turns away, it's supposed to that particular funding stream is very likely not going to be here. We would have to do what you said earlier, Supervisor McPherson look for other grants, other opportunities. I don't think general fund is likely to be there. I just don't want to mislead the community. I think that this would go beyond one year. Supervisor Coonerty, did you want to win? Sure. So let me just say, I think I agree with, I agree with Supervisor Friend that it's important that we move forward collectively on this.  And we're going to continue to work to find that funding. As director Morris mentioned, there's really sort of two different policy objectives here, right? There's the policy objective of the recommended action, which basically gives people a little bit of a softer landing during this transition for those who got no funding. And then there's what Supervisor Friend is recommending, which is the other policy option, which basically says, look, we just, let's give half a year funding to these organizations that rank the highest. Some of them are new. Some of them are ones who lost funding and let's have a bigger impact rather than sort of spreading the peanut butter extra thin. I'd humbly propose us what I think is a middle ground here, but I want to see what folks think, which is that we fund those who got, those who were funded for the last five years, but who did not get funding, but we fund agencies who received grants over $25,000 last year, because I think sending folks a check for $1,200 or $1,500 in the large scheme of things won't make a substantive difference. And I'm sympathetic to what Supervisor Friend is driving at here, which is I'd rather make a more substantive investment and help people move forward. So the idea being that let's provide a cushion for folks who had funding in the past and who are not getting it, but that let's have that floor so that we have more dollars to spend among organizations that are basically seeing a bigger cut in their budget. I'm not gonna make a motion because I want to hear my colleagues and I'm open to whatever direction folks want ahead, but that was my suggestion to sort of hopefully meld a little bit of the two goals, policy goals that people are talking about in this case. So to be clear Supervisor Coonerty, you're suggesting funding organizations that previously received funding, sorry, over $25,000, what was the... It's the recommended action from the Human Services Department, but setting a floor of we only provide bridge funding to organizations that received more than $25,000 last year. And with the idea being that that would allow us to provide more bridge funding to those that are above that level. Yeah, and who are taking bigger hits, taking a $60,000 hit is a lot bigger than taking a $12,000 hit. Director Morris, do you want to comment at all on how that... I have a point of clarification for Supervisor Coonerty. This is very complicated. So bear with me as I make sure I'm very, very clear so that we can execute if this ends up being part of the direction. There's actually two adjustments to what I'm hearing Supervisor Coonerty, I want to confirm I heard it. So one is to sort of create a only above X amount of dollars because it's too small amount and that gives a little more to spread around but I want to confirm the second. In the item 3A, which is not the bridge funding, it includes everybody who applied for funding, not just those who are current recipients of funding. So I just want to confirm if you're also recommending to remove any applicant for funding who's not currently a core recipient because if so, that would end up actually pulling more money to spread. And my final comment is wherever you go today, I hope we can take some time at the end to get very clear policy direction. We will not have the numbers today. We will not have the exact names today but we can absolutely execute the policy direction.  We know what it is. If you choose to go this route, we can execute the direction but we won't be able to tell you what exactly that lands because we have to go do that math. Yeah. That's right. Is that what I hear you correctly? Just be clear. Yeah. My idea for this $500,000 is that we've had agencies who have been funded for five years and in many cases longer. They weren't recommended for funding under this new core process. I think as a matter of public policy, we want to give people cushion and time to adjust and change their or partner or do whatever, find other sources of funding, do whatever they need to do to adjust this reality. And so it would be funding programs that were funded last year, over $25,000 that applied for funding and that we would provide a bridge cushion based on their funding from last year. Whatever, however long we possibly could based on the amount of money that's left and the number of agencies. Okay, that's clear. Thank you. I'll just add, I don't know that shifts the calculus all that much. I can't imagine there's a whole lot of programs under $25,000 and given the size of the other ones, I mean, maybe we're talking about another half month, months for... I think if I'm following Supervisor Friend's proposal of going with the option listed in attachment 3A and then 3B list the agencies at 50% for one year. If you add Supervisor Coonerty's comment, I think you would pull a little extra money on two fronts. One, you would not be funding agencies below, I forget the number 20 or 25,000 Supervisor Coonerty, but number two, I'm hearing Supervisor Coonerty, then pulling funding to agencies that are new applicants. If I have that both, then we could do that math and it would mean instead of 50% funding, it would go up a certain amount of percentage point. So all the current providers that were next ranked would get one year of something more than 50%. That's what I'm tracking. And I think Kimberly wants to clarify and or give some details. I think they're talking about, I think as I'm understanding it's this conversation about actually our recommendation but modifying our recommendation. That's correct, Ms. Peterson. These are two very distinct things. Director Morris, Supervisor Coonerty is proposing accepting the staff recommendation, but just modifying it to not include organizations that received less than 25,000 in funding. So it's three month bridge funding or potentially longer for the remaining organizations. And then my proposal is on policy option two. I'm not opposed to Supervisor Coonerty's proposal. I mean, I think that I hear what he's trying to get out. My main argument here is that is whether the three months was substantive with a really provided meaningful input versus the more legitimate investment, which is why most of that money is going for a medium tier, eight of the nine organizations that are being funded, which would be over 50,000. So, but again, I think it's important that the board be really unified on this one. And so if that's the direction the board wants to go, I'd be supportive of that as well. Mr. Chair, I mean, I know you haven't weighed in on it yet, but I could go either way on this just as I heard Supervisor McPherson could. I don't think that there's a perfect answer to any of this. I just think that what I'm trying to come up with is the best answer in an ideal situation for these organizations. And with that clarification, then Supervisor Coonerty, I can answer your question more clearly. Thank you, Kimberly. I was conflating the two. Then we would do an analysis and it might go up to three and a half months or maybe four, depending on how that math lands. But if I heard that correct, we wouldn't be able to do the math now unless our staff texts Kimberly with an answer because there's people listening, but we would do the math and apply the direction.  Do you have an idea? I mean, we're gonna be off in July. Would you be able to do it by the first week in August? Tell us what we're doing. I think depending on your direction, what would be realistic would be a consent item somewhere, just kind of listing what happened, if that would be agreeable to make sure this circles back because I understand December is a far way out versus, because we spend a lot of time and energy getting reports together. But if that would be agreeable, I think just giving like a written materials back to you at some time with kind of where, depending on what direction you give us kind of where we're going. And then we could give a more detailed regular report that the December would be practical for us. Thank you. And to be clear, Survisor McPherson, neither of these actions delays funding to these organizations. I mean, it's either a bridge funding, we're providing the authority to the Human Services Department to do this now. I mean, they would be either providing the bridge funding for those over 25,000 or we would be funding these eight medium and one small now for 50% for a year. So the only thing that they'd be coming back with is just a list of the organizations. Thank you. I'll weigh in on this as well. I mean, I don't have a strong preference one way or another. I think that there are merits to both of these proposals. I mean, on the one hand, we're able to make a more substantive difference for the nine programs, eight medium, one small that are next in line to receive funding that honors the process and makes a larger impact for the organizations that are funded.  That's pretty extreme. And I think as much as possible, we should be letting people down easy and recognizing that many, five years that they've had funding, all that good work that they've contributed and trying to make the transition as smooth as possible. And I believe that recommendation actually came in part from the nonprofit community as a way to facilitate the transition. I mean, I guess I'm dealing a little bit towards the latter given that it just helps with this transition process. And ultimately, I think we'll be a soft landing for what has been a difficult decision-making process for this entire funding package. Mr. Chair, then I'd be prepared then to make a motion which would be to move Supervisor Coonerty's recommendation which is bridge funding for organizations that received greater than 25,000 in funding for the 500,000 and delegating all necessary responsibility to the Human Services Department to effectuate that bridge funding. And then on option four, which was recommended option four in regards to the report back and just bringing up the item language real quick so I can add some additional direction. To direct the Human Services Department to return on it before December 13th with an update on the transition funding and the newly established contracts and performance tracking mechanisms and efforts to explore other funding mechanisms for agencies not being recommended for award and progress on the lessons learned. As part of the lessons learned, I would just like some review on whether we should continue funding school districts, whether we have an out of town funding situation, whether we should continue to fund out of town, whether we should continue to allow self attestation of the nonprofits which may have miscategorized some of them which made it harder for some of them to compete for funding to take a greater look at those that use leverage funding and how that's ranked. And then lastly, I'd like to create a flexibility option which is I think that a lot of this would have been obviated if say 75% of the core funding was allocated directly associated to the ranking process but another 25% were set aside where the board would have flexibility to review those that had applied but not receive funding or those that receive funding but it wasn't full funding to make a decision at that time with the 25% held back for greater flexibility. So it's just providing direction. This is just to come back in December with these additional things to be part of the analysis of lessons learned. I think that some of these were some of the flaws that we saw within the process. I'll second that. Can I just motion my supervisor, friend second my supervisor, Coonerty, supervisor McPherson. I just want to make it just to clarify this. We're just talking about the $500,000 that's clear because we had the other motion, right? There is, I'm hearing only the 500,000 right which is two and then supervisor friend just added some specificity to item four which is to make sure when we do the lessons learned we include everything he listed which we can do in the lessons learned process. Good, that's great. And to be clear, the item two is modified as recommended by supervisor Coonerty to only be for organizations that receive $25,000 or more in 21, 22. Here's the mark. Any further discussion? I don't know. Supervisor Caput. Randy and Kimberly, the motion is what? By supervisor friend seconded by Coonerty. Correct, yes. Okay. Are we unraveling anything? No, your acceptance of what I admit was my recommendation to do items one and three together. That is where unraveling could have happened if you went against the recommended rankings in the RFP within the RFP budget. So that's been passed now unanimously. So what we're talking about now is just a policy decision of your board. A, how to spend the 500,000. We have clear direction and the motion makes sense. B, to make sure when we do the lessons learned process and report fact that we include everything supervisor friend listed which we will interview board members and we'll talk to community partners. There's a public comment about working with CBOs. Of course we'll do that, get their feedback on parameters. So all of that makes sense and we can execute on the motion that's on the table. And we have the money. Yes. CBO fellows. Okay, thank you. All right, well, if there's no further discussion then clerk roll call vote please. Supervisor Friend. All right. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Recommended actions two and four passed unanimously as amended. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, we do have a number of other items on our regular agenda but we have been going for about three and a half hours but recommend is that we take a lunch break now until about one o'clock, come back, try to finish the remaining items on our regular agenda and then move right into budget hearings at 1.30. That's amenable to everyone. Then the board will recess now. Thank you. All right, we will resume the regular meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and we'll begin with a roll call please. Supervisor Friend. Here. Coonerty. Here. Caput. McPherson. Here. And Koenig. Here. Thank you, Chair. You have a quorum. Thank you and for the record it is 1.01 PM. We will proceed with item 10, a public hearing to consider the approval of revenue notes by the Santa Cruz County Capital Financing Authority in order to provide interim financing for the Pajaro Valley Health Care District purchase of certain assets of the Watsonville Community Hospital. Adopt resolution providing for the issuance and sale of a 2223 grant application note in the amount not exceeding $30 million approving a fiscal agent agreement, local obligation note purchase agreement and placement agent agreement and authorizing certain other matters related to articulated actions outlined in the memorandum of the Auditor, Controller, Treasurer, Tax Collector. For a report on this item we have our Auditor, Controller, Treasurer, Tax Collector, Ms. Eustricial. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board. The item before you today outlines the proposed funding and attached documents required for the issuance of a revenue note in order to provide interim financing for the Pajaro Valley Health Care District. Their purchase of certain assets of the Watsonville Hospital Community Hospital. Watsonville Community Hospital. Approval of the interim financing in the form of revenue notes requires adoption of resolutions by the Board of Supervisors and by the Authority Board after the Board of Supervisors conducts a public hearing. As background, the county and other community stakeholders have been instrumental in the formation of the Pajaro Valley Health Care District. The county has been working diligently with members of the state legislature to obtain grant funding from the state for a portion of the purchase of certain assets of the Watsonville Community Hospital. The documents here reflect the words up to 30 million, although it appears as of now, we'll be looking at getting 25 million from the state. After acquisition of the assets, the hospital will be operated by the Pajaro Valley Health Care District Hospital Corporation. I am here today along with Suzanne Harold, the municipal advisor who will explain the funding structure in a moment, giving you more details. These items are on your agenda today as time is of the essence for funding to purchase at the hospital. The deadline for purchase has been set by the bankruptcy court as August 31st, 2022. And although we are very appreciative of the state funding, it is not anticipated to be received in time to meet the court mandated deadline of August 31st. The county has proposed to provide interim financing, interim funding, to Pajaro Valley Hospital by August 31st, 2122 to be reimbursed when the grant is actually received from the state. I will now ask Suzanne Harold to provide more detail on this financing item and she'll do so via Zoom. Good afternoon, members of the board. I know you have a lot on your agenda today, so we'll quickly move through the presentation. As Mr. School mentioned, the Pajaro Valley Health Care District has raised about $25 million to purchase the hospital out of the bankruptcy. And the state in their recent budget bill has provided $25 million in grant funding to assist for the hospital purchase. And the state budget includes actually two line items for this grant expected to be signed by the governor by June 30th. Next slide. As Mr. School mentioned, the bankruptcy court has set August 31 as the deadline and unfortunately the grant funding will probably not be received until October by the time they process all the paperwork at the state level. And so this county grant anticipation that will provide the interim funding between the acquisition date sometime in August and the receipt of the grant sometime in October. Next slide. The note structure is for the financing, the county's financing authority to issue a revenue note which will be sold to an investor. The financing authority will take the funding that it receives and purchase the county's grant anticipation note and the county grant anticipation note proceeds will be held until the hospital escrow closing. As in other financings the county has participated in, the county's financing authority was formed to assist in county financing such as this. And then once the grant funding is received, the county note and the financing authority note will be redeemed or prepaid at the earliest possible date. So the recommendation by the board of supervisors is to conduct the public hearing and receive testimony, adopt the resolution approving the issuance of the county note and the form of documents and authorize the payment of costs and interest on the note. And for the financing authority board of directors to adopt the resolution approving the issuance of the revenue note and the form of the various documents. That concludes my presentation and I'm just happy to answer any questions. Thank you to both of you. Are there any questions for members of the board? Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions. I just have a comment. First, a great appreciation to our state legislative delegation for the securing of the funding. Also to Ms. Harrell and also our wonderful auditor, controller, treasurer, tax doctor for all of your work on this process. This is an essential thing. We have to do this in order to ensure that the hospital is stood up. And we have repeatedly said as a board that this is an equity issue that we are gonna lead on. And realistically, this is a very, very, very minimal risk deal for the county considering the fact that we've got the state funding coming to back end. It is just really a timing issue. So I just want to appreciate how much what's being presented here goes by quickly but there was a massive amount of work done by the county team in order to make this possible. So just a appreciation to everybody involved. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Supervisor Caput. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I don't like to tempt fate but we're getting close. We're not over the complete threshold yet, right? I mean, I actually deferred to... Yes, we're getting closer. And this is a big step in getting us to the final goal. We were 16 million dollars short where we needed to be. This is $5 million more than we anticipated. This still leaves us with $11 million to get closer. That's after, you know, we needed 61 million. So now we're down to 11 million short but we, and we are confident we're going to make that up in the next month. We have a lot of good leads but we're still have a little bit of work ahead of us. Okay, yeah. I know it's been a big project and close is only good in the horseshoes, right? So it's all or nothing. If worst case scenario, if we fall short, let's say we fall short by 3 million, 4 million. With the August 31st, I don't, they wouldn't say no, right? I will defer those questions to council and the CAO. I don't know what to say. I don't know how to phrase the question any better. We intend to close the sale and the purchase of the hospital by the deadline of August 31st and we're confident we'll be able to do that. They're okay waiting until October for the state money, right? No, we're going to be, that's what we're doing today. We're going to be taking out this grant anticipation note. So we're going to get the money, borrow it, give it to the hospital for the purchase and then we will get reimbursed by the state of California whenever the grant comes in. Okay, okay. Yeah. You could think of this as a bridge funding. We're bridging that gap. Yeah. Time gap. We'll pay it and get it back. Correct. Okay, great. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. Mr. Chair, can you supervise him in person? Yeah, I just want to just really thank our legislative delegation and also our CAO, Carlos Palacios and our former health services agency, director Mimi Hall, who've been very active in making this happen and I shouldn't mention some others, I know, but those are two that I can think of right away. I think this is, we just had a full morning of health and human service discussion this morning. This is the most important thing for this county to succeed in of any of those health and human services agencies that we've talked about the long-term impact of this and providing hospital services to the South County, especially where we have an equity concern as well. This is the biggest health and human services agency criteria or accomplishment, excuse me, that we can make. And I want to thank each and every one of you who've participated in this and made it happen. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Any further questions or comments? I think none. I'll officially. Maybe one, just one more. Sorry, go ahead. With the Power River flood acquisition of the money we got, I thought that was the biggest project in years for South County. Now when we have the hospital before us, it's as big a project and the importance to everybody in the county is equal to that. I mean, we got to keep this hospital open. Otherwise, Dominican would be overrun, I think. And then what about the center hospital, any indication we might get a million or something from them? So again, I'm going to focus on this bridge funding and I'll let Mr. Carlos, Mr. Palacios, answer that. We have a request to a number of our healthcare partners and we're hopeful that we're going to get more funding from them as well as other state and federal donors as well. So we have a lot of asks out and we're hopeful that we're going to get more help. Good, okay. I'll leave it at that, okay. But we'll solve right now in September 1st. That's the plan. Hopefully. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. There's no other comments or questions from board members. I will officially open the public hearing to any member of the public who's to address us on this item. Seeing none here in the chambers, is there anyone on Zoom? We have no speakers on Zoom, Chair. All right, then I will close the public hearing and return to the board for action. I'll move the recommended actions. Well, second. Motion by Supervisor Friend, seconded by Supervisor Caput to adopt the recommended actions. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote, please. To clarify, this is for item 10, the public hearing for the revenue notes by the Santa Cruz County Capital Financing Authority. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. I just want to say thank you again, Edith and Carlos and everybody. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Item 10 passes unanimously. Thank you. That resolution being adopted will now proceed to item 11, which is as the board directors of the Santa Cruz County Capital Financing Authority to also adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance sale and delivery of a 22-23 revenue note in an amount not exceeding $30 million, proving a fiscal agent agreement, a local obligation note purchase agreement and placement agent agreement, and authorizing certain other matters relating there too. And take the lead actions outlined in the memorandum by the executive director. Thank you. The presentation for this item is very similar to the first one. So I will just let the recommended actions stand as they are. All right. Any comments or questions from members of the board? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to address us on this item? No one here in chambers. Is there anyone on Zoom? We have no speakers on Zoom, Chair. All right. I'll return to the board for action. I'll move the recommended actions. I'll second. Motion by Supervisor Friend. Second by Supervisor Caput to adopt the recommended actions. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call to the police. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. This item passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Triscoll. Ms. Harold, thank you very much. We'll move on to item 12 to consider adoption of resolution pursuant to government code 7522.56, exempting the hire of an extra help retired annuitant from the 180-day waiting period as interim staffing support for the Pajaro Valley Healthcare District has outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative officer for reporting on this item. Assistant CIO Lisa Benson. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you. We will make this very quick. This is an item required under CalPERS rules. It has to be on a regular agenda. We're asking you to adopt a resolution that would allow us to hire Beatriz Flores as a senior departmental administrative analyst to join our interim staffing team that is supporting the district and the hospital corporation board in our pursuit of buying the hospital out of bankruptcy and returning it to a public ownership as you just learned by the end of August. It's a very tight deadline. We have a lot of things going on and we feel incredibly fortunate to have Ms. Flores available and willing to come and provide her expertise in supporting these boards and helping us along the way. So again, typically this is not the kind of thing we would have on a regular agenda but that is something that is required by CalPERS. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Benson. Any questions or comments from board members? Seeing none, any member of the public that wishes to address us on this item? We have no one here in chambers. Is there anyone on Zoom? We have no speakers on Zoom, Chair. All right, and I'll return to the board for actions. I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Motion by Supervisor Friend. Second by Supervisor Caput. Any further discussion? I think it was Coonerty. Oh, sorry. Second by Supervisor Coonerty. Seeing no further discussion or roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. This item passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Benson. We'll proceed with item 13. Do you consider approval of the measured D5 year plan for 2022-23 fiscal year and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the Deputy CIO Director of Community Development and Infrastructure? And for a part on this item, we have our Assistant Director of the CDID, Mr. Steve Wiesner. CDI Department. Yeah, right. Steve Wiesner. Thank you very much. I guess I'm on here, yeah? You are on. Okay, all right, great. Appreciate being here this afternoon. We'll try to be very brief. Hello, Chair Koenig and board members and CAO, members of the public. My name is Steve Wiesner. As you said, I'm the Assistant Director of Community Development Infrastructure, the Public Works Division. And here with me today is Casey Carlson. He's our Senior Civil Engineers in charge of the County's Pavement Management Program. And Matt Machado, our Director is in the board chambers as well. Mr. Carlson and I are here today to present your board with a brief Measure D five-year plan update. In our presentation, we'll cover a brief history of Measure D, our past year's projects, this year's project, and then the Measure D five-year plan update that you have before you today. All right, so with that, there's just a few bullet items here. Just to remind everybody, that Measure D was a countywide half-scent sales tax measure that was passed by our voters in November 2016. It provides some critical funding. It's a 30-year funding source for transportation projects countywide. The county road revenue this year is estimated to be approximately 3.6 million. This is in the next upcoming fiscal year. And per the annual requirements of the ordinance that the Regional Transportation Commission has, we're required to come back every year to update our five-year plan in a public hearing. So that's why we're here today. After Measure D was passed in 2016, we actually went out and polled many of the communities in the unincorporated areas of our county. And the top priorities we found that our folks wanted was maintenance and repair of county roadways, specifically in our neighborhoods and with a focus on safety. Next slide, please. Thank you, so just very quickly. So this is the fifth year of implementation for Measure D. It's been a great program for us every year since 2018 when we started building a bank for these projects we've been able to put out a payment management project. So I'm just gonna briefly go over the first four years. Next slide, please. Great, so in district one, back in 2018, we did a little bit of work up in the summit area on Miller Hill and Miller Cut-Off. 2019, we're able to hit some neighborhoods down in the Live Oak area. 2020, we hit some of the roads down in the Thurber area. And in 21, we focused in some of the Soquel neighborhood streets. In district two, we started out in the La Selva area of that district. The next year on 2019, we moved into the Rio del Mar area. And in 2020, we were able to hit some roads in the C-Clip neighborhood. And then this last year, we did a couple of roads down in Coralitos. In district three, which has actually not as many of the roads as some of the other districts in our county, to do a meaningful project, we actually have to bank for a couple of years. And so we banked to 18 and 19 and we're able to complete all the entire length of Martin Road. And the last couple of years, we've been banking towards a much larger project out on Swan Road. In district four, the first year of money, and you would call Supervisor Caput, we were able to replace the Casserly Bridge, which was kind of an emergency at that time. And then in 2019 and 2020, we'd saved up enough money to do the entirety of Lakeview Drive over those two fiscal years. We were presently banking money towards Pulse and Road, which we plan to deliver next year. And in district five, it's been great. We've been able to hit like the downtown core areas of the San Lorenzo Valley area. We started off in 2018 in Boulder Creek, moved to Ben Lohman in 2019. And in 2020, we were able to hit downtown Felton. And now we're back up in Boulder Creek and starting to work our way out towards the downtown core area. Okay, so with that, I'm just gonna have Casey briefly go over the project that we have going on this year. Oh, if you click the button, there you go. Can we know? Yeah, all right. Thank you. So for this year's project in district one, we've got work on Thurber and Fairway, as well as Portola and the seventh. On Portola, we're gonna be doing some green bike lane striping in addition to the resurfacing. Next slide, please. Gotcha. District two, Real Domar. We're gonna do Cliff and Martin, as well as Venetia and Marina. Some other streets in the flats there, and as well as some work, we're doing a conjunction with Soco Creek Water District in the Cabrillo College area for some water main work that had been done there. Next slide, please. District three, as Steve said, we are still reserving funds for Swanton Road. We're hoping to have a project out there on about 2025. Slide, please. And district four, we've been reserving funds for Paulson Road. We hope to bring that next summer in 2023. And district five, we're working in Ben Lohman now and proceeding well. Everything's going well in the project so far. And back to Steve. Yeah, I would agree. So what you have before you today is the 2022 Measure D five-year plan update with your approval will be forwarding that onto the RTC for their records. The one thing to note in this year's plan is that we've recommended a set-aside, a $400,000 set-aside just right off the top. And that's gonna provide some critical match funds for a grant that we want to rebuild the multi-use path along Green Valley Drive down in the southern portion of our county. Other than that, the plan looks pretty much the same as it has in the last couple of years. And we've been working our way through that initial five-year list and we're doing very well. So with that, really appreciate your support on this program. The recommended actions for today are to adopt the attached measure D five-year plan update for this next fiscal year, for the 2023 fiscal year and authorize public works to submit a copy of the approved board package to the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. You're welcome. All right, I think that was under five minutes. And with that, we're happy to take any questions that you might have. Thank you, Assistant Director Wiesner and Mr. Carlson. Other questions or comments from members of the board? Supervisor McPherson. Yeah, I'd like to take every opportunity I can to look forward to presenting that this is presented to thank the voters for passing measure D in 2016. When we became a self-help county, meaning that the state recognized us as a community, a county that said, okay, we want to put something in for our roads. The state said, okay, we'll help you with that and match it. So it was a twofer in that respect. And we positioned ourselves to leverage measure D dollars to qualify for millions of dollars from the state and federal transportation grants as well. So it was just a great success story. And one that the voters, two thirds of the voters Countywide saw and the fifth district, which is mine, I think there are 13 projects this year for the measure D funded projects. And when you mentioned the 3.6 million, that was for just the Countywide roads as cities. When it gets to that, it's probably five or six million total, isn't it? When they have their road improvements, money too. That's right. Well, so there's a bunch of different buckets for the measure D sales tax measure and the local neighborhood projects are about 30% of the overall annual take of which the County gets about half of that. Yeah, so if we're getting 3.6, then yeah, it's seven, seven and a half to eight million is what, yeah. Well, congratulations again and thank you, Mr. Wiesner. And the whole public works department, you've been very responsive to people. And if they want to know what's in it for me, where would they go to see it on the website every day? Yeah, so we do, we do have a link to the measure D five year update on the public works website. And I think the RTC also houses that link as well. Thank you again. Yeah. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Any other comments or questions from board members? You're welcome. Supervisor Caput. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I want to thank you guys for all the work you've been doing. I'll miss you next year and I won't be bothering you. So everything looks good. Paulson Road, is that towards the flooded area? Yeah, it is. From Green Valley down to where Whiting starts. Yeah. Are we going to be able to do anything to keep it from flooding as bad as it was? You know, this project doesn't entail any type of drainage work now. You'd have to build the bridge, right? There's some pretty big drainage improvements will be required. Yeah. It'll make it better, at least. And who came up with a great idea? The Casserly Bridge that we replaced over by Smith Road. Yeah, that was actually, it was an internal design, our road design section that's headed up by Tim Bailey. They came up with that idea. You want to take credit for that? I'm not going to take credit. I'm passing that credit along. Yeah, we have some good engineers who work for Public Works and they came up with that idea and we were able to get it done in short order. I was a genius. It was going to cost four times as much as we spent and we only had so much money. And if we did it, the paperwork away where everything had to be done a certain way, it would have delayed the project probably two years and it cost four times what we spent. And out of your office, you came up with a plan that satisfied Fish and Game, satisfied everything and we were able to get it done in like three months. I thought it was remarkable. Thank you. I'll pass that praise. Yeah. So give my thanks to who came up with the design. His name is Tim Bailey and he's our senior design engineer in the road section. You did a great job. Yeah. And we're spending some of that money on Paulson Road, but maybe in about two years, we might be able to, how about next year, we'll be able to at least patch potholes on Murphy Road? Well, for sure. Our pothole patching program continues annually, but after we build Paulson, we'll start building a bank again for Murphy's Crossing. We know that's the next priority in your district. We think it's about two to three years to save up enough money to do that. Yeah. And it'll be a little embarrassing for a year because modern array is probably gonna start next year. We understand their project is going. Yeah. And then when it gets to the Santa Cruz side, but within a couple of years, we'll catch up. Okay. It was either Paulson or Murphy with some of that money, right? That's right. Okay. And then let's go, Murphy and Paulson. You know, that's pretty much it. I, oh, a whole hand and highway 152, we're gonna start pretty soon. We are actually, that's not funded through Measure D, but that project is actually on track to hopefully be put out this fall. Okay. They gotta start it before the rain season though, right? We'll get into construction and then if rain delays us, then we'll be delayed. But yeah, our plan is to just go forward with it. So we're thinking around September or October? Yes, that's right. Okay. Hey, thanks again. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. Well, it's hard not to get excited about road projects. It's, you ask the voters and it's just consistently at the top of things they'd like to see more of. So we're grateful that we do have Measure D. I mean, of course there's a lot of unmet need throughout our road system, but Measure D does allow us to make some essential repairs. I'm really excited about the repairs we've been making in the first district. You know, with that limited amount of money, we are focusing on some major collectors and arterials where I know a lot of people are gonna be able to appreciate those improvements. And I'm also grateful for the fact that we're looking at ways to improve bike and pedestrian infrastructure at the same time as we undertake those projects to really get as much bang for our buck as possible. Supervisor Friend. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Obviously, share the appreciation. I have just a brief question and then a comment. The comment is just as we, if the board ends up moving forward on the combined departments analysts that handle communications, I think to the degree that we can improve some of the Measure D and storm related damage, the website and sort of the outreach would be preferred. It is sometimes kind of tough, I think for constituents to really know what's coming up next, what the timelines are of things. I'm intimately familiar with the page that you have for SB1 and Measure D, but that still requires some deconstruction. So I think that just to the degree that that information is easily accessible to the community to make it better. I did have a follow up. My question just deals with once mobilized some of the adjacency advantages for roads, is it possible as we go into at least next fiscal and we go to bed? When I look at some of these roads, I sometimes see that there are some, this is what happened in Coralitas, as you may recollect last year, we were doing a number of roads. There was kind of a stranded small road that ended up being about 25 or 30,000 additional dollars in order to complete. Your team was very generous of being able to do it. I mean, it came out of my, the second districts allocation for this coming year for Measure D funds, but all the same, there was an adjacency component. Is there a way to just moving forward on these roads to structure an RFP as such, to kind of see whether there's, whether we can grab an extra road or two in each of these districts or make a determination as a board, even regarding general fund allocation for additional backfill on Measure D funding. I feel as though sometimes when we have this mobilized, it's actually a pretty de minimis cost for this additional road that may be adjacent, but we're not really given an option because we don't see that as a price point, sort of as a menu price point. Well, that's a good point and also a great question. We do look at adjacency to the projects that we have out there. If our bids, we've only been using Measure D funds for this program.  It's hard for us to know exactly how the bids are gonna come in. So we can't 100% anticipate that and we don't necessarily wanna telegraph that. That said, we're definitely always looking for opportunities to get more done when we're in an area. And so, yeah, to your point, we would always be looking for that. What are the degree, I appreciate, I hear what you're saying about how to structure the RFP and I recognize telegraphing. Do the degree though that information, that could be found out even ex post facto once mobilized would be useful for the board then make a determination. This all falls during budget time anyway, Director Wiesner, so to me, I feel like meaning that when we make these, the projects are done during the summer or the budget the board is making these determinations around the same time, the Measure D five year plan comes at the same time. So that would be a time for a last day discussion potentially of maybe it's not an additional significant amount of money and you get to add a road per district. I don't actually know what it would be, but I just want, I'm talking about for future boards, especially to be able to have that kind of flexibility for adjacency might make sense as built into your communications program as part of the budget time. We're certainly willing to have that conversation. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. All right, seeing no other comments or questions from board members, I'll open it to the public. Any member of the public wishes to address us on the five year Measure D plan. Seeing none here in the chambers, is there anyone on Zoom? We have no speakers on Zoom, Chair. All right, then I'll return to the board for action. Good action. I'll move. So we have a motion by Supervisor McPherson. Is that a second by Supervisor Cabot? All right, any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk will call vote please. Supervisor Friend. All right. Coonerty. All right. Caput. All right. McPherson and Koenig. All right. This item passes unanimously. Thank you both. Thank you. All right, we'll now proceed. We are for those of us joining in the public audience today. We are still on the regular agenda and we just have a couple more items and anticipate beginning the, or continuing the budget hearings shortly. So we're on item 14 from this morning's regular agenda. And as the board of directors of the Freedom County Sanitation District, we'll hop at public hearing to consider 22, 23, Freedom County Sanitation District sewer service charge report and adopt resolution confirming the 22, 23 sewer service charge report as outlined in the memorandum of the district engineer. For report on this item, we have Ashley Trevillo. Hi, good afternoon. On May 10th, 2022, the board approved in concept the fiscal year 2022, 23 sewer service charges for the Freedom County Sanitation District and set today as the date of the public hearing for the sewer service charge report. The sewer service charges are increasing by an overall amount of 7.4%. The sewer service charge report containing the assessor's parcel number and the amount of the service charges was electronically filed with the clerk of the board for public review. We therefore recommend that the board make the recommended actions read by director Koenig. Sorry. All right. Thank you. And I'm available for questions. Thank you, engineer Trevillo. Are there any questions or comments from board members? Seeing none, I will officially open the public hearing. Any member of the public wish to address us on this item? Seeing none here in chambers. Is there anyone on Zoom? We have no speakers on Zoom for this item, chair. All right. Then I'll close the public hearing and return to the board for action. I'll move the recommended actions. Motion by Supervisor Friend, second by Supervisor Coonerty. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson and Koenig. Aye. This item passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll now proceed to item 15, which is as the board of directors of the Davenport County Sanitation District public hearing to consider 2223 Davenport County Sanitation District water and sewer service charge reports and adopt resolution confirming the 2223 water and service charge reports as outlined in the memorandum of the district engineer. Thank you. Ashley Trevillo, sanitation engineer. Again, on May 10th, 2022, the board approved and concept the fiscal year 2022-23 sewer service charges for the Davenport County Sanitation District and said today is the day of the public hearing on the sewer service charge reports. The water service charges are increasing by an overall amount of 4.9%. The sewer service charges are decreasing by an overall amount of 3.5%. The water and sewer service charge reports containing the assessor's parcel numbers and the amount of the service charges were electronically filed with the clerk of the board for public review. Therefore, we recommend that the board make the recommended actions from Chair Koenig. Thank you, engineer Trevillo. Any questions or comments from members of the board? Seeing none, I'll officially open the public hearing. Is there any member of the public wish to address us on this item? Seeing none, is there anyone on Zoom? We have no speakers for this item on Zoom, Chair. All right, then I'll return it to the board for action. I'll officially close the public hearing and return to the board for action. I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Motion by Supervisor Friend, second by Supervisor Coonerty. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. This item passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, engineer Trevillo. All right, I am now going to adjourn the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors so that we can resume the budget hearings. This regular meeting is adjourned.


Hi everyone, Joe for jasmiescasewrakes.com. Happy Wednesday, hump day coming at you with some 2023 Bowman baseball. Jumbo pack break number seven, which is ultimately gonna fill Jumbo. Pick your team eight. Eight teams being given away here. But first, let's do the break. Big thanks to this group for making it happen. Congrats to the people. We did like these little impromptu giveaways, little flash sale right there. Thanks to the, thanks to people who participated in that and won extra spots in that. All 30 teams are in. Let's do the pack break first. Different dice roll for the giveaway. Five and a three, eight times for names and teams. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight. Five and a three, eight times for the teams. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight. And the Jumbo case break will be in the next video, of course. All right, no trade windows in these. So here's the first half of the list right here. And then the second half of the list right over there. And let's just, let's just print and rip. We got sixers in Boston, game two. Joe Wellen beat his back. Sixers stole one on the road. So Boston definitely wants to win this one. Boston definitely wants to win this one. Big thanks once again, everybody. Big thanks everybody here for getting in on it. Appreciate you. And let's see what's inside this Jumbo pack. Oh, I haven't got some Drew Jones paper, not bad. Chad Cromwell gets the Drew Jones paper.  So let's go back to the spreadsheet. So there's everybody's names here, one through 30. New dice, new list. And top eight will get teams in that order. I'm gonna put in this spreadsheet here. Another tab. All right, so good luck. Once again, there's everybody's names here. Let's roll it and randomize it. Six and a one, seven times top eight after seven. One, two, three, four, five, six, and seventh and final time. So from nine on down, it's gonna be sad times, but Jordan very close, no cigar. But listen, you are still part of that promo if we get the remainder of those breaks done tonight. This will be part of the break credit promo, so help us out with the other ones. All right, nine through 30, thank you. But only the top eight can get teams that are in the next break. Chad is in, so is Chad again. Scott, Chris, Jose, Chad, Chris and Chad. Congrats to the top eight. After seven, here are the teams. So Chad, you get the Miami Marlins. Chris with the Braves. Chad with the Giants. Jose with the Red Sox. Chris with Detroit. Scott with Texas. And Chad with Pittsburgh and San Diego. Thanks gang. I'll see you in the next video for the break. Jaspyscasebreaks.com.