cy size is and what the agency's budget is to help you know define the size of the agency which was brought up in the report and there should also it also be important to know whether a grant writer was contracted in the RFP process this for us is you know we know that larger organizations they're going to write much better grant if they can hire a grant writer versus a small organization that may have to rely on their existing staff to write the grant and the reason why I say this too is because around it was kind of best application wins well if you're able to afford a grant writer you're going to have a much better application than someone who can't or maybe not but I think it's important to kind of know what access folks these organizations had to having someone who could either professionally write a grant or that they have to write the grant on their own I think that is an equity issue that can be that we can help address if that information is clear and then lastly I think the supervisors in public should have access to the applications when they come available so that we can read the applications and know what's being offered and the public can weigh in you know more broader members of the public can weigh in and then and especially having the board weigh in on the application selection process and I know that you had mentioned that because of Omicron we didn't get access to the applications last time but that was a big sticking point for me why I had such a huge issue with this because I couldn't read over the scoring I couldn't read over what was being proposed by the different organizations and that really had a huge influence on on why I was pretty upset with how things went and so I'll just leave my comments there but just wanted to put that out since you all asked for our input and this might be you know this is one of our opportunities to to publicly kind of present to you all concerns that we have thank you. Thank you supervisor Cronig sorry supervisor Hernandez quick questions about criteria the rubric kind of methodology of it but I'm that we're trying or hopefully we're trying to make it more accessible to smaller mid-sized CBOs I know that the equity is part of the criteria or the rubric right you know obviously that's raised but are we looking at economic disparity as part of equity and like since tracks and if so are we doubling like on the rubric the points if there is both right both economic disparity and racial right are we doubling down the points for the rubric the rubric points right to award that that agency in my second question is with awardees are we tracking the level of service that they're doing and and tracking that they meet the level of service they're saying they they're doing and if so are we using that data for future awards at least internally for part of the rubric we just whispered I'll take the first really take the second and this is how I'm tracking your first question about equity at the risk of repeating what I said we wrote the last RFP in response to community feedback that how to operationalize equity is very complicated and there was a request to have us not impose upon the community what we defined as equity so we specifically invited the CBOs you tell us to your question you tell us what inequities you see based on whatever metric poverty levels region ethnicity you tell us what inequities you see and how if awarded this contract you would help to decrease those inequities so we created a wide berth the second part of that is how did we score that and one of the things that we can apply and learn from a pain point in the past is we are so rushed there's so much going on when the RFP was released the scoring rubric which showed how we plan to wait and score things was not part of it we plan to release that all as once so for me if I'm understanding your question you would have an opportunity when we come forward to you with the next RFP drafted based on this is the first run then we would write all this in and we would have the scoring rubric we would show what our recommendations for how to have a chance to weigh in and say you accept that or you want us to change it so that's how I think we would get at what I'm hearing your question to be and then you had a second question which Kimberly nodded she'll answer so I didn't track it so regarding what we're doing with the progress reports from each of the CBO's programs we are our general approach to the core programs all of them is that we want to see them be successful so this year was the first year for some programs some programs that was funding to continue something they were already doing and for programs that were not fully meeting any area of what they had planned to do we just work with them and check in on you know what how it's going of their you know what approaches they're taking to try and achieve success and so what you're seeing in this report is the year one snapshot next year we'll intend we will provide the same type of snapshot and same in the third year and hopefully over time we'll see that any program that is not fully achieving at schools currently that they'll work towards that over time does that help answer the question Surveyser Cohnig thank you chair first off I want to just appreciate all the data that's being provided to us today it's really great to honestly to know all of the programs that were funding better based on the results based on the testimonials from people who are benefiting from these programs and have data that we can even compare programs between one another so I appreciate that one question I guess to start off with one of the big issues we experienced last time was kind of getting back to what you mentioned that this is just the core program of the money that the county spends and really the kind of one of the cleanup actions if you will after the last core awards were to look at some of the applicants who did not get funding and see how we could fund them through the other 99% through contracts to deliver their services that we were honestly seeking through other channels so it is sort of like could we streamline the application process a little bit maybe identify some folks who would be good candidates for those other contracts the other 99% early on rather than after the awards are being made or determined could we have some kind of letter of intent process where we just get a sense of planning on applying and we can reply to them and say you know that's great but we actually have these other opportunities if you consider just responding to this RFP that's coming out from HSD and whatever a couple of months I want to share a couple of ways I'm processing your comment one is you never know what the budget is going to be like at the point time we're in front of the board again for recommended awards and it's predicted to be a very difficult budget season and just not that this is directly what you're saying but I think every time we come forward I mean if recommended awards are approved and certain agencies doing good work are not funded because their application wasn't ranked high enough there's always opportunity to ask the departments is there other funding sources and we did find one funding source that was very categorically restricted that we repurposed because we had some one-time money to help one of the agencies have one-year bridge funding so that can obviously be part of something to do number two we don't talk about this a lot publicly but we do and we can continue to community-based organizations are aware of the opportunities for us to partner and co-apply and since the last RFP cycle somewhat informed by some of these discussions we did co-apply with a couple of CBOs for some state and federal grants as public and private to try to help and then I think number three there is a broader effort going on with our community-based organizations looking at how we contract with them and I think there's space for us to continue to have that conversation to make sure they're aware and they're very aware and I think the smaller agencies have less infrastructure funding opportunities that aren't just county but sometimes state and federal and I think we can in those conversations there's already a lot of like how do we contract, how do we uniform our so in that space we can continue this conversation with the CBOs to make sure they're aware and we often get asked to sign support letters to state and federal and philanthropic grants and we're happy to do that particularly targeting those who have lost funding for whatever reason so I hope that's responsive it's going to be a difficult budget year I don't know if we'll have that one-time money available but if we do I think we'd certainly have that conversation then. So it sounds like it is somewhat part of the discussion the fact that there's other funding opportunities or channels available and that's good just to encourage you to continue to incorporate it and make that part of the outreach process and discussion with CBOs that are applying as far as the priorities go I think one I'm supportive of the proposed priorities and certainly childcare is a need that we hear of a lot I think that is addressed in the thriving families core condition and making that a priority I'm also really supportive of number three which is staple affordable housing and shelter and while yes we do receive a significant amount of money to address homelessness it's through over 40 different grants they're all restricted funding and the challenge I've consistently faced on this board is we know that there's a need whether that's shelter or temporary housing or safe sleeping or safe parking but we just don't have the grant for it and I really think that we need to prioritize some of this some of our only discretionary funding in this county for being able to address those high performing and needed solutions to homelessness to housing and shelter it's been a consistent consistent struggle so I'm very supportive of allocating a good portion of this funding I mean somewhere between one and two million to that core condition as far as other considerations I agreed generally with some of the comments that Supervisor Cummings made which is ultimately with this funding we're yes we want to encourage a variety of organizations to apply but ultimately our priority has to be the best results for the most people so actually I remember as far as the question of whether it should be a preference for state or federal funding or being able to leverage state and federal funding I kind of remember that being one of the notes coming out of the last process that we did want to make sure that we had that information and potentially prioritize those programs that could leverage state and federal funding because at the end of the day if it's a choice between one program where we're putting a dollar into the community and another where that dollar is matched by $5 from the federal government the likelihood is that the 6x impact is ultimately going to be the best thing for the community I think we need that data at the very least I also think that we should at least consider past performance I mean ultimately this is the about results and evidence and we should have some accountability and consider the results and the evidence that we're seeing when making awards for the coming year and you know finally I've said as part of the coming said I don't know so necessarily agree that small grants should be confined to small organizations can be innovative too and see a need that they haven't been able to address before and use this opportunity to do so of course small organizations can be more nimble at the end of the day there shouldn't be about one organization or another or prioritizing size one way or another I think it's about prioritizing the best results for the community so that's I would like to see our consideration of the applications go thank you I have a couple of brief comments on this before we open it up for the community first there's an appreciation for the amount of work that has gone in as one of the two members on the board that have been through this that have seen both worlds and been through the process since the before times and the after times of the core process and the iterations of core it really has significantly improved from the original vision to where it is now that is because of a real openness from you the two of you in particular but your team to make these modifications as needed I would like to just put a footnote in and a note of caution for our board that as we it does feel though just just listening to this that we're almost creating $8 million a process for $6 million of funding and so I want to make sure that we don't get so slammed on wanting information and so slammed on on the amount of public outreach and so slammed on this that we actually create that we actually need to we're paying people to do things that are here for the safety net and every moment that they're doing this they're not actually providing services and safety net and I think at the end of the day we're sometimes forgetting how much time with our additional direction we're tying up the team from doing the work that we actually all want them to do and it just sounds like when I heard you describe what happened between our last vote and today that it was like three FTE equivalents worth of work that I would have rather have been delivering services to the most needing our community and so I just want to caution us so I mean at the end of the day the data and all those information is useful but if it's not going to really change our mind on anything we should just trust the professionals to come back with professional recommendations two other points one of them is I recognize that there was no alignment on in essence the set aside I still think that that's a good idea because one take away I'm getting here is that we'll never create a perfect process there's no such thing as a perfect process is five of us think that define it differently the community to find the different CBOs to find it differently and so I feel as though we go through a defined process with what appears to be another lot of check-ins between now and that that final day and there will still be at the end of that process those that feel that the process didn't deliver for them and so as a result of that I think it makes sense to have a percentage set aside for complete flexibility on things that either we couldn't have envisioned and at that time in the last funding there was actually world events that came out that were actually new needs kind of came up in that amount of time on programs that had historically been funded that weren't funded that maybe the board would have liked the flexibility and even though technically we do have full flexibility on the funding there's also an honoring of the process otherwise what's the point of the process so I'm still very supportive of having a percentage set aside for complete flexibility for these decisions I actually think it would resolve a lot of what supervisor Cummings is saying is that at the end of the day if we don't if we understand the value but maybe don't completely understand why something was prioritized over something it allows at that last point to actually be able to fund that all the same now the second thing is that I understand that there was I agree with both my colleagues comments on the leveraging component I think that I mean there's a part of me that's debated whether we even should continue this at all I mean because how much time and effort for this amount of investment one percent and but at the end of the day if it can be leveraged I think that there's a greater value there and whether that's a priority versus whether it's just a percentage I don't know but I think that if a dollar can be turned into five or eight ultimately I think that we can agree that there isn't enough money to fund all the worthy programs that are dealing with a safety net of issues that are exacerbated they're unique to this community due to cost of living and a million of other challenges that we have here so it would prove us to try and maximize that amount of money and so I still believe that we should do that as well all right we're going to open it I'm sorry please Mr. I just want to make one comment about the set aside thinking that this is a reminder worthy of lifting up for public to respond to and then the board when you deliberate what to do the lessons learned from two RFPs ago before I was here CBOs were frustrated that staff recommended awards sometimes recommended they get funded at 50 percent of what they applied for in response to that and this is what I want to remind because it leads into an idea to consider we had in the last RFP which the board that was seated then approved to give staff discretion up to 10 percent of what to do with recommended awards to be able to make the math work and we ended up using that 10 percent to deal with the pain point of a lot of the frustration and so we reduced with board approval every grant by 10 percent and then repurposed that 10 percent to fund more I only share that to say if you don't give us additional direction today we certainly can build into the RFP a concept like that which is written so that the CBOs know they're going to get if awarded something within the ballpark what are they applied for potentially a certain percent whether it be a staff follow up to adjust or board discretion I think there is some conceptual framework that worked last time that could be how to build into the next RFP so I just wanted to remind that we already had that kind of set aside not for all of us to play with accepting the recommended awards but then making adjustments so that already was built in the last RFP we could figure out a way to build it in differently if we have different direction from you this time I was envisioning a different life because the reason for this review was because of a relatively universally held belief that it didn't function well I actually didn't share that belief I felt it did function well I think the fact that there was consternation and debate meant that the system was working because it wasn't the way it had always been historically and that's this is I mean it's painful right but that's the point of I mean the one side we can't say we want data and metrics and all this information on the other side say but nothing should change I mean I don't understand the point of that those are divergent things so I didn't mind the challenge but I'm saying what I was just trying to solve I was trying to land a plane that's going to be universal unless at that time there can be what is perceived of flexibility by board members which I think is an underpinning component some define it as more data more information more transparency that's great but I think ultimately it's just people they have a sense that their flexibility decision-making is being taken away and I'm trying to land that out as a 25% or whatever the number is to define that more clearly alright I'd like to open it up for the community or for members of the community to address us on this item Good afternoon, David Schwartz not quite afternoon yet candidate for to actually if he leaves I'm not sure that this is the right place to mention this or not but I would like to advocate for senior citizens there's a great avalanche coming and I know that we have programs for senior citizens but I'm hearing that there's gaps there's gaps in people that can't get to the doctor there's people that can't get out of their house there's people that can't find adequate food there's people that can't afford housing at a level where I don't think we're really looking at you know we like to think about the children we think about the families we like to think about you know the people that we see every day the the veterans that can't find a home but I think we need to be prepared for this avalanche that's coming and we need to start thinking about the needs of that group of people that maybe they don't have children maybe they don't have a relatives maybe they live alone maybe they don't have a phone even so we need to go out there and look and see what we need to do to help people that can't help themselves thank you very much thank you and thank you all for waiting for this item we do appreciate it good morning and welcome good morning thank you I'm Corinne Jones I'm the director of programs for senior network services thank you so much for the opportunity to speak just briefly I want to encourage you to ensure that priorities are clear that current and historically funded programs serving older adults need absolute consideration in core process the loss of funding for the ombudsman program as an example has placed it in a bit of peril contrary to things that I read in the community engagement process there needs to be an alignment on how to prioritize to make sure that the core funding be in alignment and in terms of the priority the population of focus is very important older adults are separate and above and different than children someone once said we do not want to see people become a hero of children while being a villain of older adults we want heroes for everybody and so there are organizations that will give every time to children or they will give it to conservative conservancy issues that's what I'm trying to say just please keep in mind older adults they're in the twilight of their lives their dues have been paid are surviving so many many different things in this country has proven that keep them in mind please focus on them the elderly should be recognized because they are frail they're older and many of them have no other options other than the safety net programs that are provided thank you thank you ma'am appreciate it good morning welcome back thanks for waiting good morning thank you so much for the time and for all of your service my name is Tracy Weiss I'm the executive director with the O'Neill C. Odyssey and currently serve as a commissioner on the commission for environment here at the county concern for the environment is at all time high we know that a healthy resilient environment is important indicator and takes care of so many aspects of our community's health well being and livelihood recent reports from the Ramona bay national marine sanctuary regarding single use plastics from the resource conservation district and the value that the natural world brings along with the annual report that the C. Odyssey puts out demonstrates again and again that we know what we know intrinsically that a healthy environment matters to our individual health to our community vitality and to economic prosperity while I understand there is an incredible competition for a limited number of resources I am here to ask that we consider a fourth priority for next year that the healthy environments be considered in this equation at this time healthy environments has not been mentioned as a priority not only in our current cycle but in for future funding and I would really encourage that we take a look at that as we invest in the natural world we are investing in a climate resilient future one that is equitable for all residents in our community I would ask that we put this as a consideration as we go forward so thank you so much for your time thank you and thank you for your work morning welcome back morning my name is Deira Flores and I am a community mobilization leader with county park friends and also a park activity designer and I also serve as a commissioner in the latino park commission and today I'm here to speak about the core funding because in the most recent funding core cycles 0% of funds went to the condition called healthy environments and this is a concern of mine because this only highlights a fact of the that we know very well that only 4% of our budget overall goes to the healthy environments 4% of the condition that I for fact know because I have worked in the community with the community presenting them with nature right there on community and I have witnessed the beneficial effects the programs centered around community input have on my marginalized communities mental health as you hear here as being one of the most impact conditions positively with our nature I would argue that we will need far less money for our health and wellness condition if all families have their access to outdoor activities I would like you to take reference to the county park strategic plan based on input for over 1000 residents in the previous 6 months and in my opinion mentioning this strategy will enhance the climate action strategy and provide more context for the funding suggestion hopefully we will get that in consideration thank you thank you and thanks for your work morning welcome back good morning everyone Mariah Roberts executive director of county park friends thank you for your service for all you do for our community so I applaud the intention of human services department to invest in our community using a social determinants model called core investments as a community we've identified these 8 core conditions in the last 6 months of our life however as you pointed out in the report we have not always funded them equitably in the most recent cycle zero funds went to the condition called healthy environments and so I bring your attention to the page 61 in the report again we're applauding this comprehensive assessment of the conditions but and again it's showing that our funding is not balanced we have 4% of our total budget that's going to the healthy environments core condition and as my colleague said you know we posit that if all you had equitable access the healthy environments through activities etc we would require much less for potentially other conditions I want to highlight that most of us think of healthy environments as part of our identity and economy in this community but inequity is incredibly real we have 2.7 acres per thousand people in spotter valley versus 27 acres per thousand in north county this needs to be addressed we understand that we might be able to apply under another condition it's very disheartening however because we believe that healthy environments themselves have value so just putting that forward we would like to ask that you consider a fourth condition at least and if you are able to act upon that we would ask that in that second part of the report you look at different adopted plans to reference for your funding recommendations that you include the county parks strategic plan with its recently adopted accepted 5 year update 1500 community members gave in thank you so much thank you Ms Roberts appreciate it good afternoon welcome back thank you Tony Nunez marking and communication manager for community bridges and before I start I just want to say thank you to the board of supervisors and also the CEO's office also serve on the board of directors for the Potter Valley health care district which oversees Watsonville community hospital so just thank you for your continued support there I wanted to speak today and share my experience at the in person core input session in south county at the Watsonville communities room it was a really great conversation about what core currently is possibly be in the last half hour of that session when we're supposed to be going through the survey questions and giving our opinions on those it really evolved into a great conversation of nonprofit and human services providers both big and small medium sized service providers of what the big concerns are for south county service providers and I just want to share both of them one is that it needs to be more of a focus on equity with the idea that the biggest need with throughout the county is both in south county and the live oak area where those two locations in the county are among the most unhealthiest places to live according to the healthy places index from the state of California and then also that this process has not been focused on individuals but it's been focused on equity for nonprofits and I think that that's the lens that we should be looking at this process is how do we keep equity at the center of this but equity not necessarily for nonprofit leaders not necessarily for nonprofit providers but for the people who benefit from the services that the nonprofits provide so thank you so much appreciate the opportunity thank you mr. news good afternoon welcome back good afternoon play camp seniors council area agency on aging and I want to thank the board and staff for this thoughtful conversation and of course for the commitment to continuing to fund nonprofits and the recognition of how effective they are at helping our community couple points I need to make some have already come up on today but the report lists priorities of the area agency on aging and those actually aren't that list of priorities did not come from us that's why advisory council members haven't seen it's why our board hasn't seen those priorities they came out of a meeting where various agencies serving older adults provided feedback even within that there was some key components that are missing so I want to share what those are one is that we feel funding should be prioritized for life sustaining programs somebody that provides food shelter protection from abuse that needs to be elevated over a program that is showing at risk population something fun to do both are important but we think there can be some prioritization there and we also think mandated services need to be part of the priority if something is required by law and requires a local match then that local match and that mandate that mandate be at federal state local whatever should take some presidents and we also want to make sure that throughout the process that there's review of programs that are not funded as well as programs that are funded and that's been a criticism of mine since core version one happened core version two the same thing happened if the board doesn't know the results of the funding process it's hard to make good decisions we also would encourage revisiting cores intent to restate that it is about maintaining a local safety net because I think there's a lot of confusion about what that should be and then I just want to express our concerns over two things that have happened first first year core childcare was cut by 150 thousand senior programs cut by 180 thousand second year senior programs were cut by 180 thousand childcare was eliminated and I don't think that's the board's intention we want to make sure the board does see the impact in the results of the process thank you mr. anybody else in chambers is there anybody online yes sure we have speakers online Nora your microphone is now available hi there I'm Nora Caruso from the Santa Cruz toddler care center co-director I just want to start saying how heartening it is to feel heard at this time yeah childcare was cut so significantly had such a huge impact and it feels good to know that you saw that that you noticed and that you're paying attention thank you we specifically were cut 90% of our funding we got the bridge funding for three months and then we were completely dropped so what that meant for us was that despite having 150 families on our waiting list and getting calls almost daily from mostly low income families I had to tell them I'm sorry we can no longer provide the sliding fee scale that we've provided for decades in this county which is heartbreaking you know we do not want to be a center that provides childcare for the wealthy we really want to provide care for a diverse population in our county we don't just provide childcare we provide wraparound services such as home visits parent support meetings community events healthy meals and the loss of this funding you know was incredibly impactful for it for our population the other thing I want to address is this idea of leveraging funds as a small nonprofit we're not able generally to leverage federal and state funds from the county and the city which means we really need your help with these funds we're a small nonprofit and finally thank you for including that quote in that first slide that said because of access to early care and education I was able to keep my job and housing this is the way in which you're leveraging funds the ROI the return on investment for childcare is $13 to every $1 spent please thank you consider childcare again Colin user one your microphones now available I've seen priorities overall in this country going for munitions and warfare billions to Raytheon Lockheed Martin cetera siphoning out funds from our county for needed services we are in corporate rural and dictatorship by these corporations we need to address poverty yes we have poverty because of this structure of where the money is going and the very wealthy you very disappointed me just prioritized your values when three of you voted to not have a ceasefire that would have temporarily at least stop the obliteration of the civilians and thousands of people in Palestine and stop the money flow for these weapons the money you do have you asked about our priorities as citizens living here I'd like to see a rule of first do no harm prove policies are safe and you have radiated the environment with all the broadband cell towers cell antennas radar signs this creates an unhealthy environment and a salt on our health and you have been provided with data on those facts over the years including from Barry Trower thank you Ms. Garrett are there any additional speakers online yes chair reminder this is a core the comment should be associated with the item core funding please Heather your microphone is now available Hi I'm Heather Burkez and I'm one of the co-executive directors at the Santa Cruz toddler care center I second everything that Nora Cruz has said I am here to urge this committee to prioritize the categories lifelong learning and education and thriving families in the upcoming core RFP to address the current needs in our county and the Santa Cruz Childhood Advisory Council 2023 strategic plan they noted that Santa Cruz County has a shortage of about 15,000 childcare spaces and that there are 12,700 children who would be eligible to receive subsidized childcare but are unserved more specifically only 26% of the demand for infant child care is being met that means our county is not meeting the childcare need of 74% of families with children two years and younger in a united way study they have noted that after housing childcare is the second biggest expense families face the lack of childcare deeply impacts the financial stability of young families because without childcare parents are unable to return to the workplace they are unable to survive in a place to seek other county health services like for housing and food and security that they might not need if they were able to join the workforce and a lack of funding negatively impacts the programs that are able to serve these communities and is turning quality childcare programs into places that serve the affluent and are taking away equity in our community it is time for our county to start putting young families in one of our most vulnerable and I strongly urge you to prioritize these two categories in the upcoming car thank you thank you Lynn your microphone is now available thank you this is Lynn McKibben I live in Boulder Creek and I'm a senior citizen and I've just come to make a few comments about seniors in our county our senior senator in San Lorenzo Valley was one of the competitors in the last round of grants and of course we didn't score quite well so we lost our county grants and we were really in danger of closing as other senior centers in the county have in the past however our board stepped up and has been running this senior senator for two years now three years now but we are looking for other funding for staff so I just really feel that there's not enough understanding or recognition of the enormous positive contribution that senior centers make to the equitable health and well-being of seniors in Santa Cruz County and that's the end thank you we have no further speakers chair okay we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for a motion is there a motion to advisor Cummings I'll make I just want to make the motion I'm just going to bring it up real quick I just want to thank everyone again for weighing in on this I think we've got a lot of great information about what the community wants to see as priorities and hope that we can incorporate that into this process and so the recommended actions consider and report for fiscal year 2022-23 and report back on community engagement provide direction on the staff recommendation for prioritization for the next core RP funding cycle and what I'd like to add to that is the in addition to the staff recommended categories and healthy environments and stable affordable housing and shelter and that's something that supervisor Koenig brought up is something that would be important to include in this process and hearing from the community if we don't have healthy environments we're not able to exist and so I think that allowing for people a lot of organizations working in the environmental sector to apply is really important and so I'm adding those two sorry for the comments in the middle of the motion and then direct the payment services department to return on or before April 30th 2024 with the recommendations for the draft of the next cycle of the core investments RFP if I got it not it's appropriate I just want to clarify as you consider additional direction the current direct the current recommendation from staff does include to prioritize stable affordable housing and shelter so that's already included in the staff recommendation what's not is the one you added so just the technical issue in terms of if you get a vote of adding a fourth I would just say as staff you asked us to come back and narrow it's completely your choice but we're trying to narrow based on the data we shared with you I'd like to add healthy environments based on the feedback we had today is there a second second there additional discussion do you need it as additional direction some of the comments that were made in regards to either set of sides or the leveraging if agreeable to the board short answer no we tracked closely we'll rewatch this and we'll do everything we can to incorporate all the comments you made as our elected officials and build it in an affirmatively point out how we incorporated those into the RP including if for some reason the staff we didn't see a way to include it like we have to consult with GSD on the county's public procurement process and we can release RFPs there's things we'll work on we will name what we've incorporated and we'll name if we haven't why not and then you can then deliberate and accept or redirect that's part of the so I think we're fine and we will try to incorporate all we can into the RP okay I'm fine and we have a motion for the recommended actions with an additional direction should we do a roll call within a second from Supervisor Hernandez we got a roll call please Supervisor Koenig Aye Cummings Aye Hernandez Aye McPherson Aye and friend Aye and I'm going to request that we actually break into close session now for about 30 minutes we can return at 1245 is there anything that we anticipate to be uh reportable out of close session no all right so the board will be in close session until about 1245 we'll be back here we're going to move on to Recording in progress sorry we're going to move on to item 9 it's uh public hearing to consider report on the 2024 growth goal adopt a resolution establishing a growth rate of 0.5% for year 2024 in the unincorporated area excuse me the unincorporated portion of the county the planning staff to file sequence notice of exemption is outlined in the memo the deputy CAO director of county community development and infrastructure with the agenda board memo item the resolution establishing the growth goal the sequence of exemption growth goal report the planning commission resolution staff report and the growth report cover letter uh good afternoon apologize for that I appreciate both of you waiting go ahead thank you chair friend and good afternoon board of supervisors Mark Connolly principal planner in policy for cdi with me this afternoon is to my right is Natisha Williams senior planner in policy for cdi and what we have for you today is the 2024 aforementioned growth goal and what this does is really sets forth a target for the unincorporated area for market rate growth the process annually is twofold one is it needs to go to the planning commission for recommendation to the board first of all so that happened on October 25th 2023 where the planning commission heard the item and recommended unanimously that the board adopt the 2024 growth goal they did have a few small comments that are addressed in your staff report before you today uh so with that I'll ask the clerk to bring up the presentation and Natisha Williams will provide a brief presentation for you thank you good afternoon so today we're here to discuss the 2024 growth goal the county's growth management system was instituted in 1979 following adoption of measure j to address the resource and public services impacts of population growth in Santa Cruz county as part of the growth management system each year the county is required to set an annual growth goal for the upcoming year that represents the year of the state's growth and the 2024 growth goal report is before you today for consideration so this report examines various factors actually one back used in establishing the year 2024 growth goal for the unincorporated area including analysis of population growth trends resource constraints the status of this year's market rate residential building permit allocations the county's housing needs including progress towards meeting the county's required regional housing needs allocation or RENA a review of demolition permits and density bonus projects approved in the past year as well as the ADU annual report this year's report also includes a discussion of the current pipeline of subsidized affordable housing projects and the continued impacts of recent state law on the county's growth management system in response to the comments from the planning commission additional language was also provided in the report on the current highway 1 expansion and its progress that's added to the urban services section on page 19 so population growth rates in recent years the county's population has been fairly stagnant and even negative based on the department of finance estimates population growth for the county overall in 2022 experienced a negative growth rate of negative 1.1% and that's negative 1.3% in the unincorporated area the state of California contracted at a rate of negative 0.4% in 2022 which is actually up from the previous year's negative 0.5% and it's important to note when you're looking at these numbers that housing unit construction plays a really big part in how the DOF population estimates are created so the DOF also reported that recent unprecedented decline in the population of California slowed last year due to three main factors stable births, fewer deaths and a rebound in foreign immigration that nearly returned to pre-pandemic levels but overall population growth is still negative due to the decline of net domestic migration which they say is likely the result of work from home changes since the mid 20th century population has steadily grown in the state of California and in the county as a whole while population in the unincorporated area has had a slightly different trajectory. The unincorporated area's population grew rapidly in the 1960s and 70s surpassing growth rates in the state and county as a whole but growth rates started to decline in the following decades and population actually decreased in our area between 2000 and the 2010 census years despite recent declines and the year-to-year population estimates reported by the DOF the 2020 census data actually showed that overall the county's population in the unincorporated area is actually on the rise with an average 0.2% growth over the last decade a total increase of about 2400 people since 2010. The measure, the growth goal report also summarizes the current status of the 2024 residential building permit allocations. This year 24 allocations have been granted as July 1st and if that demand trajectory continues 48 allocations will be granted by the end of the year. This is slightly lower than last year when 26 building permit allocations had been granted by July 1st but demand for allocations remains low compared to previous decades and staff anticipates there will be more than enough permits available for the remainder of this year which is nearly the end. Although allocations remain low this year a number of major residential projects are currently in construction which currently in development are reflected in table 10 of the report which shows that 108 housing units were issued building permits as of July 1st that includes 38 affordable units and 51 accessory dwelling units and these just wanted to note that these types of units affordable and accessory dwelling units are not subject to the growth management system. In order to support the county's affordable housing goals the county continues to exempt affordable housing to obtain permit allocations. And in accordance with the housing crisis act of 2019 the county will continue to not enforce the measure J growth goal limit on residential allocations within affected county areas while the statute is in place which was extended to 2030 with the passage of SB 8. So in Santa Cruz county the affected areas include the following census designated places shown in blue on this map that's Live Oak, Paso Tiempo Paradise Park and Amesti but I do want to note that all other aspects of measure J related to limiting building permits in the population including the county's affordable housing requirements are not at all impacted by this bill. So staff will continue to track the measure J allocations and subsequent building permit issuance in the affected areas solely for the purposes of reporting and continuing reporting this type of data in this report. So let's see in addition all residential units impacted by the CZU August Lightning complex will continue to be exempt so that the measure J allocation system is not a burden to those residents. Based on analysis detailed in the report for you today staff recommends that the growth goal be set at 0.5% for calendar year 2024. In past years the county's growth goal has generally been consistent with the state of California's growth rate however for many of those years actual development fell well below the established growth goal and with many housing initiatives as well as the state housing initiatives as well as the regional housing needs allocation which is three and a half times larger than the old one and code improvements that are coming our way with the sustainability update that will soon be implemented there's a greater potential for housing development in the county in the coming year and moreover census data indicates that the populations county is actually on the rise and and back and back projections show that this slight increase will probably continue so there's also as I mentioned earlier there's a number of housing projects currently in the permitting pipeline and we've seen slight elevation and permit activity in recent years so it all points to the potential increased demand for market rate permits that may continue through next year and beyond it's also important to note I did already note that there's a lot of state housing and ADU laws that are aimed at streamlining housing permits and increasing infill development such as SB 9 and in light of all of this we're recommending the 0.5% growth rate we feel it's inappropriate to set it at that rate for 2024 I did want to mention also that there was a comment or a concern from the planning commission regarding the RENA and I wanted to note that the regional housing allocation only it applies to both market rate and affordable units while the growth goal is strictly only limits the development of market rate units and if we looked at just this year alone the allocation is 465 units which is about 30% of the total number of units above mod units required in the RENA year span of the next RENA cycle so we think this is a realistic target let's see this growth rate would result in an allocation of 257 market residential permits available for 2024 allocations will be distributed between the urban and rural areas between 75 and 25% to recognize greater potential for infill development in urban areas and the growth goal also recommends carrying over unused market rate allocations from 2023 to 2024 so this results in that 465 market rate residential building permit allocations for 2024 and staff has found that establishment of the growth goal is exempt under CEQA and I noticed that the exemption has been prepared and included in your packet as Mark mentioned this was reviewed by the planning commission at a public hearing on October 25th and recommended for approval staff therefore recommends that the Board of Supervisors conduct the public hearing to consider the report on the year 2024 growth goal adopt the attached resolution establishing a year 2024 growth goal of 0.5% for the unincorporated portion of the county and authorize the filing of the CEQA notice of exemption with the clerk of the board so that concludes the presentation and we're happy to answer any questions thank you questions from Supervisors Supervisor Koenig thank you chair you addressed my question is how do we square the growth goal with the arena numbers and as you pointed out the majority of arena numbers are for actually affordable units so I think I caught your math there which as you said that the 465 units is actually 36% 30% okay but do we need well 6 or 465 it's about double average over the 8 years so we need to we have about 1550 units over the 8 years that we should build so that's only 193 194 units so the growth goal effectively will not limit our ability to meet our renewables the 8 years correct great thanks Supervisor Koenig thanks for that presentation two questions it seems like this just focuses on market rate is there any kind of provision that the county that also sets similar goals for affordable housing growth and that's the housing that we need for our workers and our community members so measure J included our inclusionary housing policy which sets that 15% requirement that you're aware of but the growth goal used to apply to affordable units but they found that I think back in 2009 the mid 2000s they decided to limit it just to market rate and they removed 80 years they removed affordable housing because they didn't want this to be an impediment developing those types of units so currently no those are not part of that that's the growth goal so it sounds like there may be an opportunity if we wanted to explore implementing growth goals for affordable housing that's something the board could consider potentially yeah it was done in the past in previous years okay that's really helpful and then I guess in terms this is a capacity issue because I know earlier this year we have a lot of folks coming in planning and needing permits and trouble getting permits and so I'm just wondering how you know the ability to permit aligns with these growth goals like do we have the capacity to keep up with the permits that are coming in in order to meet these goals so that we're not falling behind I'm just giving a lot of you know the public feedback that we've heard about people's challenges with getting building permits are you talking about like ensuring that that the growth goals not a burden on people developing and processing their building permits or I guess it's it's really it's you know I want to better understand like if we have a number that's set for like okay these are the number of units we want to build is that the capacity within the county to kind of meet the you know to be able to meet those goals right so part of part of what the growth management system establishes is not only like setting this maximum but also developing policies that can encourage us to reach the growth goal as well and that's definitely within the purview of the board and we can you know come back with proposals if the board so directs but currently if I could chime in just a tiny bit to Supervisor Cummins question I think you're talking about even our staffing levels to manage the permits coming through the front door to meet the growth goal and to meet the arena goal and all the goals that we've established I would say it'll continue to be a struggle if you look at our numbers today like our permit reviews are overdue we're in the mid 60 percent range of overdue and so it is a struggle we've been trying to balance with keeping positions filled you know we have a fair amount of turnover from retirements and difficulty recruiting new staff and so we're trying to balance an aggressive recruitment strategy and an aggressive third party use for plan check services and a balance between those two we do have a goal this year for the next two years an objective that the board have adopted to get down to I think is 25 percent overdue which is probably accurate because some applications are going to be overdue because of the quality control they have we're not at that goal yet we're striving for it but I think it's going to be a struggle so you point out something really important and I would say it will be difficult but we're going to keep working at it well thanks for that and whatever we can do to help support you all and your efforts to you know staff up I mean I think that we all want to try to make us as efficient as possible so thank you thank you those are all my questions yeah one more question that occurred to me you know so the reading number is kind of funny right because while it only requires us to do a certain number of market rate units the fact the matter is that the affordable units either have to be subsidized or we need to build roughly five times as much market rate housing in order to build one affordable unit so that the market rate housing can subsidize it so actually come to think of it this growth goal could very much come into conflict with our ability to build the affordable units required for us under the rena number I mean and at that point I mean let's say a project is proposed that has where we're starting to would put us over the cap with the growth goal but would add a certain whatever 50 affordable units therefore you know contributing towards the rena number that we need and are still short we come into conflict with state law at that point and have to approve the project despite the fact that it put us over the growth goal well there's we can always come back to the board if we see that we're meeting that that growth goal that's set we can always come back and because well you know especially if it's an affordable housing project we'll definitely be aware of it coming through the pipeline before it gets to the building permit stage so we can always return to the board and request that we increase that growth goal to set it to an appropriate if something a precedent comes if there's a large number of projects that come forward that would that the growth goal might limit or prevent some sort of project from being issued a permit okay I mean it's an order to build 3,000 affordable units out of 15% including area rate that's actually like 20,000 market rate units right the main part of the reason why the rena numbers are very much aspirational thank you I will just point out that a lot of our affordable units are 100% projects just like the new capital project capital have any project it's 100% 57% you know 100% and that actually we're seeing a lot of affordable 100% affordable that are subsidized by tax credits and other federal state programs be built because frankly the market projects are having trouble now throughout the county other than city of Santa Cruz penciling I've talked to people who own property in Watsonville just for example they can't make they have projects entitled and they cannot build them they're just not penciling out market rate but yet there's affordable projects there's 3 affordable right now being built in Watsonville 100% and that's great as long as the project based vouchers keep flowing but it could run out yeah I too was concerned about the growth goal compared to rena numbers I'm just just generally concerned that you know what formula is used if it's going to enhance the ability of the state to come in and tell us what we have to do really so an overhanging cloud I think in all of this and big concern of mine but you won't have to worry about that for after one more year quitter I would now like to open up the public hearing this is a public hearing is there any member of the community that would like to address us in chambers during this public hearing is there anybody online madam clerk I see no speakers chair okay we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for action Supervisor Koenig we have a motion from Supervisor Koenig a second from Supervisor Cummings we've got a roll call please Supervisor Koenig Cummings McPherson okay that passes unanimously thank you both for your work and for their presentation move on to item 10 which is to consider a status report on the federal emergency management agency or FEMA public assistance for the county disaster response and recovery direct staff to return on number 4 of February 13th 2024 with debt financing options for unreimbursed unfunded disaster recovery efforts and take voted actions the CAO and I believe we have a presentation from the CAO Mr. Palacios thank you very much chair members of the board Carlos Palacios County Administrative Officer more than three decades ago I started my career in local government and I remember at that time hearing about what we used to call global warming for the first time and we weren't sure what it really meant and what impacts it would have and I do remember then in 2006 Al Gore came out with his documentary an inconvenient truth which really spelled out at that time 2006 two decades ago the cause of global climate change and what many of the impacts we're going to be on the world we live in well we are seeing the impacts of climate change in Santa Cruz County not only in the frequency and severity of storm and fire events that we are facing but also on the impact on the county budget Santa Cruz County is particularly vulnerable among counties in our state largely because of our geographic setting large portions of our county are in the mountain areas or on the coastal zone that leads us to an environment that's particularly vulnerable to the climate change we are seeing in addition the county as we have told you before is historically been underfunded mainly due to the way property tax is distributed in the state of California beginning in 1978 after proposition 13 because of all these factors the county budget is now under great stress due to the repeated severe federal disaster events that we have been faced with we have been faced with seven federally declared disasters in the last six years which is we're used to it now but it's shocking when you think about it to have seven federally declared disaster events in the last six years in our county alone the biggest issue for us is the way that FEMA is structured and how they reimburse us for these events it is taking on average three to five to six years to get reimbursed their model is broken because they're being faced nationwide with so many different events and because of the slope the pace at which we are being reimbursed we are facing a very severe budget problem that is mainly due to cash flow the good news is that we will be reimbursed the problem is that we are spending money at such a pace that we are putting pressure on our cash flow and our ability to respond to these emergencies so we are going to be as you'll see in this presentation be forced to issue debt to finance our cash flow until we are able to get reimbursed by FEMA so that is what I am here to talk to you about and as you can see we are going to review some of the disasters that the nation and our state is being faced with talk about the financial situation of the storm response we've had and then what we are going to do in the near and long term to respond to this since in 2023 there were 25 federally declared disasters and again this is where we've become a numb to this but it's shocking when you think about it there we are California flooding in January through March that was our 2023 flooding but you'll also see the Maui fires that took place this year which again is unprecedented and then all the other severe weather events from storm damages to hurricanes that have come across the country and this is part of the story is that FEMA is under tremendous pressure both from a staffing point of view and from a financial point of view they are being faced with all of these disasters this is just 2023 mind you just one year 25 federally declared disasters to respond to from a staffing perspective and then try and reimburse local governments in a system that really was built on a disaster happening to a local community once every decade not seven in six years and so that's really the fundamental change that we need to have happen at the federal level this is another chart that shows you the frequency of the disasters that our nation has been facing you can see there anywhere on average let's say six events federal disasters all through the 80s even up to the early 2000s you can see 1992 which is when I first heard about global climate change there was like six or so and then you see 2006 when Al Gore was talking about it there was like seven or eight and then you can see in the last decade really from 2014 15 we just have more and more federally disasters declared up to last year which we have 25 compare that to 1980 where we had three federal disasters declared and you can see that most of them are in storm events and in fire events this is in the state of California the number of disasters we are being faced since 1980 and you can see that we had as few as one going into the 80s and then now you can see in the last decade we've had multiple events and again mainly storm disasters and fire disasters which is what we have been faced with as a county so in Santa Cruz County we have had seven federally declared disasters in last six years 2017 there were three federal disasters 2020 the lightning complex fire which was the most severe fire event we've had in our history 2023 was another very severe winter storm two disasters and then of course we had that the COVID-19 thrown in there which was also very difficult on all county governments because we were the first responders on the ground as county governments and again I wanted to mention that we as a county are in some ways the canary and the coal mine because we are so vulnerable to given our geographic setting so this is just a few pictures you know this but I think the public knows this as well this is just 2017 there were three federal disasters this is just examples of what happens to our roads as they are faced with this amount of water in such a short time period you can see the 237 damage sites in 2017 and you can just see them all over the county 2017 we've had 120 projects completed but you can see that there are still sites that we haven't even gotten to yet in 2017 and at this point I'll also point out that I'm very proud of the response of our public works department and the other departments that have been involved in these responses because it's truly amazing the work that we have done we have done really really really good work in responding but you can see that this scale is becoming overwhelming to us as county staff and of course 2019 we had the pandemic when we had to really mobilize our whole county government to deal with that 2020 the lightning complex fire the most severe fire in county history and then 2023 which was another very severe winter storm event and you can see the events that most impacted us as you see the red lines coming in there to the central coast you see there's December 31st January 5th and then of course the March 10th March 10th being when the power river flooded all three of those events were at we had many more atmospheric rivers but all of those cause severe flooding you can see in this map that we had more than 100% of our annual rainfall that year and again 2023 was in some ways without precedent but it happened in 2017 as well 215 project sites damaged sites again all over the county particularly our coastal areas and our mountain communities have been affected the scope again we become numb to this but it's truly shocking the number of the damage that was done to our county doing these during the 2017 2023 and 2020 fires this is the projects that have been completed roughly 86 projects and again very proud of our public works department and all the crews that have done an engineering staff that have done tremendous work trying to respond to this and another thing to keep in mind is that not only of course OR 3 has been very involved in this as well planning staff has been very well involved in it we are not having to do this in a vacuum we have our normal work we're doing right so this is on top of all the normal work that staff are being asked to do they're asked to be responded so here's the the financial data and the data again very large numbers you can see the 2017 storms COVID-19 2020 wildfire 2023 storms as well $250 million approximately that we are eligible for claims either FEMA or federal highways and by the way that's not the total cost we actually spend much more than $250 million on these disasters these are just the costs that are eligible for federal state reimbursement and then you can still see that we have $159 million outstanding and that number is putting a lot of pressure on the county budget and is really pushing our county to its limit on the cash flow that we are able to continue to maintain to respond to these emergencies we're really at our limit about our ability to continue to float these responses awaiting reimbursement from the federal agencies you can still see that we have $20 million from 2017 that is still not being reimbursed six years ago we're still waiting $48 million almost $49 million from 2020 when the COVID three years ago and then of course we still have the new disaster so that's really the issue that's before us as a county is that we're having to really reorder our total budget priorities and we're going to have to issue debt to maintain our ability to keep to basically fund this cash flow awaiting the response from Pima and other federal agencies to get reimbursed this is an example of the cost of the storms versus our general fund taxes general fund taxes are the amount of money that's more discretionary in the county although it's all committed to very very important things and you can see that the storms responses in 2020 2021 and 2023 are getting to the point where they're almost equal to our entire entire general taxes we're getting in so now it's responding on these responses almost entire amount of taxes general fund taxes we're getting in and again the good news is we're going to get reimbursed and that's really good news but the problem is the timing and so what we need from you is a few things one is that we're going to be coming back to you to ask for you to authorize us to issue debt to basically keep our cash flow in a healthy position so that we can await getting these reimbursements second I'm going to ask that we impose on chair friend if possible we've already imposed upon him quite a bit to help us with this and he's built a number of relationships with FEMA nationally with NACO nationally in helping us to get this fundamental changes that are needed at the federal level because this is really the federal government and local rooms being faced with circumstances which we have not faced from before this is unprecedented the amount of money we're having to spend on the disaster responses and FEMA is not ready for it so chair friend has been building relationships and has facilitated meetings in Washington and locally with FEMA and I'd ask that if you're amenable to it that you continue to help us since you have built those relationships we have to continue to work with the federal agencies and with our elected representatives to bring about getting reimbursed on these costs and then ultimately this is going to affect all local governments that we need fundamental change in the way that the FEMA's organized they just have to be much quicker in reimbursing or they have to be able to front money up front you can imagine right now facing a billion dollars I mean that little the county government city government they can do that and we're to the point where we can do that in other counties in California are being faced by the same thing so that's what our request is from you today and we will return to you we hope in early February with a plan on the debt issuance it's going to be very complicated because some of this debt is going to have to come back within a year because some of the we're getting reimbursed you know anywhere from one year to six sevens right so it's going to have to be different time periods as well that concludes my presentation thank you very much thank you Mr. Palazzo so the questions from board members supervisor McPherson yeah just a terrible circumstance in the uncertainty of it all too I thank you for that comprehensive report and this is the biggest challenges we faced financial challenges since I've been on the board for the last 11 years and I as you have mentioned that then we our public works department can't be it can't be stressed and then our health and human services too with COVID and all just how much extra effort and committed effort that they have put in over the years it's really be really appreciated and we really need the support of state and federal agencies and we understand that situation as you pointed out on your national map these disasters are going on everywhere we just had with that tornado in Tennessee there's there's another one on the list it just keeps on going but we can't afford to absorb those costs that we're getting here or borrow in a way that could affect our credit rating we will consent to continue conversations with federal and state agencies to see the best that we can view realize that they're they're stressed as well it's and it's really very concerning to whether we just have read about the recent state budget crisis that they're about ready to face too so it's it's not made easier in any any way and I think that we do have a reserve we do have to say we've got to be have that ready to go to for the immediate needs to when the next disaster hit and I don't mean to be negative on that but it's just lucky we didn't get the last Oregon Washington storm that we had so thank you for this oversight very depressing in some respects but realistic and so we have to do the best we can and I think our county staff has done that so thank you Supervisor Cummings I just want to thank Tia Palacios for bringing this not only to our attention but to the attention of our communities they can really understand how we've been getting impacted by storms and the disasters that we've faced over the past few years it's it's just crazy to think that when I started studying biology back in 2001 everybody was saying in 20 years if we don't do something about this here's what's going to happen and now it's actually happening and so I think it's really important that we're following the science and listening to it because everything's playing out as was predicted I and I agree that you know I don't think FEMA was ever set up to help address the magnitude and frequency of disasters that we're seeing at this point in time and so really being able to figure out how we can get the federal government to seriously take the fact that we need to change the system so that we're able to actually continue to operate as local government because otherwise I mean if we get hit with another bout of disasters this winter it's going to be really unclear how we're going to be able to continue to move forward so I appreciate the request for the to go out and bond and I hope we can continue to educate the community on why this is necessary and then I would just ask for one change to the language which will be the direct supervisor friend to work with the staff because since we're going to have a change in the chair next year likely I just want to make sure that he can continue to work in that role as he works with staff opposed to the language change supervisor thank you chair thank you to our CAO and staff for this sobering report and we've really especially we've done everything possible to keep our roads passable and just completed an incredible number of projects in this past year but what we're seeing is that without changes at the state and federal level particularly federal and the way FEMA's funded it's just not sustainable I just had a couple questions I mean the map you showed of the 25 federally declared disasters across the country is important context we know what the total number of claims is across all those disasters and then how much FEMA is actually being funded per year I'm just what is the shortfall there in terms of how much FEMA is being funded and then is there an average wait time right now six years ten years before folks or communities are seeing reimbursement for these disasters I don't have I don't know if staff has a they read up if you have a national figure in terms of total I know that the 25 federal disasters are over a billion each but let me see if you have it so we we're working closely with FEMA to get to the the heart of your question I think they're recognizing both post COVID that they need to hire more people so that they can process claims quicker so we know that that's coming on the COVID lens and then we're working very closely with our state and federal partners to try and move our stuff through more quickly as well but from a national standpoint I don't have those statistics unless Marcus does no I'm sorry I don't have that data nationally about the FEMA's funding status and where they're at or not it's a great question what I can speak to is our claims experience you know Mr. Palacios put up the slide and you can see over the last seven years we've had the various experiences with FEMA over seven disasters and the staff are great it's the process that's holding it back and in those seven disasters in seven years we've seen about 35 20 to 35 percent reimbursement on our COVID or CZU claims and those are getting close to four years old we've had better success with the 2017 some of that is our funded through a different federal program that's largely the success of FEMA I think we should expect five, seven maybe nine years unless we keep up our advocacy efforts and that's been instrumental the last 12 plus months we've seen a lot more activity than we saw previously so unfortunately goes to that we've got to find the time and space and keep advocating for ourselves right and to that point the memo suggested there's some hope that we could be reimbursed for with a larger portion of the COVID expenses soon what's the grounds for that are we seeing other communities getting those reimbursements we've just gotten some positive feedback from FEMA we're spending three hours with them Monday 9 a.m. December 18th so they've committed largely and thanks to chair friends advocacy and our federal representatives FEMA staff are coming here and we're prioritizing our COVID claims we've got about 50 million, 48 million in change they're still outstanding, they're stuck and so our efforts are aimed for that three plus hours is to get through every one of those claims I didn't find the ones that are no-brainers we should move forward we have high confidence that a lot of them are ready to go so we budgeted 14.4 million that we received this year we're at 200,000 so we have a long ways to go to get to that 14 million mark but we certainly aim to get higher than that so I was able to get some data from Jason Hoppin so orders of magnitude the annual appropriations for FEMA is in the order of magnitude of 10 to 20 billion a year over the last number of years we've seen 50, 60, 70 billion dollars worth of damages not nationwide so that's where we get each year the continuing funding resolutions have to make up and fix that but FEMA is economically underfunded at their annual allocation level and then they have to pivot and adjust got it well thank you for that data and thank you for the continued advocacy with FEMA including your meeting next weekend that really underlines the other point that was made which is this not only is it an incredible strain on our cash flow it's an incredible strain on county time to address these disasters not only while they're happening but in the follow-up on FEMA reimbursement thank you I think one of the things is also I think it's imperative that we do some sort of press release on media on this matter too specifically on the increase in the disasters and FEMA reimbursements we're facing some of us saw the newspapers over here and online news providers earlier but they're gone now but I think it's critical that we share this information because you know they need to hear it as well that's it thank you I'll make a couple comments also on that I think that they very well may be covering this remotely as we speak but I think that there is something effective on the 18th that will probably help provide some greater clarity on what we can do there's been a lot of there's sort of three things here one of them is that what used to be bipartisan from a funding perspective is no longer there was never historically emergency aid was never questioned in Congress and now it is and so you just that's a tough challenge number two the CRs and the continuing resolutions that Mr. Reed was talking about they generally follow a disaster with an assumption that it's funding that disaster it's actually funding disasters from 3, 4, 5, 6 years previous to that which most folks don't realize the third thing is that the federal government question longitudinally whether they should even fund these things because of the magnitude and scope of them this is what we're dealing with even with steel over rise guidance and coastal commission and what is the role of where development is allowed what is the role moving forward I mean these are more policy focused questions but I think that as future boards are going to realize these questions and mandates are going to come into conflict with economic or fiscal realities that the county has that are not going to bode well for the county I mean there isn't there shall be no winners in this situation the question is how to mitigate the loss and what we're trying to do here through our advocacy and the folks that are coming on Monday are not I mean these are decision we'll just say that they're decision making level folks at FEMA that can actually make these decisions is just get us out of the ones that have already happened so we can be a baseline for the future ones that are going to happen and it's not it's a very sobering reality but and it shouldn't be whether a community has better advocacy than another one right I mean these things should just be what they are but here we are in our community and I think that at least effective Monday we'll have a better sense of what needs to be issued from a debt perspective effective February and we'll see where we move forward it's a complicated issue is there any member of the community that would like to address this on the side of it in chambers seeing none is there anybody online seeing no speakers chair okay we'll bring it back to the board I think it's an exception file one sec yeah there's a couple of actions including language change for my colleagues if I'll move it to supervisor coming if you want to articulate a motion I'll move the staff recommendations with the change rather than directing the chair of the board will be directing supervisor friend as appropriate in the staff recommendation second all right we have a motion from supervisor coming to supervisor Hernandez we could have a roll call please supervisor conic comings hi McPherson and friend I appreciate everybody that's here to address that issue move on to the final item of today's agenda which is to I'm 11 consider directing the county administrative officer to return on a before February 27 2024 to provide a report the reviews of Santa Cruz County code chapter 2.31 public works projects declaration of non-responsibility has been operationalized as outline memo supervisors conic and thank you chair well to decipher that title a little bit when we go out to award a project whether it's a road project or a renovation of a building or construction of a new building the county is required to choose the lowest and responsible better and the impetus for this item was learning that there are indeed cases where some of the folks that we have hired to do the public's work are engaged in wage theft through work of misclassification failure to comply with overtime requirements under reporting workers on on certified payrolls I mean not to mention making it really difficult to employ the number of interns and other folks that are training for these lines of work that they should be on these projects so the question is what are we actually doing to determine that people are responsible when we award these contracts and is there any review that's actually happening and for example one of the largest road contracts that we recently awarded for Soquel Drive we awarded to Monterey Peninsula Engineering and this contractor has decades of recorded violations that have cost them over $500,000 at what point do we deem someone irresponsible and that we shouldn't actually award that contract to them furthermore with another contract that's currently being carried out with the Live Oak Library Annex there was a work stoppage there because the contractor did not pay their subcontractor on time and now that project is getting close to six months and maybe it's nine months overdue so I think that this deserves a review of how we define the contractors that submit bids to actually be responsible before we make those bids and then the other piece of this is to look at opportunities to implement project labor agreements because this is a tool that has been used to really avoid precisely these kinds of situations we of course our county has used product labor agreements in the past with great success notably on some larger projects like the Sheriff's Center and attached to this item today is a letter from Sheriff Jim Hart talking about how the product labor agreement was put in place for that actually really helped to deliver a successful project that was on time and on budget and then there are many communities across California that have gone a step further and implemented master project labor agreements for that cover all projects that the county or jurisdiction is pursuing. Watsonville has a master project labor agreement Alameda County does Santa Barbara County recently implemented one Santa Clara County so clearly this is a tool that can be successful what I'm suggesting here what supervisor Hernandez and I are suggesting is to look at some of the projects that are coming up in the next one to three years for our county and determine ones that could be good candidates for project labor agreements I know that there's at least a couple within the first district that could be good candidates including the Children's Crisis Stabilization Center which is a significant renovation project in order to outfit that building for its new use as well as the SoCal San Jose road repairs and resurfacing and I do think it's important to look at some projects that you know the item calls for projects down to a million dollars we know that project labor agreements can be successful on larger projects but many of what other communities are considering actually go down to the million dollar range so I think that we need to look at some horizontal road projects that are also in the you know million dollar plus amount in order to see whether or not these agreements can be successful in these cases as well. Supervisor Hernandez there's an opportunity to do a PLA in Watsonville and I think that it was important because an industry that's really known for uncertainties project labor agreements really stand as a beacon for stability by bringing all stakeholders together under one agreement they foster collaboration and prevent disruptions and ensure projects are built on time on budget with a scaled workforce and they're not just a tool for efficiency but they're an investment in a brighter future and workforce for construction and I think that you know with the opportunity having to see a PLA before and after and actually on the same road on Freedom Boulevard I got to see the differences when we started one of the projects at the beginning of Freedom Boulevard it went from Stanford to Martin Alley we saw many delays stoppages and even lawsuits from the business owners for those delays and after the PLA the continued projects on Freedom it was a Freedom Road Reconstruction Repavement that included sidewalks and utilities too it went flawless other than traffic right but that's always interesting people complain about the traffic but the fact that we got all the freedom repaved and we had even utility projects done all of those sewer lines and water lines were done from Clifford to Green Valley it was piecemeal that we did the three projects on Freedom the third one was from from the Green Valley one was from Freedom to Pennsylvania Loma Prieta but we had contractors were Granite Rock and some of the other ones that I forgot but it was completely night and day from the very first one we did on Freedom Boulevard that went from Stanford to Martin Alley that one was just horrible because we had such delays and stoppages and so it didn't go good for us so it was really night and day for us and I think that the adoption of a PLA will also bolster apprenticeship opportunities that are much needed here these apprenticeships can lead to more jobs in the trades maybe our public works and it will foster family supporting careers local apprenticeships are mandated by these agreements and a community hiring provision opens avenues for residents to enter apprenticeship programs you know overall I think the trades are important factor in our communities and so that's you know I am supportive of this I understand I'm supportive of the CA looking into this and getting back to us in February we have many jurisdictions that have project labor agreements and it seems to be interesting to learn more about them I look forward to it we'll open it up for the community I believe we do have somebody who's been patiently waiting here today so I appreciate you waiting no problem that's what we're here for first of all ladies gentlemen and supervisors I want to thank you for talking about this that's the first step is sitting down and having the conversations okay we talked today that I've been sitting here older people still working younger kids ain't got mental health it all ties into that PLA you give a kid a job you don't worry about that kid because he can support himself and he can get married and support a family if an older person now I am 56 years old and I'm already past my retirement date because I was in a union or I'm in a union I could retired last year comfortably that's what those things mean a PLA it hits your home it hits your community it hits your brother beside you and your lady friend on the other side it does all that and we talk about partnership that means kids from your schools your families getting an opportunity to make a living a living wage with benefits those are things that we need more than ever we talked about wage theft ivory towers in San Jose how many of those folks were locked in a container and forced to work you have an opportunity to lead your community into something that is so much more I thank you I thank you for what you're doing how you're doing it and I thank you for your time thank you sir anybody else in the community like to address this in chambers anybody online yes chair Albert your microphone is now available good evening world supervisors of Santa Cruz my name is Alberto Lucero with the northern california carpet union local 505 and I'm here today to fully support the PLA agreement for the Santa Cruz county because it's a crucial step forward a healthier and more connected community it also ensures that the projects are completing a timely matter and after standards or way above standards the PLA ensures that fair labor wages and allowing the construction workers to live where they work be able to spend time with their families and their loved ones it also provides healthcare for the construction work in this family preventive to become a burden to the system which happens when there's not a PLA local hire also eliminates the lengthy commutes enabling workers to invest more time in their families the community and get involved in the community additionally the apprenticeship programs creates more opportunities for at least youth minorities and women fostering a diverse and skilled careers in the construction industry a PLA also prevents wage theft and fraud which also happens more than often on projects that don't have a PLA also I want to ask the board of supervisors please look at the comments on her head's ordinance in the city of Berkeley in the Yolo county PLA those are good examples of good PLA this county should be adopting and I will endorse the PLA for a stronger work in Santa Cruz county thank you for your time and your support thank you anybody else online Jesus your microphones sound available good afternoon county of Santa Cruz board of supervisors my name is Jesus Vega and I have been a lifelong resident of Santa Cruz county I appreciate the opportunity to advocate for the project labor agreement this stands as a pillar for the welfare of the community the PLA is more than a contract it's a commitment that of the well-being of our construction workers and our families by providing essential health care coverage it champions all the wage ensuring those who build our community can afford to live in local hiring is not just a policy it's a solution to lengthy commutes which we all know highway 1 and fostering a sense of commuting additionally the PLA opens doors through apprenticeship programs for our youth minorities and women ensuring a diverse and skilled workforce let us combat wage theft and miscommunication creating a fair and just environment on our construction sites your support of the PLA is an investment in the prosperity and fairness of our community thank you you know further speakers chair alright thank you for everybody to comment I'll bring it back to the board I believe there's additional comments supervisors are coming first I want to thank supervisors Koneg and Hernandez for bringing this forward this is our attention I just wanted to ask staff on some of the comments that were brought up around some of these projects where there's contractors that have you know not met timelines and not been paying like what's the oversight of those types of contractors because I just you know I hear some of the concern that's being expressed and just want to understand what kind of oversight the county has director to make sure okay thank you okay thank you Matt Machado director CDI so the oversight you're asking for those contracts when things don't go right so we do we do have oversight of course we withhold retentions to make sure the contractor is doing right and in some cases I think supervisor Koneg mentioned it we'll get a stop notice from subcontractors when they're not being paid properly and then we can withhold retention until it's settled now sometimes it takes courts and actions like that that we don't get involved in but holding the purse strings does give us quite a bit of authority and responsibility to ensure that all the subs and all the workers are paid properly and we take that very seriously and I feel like we've had great success and on our projects doesn't say it doesn't mean that all the contractors are running smooth but from our perspective we enforce that everybody's paid properly into the job thank you I guess with that I want to support the recommendations that were brought forward so I'm happy to move the recommended action but I want to add some additional direction I've been in touch with some of the labor unions as well regarding this topic and there was an interest as was discussed that was brought up today to have a discussion and I think the best way that this could work for the county is if we're having our county staff talking with the unions to see what a PLA could look like for the county so the additional direction I'm going to add is to direct the CAO and county staff to enter into discussion with the trades to determine the feasibility of the county adopting a PLA for significant county projects and bring recommendations for the board to consider honor before the first meeting in April I'll second it if we can look at some of the best policies that were in the packet as well okay another thing is you know I just wanted to add I know everybody already said their piece but on any given day I think that about 40 to maybe about 70 or 80% of our large projects that we have are practically PLA projects already in our union jobs so it ain't like it's something new it's like something we've been doing already so I just wanted to add that thank you any additional discussion alright are there any questions on the clarification alright yes I did have some clarification on the motion are you is the maker the motion moving staff recommendation and then adding an additional direction to come back with something different and additional in April yes because what is recommended by Supervisors Koenig and Hernandez really focuses on and report the reviews of Santa Cruz County Code SEC 2.31 Public Works Projects Declaration on Responsibility has been operationalized cleaning out bidders are reviewed for responsibility and how this review process could be improved in the future to prevent untrustworthy contractors from being awarded work and then asks identify 10 planned county projects of a million or more upcoming over the next three years that could benefit from project labor agreements so it's really focused on the policy and the project and the additional direction I'm providing is that there's been discussion around having the county have its own PLA and my direction is having the county staff enter into discussion with the trades to start discussing how we can create a PLA that will be feasible for us to implement here in the county and the idea would be that it would come back in April and just giving folks time because we know we're entering the holidays we know these things take time and work county staffs going to need to investigate and look at other counties and what kind of best practices they've used and then they would bring back recommendations for us to consider in early April or on or before first meeting in April. Thank you that provides the clarity that I was looking for that the whole item isn't being moved to April but do you have any other questions I do I caught what I think may have been possible friendly amendment from Supervisor Hernandez regarding looking at best practices is that in there as well? I think what Supervisor Hernandez included was looking at other counties that have implemented PLAs for best practices at their PLA and we would like that reflected in the additional direction yes okay thank you okay we have a motion and a second if we can have a roll call please yes Supervisor Koenig thank you