 Supervisor Friend. Here. Unity. Here. Caput. Here. Thank you, Chair. You have a quorum. Thank you. We will now have a moment of silence and pledge of allegiance. Is there any board member that want to specify any visual? We just have a moment of silence and a pledge of allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance. I vote for the United States of America. I'll move forward, which is as I mentioned earlier on, the individual, the media, and the justice for all. Consideration of late additions to the agenda, additions and deletions to the consent and regular agendas. Yes, Chairman McPherson. We just have one correction. This is on item number 19. Let me see, the correction sheet is to correct the title, but I understand that we're removing the item. I was given instruction to correct the title. We were removing the legislative hearing. Okay, got it. So the correction from the formal title should read, approve the 2022 legislative priorities for the County of Santa Cruz and take related actions as recommended by the County Administrative Officer. That concludes the corrections to the agenda term. Thank you. And any announced by board members for items, removed from the consent or regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll move to public comment. This is a period that members of the public may speak for two minutes on any item listed on today's consent or closed session agendas yet to be heard at regular agenda or a topic not on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors. Yes, ma'am. Good morning, can everybody hear me? Yes. Awesome. My name is Carol Bjorn. Last week on Tuesday, November 2nd, Senator Ron Johnson held a panel in Washington, DC on the federal vaccine mandate and vaccine injuries. He invited the head of the CDC, Secretary of Defense Austin, Secretary of Labor Walsh, Secretary of Transportation Budigig, FDA Acting Commissioner Woodcock, HHS Secretary Bakara, NAID Director Fauci, NIH Director Collins and the CEOs of Johnson and Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer, none of them showed up. However, he did have a large participants of vaccine-injured people that appeared and testified at this hearing. Further, in his opening comments, he explained there are three realities that federal health officials, President Biden and his administration are ignoring when it comes to vaccine mandates. Number one, natural immunity. Why force the VAX on those who have natural immunity already? Number two, that the VAX prevents infection and transmission procedure that's not gonna prevent infection or transmission. And lastly, they are ignoring vaccine injuries. One of the participants that testified last Tuesday was Stephanie DeGray. So her daughter is a 12-year-old daughter who participated in the clinical trials of Pfizer, the COVID-19 clinical trials at Cincinnati Children's Hospital. Prior to that, prior to her two doses, she was a healthy 12-year-old child. She can't walk today. She's in a wheelchair. She gets a feeding tube for all of her nutrition. She's in constant pain in her stomach, back and neck. She can't feel her legs and her mother testified that that's just the tip of the iceberg. So to further illustrate this, Senator Johnson also referenced the difference in VAX injuries and VAX deaths between the flu vaccine for the last 25 years and then just this one, not even one year of injuries and deaths from COVID-19 VAX. And so when you compare that, the flu VAX injuries are about 7,596 per year. The COVID-19 VAX injuries are already at 837,595. The flu VAX deaths per year on average is 78. This year alone for the COVID-19 VAX, the death rate is already 17,619. So I'm bringing you this information so that we don't have any kind of VAX mandate in this county, but also in the state. If you all could write to the governor, to our legislators, to our senators and just let them know all this information so that we don't have any vaccination mandates in our society. Thanks. Pardon me, Chair, the timer's not working. We're trying to get it displayed on the screen. If the speaker can please look at me and they're getting close to their time, I can notify them that their time is not missing. Thank you. Morning, my name is James Ewing Whitman. Talk about food. Let's compare food to oats. If you wanna buy quality oats for your horse, you need to pay a fair price. If you wanna buy oats that have already been run through the horse, that costs a little bit less. I'm really glad to actually have all my senses, at least as far as I know. Let's talk about the 1980s, HIV and AIDS. What is HIV, AIDS? Human immunodeficiency virus acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. What we have going on now with these injections that have now been okayed for 28 million youth of five to 11, it's very similar to HIV AIDS, but it's HIV-IIDS. That's a human immunodeficiency virus injected immunodeficiency syndrome. There's a lot of information. Why are doctors doing what they're doing? You know, there's a whole hierarchy of puppets. The doctors are just some of the lower puppets. They're controlled by lower politicians and upper politicians that are controlled by foundations and corporations. Why does this matter? You know, there was a doctor in Canada who lost her license after 25 years or writing a book called Medical Mafia. One of the statistics where thousands of patients were asked questions was what percentage of you trust your doctors? 76%. What percentage of you trust your politicians? 6%. Now, if the politicians are controlling the doctors and the individuals are so deceived to trust their doctors, what's really going on? There need to be some more questions and there need to be more accountability. Thank you. Anyone else here would like to speak to us this morning? Any on the phone? Yes. Colin, user one, please unmute your microphone. This is Marilyn Garrett. And I was listening to a talk by Michael Parenti where he talked about democracy. We're supposed to have democracy, right? And he said, democracy isn't faith or trust. The essence of democracy is distrust. It's accountability, it's exposure, it's challenge, it's debate, that's what it's about. And I think that applies to what is called science. It's about accountability, exposure, evidence you could go on. I have a copy of the statement of the amended liberal code here, cognitive dissonance in the age of phasism by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Censorship is bad except when it comes to vaccines. Informed consent should apply to every medical product and intervention except vaccines. America should honor her treaty obligations under the Nuremberg Code and the ethical precepts of the UN Declaration of Human Rights except when they impede forced vaccination. Every medicine should be safety tested except vaccines. Pharma is greedy, homicidal and untrustworthy except about vaccines. Mercury and aluminum are dangerous neurotoxins except in vaccines. Listen to women except about vaccines. My body, my choice except with vaccines. Glyphosate and formaldehyde cause cancer except in vaccines. Borax banned in foods but not in vaccines. Marcy, do you crawl? Your microphone is available. Great, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, wonderful. Greetings, supervisors. Thank you so much for a little airtime. I wanted to speak to something that's in your written correspondence listing, letter U, it's a proclamation. You're going to consider today United Against Hate. I wanted to mention that I started this widespread county level collaborative effort just a couple of months ago, looking for ways to reduce the incidence of hate and bias in Santa Cruz County and help find ways to respond effectively when those incidents do occur. I started this effort, Santa Cruz County United for Safe and Inclusive Communities in honor of my nephew, Tilesian Namkai, Nate Che, who was killed in a horrific hate crime in 2017 in Portland, Oregon. The response to my efforts has been really enthusiastic, county-wide, and our near-term focus is on spurring participation across the county in United Against Hate Week, which starts this coming Sunday the 14th. Beyond that, we're going to explore the possibility of establishing a hate and bias response team to look for more systematic, systemic improvements in this area. I wanted to let people know where they can find more information about what's going on during United Against Hate Week. That would be at the website collaborativechoices.com forward slash featured dash project, or they can email us at SCCUSIC that Santa Cruz County United for Safe and Inclusive Communities at gmail.com. In the remaining moments I've got, I wanted to mention we have four events planned. The first one is a kickoff at Greater Purpose Brewery from 6 to 8 p.m. on November 14th. We'll be screening films by not in our town. We will also have films available for viewing streaming all week, and midweek we'll have an expert panel from 6.30 to 8 on Wednesday. Finally, a free bystander training Saturday, November 20th at 1 p.m. That's what I've got. Thank you for considering that resolution. It means a lot. Take care. Matt Weisner, your microphone is available. Thank you very much and good morning supervisors. My name is Matthew Weisner and I'm the director and attorney at the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County's immigration project. And I wanted to speak with you to share today that this year in 2021, despite the challenges of the pandemic, our immigration legal services program has served over 1,800 clients in a variety of immigration legal work, including consultations, family-based visa petitions, applications for naturalization to US citizenship, and deferred action for childhood arrivals, also known as DACA, and much more. I'm sure the board is already aware of how much of a difference these immigration legal services can make for our lives of our community members. But to share one example, I wanted to read and share a quote from a client that was served by our program this year. Being able to have DACA has opened many doors for me because it's given a social security number, which is needed in many places like school and work. Without having DACA, I could not think about that. Those dreams of being able to improve and pursue my education slowly die inside of me. You lose hopes of being able to achieve that because these services, personally, many paths were open for me to also be able to help my family. I wanted to share that quote to illustrate the impact that these services are having on individuals in our community here in Santa Cruz County and importantly to thank you all at the county and the board for your partnership in making this happen. As you know, the Community Action Boards Immigration Project is a God beneficiary of core funding which supports our work to provide free and low-cost immigration legal services. So as we continue to do our work, I also wanted to mention that not only can we often provide these services for free, but also that we can leverage outside funding and are able to pay the $495 DACA filing fees for Cabrillo College students, staff, and faculty. And that benefit alone has kept tens of thousands of dollars right here in our community. So again, thanks for your partnership and we look forward to our continued collaboration. There are no other speakers for public comment. Okay, I think Ms. Steinbruner came in late. Go ahead. Thank you very much. Becky Steinbruner, resident of the Aptos Hills. I appreciate the ability to speak. It was hard to find a parking place out there in the rain. I want to really bring to your attention that the County Assessor has not done any adjustments for the CSAMs who lost their homes regarding the CSA 48 special benefit assessment tax. I received this information from Ms. Driscoll's office stating that there were no adjustments made for this tax year because the Assessor did not have enough time. I really want to bring that to your attention because they've had the time and these people are being assessed for the benefit of county fire protecting their property, their buildings, and they have no buildings. So please, this needs to be addressed right away. Do not continue to penalize the... He's not a fit of something that they are not receiving. I also want to point out on Consent Agenda, item number 19, the legislative priorities. I have a big question about why the county would purchase a new piece of property, 40 acres out by the county fairgrounds in Watsonville for a South County park, which is great to get a county park for the South County. But I do not believe this is the proper location. There's no public transportation there and it would not serve the people well. There are no sidewalks there or places a wide shoulder for kids to ride their bikes there. I suggest that instead the county spend the money that they're asking in this legislative request instead of 2.6 million to buy new property, use the 2.6 million to improve the property, the county already owns at Freedom Boulevard and Crescue Drive that has not been used since the FEMA trailers were put there in 1989 for the earthquake victims. And finally, I just want to thank Supervisor Koenig for helping get the slides up for the 5940 SoCal Avenue Kaiser Medical Project for the community meeting. Many people think this is not the place for that large facility. There is no public transportation there. They do not plan to put public transportation there. And this is simply not the place. This will be coming to your board for consideration and I hope that you deny it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak us? Nobody else on the phone, right? Any comments from board members? Supervisor Koenig. Yes, thank you, Chair. On item 26, I want to thank the chair for spearheading the effort to write a letter to the California citizen redistricting commission emphasizing the importance of keeping cities in the Monterey Bay area in the same state and federal legislative districts. The most recent maps that I saw, we're dividing our county into three pieces, including right in the middle of the first district, which did not make a whole lot of sense to me and hopefully we can communicate that to the citizen redistricting commission and encourage them to change their ways. On item 31, accepting funds for More and Lake Monarch Habitat Management Plan, I just want to use this opportunity to thank the sanitation district for their contribution of funds to that plan. Since 2017, the district has made every effort possible to preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat, reduce danger to nearby homes and maintain public access in and around the More and Lake area. This effort on the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan would be a great opportunity to engage neighbors in the continued issue and also an opportunity to assess which trees pose potential risks to be for public safety and to neighbors in the area. On item 32, I just want to thank Parks for their continued work on the Simpkins Swim Center and including replastering the 50 meter pool deck and the library annex project. And finally on the United Against Hate Week Proclamation, I'm happy to support this proclamation and I want to thank Marcy Dupro and Santa Cruz County United for safe and inclusive communities and not in our town for organizing the events next week. We've, I have seen shocking displays of racism and hate. Just a couple that I've seen in the first district in the last year included the racist rocks and folks leaving cups of urine on people's windshields. So this is something that's present in our community and I hope we all take an opportunity to engage and to address this. Those are all my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, on consent, I'd also like to speak on the redistricting item and the letter that we intend to send. It's important that the board go on record in regards to the proposal because it really does break up community of interest and really dilute the representation of our region at the statewide level, including actually some of the federal proposals as well. It's pretty interesting to see our area broken into three, what appears to be pretty arbitrarily drawn lines and areas of significant interest. And in fact, our board, we work together as individual supervisors on specific issues, on coastal issues and areas around disadvantaged communities. Those areas would all be broken up as proposed on the state lines or the state proposed redistricting lines. So it is important that our voice be heard by this commission and hopefully there'll be some modifications on that moving forward. I'd also like to just appreciate public works on items 38 and 39 or dealing with storm damage in my district, storm damage repairs from the 2017 storms. They've been working on a lot, including with me on trips to DC, working with the Federal Highways Administration and others in order to move these toward this phase. You know, this county's had a lot of disasters in the last few years and we're still digging out of a lot of them. And it's good to see that there's definitely good people working on this to make sure that this continues to happen. So I just wanted to acknowledge in particular Steve Wiesner for his work on this kind of project because here we are multiple years later. And even though it's not as though the rest of the workload has stopped, he's still working behind the scenes to ensure that those original damages get addressed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. Thank you, Mr. Chair, no comments today. All right, thank you. All right, I'd like to make a couple of comments on item number 19 has been mentioned about the legislative priorities. I want to thank our state and federal representatives. They've served us well and been very responsive to our past recommendations. And I'll mention that in a minute, not just for legislation, but for funding of those as well. The state and federal investment in addressing local needs is critical as the county and the city is doing. I have sufficient funding to fix the often recognized regional problems such as infrastructure, broadband and resilience challenges such as fire prevention and water security. The projects like County Service Area 7 expansion in Boulder Creek of the sewer plant there comes to mind which is on the list of those projects with a final cost expected to be in the $25 million range. State and federal funding is going to be critical if that's going to become a reality. We have been successful in recent years of getting other priorities reflected in funding and legislation. And we do hope to be successful. And with that, I'd like to mention, I just got this last night about with the passage of House Resolution 3684 that our representatives in Congress also really worked hard for us in some critical areas that are important to us. For broadband, there's $42 billion in that bill. There's 3.4 billion for wildfire risk reduction. There's another to upgrade the nation's power infrastructure. These are all critical and very, very important to us and a lot of other people, especially in the rural areas of the counties in California. I'd like to thank Zach Friend for working. He's our representative to the National Association of Counties or NACO. And I am to the California State Association of Counties. They've really worked hard to get this. And I also want to thank our congressional representatives, Leon Panetta and Anna Eshoo, as well as our assembly members, Mark Stone and Robert Rivas and our Senator John Laird. They've really worked hard. They've listened to us, these requests are critical for us to get some really expensive but important needs that we have. There's nine projects with a total of $22.8 million on our request list. And I know that our representatives have taken notice of that very much as well. On item number 26, which is also, we're gonna have a redistricting on state and federal redistricting. This is separate from the redistricting issue we're gonna talk about in the county later this morning. This is very much a moving target right now and the initial proposals have already been changed. And in my view improved, but I think there's some way to go on that as well. We've let our representatives know about that and they have with us, I mean, for one of our congressional representatives districts would be from Daly City all the way down through San Mateo and the northern part of Santa Cruz County. And the importance of keeping Monterey Bay Hole in the state districts is critical. But the bottom line is that we'd like to see Santa Cruz County and Monterey County remain represented by the same state and federal elected office holders to the greatest extent possible, which is the case now. We've got a great representation, as I mentioned. You did great work for us. And I've placed this request on the agenda because I'm concerned about proposed maps that would tie our County to San Mateo and Santa Clara counties rather than primarily to Monterey County. This could have really implications for a number of our regional relationships that have been for 50 years or 40 years, some of them including AMBAG, the Air Resources Board, Central Coast Community Energy and others. So this letter to the state redistricting commission would address those concerns and request boundaries that reflect consistent representation. We will be writing that. My understanding is the commission is going to meet today or tomorrow to possibly have some more readjustments, which we hope they will do. So it's very important issue that we have. And I just again want to thank on the two issues that I've said about our legislative priorities and the redistribution representatives. They've been terrific and really have served us very well. So I'm very appreciative of that. So with that, is there anybody in the public? Or did you? No, we already did the public comment on chair, but on 19 we're just going to remind the board that we did not have the scheduling of the public hearing. There's some scheduling difficulties on the date. Okay. So we'll update you at a later point with the actual date. Good, okay. All right. Can I have a motion on the consent agenda? So moved. Coonerty. I'll second. A quick clarification if that's okay, Mr. Chair. Mr. Plosios, do we need to move the agenda as amended because of the changes that were presented at the very beginning on the legislative agenda? No, we had already made the correction at the beginning of the meeting. Right. Thank you. All right. All the second, Mr. Chair. And all the role, please. All right. Konig? Aye. Brent? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We will now go to the regular agenda. Item number seven, the board of supervisors shall recess in order to permit the board of directors of the Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 to convene and carry out a meeting. We have the Zone 7 agenda and I will turn it over to the Zone 7 chair, Supervisor Zach Friend. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll call to order the Flood Control and Water Conservation District or Zone 7 board of directors for a Zone 7 special meeting. If we could begin with a roll call, please. Director Konig? Here. Coonerty? Here. McPherson? Here. Caput? Here. Villicich? Here. Colbertson? Friend? Here. Lucas? Gonzalez? Parker? We have a quorum chair. Thank you. All right, are there any late additions to today's agenda? Dr. Strudley? No, Chair Friend, there are not. Great, we'll go on to oral communications. This is an opportunity for members of the community to address us on items that are not on today's Zone 7 agenda but are within the purview of Zone 7. Is there anybody that'd like to address us today? I have one member be assumed. Okay, we'll start with Zoom and then let's be sure that Ms. Steinbrunner also has an opportunity. Michelle Wall, your microphone is available. Hello, Board of Supervisors. Thank you again for all the time that you put for our community. I bumbled along trying to get onto the Zoom meeting so I don't know if this question was already raised. I own a beautiful $1.2 million home up in Boulder Creek that I've been houseless from for a year, this entire time since the CZU because it is covered in the dirty ash of pesticides and asbestos. I don't know if you mentioned and can direct me to any of the funding that you were speaking about that is held off for the fire, thank you. And also the second one is there is a Confederate flag that is next door on German Jew and Irish Catholic. And I have been victim of having my house vandalized and my property vandalized and myself. The problem isn't all of the harm that's been caused to me. The problem is that District Attorney Edward Browning is trying to get this into court and the sheriff is siding with the white supremacist and that's alarming. And we know that for the last 40 years the FBI has investigated and found that white supremacists have infiltrated into the military and into the police force. And we're seeing that there. Wanting it not to be true doesn't make it so. And I need to be directed to, I heard of Amarsha Dabaw for the hate week. I'm living it, you know? He's right next door. He had swastikas found in his car. He had guns found in his unregistered vehicle when he was arrested. And he has been a history of hate crime and I don't wanna hear talk. I don't wanna see parades. I wanna see action. I want the sheriffs held accountable for not enforcing the law that the District Attorney is saying this is the law. So you have the sheriffs have more say over the law than an attorney. They don't know the law. They're supposed to enforce the law. And so I need direction for that as well if I may. And thank you again. Thank you Ms. Hall. Okay. I think I just wonder, I'm sorry that we weren't able to, you weren't able to get in public comment, but we are on now item number seven on the zone seven. So Supervisor Friend. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I just figured that we would go ahead and give her an opportunity since she was unable to get in on the regular public comment. But this is an opportunity for people to speak on items that are not on the agenda associated with zone seven, which is the flood control district. Was there anybody else on Zoom before we allow Ms. Steinbrunner an opportunity? There are no other speakers via Zoom. Thank you, Ms. Steinbrunner, please. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. My name is Becky Steinbrunner. I live in Abtos Hills. For the purposes of clarification for the public, can you please define the boundaries of zone seven? It's not clear. It's not in writing. Can you please define that for me now? Just please go ahead and go in with your comments and we'll address it in a second. All right, well, it would be helpful for me with my comments to know exactly where this zone is. I note that for the roll call, Mr. Gonzalez was called. I believe that's the Watsonville City Councilman that is resigned. So I'd just like to make sure that that is clarified for future roll calls. Because I don't know the boundaries of this, I'm going to just speak to a flood control issue in my area and apologies if it's not appropriate, but because I don't know the boundaries, I am going to go ahead and speak. And that regards the Rio del Mar flood plane that the grants were returned because for an extensive flood control project because the property owners did not agree to tax a new tax that would help fund those improvements. It was a small amount of money relatively about, as I remember, about a quarter of a million dollars. So I asked that the flood control district consult with the legislative authorities that will be convening on December 7th with this board, with the County Board of Supervisors and request that there be legislative assistance to continue funding and make possible that critical flood control issue in the Rio del Mar flats. And again, my apologies if this is the wrong district, but I don't know. Thank you very much. And I look forward to getting better information. All right, thank you. Just very briefly, that falls within zone six, which is a very different flood control district and the funding was for an ongoing operations and maintenance, which is not something we could receive through the legislative process. It required a local cost share of an ongoing operations and maintenance element. Dr. Strudely, we don't normally address oral communications. Can you very briefly just provide the zone seven boundaries for the community? Sure, yeah. The zone seven boundaries for the most part are coincident with the watershed boundaries that funnel into the Pajaro River. So this includes the Coralitos and it's also put as creek system as well as the main stem of the Pajaro River and the area of land to which rainfall and runoff drains to those creeks and river systems. So for the most part, it falls to watershed boundary, but there are slight differences that are too cumbersome and complicated to explain orally, it's best done through a map and I can coordinate with Ms. Steinbrenner separately if she's still interested in that. Thank you, Dr. Strudely. Move on to the first item of action, which are the minutes of zone. Well, assuming there's nobody else in the room there that was here for oral communications, is that correct? Correct. Okay, now we'll move on to the first item of business, which is the approval of minutes. Are there any questions from any directors regarding the minutes? All right, seeing none, is there any member of the community that would like to address us on the minutes? Item four. Okay, we'll bring it back to the board for a motion. I'll move Greg Juppett to approve. Second. We have a motion from Director Caput. Was that a second from Director McPherson? Yes. All right, then we'll do a roll call, please. Director Koenig. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Caput. Aye. Billusich. Abstain, I was not present. Thank you. Friend. Aye. I think your motion passes five-zero. Wonderful, move on to the consent agenda, which is the only action items that we have today. Item six and seven. Are there any questions from any of the directors on the two items on consent? Seeing none, is there any member of the community that would like to address us on consent? I'll see anybody here. They're not using it. Great, we'll bring it back to the board for action. Director Billusich. I'd like to make a motion to approve item six and seven. Oh, second. All right, we have a motion from Director Billusich, a second from Director Caput. A roll call, please. Director Koenig. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. Billusich. Aye. Friend. Aye. Thank you, motion passes with attendance. Thank you, that concludes the zone seven meeting. We'll now reconvene the board of supervisors meeting I'll hand it back to Chairman Ferson. Thank you, thank you, Dr. Strudley. Yes, did you have a comment? I'll try to make it to the read the heart proclamation if I get out. Okay. Okay, we will now move to item number eight, this consider and approve release of core investment requests for proposals before core annual report to December 2022, ratify submission of the David and Lucille Packard Foundation grant application in the amount of $150,000 to further develop core and authorize the director of human service who signed the Packard Foundation Agreement adopt a resolution accepting unanticipated revenue in the amount of $150,000 from the Packard Foundation in return March 2022 with a status report on the core application submitted and subsequent rating panel process as outlined in the memorandum of the director of human services. We have a core stakeholder engagement session notes, core request for proposal Packard grant proposal Packard grant award and the core Packard Foundation communication. And before we get started on this, I just want to make sure this is not there's not going to be a decision on allocation of funding. I mean, that's clear from what we stated here, but I want to thank our director of human service, Randy Morris and his whole department for their work on prepare for the next round of core funding. This has been a tremendous effort to evaluate the programs to date and make suggestions on how we can best proceed. We have $4.8 million in as a great deal of money to be allocated in this process, but we know that the need is actually much bigger than that. So I also want to thank our community partners who provide these critical services to the community and the input that they have provided into this process so far. Working as we work collaboratively with the city of Santa Cruz, it'll also be critical to the ongoing successive core as we coordinate our priorities for services and meet the needs into this across the city and the unincorporated area. I just want to again, mind folks, we're not making any funding recommendations today. Rather, we're providing an input on the process for opening the funding up to an applications process, which has not happened for a couple of years because of the COVID and so forth and other concerns that we've had. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Morris. I hope I didn't steal any of your thunder, but I want to make clear what we were here for today. Thank you, Chair McPherson. I wouldn't say steal thunder. You saved me a few of my talking points. So good morning, Chair McPherson, board members and community watching. And also, Chair McPherson, thank you for the recognition of my staff. This is my first time at this and all of our county staff are just working so hard and working on fumes almost. And there's been a lot of work done to try to make this process streamlined and simple and special recognition of the community-based organizations who are equally and differently overwhelmed who are looking forward to this process being fair and reasonable. So I have a few introductory comments and then Mr. Grair is going to load up a PowerPoint which kind of summarizes all the materials that were posted for the public. So this is a follow-up to a presentation that I gave on September 28th, requesting that your board approve a framework for what is in front of you today, which is how to organize the second ever procurement process or called RFP acronym for Request for Proposal. And just as a brief summary, the structure of the approval that you gave about building the RFP that's in the materials we're asking you to approve today was you approved a three-year term. You approved a base increase and we had some ins and outs from some different moving parts that were discussed on September 28th, which led to that increase you mentioned in your introductory comments. You approved us organizing the RFP and at what we called a tier approach. And that was based on looking at current funding patterns and then having tiers, which are outlined in the RFP itself. You also approved us folding in what was called a set aside program, what was in a different procurement process into this process by moving that into what's called a small tier. And finally, you approved a concept of us shaving off money here and there, adding new money and creating one large investment. We called a target and investment to help us address some of what core is about the acronym C about collective impact to try to have a deeper investment in one area. So that is the foundation that you approved on September 28th. What is in front of you today builds upon that presentation. The materials outline five recommended actions and I just wanna state these for those who didn't get to read the materials and to sort of help ground us in what my presentation is about. So hopefully at the end you will consider approving these recommended actions. So number one and the main point is to ask for your board to approve the release of the RFP itself. The second is and you mentioned this in your introductory comments Chair McPherson, which is to direct us to return in March. And that is a new action from what happened in the first round and I'll explain why in my presentation. The third is a two-part action which is we are asking you to both ratify and accept $150,000 grant that we received from a foundation. The reason we had to do both actions at the same time is because the turnaround time to apply for the grant was too quick for us to come to your board first. So we're coming to say please ratify what we already submitted and then we were approved and have $150,000. And that is specifically to help support the consultant group we work with in core for that $150,000. And then the final action is your board five years ago when directed the human services department to come to your board every year for a yearly report. And that yearly report would be in the middle of this RFP process. So we have a formal request that you allow us to defer that yearly report, get the contracts out and then come back in the fall and give a close out five year end report of the first procurement process. We think that timing is better. So that is the purpose of today's presentation Ms. Cabrera, I'll go through the PowerPoint itself now. And you can go to the second slide. Okay, so briefly, I'm gonna go through the timeline just so you can see where we were, but more so where we are going after today. I am gonna take a moment to talk about some stakeholder engagement activity that has played out in the last month since we were last in front of you. Then gonna give some highlights of the RFP. I'm just gonna give the highlights because the details are all in the attached materials. And then I'm gonna close out with just walking through where we go from here. So next slide. Okay, so the purpose of this is this is the slide. This picture was shared at a presentation in March and it was shared again in September. So just for consistency wanted to show you, I'm not gonna walk through all this. I'm just gonna point to the two items in red. The first is where we are today and that's in the upper right and that's where in the fall that we are preparing with your board's approval to release the RFP. So that is what we were looking at back in September. We're on schedule and if you approve so today, we will do so. The reason under spring, there's a new red highlight. That is a new action that we had not thought about in the last two presentations and I'll share a little bit more why we think this would be helpful for the community and for your board. So next slide. So I wanna say a little bit about engagement with stakeholders. The first two are very specific relationships. We have direction from your board before my time and when I was here in the spring and last September to do all we can to align our work with funders. And that is the purpose of core in part is to make sure that as a county, we are putting our general fund money in a way that's aligned with other funders. So we have the most impact and that's part of what collective impact is so that we're not, if we're not talking to each other and different funders are putting money out in different ways that might be duplicative and less effective. So the first is your board had supported us collaborating with the community foundation. They have done and continue to do amazing work in this community and some of their donor money and some of the money they put out funds programs like core funds. So we had talked to you at the last presentation about seeing if there was some formal way to have the community foundation and us sort of put our money together upon release of this RFP. Where we are today is we realized that until we have the applications in hand, they open their applications for their grants in January. We're hoping to open ours now with an open opportunity for people to apply until February, which I'll talk about. That until we have applications in hand, we don't know where the overlap is are. So we are still in collaboration. We are still interested and committed and I have approval to share on behalf of the community foundation that we plan to together look at our applications. And if at that time we see some overlap in funding when we're back in front of you in March, if you've proved that action, we can talk about the possibility of marrying our money to have a deeper impact. So the collaboration continues, but there is no formal information in the RFP with money officially moved from one organization to another for the reasons I just described. But we will continue to collaborate and anticipate there might be some opportunities in the early 22. The next is a new action. And I wanna take a minute to detail this. This is a conversation that my department has been having with the seniors council. The senior council is the local nonprofit that has a number of programs, including the federally mandated area agency on aging. Or the first time ever in Santa Cruz County, the area agency on aging, which is required by federal and state law. And I ran this program in my former jurisdiction. So I know this program very well. They have to put their federal and state money out through a procurement process as well. The timing of the community programs becoming core, when core money was put out to this community, it did not line up at the same time the local, this time we have an unanticipated moment where the AAA is gonna be putting their money out to bid at the exact time time we're putting our money out to bid. So it has raised a number of questions from community-based organizations who currently get funding from the local AAA and with very fair questions. How do we know if we don't have a contract from the AAA? What, so I wanna, these conversations did not complete until last week. So we were unable to put this in the materials, but I like the community foundation have approval from the seniors council director, Mr. Clay Kemp. We had a really good conversation last week and we are proposing that we as staff be allowed between now and March when we're back in front of you to have a conversation with the seniors council. Two of you are on the board of seniors council and board members here. But to allow us as staff to talk to each other to look at the possibility of like the community foundation looking at our applications together. We understand the questions from community-based organizations who are hoping to get funding from both entities, but we also have to respect these are different processes, but I feel confident we can come up with a plan and would like to have some time as staff to think through a plan and bring something forward to our respective boards that make sense to everybody and then can be more clear to our CBOs. So that's a new recommendation that we would like to work on, but it is not listed in one of the actions. And then the last update on stakeholder engagement. Supervisor McPherson, you did mention in your introductory remarks, we have an attachment which details a stakeholder meeting and a survey that we held between the September presentation to today and Ms. Cabara, if we can move forward, we'll talk a little bit about that. So the summary of what took place in the stakeholder meeting and in the survey responses is it is my experience from my seat, given the history of this program that the conversations continue to be very collaborative, very agreeable, very appreciative of how we've all come together in a couple of years of crisis and how the opportunity ahead of us is very promising. So the energy's been very good and very collaborative. First and foremost, lots of energy, lots of interest, lots of excitement and kind of working together and operationalizing this term that sometimes is just a word of equity, how to actually make sure these monies go into the community in a way that sort of address inequities. So lots of discussion, lots of questions, lots of interest on how that will play out. And then the next two were a number of questions about how the proposal review process and scoring process will play out and how will the decisions get made? If I was a community-based organization, I would understand that's the real key question. These concepts are agreeable, but how are decisions gonna get made? The answers to those are outlined to some degree in the materials that are attached, but this is also one of the reasons I'm recommending we return in March to provide an update because if your board approves this RFP, this is the next body of work we're gonna be doing, which is assembling rating panels, training the rating panels, getting the process in place and wanna create an opportunity for the public, the community organizations and your board to hear about that before we actually sit down and have a rating panel rate them so that you can hear and there's not too much distance between the time we recommend awards. So next. So now there's a few slides about what's actually in the RFP. This was presented in September. Wanna let you know there are a couple of modest adjustments to the dollars that were in this slide at the September presentation and that is because there were some modest adjustments based on the city council meeting that occurred after the board meeting that occurred on September 28th in the morning. The main one is the city council wanted to move their $45,000 of set aside money into the targeted impact bucket. So it was 750 and now you'll see it's 795 and there was also some slight adjustments. The other is I wanna highlight the asterisk next to estimated amount and that is because this is all based on a look back of the current spending patterns until we have applications in hand. This is just a best guess looking back in the room here. We might get applications that spread very differently. We got might get fewer small applications and more large applications. That's another reason we wanna come back to you in March, which is to be able to say this is the applications in hand and if we need to seek direction from you so that this is your money, local general fund money that you want us to organize them in different buckets, those estimates will turn in a recommended action. So next slide. So this is also in response to some questions that the stakeholders brought up for clarification. So this is in the RFP itself, which is who can apply. This is primarily intended for our local nonprofit 501C3s. Wanna be clear, because this question came up, a faith-based organization that's a 51C3 is certainly eligible to apply. There has also been a question about grassroots organizations that they are eligible as long as they have a nonprofit fiscal sponsor. So we made that very clear in the RFP. This money is not intended to re-indest county government money back into county agencies. The one exception is that currently core has funded and before that, the community programs has funded a few public education programs like a Head Start program that's embedded in a public school and also community college training monies that have been put out. So we wanted to be clear. We hadn't asked direction from your board to rule out public education. So they're still eligible. Collaboratives are welcome to apply and also federally recognized tribal agencies that don't have a 51C3 status are also eligible to apply. So that's all detailed and who can apply. Next slide. What is the money for? In consult with your board, this is your money. This is the historic funding patterns and historic purpose. So this is just named in the RFP. For the small, medium and large grants, these are intended to fund community-based organizations that deliver direct service through programs and projects. And since the last RFP where there was no framework called core when it was just based on existing strategic plans, we now have the core conditions of wellbeing. So it's programs and projects that address the core conditions of wellbeing, which is a framework your board has approved. And then the one new hybrid model is the targeted impact grant, which really then tries to focus on having a bigger and deeper impact. So it's not only direct service, but it can also include some capacity building for systems and communities and organizations to do some systems work as well. So next slide. This is some new information since the presentation in September. This was all discussed with the community-based organizations. This is now listed in the RFP. Chair McPherson, as you said, almost $5 million is a lot of money, but I think we all need to be honest, it's not nearly enough. So putting some parameters is something the community organization said, we'd prefer you to be clear and direct about the parameters rather than vague. So we tried to get clear in the RFP about some parameters to work within. So the first is we're not limiting how many proposals any agency can submit. However, there was a lot of conversation amongst a lot of organizations that they wanna make sure this money can be spread equitably across community-based organizations and not just go to two or three very large organizations. So we have added in this process a recommendation that no particular agency can apply for more than 25% of the total funds. That seemed very agreeable to all the organizations, except the big ones who have almost that much money. So I don't know what the sweet spot is, but this seems reasonable and I do wanna make sure your board is aware that there is no agency today that has more than 25%. So this proposal is not to pinch and limit an agency that currently has almost this amount. The next bullet is to try to eliminate the prospect of an agency really wanting to get a particular program funded and then submitting multiple applications for the same program or project, but at just different dollar amounts with different budgets. So we're also putting a limit to say you have to pick what your budget is for the program that you wanna apply. There were some questions from the community organizations about administrative rates. Some applications of public funders have limits. Many federal grants have a limit of 10%. But we looked at county contracts and there are enough county contracts that have an admin rate of 15%. We thought it was fair to just say the cap is no higher than what the highest amount is that we currently fund in many of our county contracts. And then the last is that we need some discretion as staff if your board approves this to be able to make adjustments to the final awards so that if for example, the total amount of contracts that we wanna award is five or six or 7% above the approved budget that we can make an across the board adjustment so that it lands within the budget. The community-based organizations reported a concern last time that some of the grants that they applied for, they were approved but they were approved at 25 or 50% less. And that's almost impossible for a community organization to plan a budget around something and then have it cut that much. So we thought 10% was the fair amount to help us stay within the budget. So next slide. We recognize that there are a number of organizations who are large and sophisticated and have an infrastructure to sort of pay attention to this grant writers. There's a number of small organizations who struggle to be able to apply and new organizations who've never applied before. So we wanted to build in a lot of support to our community-based organizations so the playing field could be as level as possible. So as listed in the attached materials between the release of the RFP if approved today and when applications are due, this is a list of a number of support systems we're putting in place. One is an RFP informational session which is required and the details of that are in the materials. We also, and back through the $150,000 Lucille Packard grant that funds our contract group Optimal Solutions, they are gonna be working with us to hold a number of workshops, some informal office hours, TA sessions. And this is all the support community organizations to understand core, understand the process and make sure they're aware of sort of what the rules are so they can submit a competitive application. And then finally, our department is gonna be holding an open two month Q&A window where any organization can submit any questions to us and on a rolling basis, we're gonna post and publicize those answers. And again, this is to make sure everything's open and transparent. Next slide. So this gets to one of the reasons why I'm proposing we return in March. We have not initiated the process to assemble rating panels. I know from past experience, I've been involved in many RFPs in my career and I know one of the places where concerns are raised and appeals are granted is when you don't have a clean and fair review and panel process, if there's any bias or if it's not clear or it's too vague. So we heard feedback from the community organizations that they wanted to make sure we could recruit as much local as possible, people who have an understanding of this community, that they understand the core conditions and the core condition framework, that everybody is supportive of making sure equity is built in front and center to everything we do so that those who are involved in rating understand equity and to make sure our raters are all trained and organized and prepared so that they apply their perspective evenly. We're gonna make sure to apply ample training to the reviewers. And this is the materials that I'd like to speak to more in March after we've assembled and before the rating panel meet. So this is also open and not a mystery to people because that's a big question for CBOs. Who's behind that mysterious curtain rating? We can talk about those details in March. So next, so this is the final slide. The purpose of this is just to sort of ground us and sort of where we are today and what the sequence of events follow. So if your board approved the release of this RFP and I do wanna share that the city is also in front of the Santa Cruz City Council this afternoon and I'll be sitting and logged into their virtual meeting in case they have questions. They too will be seeking council approval to release the RFP. It's a joint venture. We will actually post on an electronic portal next week and there'll also be an ability to print out paper copies for organizations that don't have capacity or interest. And so that would be next week. The information that I listed a couple of slides ago with all the training and the assistance that plays out between next week and February 4th when proposals are due. March is one of the specific recommended actions for us to return to you and to the city to give an update on the status, what applications, some aggregate information about the dollars. If we need direction from your board about how to organize or what you wanna prioritize in funding we could get that information in March before the rating panels meet. And then as a reminder or Supervisor Koenig knew at this, I learned this myself when I was going through this. The process then is we come to you in May with a recommendation to approve conditionally awards. There is a required appeals process which that CBOs can appeal if they don't like what's recommended. That process is listed in the attached materials. It goes through a staff review first and then ultimately if it is overturned it comes back to your board at the budget hearings for you to make final decisions about what to do in an appeal and whether or not to approve as part of the county budget process the dollars going into the contracts and then we execute them to initiate contracts next fiscal year. And that I believe Ms. Kerber closes out the presentation. I turn it back to Chair McPherson and welcome any conversation. Thank you for your very reasonable explanation of the adjustments that are about to be made. And I appreciate it very much. I think it was clear and concise. And I also wanna thank all of our nonprofit agencies through that have been so cooperative and the services they provide year in and year out. It's really remarkable what we get for the dollars we spend. It's almost $5 million. But boy, do we get a lot of leverage from with that. I just on the RFP, I just wanted to make sure that regarding the potential collaboration between core and AAA and that's not our automobile association. As an area agency on aging slash senior council, I would like to specifically have additional direction for the health services department to meet with AAA and explore the prospects of jointly reviewing the funding applications to both programs with the possibility of aligning those funding streams. So if you could take that as additional direction, I think then we're gonna be on the same page. There's been some concern about that in past years and I think this will correct that. So I'd like to have that as additional direction. Any other comments from board members? Thank you chair. Yeah, just a question. So clearly this has been a huge amount of work and thank you director Morris and your staff for building this framework out. It's clearly not easy to give away $5 million effectively but I think you're doing so as fairly as possible or built a system to do so. And all the collaboration with our various community partners whether it's the city of Santa Cruz or community foundation, of course, or their agency on aging is all really great. The question is, I think we're deferring the report till December 2022 on the program and that makes sense given the current workload preparing for the next round. But I am curious how much anyone who received funding in the last round and is applying for the next round, how much is their performance or results going to be then measured? I mean, do they have for the preliminary results that are submitted with their application that's considered? Or I mean, how does that basically assessment of the last round work into the next round? I think I understand the question. Let me put in context what I think from my perspective behind it, both the recognition of what the community-based organizations have gone through in the last two years trying to figure out how to deliver services in the context of COVID and the overwhelm and my own department, which gets to the monitoring who has been pulled into managing all the contracts related to the COVID shelter system and the housing for health system, which is new. To be quite frank, the standard to which we would like to adhere to have monitoring has been complicated. And I think it's been complicated because what CBOs have done in the last couple of years is pivoted pretty dramatically because they had to make adjustments. So I think that's the candor I want to put on the table. I think what's behind the question is a really good one and one, if you're okay with this, I'd like to make sure that I include that in a formal presentation of March, which is how does this play out? And we can do this in the Q&A with the CBOs. How does it play out if you're a current provider, whether you're getting core funding or other county funding or other funding, how does your performance tie into the competitive nature of your application? If that's what you're asking, I think it's a very fair question. I don't have a quick answer for you now. I think it's a very good one and it's something we need to be clear about when the rating panel sits. So if that's agreeable, I would like to recommend we just make sure to talk about that so we can have that and we can talk informally between now and then, but make clear what the answer to that question is because it's not a simple one. Got it, all right. I look forward to seeing that included in March. Okay. Any questions from Supervisor Friend? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have any questions just to comment of appreciation for all of Randy's team. I mean, this has been a long ongoing process, but I feel like each year it's just getting better and more transparent and also more effective. Realistically, we know that these amounts are investments that not individually any sort of transformational component, but we do hope that collectively they're definitely making a difference. We recognize the limitations on the funding side, but I do think that the work of your team, Randy is really helping meet the objectives and not just what the county has from the funding perspective, but what our community needs are really are. And I just appreciate the conversations I've had with some of the community-based organizations that have also improved the process over the last few years. I think we're definitely moving in the right direction. I'm supportive of issuing the RFP and moving forward in this process. Thank you. You're on. Sorry. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I also don't have any comments. I appreciate HSD's continual engagement with me and my office, but more importantly with the community and the providers to make sure we have a process that's getting the best return on our investment in these community programs. And at the same time, having a process that encourages everyone to look for collaborations and new ways to approach opportunities and equity in our community. So I'm supportive of this direction and appreciate all of HSD's work in this area on top of the many, many other activities they're working on right now. Thank you. Supervisor Caput. You bet. Thanks. Hey, good to see you. How you doing? Good, thank you. All right. Yeah, thanks for all your work. You're making everything easier for us before we had to handle all the details and everything. So I'm really impressed by the way you're able to balance everybody's needs. All these programs need money. They're all good. And it's hard to satisfy everybody, but I think we're doing as best and job as we can because of all your efforts. Thank you a lot, Randy. Yeah, thank you. And that thank you goes to the CBOs who've been very collaborative partners in this as well. That's an accomplishment itself, Mr. Director. I have heard. Yeah, right. Thank you. Any comments from the public? Thank you, Becky Steinbrenner, rural Aptos. Thank you, Mr. Morris. It's always a pleasure to hear your wonderful presentations and very compassionate attitude toward the public. Thank you. I am very glad to hear that there will be $150,000 to help those who are less experienced with grant writing and maintenance of the grants and reporting that's required. It's a huge burden for many of the small groups when they get this money. So thank you for holding those sessions and helping those who may be too intimidated otherwise to apply. I would like to ask that the RFPB advertised also on radio and television so that members of those smaller groups would be aware that this process is available and that these workshops to help them are available. I would also like to make sure that we include in all of this some reportable measure of success and effectiveness of those who do get the grants. And I would like to see a report about that from past core grant awards. I'm especially interested in the Santa Cruz County FireSafe Council being able to apply for this in terms of getting grants for home hardening for low-income seniors and low-income families. I think this could go a long way toward helping our communities that live in the rural areas that cannot afford to do what is sometimes very expensive home hardening to protect their homes in a wildfire. And finally, I really hope to see youth included in these core investments, not only for health and mental health, but also gardening. I would really love to see some community gardens built to get our youth out there learning how to grow their own healthy food and connecting with one another. Thank you. My name is Nicholas Whitehead. I was really pleased to see that you want to make this diverse in the recruiting of reviewers, for instance. You say a pool of diverse reviewers. I think that's so increasingly important in a community like ours, which has very mixed populations. I was so pleased with things like informal office hours because with my own experience with grassroots organizations, there's a real problem getting to places on time precisely with your whole team of presenters. Working people just can't show up for daytime meetings in general, things like that. So this is very considerate. And you did verbally say that smaller and even new organizations could be considered. And I think that's really encouraging because adapting to the changing times of the current crisis, new types of organizations spring up. Some of them are extremely grassroots and they wouldn't look like a structure we would normally recognize, but they're doing done good work. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Any other comments from the public? Any other comments on the phone? I have speakers to be assumed. Jake Kemp, if your microphone is available. Hi, thanks for giving me a moment to speak. I want to urge support of the staff recommendation and really thank Randy Morrison, his team for the work they've done. You've heard me a number of times be quite critical of the core process. And I think Randy has done a lot to put those concerns to rest. So I really compliment him about that. Echo, the slide that talked about triple A collaboration with the county. We've had multiple discussions about what they may look like. So I'm looking forward to working out the details. A couple of just comments to consider. One is that to remember that ageism is an equity issue and it's a huge discriminatory factor in our community right now. And I also want to again, compliment the RFP that's being described because there is room for ageism to be an issue of equity that's addressed in that. So thank you, Randy for doing that. Also, just a suggestion that there be a little more discussion about the 15% overhead because I think we need to define just clearly what that is. Is it per program or per agency? And also, are we talking about 15% of total expenses or 15% of total agency budget? They're two different things. So the math on that could be tricky. So just have some clarity about what that is. And then lastly, the 10% cap on the award because the staff might want to look at something more like a hard number there because 10% of a $10,000 grant doesn't leave much wiggle room whereas 10% of a $150,000 grant is a much broader range. So I would just encourage some detailed look at that. So those are really my comments. Again, thanks much for this recommendation and I look forward to working with HSD in the future on this project. Mr. Morse, I might just, we usually get all the comments first. Is there clarity on the 15% there? Do you want to come back to us or? Well, I'm taking notes of a number of the comments including the other comment about advertisements and we're going to be launching this and we can start printing question answers including how to delineate 15%. And I do want to use your moment to say I did not stay in my presentation. We are not just announcing this on our website but we also have a public information process. I don't know if it involves TV or radio but it involves social media and there's going to be an effort to get this information out wide and broad. But back to the question and any other comments I'm going to take notes and we will include this in our Q and A so the community has answers best we can. Okay, and I do want to clarify. I mentioned AAA coordinating efforts with Health Organ. I'm in human services organizations for the department. So it's AAA and human services. Kristen Glenn, your microphone is available. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Great. Hi, I'm Kristen Glenn. I'm speaking today on behalf of Deantes Community Dental Care. I just wanted to say that Deantes is in full support of approving the core RFP. The important impact that core investment has and will have on our community. We commend the well vetted and extensive process that has gone into creating the RFP and we do feel that it will help meet community wide needs. So Deantes appreciates this strong focus on diversity, equity and inclusion and within the upcoming core funding we hope to continue to address local disparities in access to oral health care. Thank you. There are no other speakers. Okay, and we turn it to the board to approve the release of the request for proposals for Andrew report. Well, you went through the recommended actions. Is there anybody that would like to make a motion to approve the recommended? All of the recommended actions with the additional direction that the chair outlined for a meeting between human services and AAA. Thank you. Thank you. Call the roll please. Supervisor Koenig. Hi. Friend. Hi. Community. Caput. Hi. McPherson. Hi. Thank you much to pass unanimously with additional direction. Congratulations again, Mr. Morris and your whole staff. It's been a lot of work I know. So thank you very much. Thank you. And to my staff really who did all the work. Okay. Yeah, they're there too. Thanks for that. Item number nine to consider adoption of resolution authorizing the county support of for the Pajaro Valley Health Care District Project to direct the health services agency, HSA to return on or before December 7th, 2021 with an agreement with the PVHDP for assessment planning policy development and project activities to ensure Watsonville Community Hospital remains open and direct the HSA to return on or before March 22nd, 2022 with a progress update as outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative officer. We have a resolution authorizing county support for the Pajaro Valley Health Care District Project. This is a huge endeavor. And we thank everybody who's had some part in making this become a reality so we can plan for better health services in the South County. Chair McPherson, if I could introduce item. Thank you very much. Chair McPherson and members of the board, we come before you today to ask for your support of the mission and goals of the newly formed Pajaro Valley Health Care District project as you will see the goals of this newly formed nonprofit are straightforward to pursue the formation of a health care district as a means of facilitating the eventual purchase and local ownership of Watsonville Hospital. I want to let you know that I have a long history with the hospital. I was city manager in Watsonville when the hospital was rebuilt after being destroyed and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. I was also the city manager in Watsonville when the hospital was sold from being a locally owned community hospital to private ownership. And as you will see in the presentation during those last 20 years, we've had 21 different changes of administration in the hospital. Watsonville Hospital is of great importance to the community. Not only Santa Cruz County as a whole but to Watsonville in particular. I've received services in Watsonville Hospital. I've been admitted to Watsonville Hospital that family members be served by Watsonville Hospital. The nurses, the doctors and the staff of Watsonville Hospital are excellent. They're caring, compassionate, highly skilled staff. They deserve better than this. They deserve better than 21 changes in administration over 20 years and the community deserves better. So that's why we are pursuing this goal. And I know that all of you know the importance, the critical importance of Watsonville Hospital and how important it would be as a goal to have local ownership of the hospital once again to have the local community control our own destiny. And so with that, I will turn over the presentation to Tiffany Cantrell Warren, who's our Assistant Director of Health Services Agency and to Dana McCray, who graciously agreed to help out as interim Health Services Agency Director while we are recruiting for a new director. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Good morning, supervisors. I'm Tiffany Cantrell Warren, Assistant Director for the Health Services Agency. Okay, thank you. So I'll start by sharing a history of Watsonville Community Hospital very quickly. In 1902, it was incorporated as a private for-profit hospital. And then it was restructured to nonprofit status in 1969. After sustaining substantial damage in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, it was moved to its current location on Airport Boulevard. In 1998, it was acquired by the for-profit community health systems Inc. In 2016, the ownership transferred to Quorum Health Corporation. In 2019, it was sold to Halson Healthcare LLC and they immediately entered into a sale leaseback agreement with Medical Properties Trust, which is the current owner. In January of this year, prospect medical holdings became the new and current hospital operator. And what's key here, as Mr. Palacio shared, is that in just over 20 years under the private for-profit ownership model, the Watsonville Community Hospital has experienced 20 changes in administration and seen reductions in services. Thank you. In this same 20-year period, the population of Watsonville has grown at least 17%. South County communities are endowed with incredible natural and cultural resources, excuse me, that makes Santa Cruz County a wonderful place to live. But it's not without its challenges. And I'll direct your attention to the map here. The light blue areas are census tracks that rank in the lower half and the dark blue areas rank in the bottom quartile in the California Healthy Places Index, which is a data aggregation of social determinants of health, including economic, education, transportation and social factors, clean environment and access to healthcare. The resource of the Watsonville Community Hospital is essential to delivering inpatient, specialty and emergency healthcare services in South County and this improves health equity across all of Santa Cruz County. Thank you. With that, the Pajaro Valley Healthcare District Project was formed as a nonprofit organization and it was formed through the partnership of four organizations that have a shared commitment to advancing health and quality of life in Santa Cruz County and the Pajaro Valley. These are the County of Santa Cruz, the city of Watsonville, the Community Health Trust of Pajaro Valley and Salud para la Gente. The Pajaro Valley Healthcare District Project's mission is to ensure that the communities it serves have the high quality and sustainable healthcare services they need by placing local healthcare resources in the hands of the people. Towards that end, the Pajaro Valley Healthcare District Project will pursue a healthcare district model for Watsonville Community Hospital to provide access to essential quality healthcare services, create a governance structure that's directly accountable at the community level and access opportunities for public hospital financing. These efforts, we hope, will bring sustainability to healthcare in the Pajaro Valley. Next slide, please. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency and the Pajaro Valley Healthcare District Project share a commitment to the health of Pajaro Valley residents and a vision for a healthy, safe and thriving community for everyone in Santa Cruz County. The County of Santa Cruz agencies has a long history of partnering with local hospitals to ensure access to high quality healthcare services for all residents, regardless of their health insurance or their ability to pay. Watsonville Community Hospital is essential to maintaining a balanced healthcare infrastructure that provides specialty, inpatient and emergency health services to Pajaro Valley residents and this benefits all of Santa Cruz County. Next slide, please. So our recommendations for today is that this board adopt a resolution authorizing the County's Health Services Agency to support the mission and goals of the Pajaro Valley Healthcare District Project and that this board direct the Health Services Agency to return on or before December 7th with an agreement with Pajaro Valley Healthcare District Project for assessment, planning, policy development and project activities for the purposes of ensuring the hospital continues to provide critical quality healthcare services to the community, including services for Medicare and uninsured populations and three to direct the Health Services Agency to return on or before March 22nd of 2022 with a progress update on the Pajaro Valley Healthcare District Project. This ends our presentation. Excuse me. I'd like to thank our County Administrative Officer, Carlos Palacios, who's told you he's had some experiences with the hospital as he was administrator over in that city and our outgoing Health Services Director, Mamie Hall too, for she's exhibiting some outstanding leadership that's gonna be involved in this process brought us and we really are appreciative of that. This is a huge endeavor and everybody's been working hard to assure the community continues to benefit from Watsonville Hospital really without it. Many folks would suffer from a serious lack of access to medical services. There are no question about that. Not only would South County be directly impacted by the lack of services at Watsonville but other medical providers in our County would be completely overrun. They're already having significant challenges serving the community due to lack of equally shared Medi-Cal and Medicare service provisions across our County. So I thank you again to the group for taking this on and working to set up a new management and ownership structure of the hospital. Our community will be better for it and it's sorely needed. I don't know if there might be any other questions or comments from other board members. Thank you, Chair. No questions. But I will just say that it's clear that Watsonville Hospital is a pillar of our local healthcare system here in the County and its continued operation is essential to the sustainability of our healthcare system throughout the entire County. So thank you for all your work on this. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you know, the hospital falls in my district and for Supervisor Caput and I, this isn't just an intellectual exercise. This is an exercise in ensuring that there be reliable, safe and high quality healthcare for a significant portion of the districts that we represent. I can't really imagine a greater investment in health equity than the stabilization long term of Watsonville Hospital. We are talking about the expansion of healthcare and other portions of the County. Those are important discussions but in some respects they become moot without a reliable hospital system in the South County that really in many respects is a frontline service provider for much of Watsonville and other areas of South County. I mean, as was evidenced and outlined by the CAO, there's been a significant amount of change over and destabilization within that organization over the last two decades. And I can tell you the nurses and the doctors they are looking for a long-term stable, local ownership model that they know that they can just go to work and do the hard work that they've been doing every single day in a way that they don't have to worry about the finances, they don't have to worry about the backend and they can actually have an accountability to a local non-profit that's more interested in providing healthcare than it is and providing profits to a hedge fund. And that's exactly the kind of district that needs to be formed that these kinds of healthcare districts have succeeded throughout the country. In fact, in the community I grew up in, there were healthcare districts throughout the community that was in San Diego County and they were very common, very successful. I think that this would be an important component for that long-term stability. And as you've heard me say in regards to investments in the Papua River, this too is a situation where it's hard to imagine a greater thing of import that this board could do but to get involved in ensuring that disadvantaged communities in the South County here, as well as in the Northern section of Monterey County have very reliable healthcare and stabilized healthcare moving forward. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Very good, very well said. Thank you. And Vice-Chair Cooner. Yeah, I'll just be brief. I support this direction. If we weren't navigating a pandemic and fires and an economic crisis and a drought, this would be like the single biggest issue this board would take up over a multi-year period to stabilize healthcare provision in Santa Cruz County, not just for South County, but for the entire County, as we often point out, the entire County is about the population of a third the size of the city of San Jose. So we are intricately tied with one another and we need the healthcare systems to work across the County for us all to have a healthy, vital community. And so I appreciate the efforts that are being made in this regard. And I look forward to a day when we can have a community-based healthcare system that provides health and good outcomes for all members of our community. Thank you, Mr. President Caput. Thanks a lot. This is a great example of we're all in this together. The whole County is affected if we're, if we don't have a hospital in Watsonville, people are gonna overwhelm basically Sutter and Dominican Hospital. And the other part is the response time of the fire department and medical personnel that go out with ambulances and everything. If they have to go all the way from Watsonville or South County all the way to Mid County or Soquel, you know, that's not a good idea either. So anyway, we gotta keep this going. It almost seemed like a couple of years ago when we were looking at this, that it was impossible to do, that it could become an actual nonprofit. And I think what would be really important is if it becomes a nonprofit owned and run hospital, that it would basically have a more stable administration. 20 changes in 20 years, that's unheard of. I don't know of any other than a hospital closing as any other hospital that we know of that has had 20 different changes in 20 years of administration and ownership. I don't know. I'm not aware of one. I'm not aware either. Anyway, so help South County and by doing that, we're helping the whole County. Right. Thank you. Any questions from the public comments? Thank you. Okay. Becky Steinbrenner, resident of Aptos. My family always goes to Watsonville Hospital and the emergency room there when we have to because we feel we receive actually better care. It has also been recommended that we do so because there is a much lower rate of staff, resistant staff that resists antibiotic, Mercer. That occurs at the Watsonville Hospital. So I support anything that we can do to stabilize that hospital. I suggest that staff contact the people who work there, these nurses that have undergone these 20 changes of administration. And I know from being a part of the emergency communications community that Watsonville Hospital has a ham radio station that is dedicated in their emergency room for emergency communication. And so I know a little bit about the stress that the staff has undergone with all of these administrative changes. And stabilization would indeed be a much, a big benefit. But I think we need to bring in those people who have been affected by all this and really get their input on this. I also think it really needs to be pointed out that the Watsonville Hospital is directly across the street from the Watsonville Airport, which in times of disaster has been incredibly beneficial for bringing in needed medications and supplies. It's right there and it serves the hospital well and has in the past. So we need to support this hospital staying in existence. I wonder if this will include future creation by creating a medical health hospital zone. Will this be a countywide tax zone? I'm assuming that it will include some type of benefit tax in the future. So I need to know how that would be structured. What would it be just the area in Watsonville and the surrounding areas? Or would it be countywide? I would encourage countywide to distribute the cost benefit over the whole county, because as you have said, Supervisor Caput, we all benefit. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'm sure we're gonna have a lot of discussions on finances of this proposal. Any comments on the phone? There's nobody else here. No, I do have one. Michelle Wall, your microphone is available. Hi, thank you. Yes, I had a comment by a registered nurse worked in hospitals for 40 years. The bottom line to every end union rep on the union committee, union negotiating team, Stanford worked at the regional medical center. They too have had the turnover. Talk yourself blue in the face. Nothing's gonna get resolved until we get Medicare for all. So we're a $13 trillion, $18 trillion economy. We can afford Medicare for all, but the pockets are being lined with big corporations. So why is the turnover? Because they can go somewhere else and get 25 million. Why stay there? You're not gonna get the loyalty. You're not gonna get the staying of nurses because they deliberately understaff. They go against safe staffing ratios by altering the acuity. So it's all about money. Nothing's gonna get solved until we have Medicare for all. Anybody else on the phone? No, no, there's speakers. Okay, I'll bring it back to the board for entertain a motion. I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Move my friend second by Konig. Please call the roll. Supervisor Konig? Aye. Friend? Aye. Kennedy? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We have a scheduled item at 10.45, but we have only one more item and I don't think it's gonna be long. So I would call up Mr. Machado to present this item. This is item, excuse me, to consider, excuse me, for the, this is for on the ordinance repealing the Soquel Village Parking and Business Improvement Area. Mr. Machado? Thank you, Chair and Supervisors. Good morning, Matt Machado, one of the deputy CAO's and Director of Public Works. Thank you for the introduction there. This is an opportunity to repeal County Code Chapter is 9.42 and 9.43. In 2016, the Soquel Village County Service Area was created to allow property owners the option to vote on a proposed annual assessment to fund the parking program. Property owners rejected the proposed assessment. As such, there are not adequate funding sources to support the parking program and the associated parking lot maintenance costs, as this is no longer a financially sustainable program. Staff recommends that the Board repeal chapters 9.42 and 9.43 and dissolve the program. Unfortunately, this program lacks community support and is not financially sustainable. The recommended actions before you today are, one, to consider in concept the adoption of an ordinance repealing Santa Cruz County Code Chapter 9.42 relating to the Soquel Village Parking and Business Improvement Area and 9.43 relating to regulation of parking in Soquel Village and to direct the clerk of the Board to schedule a second reading and final adoption of the ordinance for November 16, 2021. I would add that with Board action today, enforcement would cease immediately. And after the final ordinance repeal action and 30 days for the action to take effect, all parking programs, signage and kiosks would be removed. And I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Supervisor Koenig. Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director Machado. First, a little history, brief history on this. Shortly after taking office, began to receive lots of complaints about the fact that these lots in Soquel Village were not being maintained. That began our dialogue about how they possibly could be and why we're collecting fees if they're not being maintained. And you enlighten me to the fact that here, like with other programs that we were discussing at the time, we actually don't collect enough revenues to cover the cost of even basic maintenance. So I think it's only fair that if we can't actually perform that maintenance that we don't collect fees from the public. Of course, there's a lot of parallels between this program and the live oak parking program which we discussed earlier this year. And in the same way we've given folks opportunity to pay more to provide the service. They haven't wanted to take that opportunity. And so we were left with a few other options then to dissolve the program. Of course, we're gonna have to figure out some ways to maintain those properties going forward. And I think we're gonna have to look at repurposing the lots in some kind of mixed use project that still maintains public parking, but also gets more partners involved in potentially mixed use projects there that ultimately will support the village in general. And I think it's also timely that we look at this dissolution now because with the Soquel Drive work coming up that's gonna have a huge impact on all the street parking along Soquel Drive through the village. And I think it will be important that we provide the public and the businesses in the area free parking option that they can use during construction. Good. Any other comments from board members? Comments from the public. Thank you. Becky Stemder from Aptos. I really support dissolution of this parking lot collection program. And I propose that the county parks maintenance workers include the maintenance of the lot that is adjacent to the heart of Soquel Park that is right there. They're taking care of that park already. And as a former landscape maintenance worker it doesn't take long to mow, blow, and go. And I think that we can work out something with the parks department to just jump across the street and maintain the lot that is behind the places like the ugly mug and in there that have been collecting fees. I saw in the material that all of the the kiosks and things will be sold. I would like to ask that they be first considered to be repurposed to within the county other areas where they are currently being used. And if not there then to the local municipalities at a reduced cost. Thank you. Whether a person from the public will return to the board Mr. Machado, do you have any further comments? Nothing to add. Thank you, sir. Okay. I'll move the recommended actions. Move by Koenig, second by Coonerty. Please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Thank you. We will now move to our last item of the day scheduled item, public hearing to consider submitted maps and plans except the file report on the 2021 redistricting process provide additional direction, establishing district boundaries and hold the final public hearing on November 16th, 2021 as recommended by the county administrative officer. We have some redistricting proposals, A and B, some narratives, maps and plans submitted and some written correspondence. And before we get into our explanation I'd like to thank those who served on the redistricting commission. This was a different type of year because of COVID and all it was a really a tight timeframe that we had to address this. And from the first district, Sherri O'Neill, second district, Michael Watkins, who was chair, third district, Chris Freyes, fourth district, Peter Radden and fifth district, James Moser. They all performed a great service in having several meetings to explain the process to the general public in a very condensed schedule. So with that, I'd like to now turn it over to Elisa Benson of the county administrative officers who has been overseeing this process. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Elisa Benson, assistant CAO and I will be speaking on behalf of the staff team that has been supporting the county's redistricting effort for 2021 as well as the commission. I also just wanna express my appreciation for the team, our members from GIS, Rita, Susan Perlman, Trisha and Ruby who have all been great partners and working with community and our commission members and they're available either here or on Zoom in case there's questions that I'm not able to address today. So we do have a PowerPoint presentation to walk us through both the memo to the board as well as set the framework for our third public hearing on this very important issue. Next slide, please. I think it's always important for us to start with the why, why are we doing this? Why is it so important as, and we just wanna make sure our public is, not everyone has been part of our continuing conversation. First and most critically, this is a process we go through with every decennial census where our district boundaries are reexamined based on the updated information about how population is distributed and changed in communities. A key foundation of this is population equality across districts that every electoral district represents a substantially equal number of people. Third, this is really the opportunity for determining which neighborhoods and communities are grouped together for purposes of representation and electing that elected voice. So very important in how people are able to participate in all the public policy questions that you all handle every week. And fourth, that this is really important opportunity for community voice. Unfortunately, we do have a history in our country where redistricting has been used to benefit certain populations and disempower others. So it's really important that we make sure that this is a transparent and open process where all voices are welcomed and encouraged. So that's sort of the big fundamentals of redistricting and it's one of those things we do it every 10 years so we don't get to get a lot of practice. And of course, the pandemic had significant impact on this process, both in terms of how it impacted the census timeline and how that then impacted our timelines, but also I would say, I would suggest how it impacted people's ability to participate that we've had so many community members really focused on recovery that something like this, particularly given the data we'll walk through again today. We haven't gotten necessarily the full participation that we would have hoped for as much as we've tried to reach out to community. Next slide, please. So for our objectives for our meeting today and this serves as our third required public hearing, we will briefly review that 2021 county redistricting legal context and process. We did this at our last public hearing, but also just wanna make sure anyone who's observing today, they have that same information. We also do a brief recap of the other public hearings and ensure that the redistricting proposals from the ARC, from the commission, as well as additional input and proposals received from the public are in front of you for consideration. Third element will be receiving public testimony that that public hearing component that is so critical to this process. And our fourth item will be reviewing the recommended actions and most importantly hearing from you to clarify and confirm any redistricting proposals you would like us to prepare notice for the fourth public hearing and the potential final action by the board. So that's our objectives for today. Very briefly, the Fair Maps Act, AB 849 passed in 18 and then there's some further amendments in 19 here in the state of California, really provided a different frame and structure for the redistricting process. So this, unlike any other redistricting process, we've had some different guidelines and requirements that we need to address in our process. I'll start from the bottom of this slide and work my way up. So first and foremost, record keeping. We have to have very, very detailed record keeping starting with our website, which was one of our early actions in our process. And those records and that website needs to be maintained for 10 years and we have to save everything that has basically been submitted in this process. Public outreach. Again, the law requires extensive efforts to increase awareness and outreach around this process. And I'll talk a little bit about the specifics we undertook to meet that requirement as we talk about our specific process. And then at the top of this, and we'll have a separate slide on this, is the requirement for at least four public hearings and some specificity about when those things occur and very specific noticing requirements. Next slide, please. So this is a quick overview of the process here in the County of Santa Cruz. We've taken to both meet the requirements of the Fair Maps Act, but also address the interesting circumstance of the delayed census data. We'll start with basically the planning for the process. This board in February made that decision to establish an advisory redistricting commission to bring some additional voices and folks to the table to support us in our outreach and engagement processes. So we initially initiated that between February and May. Those nominations were received in April and we had our first meeting in June. The access and outreach part of our process really started in May and really extends until the final touches, which maybe as late as early December if we're not able to take final action next week. As mentioned, that critical website was launched early. Online tools around communities of interest forms were provided so it would be easy for people to both just describe their communities of interest but also include maps that they wanted to include and we initiated our public outreach efforts which included some plain language infographics around the process, why it matters both in English and in Spanish as well as bilingual social media campaign. And one of our big efforts was to push those materials out to as many community partners as possible, encouraging folks to share those with any of their memberships. We extended an invitation for us to come support and talk about the process with anyone who was interested and just really open that dialogue. The third phase was our involvement in engagement and that's when we really moved from promoting awareness to trying to promote engagement. And we offered for public education and communities of interest workshops. The general one was on September 1st and that was held here with all of these meetings were hybrid and allowed for both in-person and Zoom participation. The second mid-county meeting was on September 22nd. The third is September 29th. And then the final was on September 4th at Starlight Elementary in Watsonville. And this actually met one of the conditions for our first public hearing. We also provided mapping software to the public. So they were able to develop any of their own plans around how a supervisorial districts could be changed. We then moved to really the line drawing and mapping portion of the work. And a lot of this has been premised and challenged by the lateness of the receipt of the census data. Typically the year after a census, the data is received in April, which provides a very long runway for community work on redistricting. In our situation, this time around, we received the preliminary data in late August. So we had our first flavor of what it looked like and the final data in late September. So it really shortened the window to work with the data. And in that process, and I can speak a little bit of what the ARC committee did. They, on the next slide, next slide, please. Supervisor McPherson has already thanked our redistricting commission members. I just wanted to highlight them here. And we appreciate how they supported the process. They had seven meetings over this period, as well as four public workshops. And we're very engaged in learning about the process. And we go to the next slide. As you all know, they were really your eyes and ears. Many of them were talking with community members outside of the work of the commission itself, but also participated in those workshops. They learned about both federal and state law and how that informs this process. And on the slide, you see those specific ranked criteria that they were instructed. And we are all instructed to follow in developing any redistricting proposals. And then they really started working with the data. And as I mentioned, given the timing of the receipt of the data, that was really not until late September into October. And in early October, they had three ARC commission meetings focusing specifically on proposals. With that, I'd like to pause if there's any questions around that process. We're okay. Okay. Very quickly, because the public hearing schedule is one of those elements we need to be mindful of in terms of meeting the requirements of the Fair Maps Act. As mentioned, there are four, minimum of four required public hearings. Our first public hearing, we utilized that workshop per the law to count as our first public hearing. Our second public hearing was on the evening of October 26th. This is our third public hearing. And what's very important about today and in preparation for our fourth public hearing, which we have scheduled for next week is that noticing requirement. So today in your consideration of proposals, we need clear direction from all of you in terms of what proposals will be up for consideration as final adoption after the close of the fourth public hearing next week. We literally will be providing those maps at the end of the day today to meet that seven day notice as well as then we will be preparing the regular materials as part of the agenda packet on Thursday. So just this is a little bit different than our typical process. And I wanna make sure everyone understands that. We've also highlighted on this slide that should the board determine they need additional time to do this work that is, that has been allowed for in our schedule. And we would recommend if you do make that decision to schedule an additional meeting, special meeting the week of November 29th. The reason for that as opposed to rolling that into your regular meeting on December 7th has to do with Senate Bill 594, which has a whole bunch of very specific language that reflects the interesting moment in time we have and when signature and lieu of fees periods start. And I'm not gonna get into the mechanics of it. Our clerk of elections is here to speak to it, but it's important to sort of preserve the alignment of those sigs and lieu filing periods to take action on these, on any redistricting proposals prior to December 7th. December 6th would be the last date. If people have questions about that, I'm gonna defer to Ms. Weber to address that. But that is a little bit of a wrinkle that complicates our process. That's fine, please. So now here we are to the data. So I just wanted to highlight this map shows our current Supervisorial District boundaries. And in this table, it indicates what the data is that came out of the census. And as we discussed at the last public hearing, as you look at what we call the over-unders, so how does the current population in the current boundaries align with that substantially equal number of 54,270. And what we see across all five districts is the over-under that margin is well within 5%. And that 5% figure is the standard that we utilize to understand whether we are addressing substantially equal. So based on that single criteria, this would be considered substantially equal. However, because of the Fair Maps Act, being substantially equal is not sufficient. You also need to consider those other ranked criterias and whether those boundaries we have today address those ranked criterias. So I just wanna lay that out for the board. Next slide, please. So now we're gonna move to the part of where we're just gonna recap where we've already been. At the, we had our, as I mentioned, our first official public hearing, we are able to count that first workshop. So that standard is met. At our last public hearing on the 26th of October, the board was presented and considered the two recommendations from the advisory redistricting commissions, proposals A and proposals B. Those are attachments one, two-year staff reports today. And proposal A is the proposal around moving population from the East Harbor neighborhood from district three into district one. And then proposal B was moving a population from the Apple Hill neighborhood from district two into district four. At the last meeting, there was general positive receipt of that proposal, but we would be looking to hear from the board for confirmation or clarification of that direction today. We also considered the redistricting plan and map by Kimberly Hellinen. That was attachment, I think it's attached. Oh my gosh, we can write it down. That is an attachment to the packet from last week. I do have additional maps if anyone is interested in any of these proposals. And the third component of input you received at the public hearing on the 26th was those community of interest forms that were collected through the process. And at that point, we had about 19 different community of interest forms. And that was attachment four from your staff report from 1026. Well, now I'm going to move on to additional in public input received. So in your packets for this week, we did receive two additional mapping plans and proposals attachment three A is a redistricting plan map from a community member of Becky Steinbrunner. And that is in your packet. And we also received a redistricting plan and map from Derek Tim. And that is in your packet as attachment three B. We had four additional community of interest forms received and those are attachment two of your packet. So with that, I'm going to pause for any questions about any of the materials I've covered prior to us moving towards the public hearing portion of the meeting. Very well presented, thank you. And not easy to do it. It's been complicated and a tight timeline. I don't know if any board member has any questions for at least Benson before I go to the public. Quick question real quick on the public notice. Thank you for all your work. And I don't remember seeing anything on television or seeing it in the newspaper, but that doesn't mean I was watching all the time or reading every newspaper. Has it been out there? So we've absolutely had media coverage of the engagement process, several articles and several different publications. We did not do any paid media on TV, but and I'm not personally aware about what may have been covered in local newscasts, but we have been covered in print media and in a variety of different radio conversations. We also did do what I would consider an extensive social media campaign, both on Facebook and on Twitter in both English and Spanish, trying in advance of every meeting, both workshops and our hearings, letting people know about the opportunity to get involved. Yeah. Okay. And then the other thing I would say is the way I look at it, I don't look at it trying to make it a political advantage to one person or another. I'll basically represent whoever I have and that's the way it is. As long as it's the logical line and it takes into consideration neighborhood interest. So that, taking it out of the political realm is what I would like to see and that's hopefully what's happening. I can't speak for the other districts, but I'm okay with the way district four and district two are going. So anyway. Yeah, I think public and then we'll come back to the board for the comments. Any comments from the public? I'd be curious to know what outreach was done to major organizations and political clubs in the area. Because that's one way to get people to come to forums. I assume there was some outreach, but you didn't mention that. And the other question was you didn't indicate how many people came to any of the events that you held. It would be good to say if there was a struggle initially to get things under bit improved as time went by. If you want to answer that, I would be happy to answer that. In terms of the outreach to civic organizations, political clubs, community organizations, we had an extensive touch point with them early in the summer. I think it was over 200 organizations who we shared both the infographic and opportunity to meet and bring the story of redistricting to anywhere and everywhere. Unfortunately, we did not have a whole lot of response to that initial ask of our community. Which is not unusual. Yeah, thank you. So I will say we did have three organizations that did reach back to us at various points. We had the County's Commission on Latino Affairs reach out to understand the process. We had the city of Capitola request a briefing on the process. And then very recently, we had the South County COVID triage collaboration, I want to say coalition reach out to us and we did meet with them last week to ensure that they had an understanding of the process and the ability to participate. In terms of the question around the actual response to the workshops, unfortunately we did not have a tremendous amount of public attendance. At the first workshop, I think we had maybe 10 to 12 people participate via Zoom. No one participated in person. Mid County was equally limited. Our third meeting in Felton, at the Felton I think about six or seven members of the public come to that particular workshop. And I think we had about three folks participate via Zoom. And then our fourth meeting in Watsonville actually had very limited participation. So for, as we've described this to some folks who've asked us about it, A, for effort, but we did not as a staff team feel like we got the level of engagement we certainly were hoping for through those forms. We did utilize those online forms and we did get some participation that way. And then of course our commissioners were speaking with members of the community throughout this process to hear more about their perspective. Thank you. Thank you, Becky Steinbrenner, resident of Aptos. Thank you, Ms. Benson, for outlining the level participation. I really want to question the board whether you should count that final meeting in Watsonville which had very limited, which probably means zero public input as one of your meetings. I think what I would like to ask is that you reconvene the ARC 21. That is what the ARC 21 had hoped you would do at their final special meeting on October 15th. I watched that video over two hours and they really hoped that you would reconvene them because they had a lot of work they wanted to do but didn't have time in order to meet the deadline to get recommendations to you for the October 26th public hearing that you held here in these chambers that evening, during the evening. I attended that and I think you need to reconvene them. I think that's what they want. They had much discussion. If you watch that video and I ask that you do so, they had a lot of questions about the jewel box area. They didn't resolve that but they couldn't come to a consensus simply because they hadn't had time to work on it. They had questions about UCSC and it was interesting and I don't know if it was the October 15th meeting or an earlier one but they actually asked Ms. Weber from the election, how do you determine which district students are in when the line bisects a building? So UCSC didn't get considered in their recommendations because they simply didn't have time. It wasn't because they didn't want to but they were hoping that you would reconvene them and I feel that you need to reconvene them because that's what they want to do and they will come back to you with some other recommendations that address these problem areas that also included in Supervisor Caput in District two area, the Beach Road and Pajaro Dunes area. That's a whole piece. They didn't have time to address either and we're hoping they could if you would reconvene them. The whole thing about the city of Scotts Valley and Watsonville being bisected was not a decades old thing as was reported at your October 26th meeting. There was a new idea that was put forth in 2011 to try it out and I'm saying no, it's not working and the city of Scotts Valley at the time in 2011 protested it as did the city of Watsonville. It happened anyway. Those cities are again protesting it. The Mr. Tim's map there is protesting it and suggesting that you reunite the city of Scotts Valley during the ARC meetings. Rebecca Garcia from Watsonville was asking for the same thing. So you need to do this and you need to hold another meeting. In on June 8th, your board approved the option A to hold at that time. It was December 7th. I understand there are some problems now off. Thank you. Okay, I'll wrap it up. Thank you. I'm just saying there was no information at any time in the public libraries and still is not. You've got the attention of the people now. Let's get it out there, hold another meeting and really get the public involvement that this issue deserves. I have a piece, a letter. My form that I submitted the evening after October 26th was not included in your packet, but I'm submitting this now. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? We have anybody on the phone? There are no speakers to assume. Are you on the phone? Okay, I'll return it to the board for any kind of comment that we might have. Supervisor Tony, I'm sorry. Okay. Supervisor Friend, if you'd like to go. Supervisor Friend? Oh, I apologize. Supervisor Cohen, I wasn't trying to jump in, but yes, I appreciate the work again, both of the committee of the public that participated as well as staff on this, especially in the condensed timeline. I am in agreement with an issue that I had brought up previously that I do think that the city of Scott Valley should be reunified. I also think given the size of the deficit in the fifth district and the fact that we're adding the East Harbor into the first district, I think that from a population standpoint, it makes sense. I think that there's no question of a community of interest standpoint. Having the city of Scott Valley reunified makes a lot of sense. I would like to ask Ms. Benson, do you have those numbers handy per chance as to what the population shift would be into the fifth district and out of the first district associated with adding the city of Scott Valley back together? Yes, I do. It's approximately, I wanna say about 1800, a little over 1800 people that would be added from district one into district five. And the number of people that were being added into district one as associated to the East Harbor proposal would be how many? It's approximately 600, I think a little under. Okay, so I think that this does make sense from my viewpoint. I would be prepared when the time comes to, I'm all for the Apple Hill move with Supervisor Caput. I think it makes a lot more sense for the fourth district to have that area. It's a strange carve out currently within my district and the community seems to clearly agree. It's without question a community of interest. And in fact, in sense with their own city council districts down there, it makes a lot of sense to ensure that that happens. The East Harbor as well makes sense to me. So I just think that this change would be an important change for the city of Scott Valley to feel that it has a continued strong voice on the board. Supervisors, no statement on the current split voice, but I just think that it feels a greater, stronger community of interest within the fifth district. Now it makes sense moving forward. So I'd be supportive of that. And Ms. Benson, if we were, since that's a map that's been submitted and something that's been considered at the arc and that this board is considering that would not require an additional meeting, correct? To make any dis that modification if we noticed it tonight. So two clarifications. One, I read the wrong number on my column. It was actually 2,300 people would move from district one to district five if that was the direction to reunify. So it's a little bit more than what I had referenced. In terms of the map that was submitted that has more changes than just putting together Scott's Valley. So I would suggest if that was the direction of the board that the recommended action be recommending staff to develop a specific proposal that would address that as opposed to the map that was submitted that actually makes additional changes both in district three and district one beyond the unification of the city of Scott's Valley. So we would be able to develop that if that was so directed by the board but I would suggest a more limited approach than what was reflected in the map submitted by Mr. Tim. I appreciate that. I was just interested in the reunification of the city as I think that that was the historic component. I believe that 10 years ago his recollection and in his letter is correct that there was a significant amount of concern and outcry about that they were being divided. I don't know that it's really particularly done anything to advantage representation voice or community of interest in the city of Scott's Valley having them divided. So I'd be supportive of bringing that back together. To the second part of my question though if directed to allow staff to come up with that proposal that would not require the additional special meeting, correct? I will make sure my attorneys agree but if we were able to notice that map tonight it would not require an additional meeting from a outreach and engagement perspective we would just want to make sure it was widely understood that a significant change in map was presented. Okay, thank you. That's all Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair Koenig. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I also wanted to speak to the map submitted by Mayor Tim that would reunify Scott's Valley. It was on the campaign trail for the time that I did spend in the city of Scott's Valley this was an issue that came up frequently. It's really is one of the more significant issues that folks wanted to address was the reunification of their city. In looking at the comments submitted about communities of interest I think Ms. Benson you mentioned there was 19 total and four of those were in favor of uniting Scott's Valley. And then there was additional two in favor of adding more of Midtown Santa Cruz to district one. And as you mentioned, Mayor Tim's proposal kind of did a little bit of both of those things. And cleaning up the lines in Midtown Santa Cruz a little bit, frankly I think they look actually a lot cleaner and better than we've got currently might be helpful to put that up on the screen. Of course, I'd love to see it if staff could propose something better there but you know, and then I think the proposal also because of that those changes in Midtown actually the percentage of the population is better in marriage and proposal evening out all the different districts than what we had just with the proposals that came out of the arc which I'm both in favor of as well. You know, and I furthermore I think item 26 and the state and federal redistricting processes that we've discussed earlier today I think really helped me sympathize even more with the city of Scott's Valley realizing what the potential impacts of having your community split and that you have one strong and significant voice. So, you know, ultimately I think that between the considerations of community voice and population equality and legislative guideline three which says that if possible cities and census designated places should be kept whole that this proposal makes the most sense. And, you know, just to comment briefly on Ms. Steinberg's point about the jewel box or trying to make Watsonville whole as well. I think there's greater challenges there just in terms of the population equity equality issue. I mean, I did look at it myself and there's a significant population of the jewel box and so if you were to move that into district one then you have to look at moving a huge amount of territory somewhere else along the district one to boundary and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I think that Mayor Tim's proposal ultimately does a pretty great job of balancing communities of interest and population equality. So I'm also supportive of that map. Okay, so I'm gonna need some clarification as to whether it's, I will say it is presented by Mayor Tim but that is not a proposal from the city of Scotts Valley. I do wanna just make sure that there's clarity around that as we did confirm that with the interim city manager. And we can, you have the maps in your packets it'd be very important for us to understand if it is only that reunification piece or those changes that Supervisor Koenig mentioned that move some population between, I would say it moves approximately 759 people from the fifth into the third it then moves about 900 people from the third into the fifth and then about 15, a little less than 1600 people from the third into the first. So that in itself is almost 3000 people that would be changing representation and we would wanna make sure that there's adequate they understand that that is being considered. So I would need his staff to understand what is the direction. Is this more than just making Scotts Valley whole? I mean, we've got other moves here. I mean, a picture is worth a thousand words. I would suggest potentially bringing up let's see if we can highlight of the midtown changes on the screen and then. I am not sure if I have that in my PowerPoint. I have the overall plan, but let me see if I do. Could you bring the PowerPoint back up? You said 700 from the fifth to the third. How many from the third to the fifth? It's approximately 759 from the fifth to the third and I can actually make copies. These are residents, not voters. These are people, not voters. Then approximately 898 from the third into the fifth and then approximately, well, 1,570 from the third into the first. So as Supervisor Koenig says, it definitely that proposal really tries to work at substantial being substantially equal evening out the 2,300 that were moved, would be moved to unify Scots Valley. But it does include, it does introduce some considerable movement in that sort of east side. The way the east side of Santa Cruz is currently represented. So let's see, I can keep going. These are all my secret slides you guys are seeing. So just in case we need to talk about a few more. Let's see, keep going. One back. So what you're gonna say, actually, this does not do it justice. I'm sorry. Oh, let's see. We may have a saving GIS hero who may be able to bring up if we, well, let me ask the board, would you like us to have staff bring up a detailed map that shows those additional changes? You can do it. I think if I can get is Matt Price. It's not as a panelist. All right. We can wait for you. I think it's important that we get that. Yeah, so Matt, Matt actually, hi, Matt. I have that map up. If you'd like me to share my screen, I'm happy to do it. Now these are the three changes you just mentioned. These are the three changes I just mentioned. We actually had GIS staff take the time to look very closely at this proposal to understand the additional balancing changes. Mr. Tim was proposing, along with the reunification of Scots Valley. Yes, Matt, that would be very helpful. Okay, I'll go ahead and share my screen. Are you able to see it? Not yet. Are you able to see it now? Yes, we can see it. Oh, you guys can see it. Okay, great. I can't, can you guys see it? They cannot. All right, it's on the big maps. I think if I hit the up now. You know what? I can turn one of the cameras and you guys can see it. I got it. All right, so as I mentioned, actually Matt, would you mind walking through this since you, Jenny, did it? Thank you. I'm happy to do it. So as Lisa mentioned, the plan that was submitted in addition to making the city of Scots Valley whole, they did some additional work adjusting some areas in the Midtown area. And if you'll see as my cursor moves this black line, this is the current boundary of the Supervisorial Districts. And this area down here is District three. And so under their proposal, under the proposal that was submitted by Mr. Tims, he's suggesting moving this area, which I don't think- What is that exactly? Tell me. 759 people. Where is it? This is in the area. This is Dakota Avenue here. And this area is, let's see here. So this is Broadway right here. So it's north of Broadway. So it's, this is Ocean Street as you're coming down. So it's the area east of Ocean. This is the county building complex here. And the other area- So that brings the District five stops at Water Street then? Yes. Correct. Correct. Water Street is this line here. So you use Water Street to kind of even out the boundaries between the districts. And then this additional area that was part of District three is moved into District five. And then this area that was previously part of District three is moved into District one. Those two, I mean, I haven't heard anybody. Was this just a matter of trying to equalize things of the changes that- Yes, I believe the intent was- Having Scott's Valley become whole? Yeah, when he submitted his plan, I mean, I'm challenged to speak for him, but when he submitted his plan, it looks like he put in some extra effort to get the numbers to really balance out. So in addition to making the city of Scott's Valley whole, he went in and found some areas where with the adjustments, could bring the numbers closer to the zero number. Yeah, I am, excuse me for any rough- That's fine, the ARC too. Just a minute, just a minute. I can speak to that. This was this particular changes were not discussed by the ARC. Yeah, this is one thing that bothers me. These are significant changes more than one. I mean, and it's not surprisingly, you change one thing and it flips a lot of other things. I, in respect to every district and commission, I don't know if these things were ever proposed prior to last week, you know, that's what bothers me. I don't know. Mr. Chair, I just feel that this, I totally understand what Supervisor Koenig and Mayor Tim were going at with a substantially equal in population, but I don't, I feel that the reunification of Scott's Valley is important from community of interest standpoint. I don't feel like I can make the same argument here because I just don't feel like this is A with something that was asked for by communities of interest or B that we've done that level of analysis. So I wouldn't be, I don't see the need to have this movement right now. I just think the Scott's Valley reunification is the most important component. It still keeps us all well within the 5% number with that one movement. So I would just be supportive of the original discussion of just reunifying Scott's Valley, that the Apple Hill area and the East Harbor movement. I've got a quick comment too. Basically, it's done on population, not on voting on voters. That's correct. I understand that. But you have to understand also by population in the fourth district, there's a lot, there's a significant amount of population that is undocumented. We have all ages young and whatever, too young to vote. Then you have a unique situation in the Santa Cruz area with UCSC. That's a community in itself that basically the entire population can vote at UCSC because they're all over 18, all the ones living on campus. So what I'm getting at here is, in my case, I'm not affected by it, but obviously maybe with the redistricting that's going on, it would affect your district, Supervisor McPherson. What I'm getting at is if it's on population, we have to represent everybody either undocumented and too young to vote. But we can't have one community that everybody in that community, the population entirely can, as a block, they can vote. So it wouldn't be fair if they had too much influence over too many different, like two different districts. That's all I'm getting at. I'm going to go to Supervisor Coonerty. He hasn't had comment on this yet. Yeah, so thank you. As to the unification of Scotts Valley, I want to hear what the folks who represent that area have to say we've heard from Supervisor Coonerty, obviously. In terms of that East Side District, I mean, I'll be honest that the packet was so small that I didn't even see those changes. And I couldn't tell what the impact of that was. So I'm not opposed to it entirely, but it also, I think there's a real noticing question that if I and my staff couldn't tell who it was, whether the public and the districts that may be affected could tell what it was. Since there are knock-on effects, I'd be supportive of a motion that states maybe the principle of reunifying Scotts Valley, but then has staff meet with each board office to understand how we get to substantially even populations in terms of how that looks. Thank you. Thank you. I just clarify. So the requirement ahead of the next meeting, if I understand correctly, is to publish any maps under consideration. Is that correct? Correct. Within seven days. So if we asked for both this map and an alternative map as proposed by staff to be published no later than tonight at 11.59 p.m. Literally as we can get it. Right, then that would satisfy the requirements. I'm gonna turn the council for that. Yeah, I'm unclear right now what the question is and let me just preface it by saying that your board could make a motion to have option A, option B, and an option C that includes A and B and the reunification of Scotts Valley. And those maps could be produced tonight and could be published tonight and then you could consider them at your next meeting. Right, we don't have to express any preference for any particular map today. No, you do not. We're still in the process. We're 75% of the way through the process. So at this point, at your last meeting, you registered interest in your board, registered interest in options A and B. Now your board is registering interest in this option C which would also reunify Scotts Valley. And so if the motion was clear enough to staff that what you wanna see at your next meeting is a map that has option A, B, and C included that map can be published tonight. But I think the other option I think that Supervisor Coonerty was speaking to was if there is then some option D that does additional changes to address the substantially equal question. That would be difficult to do. Yeah, my understanding right now from staff is that even with moving, Ruth, with reunifying Scotts Valley, we will still be within the 5% the substantially equivalent number. One could continue to tinker with that and get to absolute equal numbers, but that's within the discretion of your board. I would like to, it's important. I think we do it because if we don't the state's going to. So let's make our decisions of what we're gonna do. And nobody's arguing that, but that's the reality. If we don't get this done by December, the state's gonna come in and do it for us. So it is important we do it. I'd like to see some of those options. And every one of our cities is split between some districts. And in my district, which seems to be the cornerstone of this discussion, Scotts Valley and Santa Lorenzo Valley don't always get along swimmingly together. They do have some great examples. Santa Margarita water just, agency now is really looking at, they've done some things road and some with the emergency processes and with emergency water, a recent one to try to combine or Santa Lorenzo and San Scotts Valley water districts just didn't even get off the starting blocks. So there is going to be some differences of opinion. And I, you know, out of respect for our commission, I wish these things would have been presented to them earlier, but I think that for us to look at these options and I'm open to the unification of Scotts Valley, but I think that if we have that in a meeting, we can do that in a timely fashion to get it done by December and do it ourselves. I'm open to do that. Can the ARC be reconvened? They know this. Mr. Maverick. I understand that, but they want you to read. Mr. Chair, if I may interject one bit here, I just want to, just as a point of clarification, do I think what Supervisor Koenig's actual question was and Supervisor Koenig, please tell me if this was not what your question was. But I think that what Supervisor Koenig is requesting is that there are not being option A and option B and option C, which is the unification of Scotts Valley and an option D, which is the map is presented by Mayor Tim, all presented as options that the board would consider at our next meeting. Is that correct? Supervisor Koenig? Yes, yes. Sorry. Yes, that's possible to do. If staff can get it done by tonight at 11, and I'm assuming that they can, because that map with that Mr. Tim has submitted doesn't need to change in any respect to become option D. Now, just to be clear too, if we do accept that, we would be coming back to a special redistricting meeting on the 29th, is that right? No, as County Council has just suggested, if we posted maps that reflected a series of alternatives that you are considering for final adoption tonight, and then of course broadly made that aware that this is happening, those alternatives and only those alternatives could be considered for the fourth public hearing next week. And should the board choose, they could take final action. If the board next week decided to do further changes, that would then require another round of map notification. And if that was the situation, we would recommend you do another special meeting, not the week of Thanksgiving, but the week after any time in the week of the 29th that worked for the board's schedule. But that's only if you chose not to, if you wanted additional options starting next week. All right. But if we had all of the options that Jason just walked through noticed today, you would have that range of options, but no other options if you are acting on them next week. So per Supervisor Coonerty's question, wiggling those things further would have then require us to do a fifth public hearing after Thanksgiving, which is absolutely doable. So Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion if this is appropriate. And you can make a motion, no. We actually haven't gone back to recommended actions yet, but we can wait, Zach, if you are Supervisor Friend, however you want to handle it. I mean, I've got the recommended actions in front of me and the board item, if you want to bring them back up on the screen, it's up to you. Oh, it's fine. You can go forward unless the members would like to see them. Go ahead and make it in part of the presentation, Ms. Benson, and then I'll still make the same motion. Great. We're almost there. So let's go one slide. There we go. So we have a number of recommended actions today. Some of them are a regular administrative that was accepted in file. And then we have those actions around considering the various inputs that you've received throughout this process. Those are recommended actions number two and number three. Then we get into the, and of course the open the public hearing that we did already today. And then in recommended actions number five and six, this is really where we're speaking to right now is that clarification of direction from the board as to what options you would like noticed tonight for possible final action next week. And then that we would be returning next week for that fourth public hearing and directing us to work on the legal documents for your consideration next week around final action should you decide to take it? So there's no, and Supervisor Friend, your motion does not include returning it to the commission itself just to come back at those dates. That is correct. I think that we have a pretty solid answer as to what we need to do here. And so what I would like to do is move the recommended actions. And then the following options of maps to be brought back by staff, which would include the option A, the Apple Hill neighborhood option B, the East Harbor area. And then an option that includes Apple Hill, East Harbor and the reunification of Scots Valley. And the final option, which would include Apple Hill, the East Harbor and the maps submitted by Mayor Tim, which includes a broader reunification of Scots Valley and some other communities of interest within his proposal for us to consider. Second. Okay. And before we vote, Council, is that clear and is that an appropriate motion on this item to ensure that we have what we need to consider at the next public hearing next week? Yes, yes, Supervisor, thank you. That is clear. Thank you. And I might, we'll talk about that when we talk about the agenda that we'll have this a scheduled item probably I don't know, we'll probably in the afternoon would be. I think we, right now it is noticed for 10.45 and we do have published notice. And as we've looked at the agenda for next week, I think we would be able to do it in the morning. There would be no reason to delay it to the afternoon. I haven't seen the agenda yet for next week, but I don't know of any reason why we couldn't do it at 10.45. And we're going to have that discussion tomorrow, I think, but it's okay. Yes, who's that? It's the supervisor, Coonerty. So, thank you. I, you know, so I would be open to these proposals and for the policy reasons outlined, I guess I'm a little thrown because last week per board direction, I was trying to work with staff in your office to balance out and get essentially more even population. And there was enormous resistance from county council because of noticing requirements. And this was last week and today, without any numbers to see the impacts of some of these proposals, these are somehow we're able to move forward without much notice and without much process. And so I would be supportive of this proposal if we can have an ability to work with staff and to bring proposals forward in a special meeting so that we can make sure that the numbers are balanced right and we understand and notice the impacts to the community. Again, I'm not necessarily against anything that's being proposed here. It's just, it feels like a process. There was one process outlined for us when we were trying to engage and now that we seem to be blowing through an entirely new process without much notice to the impacted communities. So I pose the motion as directed if we wanna have a direction to then bring back proposals at the special meeting, I'd support that. Supervisor Friend. Yeah, no, I hear what Supervisor Coonerty is saying. Was there a specific map that you were submitting today Supervisor Coonerty to be included into this consideration? I didn't because the indications like I have from County Council's office was there would be insufficient notice and it would be potentially problematic. So it's surprising now that we are moving forward with these proposed maps that I couldn't even read in the packet as the only options. I mean, for just a point of clarification, the, as you know, the Apple Hill, the East Harbor and the city of Scottsdale reunification were all discussed by the redistricting commission as were additional discussions about the jewel box and some issues within your district. So was there something within specifically that consideration of the ARC that you were looking to bring forward because I consider the fact that these things were already considered by the ARC. The fact that this information was submitted well in advance of the packet and has been discussed for some time as not running afoul of any sort of public disclosure transparency or noticing requirements. And I'd be open to if you had an additional map. The point is that we need to get these maps after the community tonight to consider next week. I mean, I don't consider there to be and there's an option which is why I'm supporting Supervisor Koenig's recommendation of Mayor Tim's larger recommendation but I actually don't support that as a recommendation. I just think that it's too broad but I think that we need to have that out to the community to get the feedback and then to have it considered at the next meeting. I don't think it should be more narrow but if you had something in particular that maps could be produced tonight as part of that then it would still meet the notice unless I'm missing something that County Council could say differently. I guess I don't have a map right now. I could have a map and because I'm trying to understand my concern before was that while it was under the 5% my district was significantly over and I was trying to get it closer and so trying to understand what the reunification of Scotts Valley means for the overall numbers of the districts and whether that puts the fifth district now significantly over or now it impacts the second district and so I don't have anything right now because I was sort of urged not to have something right now and so at any rate that's where we are. Supervisor Coonerty, I could speak to that issue if it would be helpful. I believe what you may be talking about is the idea of splitting UCSC. Is that accurate? Is that the idea that you're discussing or that you have in your mind? Well, I mean, so potentially that's one or other districts in order to get to a substantial number to get to substantially even. That is one and since we had communities of interests then now the city of Santa Cruz is divided into three. Watsonville is divided into two. I thought we could have other communities of interests that would increase representation for that community as an option. Yes, the reason that we have questions around the split of UCSC is because that is a specific community of interest. It's not related to a notice issue. Your board has discretion throughout this process throughout all four public hearings to take maps, produce maps and the like but the issue with splitting UCSC as a specific community of interest is something that they are considered and that I believe Supervisor McPherson's commission member spoke to at length. That does not mean that you could not submit a map to do that. There would be legal ramifications around that that we would need to be considered. Okay, so I mean, I can submit a map right now. I don't know what that does to the population as we reunify Scotts Valley. So again, like I'm not opposed to any of this. Sorry, just to make one point from a legal perspective you are within substantial compliance for purposes of the distribution of population. If you consider these four options that are on the floor, the motion that's on the floor. Correct, but I guess I'd like to know the motion that's on the floor. I don't know how, I know I'm under 5% but it's a big difference to me whether I'm 4% or 1% and I don't know that number right now. I mean, that is something that we have the numbers to though. I mean, I'd asked a minute ago what the reunification of Scotts Valley for example would do and those numbers were provided. So those numbers are available, Ms. Benson did put up an infographic with what would happen if we took option four and then she provided the numbers if we just did option three. So very quickly just and Supervisor Coonerty, happy to work with you and around any of these detailed questions. If you look at substantially the impacts towards it's substantially equal of Mr. Tim's proposal. So that does not include any changes at the UCSC campus. It would have everyone closer to substantially equal. Everyone is less than 1% off on that map. You'll have those numbers next week. Yeah, and that map actually those numbers are in your staff packet. And that map Mr. Tim's map does include proposals A and B. I guess, and I'm sorry I missed this but that includes option D as I understand it which is not just something I think most of the board is not supportive of. So it's trying to figure out it's trying to back that out from a numbers perspective. That's correct and we would have to look. So if I understand your question that's if we just isolated the Scots Valley reunification what would those numbers look like in terms of being substantially equal? I would have to actually ask Matt to run that map because Mr. Tim's proposal did include those other balancing adjustments. So yes, we would need to look at that for you. A point of information. I mean, what I'm hearing from Supervisor Coonerty is that the desire to have the option to work with some of the numbers in the maps and sell. If even if he were to submit another map for consideration sometime before next Tuesday and we were as a board to decide we wanted to move forward with that map. My understanding is then all we would have to do is have that special meeting on what you said November 29th and we would still be well within are following the legal process, is that correct? That's correct. Right, so certainly I'd love to see any other proposals Supervisor Coonerty has based on the discussion today. And I don't think that we run a foul of even the deadlines necessary for folks who are wanting to pull papers to run in the 2022 election as long as we have that November 29th. Does that require an amendment to the motion then that Supervisor Friend made? It would, wouldn't it to add another? I would look to council. I don't think so. I think what that motion says is what we would notice today for purposes of next week. That does not mean that we couldn't receive additional proposals next week. It just means that we, they would not have sufficient notice for final action. I'd just like to stick then with the motion and if Supervisor Coonerty would like to bring something forward for the board to consider next Tuesday, then he is welcome to do so. And then we, if the board actually wants to move forward with an additional change at that time we'll have a special meeting. I don't know that we will go that way. But I think that it's important. I think that that maintains all the options on the table. We just move forward with the motion as presented. And if there's a modification to be made then we'll hear it at the next meeting and have a special meeting as a result should the board move forward with that. So, I mean, I think that actually what I think is really good about this is this is a robust discussion. I think that we should be having robust discussions like this around redistricting every 10 years. And I appreciate Supervisor Coonerty bringing these ideas forward. I appreciate the recommendations of all of my colleagues on this. And I also appreciate the community input on this. This is good. I mean, there was less community input throughout the process because of COVID. And I think it's very important that our board take it very seriously and provide that input like Supervisor Coonerty is doing right now. So I understand why he's flagging what he's flagging. But Mr. Chair, I mean, we do have a motion and a second. And so I think we can move forward on that. I'll just make one comment. That's it. You go ahead. Because we're about ready to vote on it, right? Yeah, basically I'm just saying that the Registry Committee is giving us a map, okay? And if we're not going to follow what they're recommending, then we're getting into, it's almost sounding political. I mean, I can throw this into big confusion by arguing with Supervisor Friend over Apple Hill. Apple Hill is fine for me and I guess it's fine for him. But you know, I could say I'd rather have some other area, but I'm going by what the Registry Committee has actually offered and I'm okay with it. But we seem to have a big problem here and it sounds, well, it's appearing political rather than the Registry Committee. Okay, I'm just saying it's giving an appearance. So I think we know what the motion is. We're going to have some options available when we meet next week and please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig? Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? No. Abbott? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Thank you, Motion Passes 4-1. Okay, that completes our agenda for today. We're going to be going into closed session. Are there any reportable items? No. Okay. All right, we will then adjourn to our next meeting. It'll be next Tuesday at 9 a.m. here at the Council or the Supervisors' Chambers. This meeting is adjourned. Are we going to come back here?