Santa Cruz County, CA

- ALL RIGHT, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME IN THE NEW DAIS.

ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS.

UH, MY NAME IS SIERRA RYAN.

I'M THE WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGER IN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.

UM, ONE ARM OF THE WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM IS WHAT WE CALL OUR DRINKING WATER PROGRAM, UM, WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERSIGHT OF STATE'S SMALL WATER SYSTEMS AND SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS, UM, WHICH IS WHAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING TODAY.

UM, THE SMALL WATER SYSTEMS, THE SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED THROUGH OUR LOCAL PRIMACY AGENCY, WHICH WE WILL BE REFERRING TO AS OUR LPA.

THE COUNTY WAS DELEGATED...

OOPS. LET ME...

THERE WE GO.

THE COUNTY WAS DELEGATED PRIMACY TO REGULATE THESE SMALL WATER SYSTEMS, UM, THAT SERVE BETWEEN 15 AND 199 CONNECTIONS, OR OVER 25 PEOPLE FROM MORE THAN 68 DAYS A YEAR, UM, IN 1994.

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THE TIME DID THIS TO MAIN-MAINTAIN A WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THESE SMALL LOCAL WATER SYSTEMS AND TO ENSURE THEM ACCESS, UM, AND RESPONSIVENESS FROM THEIR REGULATORS.

THERE IS, AS CONNIE MENTIONED, A DECLINING TREND IN COUNTIES WORKING AS LPAS.

UM, AS RECENTLY AS 2014, THERE WERE 36 COUNTIES THAT HAD LPAS, UM, AND THERE ARE CURRENTLY 25.

UH, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY RETURNED OVERSIGHT OF OUR, UM, WATER SYSTEMS THAT RELY OF SURFACE WATER IN 2017 TO THE STATE, UM, DUE TO INCREASING REGULATIONS AND DISPROPORTIONATE TIME THAT THEY TOOK.

SO THERE ALREADY HAVE BEEN SOME OF OUR SMALL WATER SYSTEMS THAT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD.

UM, AND MONTEREY COUNTY, LAST YEAR, RETURNED PRIMACY TO THE STATE, ENDING THEIR LPA.

UM, THEY HAD HAD 284 SYSTEMS IN THEIR LPA, AROUND FOUR TIMES AS MANY AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

UH, WE HAVE 68 COUNTY-REGULATED SYSTEMS IN THIS PROGRAM THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED IF THE LPA IS TERMINATED.

AND I WILL BREAK THAT DOWN A LITTLE MORE ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

ALL RIGHT, SO THERE ARE TWO OVERARCHING CATEGORIES OF WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE REGULATED BY THE LPA.

COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS ARE THOSE THAT SERVE RESIDENCES, AND-AND HOUSEHOLDS AND COMMUNITIES.

UM, MANY OF THEM ARE LOCATED IN THE MORE REMOTE PARTS OF THE STATE OR OF THE COUNTY WHERE THERE- THE LARGE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTS CANNOT REACH THEM.

UH, THE OTHER CATEGORY IS NON-COMMUNITY SYSTEMS. THESE ARE SYSTEMS THAT RELY ON WELLS TO PRESERVE- TO, UH, SERVE DRINKING WATER TO PLACES LIKE BUSINESSES, CAMPS, WINERIES, SCHOOLS, AND OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING EMPLOYEES, UM, STUDENTS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC MAYBE DRINKING THIS WATER.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP AND THE TABLE, THERE IS A SOMEWHAT EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF THESE NON-COMMUNITY SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

BUT, UM, SIGNIFICANT DIVERGENCE IN WHERE THE COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ARE LOCATED WITH MOST OF THEM IN DISTRICT 2.

ALL RIGHT, UM, THERE IS GOING TO BE MORE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION THAN WAS IN THE PACKET.

UM, JUST, UH, BASED ON SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD RECEIVED.

UM, SO WE HAVE TAKEN A REALLY HARD LOOK AT THE PROGRAM COST OVER THE PAST YEAR.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROGRAM COST HAVE ALWAYS EXCEEDED THE FEES COLLECTED.

UM, IN 1994, THE BOARD FELT THAT UTILIZING SOME NET COUNTY COST FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS ACCEPTABLE.

UM, HISTORICALLY, AS WE HEARD, THE STATE DID PROVIDE THE LPAS WITH GRANT FUNDING TO OFFSET SOME OF THESE COSTS TO COME WITH A

[00:55:04]

VERY LOW ECONOMY OF SCALE, UM, THAT THIS PROGRAM EXPERIENCES.

THE LAST GRANT ENDED IN 2021 AND WE HAVE BEEN TOLD [CHUCKLES] BY NUMEROUS PEOPLE THAT THERE IS NO EXPECTATION THAT ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE.

THE STATE DOES HAVE MANY OTHER PRIORITIES WHEN IT COMES TO DRINKING WATER, UM, ASSIS-, DRINKING WATER ASSISTANCE FUNDING.

AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD NEED TO DOUBLE OUR CURRENT FEES TO COVER THE CURRENT PROJECT CO-, PROGRAM COSTS.

UM, HOWEVER, THE PROGRAM COST HAVE INCREASED IN PART DUE TO INCREASING REQUIREMENTS ON WATER SYSTEMS. IN 1994, THE PROGRAM HAD A 0.75, SO THREE QUARTERS OF A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OR FTE, UM, WHICH INCREASE OVER TIME TO ONE FTE.

IN 2014, THE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM HAD TO ADD A SECOND, UM, STAFF PERSON, PART TIME STAFF PERSON TO THE LPA, UM, TO ITS CURRENT LEVEL OF 1.3 FTE.

HOWEVER, WITH THE UPCOMING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, UH, THAT I WILL DISCUSS ON THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, WE ANTICIPATE THAT, UM, OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, OUR STAFFING NEEDS ARE GOING TO INCREASE TO AT LEAST 1.75 FTE.

SO THAT NUMBER THERE FOR THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROGRAM, UM, IN 2030-31, IS BASED ON 1.75 FTE AND A 3% INFLATION RATE YEAR OVER YEAR, UM, BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

UM, AND IF ANYTHING, I THINK THIS NUMBER IS PROBABLY CONSERVATIVE.

ALL RIGHT, SO TO PUT THAT BUDGET IN PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE SMALL SYSTEMS ARE ALREADY PAYING SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THEY WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO RETURN PRIMACY TO THE STATE.

UM, THE DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER FEES, THAT'S DDW LISTED THERE, UM, THEIR CHARGE BY CONNECTION OR CUSTOMER, UM, USUALLY WITH THE MINIMUM OF FEE FOR THE SMALLEST- MINIMUM FEE FOR THE SMALLEST SYSTEMS. I JUST TOLD YOU THAT WE WILL NEED TO DOUBLE OUR FEES TO ELIMINATE JUST THE CURRENT BURDEN ON NET COUNTY COST.

IF WE WERE TO DOUBLE OUR FEES, A COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM SERVING 50 HOUSEHOLDS WOULD THEN BE PAYING, UM, $5172.

THAT IS OVER 7.5 TIMES HIGHER THAN WHAT THEY WOULD PAY THE STATE FOR THE SAME SERVICE.

UM, AND, UH, THAT WOULD ONLY COVER THE COST OF THE PROGRAM IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR, NOT THE ANTICIPATED INCREASE OF OVER $500,000, WHICH I SHOWED YOU ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.

SOME OF THE LARGER SYSTEMS WITH A BROADER CUSTOMER BASE CAN MORE EASILY SPREAD OUT, UM, FEE INCREASES.

BUT FOR SMALLER SYSTEMS THAT DO MAKE UP THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR LPA COMMUNITY SYSTEMS, THIS IS A VERY REAL AFFORDABILITY CONCERN.

SO, AS PART OF OUR DUE DILIGENCE WHEN EVALUATING THIS PROGRAM, WE LOOKED AHEAD TO UPCOMING CHANGES IN THE DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS THROUGH BOTH, UM, LEGISLATION AND POLICY THAT ARE GOING TO INCREASE PROGRAM COST OVER THE NEXT FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

UM, THE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS ON THIS LIST ARE SIGNIFICANT.

UM, THEY ARE ALL ALSO ROLLING OUT IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

UM, THIS IS WHY WE EXPECT STAFF TIME TO NEED TO INCREASE SO MUCH.

THE NEW REQUIREMENTS ON THE REGULATED COMMUNITY LEADS TO NEW REQUIREMENTS ON THE REGULATORS.

UM, MANY OF THESE SAME ISSUES ARE ALSO OUTLINED IN THE LETTER FROM THE WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION.

SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REC-RECOGNIZE WHAT THESE SYSTEMS ARE GONNA BE FACING OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

UM, I ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE 1.75 FTE IS STILL VERY LEAN.

UM, IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH STATE, WITH, UM, STAFF FROM THE DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER, THE OFFICE THAT WOULD BE RECEIVING THE SYSTEMS IF WE RETURN THEM, THEY TOLD ME THEY WOULD REQUEST RIGHT NOW TWO FULL TIME EMPLOYEES TO TAKE OVER THE PROGRAM IF WE WERE TO RETURN PRIMACY.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT-THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO OFFER.

UM, AND FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, WE-WE PROVIDE THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, UM, 120 DAYS NOTICE BEFORE RETURNING PRIMACY TO ALLOW THEM TO REQUEST THE STAFF AND TO ALLOW US PLENTY OF TIME TO WORK WITH OUR SYSTEMS AND STATE ON THE TRANSITION PLANNING.

ALL RIGHT, I'M GONNA SPEAK A LOT ON THIS SLIDE, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT COMPONENT.

UM, STAFF HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY DISCUSSING THIS TOPIC FOR AROUND SEVEN MONTHS, INCLUDING A JOINT, UM, MEETING OF OUR WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION, UM, IN WHAT WE CALL THE SMALL WATER SYSTEMS FORUM.

UH, THAT TOOK PLACE IN APRIL.

THE FORUM INCLUDES ALL THE MANAGERS AND OPERATORS OF THE SMALL SYSTEMS THAT WE REGULATE.

WE HEARD A LOT OF SUPPORT AT THOSE MEETING FOR MAINTAINING THE LPA.

THERE IS A FEAR THAT THE STATE ISN'T LOCAL, WON'T BE ACCESSIBLE, AND THAT THEY WILL BE LESS OF A PARTNER WORKING WITH THE SYSTEMS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE THAN WE TRY TO BE.

THERE WAS RECOGNITION, THE FRIENDLINESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF OUR STAFF, AND CONCERN THAT NEW REGULATORS WILL NOT HAVE THIS PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.

UM, THE WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION HEARD FROM THIS WATER SYSTEMS

[01:00:02]

AND DECIDED TO WRITE A LETTER SUPPORTING THAT LPA PROGRAM IN JUNE, WHICH IS IN THE PACKET.

SO GIVEN THE COMMISSION LETTER AND WHAT WE HEARD FROM STAFF, WE WANTED TO BE CONFIDENT THAT THIS TRANSITION WOULD NOT BE AN UNDUE BURDEN BEFORE WE RECOMMENDED IT TO THE BOARD.

UM, AND SO WE DID SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.

UM, REGARDING THE REGULATORS NOT BEING LOCAL AND KNOWLEDGEABLE, I DO THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE OFFICE THAT WOULD TAKE THIS PROGRAM IS BASED IN MONTEREY.

THEY HAVE SOME STAFF THAT LIVE IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY.

THE SAME OFFICE ALREADY REGULATES ALL THE SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS IN THE COUNTY, AS WELL AS ALL THE SYSTEMS WITH 200 OR MORE CONNECTIONS.

THAT MEANS THAT THAT AROUND 240,000 OF THE 270,000 PEOPLE LIVING IN THE COUNTY, INCLUDING MOST OF YOU, INCLUDING ME, ARE DRINKING WATER FROM SYSTEMS THAT ARE REGULATED BY THE SAME OFFICE IN THE STATE.

THEY ARE ALREADY REGULATING SYSTEMS FROM THE SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS DOWN TO THE PAJARO VALLEY, AS WELL AS ALONG THE COAST.

UM, REGARDING BEING ACCESSIBLE, I'VE POSED THESE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING TO THE COUNTY'S TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION SUPERVISOR, UM, ISAAC.

UH, HE'S WITH CDI.

SO HE OPERATES THE DAVENPORT WATER SYSTEM, WHICH IS OPERATED BY THE COUNTY.

IT'S A SURFACE WATER SYSTEM THAT WE RETURNED TO THE STATE IN 2017, WHEN THE LPA STOPPED REGULATING SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS. SO, ISAAC WAS ACTUALLY WORKING, UM, AT THAT TIME AND CONFIRMED THAT THAT TRANSITION WENT SMOOTHLY AND THAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER SINCE THEN HAS BEEN GOOD.

HE SAYS HE HAS NEVER STRUGGLED TO GET A HOLD OF HIS POINT OF CONTACT AND THAT THEY USUALLY ANSWER THE PHONE RIGHT AWAY.

AND IF NOT, THEY CALL BACK WITHIN A FEW HOURS.

HE SAYS THAT HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PUSH BACK IF HE FEELS LIKE, UM, THEY'RE IMPOSING REGULATIONS BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED.

UM, AND I DO WANT TO BE, UM, CLEAR THAT BY AND LARGE, THESE REGULATIONS ARE THE REGULATIONS.

THE-THESE ARE NOT COUNTY ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE PASSED.

THESE ARE STATE LAW.

WE ARE, UM, WE ARE IMPLEMENTING THEM HERE THROUGH THE LPA, BUT THEY ARE THE SAME REGULATIONS THAT THE STATE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTING.

THERE IS NOT REALLY A LOT OF DISCRETION WHEN IT COMES TO DRINKING WATER, AND DRINKING WATER QUALITY, AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLY.

UM, ANOTHER POINT ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY THAT I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE IS THAT THE STATE HAS REDUNDANCY THAT WE DO NOT AND ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PEOPLE STAFFING THE LPA.

IF ONE GOES ON LEAVE FOR ANY REASON, THEN THE OTHER PERSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING, INCLUDING REVIEWING DRINKING WATER REPORTS, UM, WE GET LAB REPORTS ON A MONTHLY BASIS THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW, UM, ISSUING BOILED WATER NOTICES AND BEING RESPONSIVE TO PROBLEMS. IF THAT PERSON IS SICK, WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A BACK UP PERSON FOR THEM.

UM, THE STATE DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER OFFICE THAT REGULATES SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HAS SEVEN STAFF, UM, AND THEY ARE TRYING TO HIRE, WOULD HIRE TWO MORE IF THEY TAKE ON OUR LPA.

AND IN THAT SAME BUILDING ARE TWO MORE DISTRICTS, EACH WITH SIX STAFF.

SO THERE IS AMPLE REDUNDANCY THERE IN TERMS OF ACCESSIBILITY.

UM, ANOTHER QUESTION THAT CAME UP WAS WONDERING HOW THIS TRANSITION HAS GONE IN MONTEREY COUNTY SINCE THEY RETURNED PRIMACY LAST YEAR WITH, UM, VASTLY MORE SYSTEMS THAN WE HAVE.

SO ANDREW SPOKE TO MONTEREY COUNTY ABOUT THAT TRANSITION.

- UH, YEAH, I PERSONALLY DID CONTACT MONTEREY COUNTY AND TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THERE EXPERIENCE.

UH, THEY BASICALLY REPORTED SIMILAR TO WHAT, UH, CDI IS, UH, DAVENPORT EXPERIENCE WAS, WHICH WAS A FAIRLY SMOOTH TRANSITION.

THEY HAVEN'T BEEN RECEIVING COMPLAINTS OR REPORTS OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM THE-THEIR WATER, UH, SYSTEMS, UH, IN RELATION TO THIS TRANSITION EITHER.

SO, UH, YOU KNOW, AT-AT WORST, THEY SAY SOMETIMES THAT THE STAGE IS A LITTLE MORE BY THE BOOK AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF RIGID ON SOME THINGS, BUT OTHERWISE, UH, IT'S BEEN A- IT WAS A SMOOTH TRANSITION FOR THE- FOR MONTEREY COUNTY.

- ALL RIGHT.

UM, SO NEXT, I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT, UM, HIGHTLIGHTS FROM THE SURVEY THAT WE DID.

UM, WE SENT IT OUT TO ALL OF THE WATER SYSTEMS IN THE LPA ASKING EACH OF THEM TO RESPOND ONLY ONCE.

UM, AND WE DID DO FOLLOW UP NOTICES AND EXTENDED THE DEADLINE TO TRY TO INCREASE RESPONSES.

SO THE FULL RESULTS ARE IN THE SURVEY.

I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT JUST A COUPLE- OR SORRY, IN THE PACKET.

SO I'M GONNA JUST TALK ABOUT SOME OF THEM.

UM, SO WE-WE RELEASED THIS SURVEY TO ALL 68 SYSTEMS AND WE GOT RESPONSES FROM 26 OF THEM.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, OVER 70% OF THE RESPONDENTS LIKED THE LPA AND WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT, UM, WHICH I THINK IS A TESTAMENT TO THE DRINKING WATER STAFF AND TO THEIR GREAT WORKING COMMITMENT OVER THE- OVER THE YEARS.

UM, IT GETS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RAISING FEES.

TO CLOSE OUR CURRENT NET COUNTY COST GAP, WE WOULD NEED A 100% FEE INCREASE.

UM, WHEN YOU LOOK OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WE WOULD NEED DRAMATICALLY MORE IF WE WANTED TO CONTINUE TO KEEP THAT GAP CLOSE, IF THAT WAS OUR GOAL.

[01:05:01]

UM, WELL, AGAIN, 70% OF THE SYSTEMS, UM, ARE WILLING TO INCREASE- OVER 70% OF THE SYSTEMS ARE WILLING TO INCREASE THEIR FEES TO KEEP THE COUNTY AS A REGULATOR.

SOMETHING THAT THE WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION NOTED IN THEIR LETTER IS VERY UNUSUAL.

UM, ONLY 23% ARE WILLING TO PAY WHAT IT WOULD COST TO CLOSE EVEN THE CURRENT GAP, LET ALONE THE PROJECTED GAP OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

UM, THE NEXT RESPONSES ARE ALSO INTERESTING.

UM, SYSTEMS WOULD PREFER MORE LEAD TIME.

SO LIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DRAMATICALLY INCREASING COST TO TRY TO DO IT OVER YEARS, I SHOULD SAY THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN DOING THIS TO SOME EXTENT.

WE'VE INCREASED...

SINCE OUR GRANT ENDED IN 2021, WE'VE BEEN INCREASING FEES BETWEEN 4 AND 10% EVERY YEAR.

UM, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO SEE A DRAMATIC CHANGE OVERNIGHT.

THAT IS HARD TO ACCOUNT FOR.

UM, AND LASTLY, WE DO SEE THAT THE MAJORITY OF SYSTEMS WHO RESPONDED ARE STILL INTERESTED IN MAINTAINING THE LPA, KNOWING THAT DDW IS LESS EXPENSIVE, ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT BREAKDOWN HOW MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE IN THE SURVEY.

SO, I DO ADVICE SOME CAUTION IN READING THIS.

DESPITE REPEATED EFFORTS AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE SYSTEMS, 42 OF THE 68 SYSTEMS DID NOT RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY.

UM, WHILE A SLOW BUT SUBSTANTIAL FEE INCREASE IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS, THAT IS ONLY A QUAR-QUARTER OF THE TOTAL SYSTEMS. UM, I THINK THAT THE SYSTEMS THAT DID NOT RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY MAYBE LIKELY TO MAKE THEIR OPINIONS KNOWN IF THEIR FEES END UP BEING 7.5 TIMES WHAT THEY COULD BE PAYING TO THE DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER, UM, FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SERVICE.

SO WITH ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED AND A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT AND DELIBERATIONS, IT IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO RETURN PRIMACY TO THE STATE.

UM, AGAIN, WE HAVE GIVEN THIS A LOT OF THOUGHT AND IT'S NOT AN EASY RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE.

UH, WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THIS PROGRAM.

BUT IT'S JUST BECOME OBVIOUS THAT WE CANNOT CONTINUE IN THE WAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN GOING.

UM, I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR THAT I AND ANDREW AND CONNIE WOULD ABSOLUTELY NEVER HAVE BROUGHT THIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD IF WE THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY, OR COMPROMISE RESIDENTS' ACCESS TO SAFE DRINKING WATER, OR TO CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL AND UNDUE BURDEN OR VULNER- ADDITIONAL VULNERABILITIES TO THESE SYSTEMS. WE DO PLAN, UM...

OH, LET ME SEE.

UH, TO THE POINT OF LOCAL CONTROL, UH, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE ALL VALUE.

I DO BELIEVE FOR MANY YEARS THIS PROGRAM REPRESENTED JUST THAT.

UM, HOWEVER, OVER THE YEARS, OUR LATITUDE, UM, AND OUR DISCRETION HAS BEEN GREATLY LIMITED, UM, TO THE POINT WHERE THE OVERSIGHT BY OUR STATE- BY OUR STATE REGULATOR, AS WE ARE CURRENTLY AS AN LPA REGULATED BY THE STATE, UM, UH, THE REGULATIONS ARE SO STRONG THAT THERE'S REALLY NO INDEPENDENT CONTROL LEFT.

THERE IS VERY LITTLE SPACE FOR US TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY THAN DDW WOULD.

UM, WE DO PLAN TO CONTINUE ONGOING COLLABORATION WITH THESE SYSTEMS. WE-WE STILL HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE OF SMALL WATER SYSTEMS ON OUR WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION.

AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO DEDICATE AT LEAST ONE WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION A YE-, MEETING A YEAR TO HEARING FROM SMALL SYSTEMS AS WE HAVE DONE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

UM, AND WE COULD ASK THE STATE TO PRESENT AS WELL AND TALK ABOUT HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING IN THAT TRANSITION.

UM, WE WILL STILL BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE FOR THEIR NEEDS AND HELP THEM FIND FUNDING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT AS A PARTNER RATHER THAN AS A REGULATOR.

UM, SO WITH THAT, I THINK I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

- THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I IMAGINE THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD BUT I THINK IT MAY BE USEFUL TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC IF THERE IS, UM, ANYBODY HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

IF YOU ALREADY SPOKE ON THE ITEM, WE DEFINITELY HEARD YOU AND NOTED YOUR-YOUR COMMENTS AT THAT TIME.

WELCOME.

WE'LL SET THE PUBLI-PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR TWO MINUTES EACH AND PLEASE FORM A LINE BEHIND THIS GENTLEMAN IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

- GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS.

MY NAME IS MARTIN MILLS.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITIES AS WELL.

UM, I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY BECAUSE I DO THAT AS WELL.

UM, I RUN PURESOURCE WATER.

IT SERVES 77 HOMES IN SANTA CR- OR IN APTOS AND, UM, I'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR ABOUT 12 YEARS, UM, AND HELPING MY FATHER FOR EVEN LONGER THAN THAT.

I'M ALSO A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER.

UM, THAT'S ACTUALLY HOW I MAKE A LIVING BECAUSE THE WATER BUSINESS HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY MY ENGINEERING BUSINESS.

SO, UM, THAT WE ARE ONE OF THE SYSTEMS THAT WAS, UM, SUPPORTING THIS, UM, AND OPPOSING THIS, UH, PROPOSAL TO END IT.

AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S THE SAME SERVICE THAT WE WOULD GET FROM THE STATE.

UM, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE STATE IS A VOID IN SERVICE.

WE HAVE SEEN MORE REGULATIONS WITHOUT HELP WHEN WE, UM,

[01:10:03]

TRY TO WORK WITH THE SAFER PROGRAM AND GIVE THEM OUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THE NEW PORTALS AND THINGS.

IT WAS MISERABLE.

WE-WE HAD NO SUPPORT FROM THEM.

NO... IT WAS HARD TO EVEN GET FEEDBACK FROM THEM.

UM, THE STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM FOR GETTING FUNDING, HAS BASICALLY EXCLUDED SMALL SYSTEMS LIKE OURS BECAUSE THEY JUST WANT US TO BE CONSOLIDATED.

UM, SO WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S THE SAME SUPPORT.

I HAVE A STICKER ON MY WATER BOTTLE.

IT SAYS, "I LOVE TAP WATER," AND THE REASON I DO IS BECAUSE, UM, IT'S AFFORDABLE.

UM, WE PAY- UH, WE CHARGE ABOUT A-A PENNY A GALLON FOR OUR WATER AS OPPOSED TO A PENNY A LITER.

UM, SO I RAN THE MATH AND IF YOU WERE TO DOUBLE THE FEES FOR OUR SMALL SYSTEM, THAT'S GONNA AMOUNT TO $2.67 PER HOUSEHOLD.

UM, THAT'S 2 LITERS OF WATER.

THAT'S NOTHING.

UM, THAT'S OUR-OUR SYSTEM COULD EASILY AFFORD THAT AND WITH BENEFIT FROM THE SUPPORT THAT WE WOULD HAVE, UM, TO OUR SYSTEM BY HAVING LOCAL PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO WALK US THROUGH THE NEW REGULATIONS AND HELP US NAVIGATE THAT.

- THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS BECKY STEINBRUNER.

I'M A CUSTOMER OF THE EXCELLENT SYSTEM. [CHUCKLES] MR. MILLS AND HIS WIFE, JENNIFER, UM, MANAGE AND PROVIDE EXCELLENT, CLEAN WATER FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

I WANNA SUPPORT, UH, KEEPING THE LOCAL CONTROL FOR THE REASONS MR. MILLS SIGHTED, BUT ALSO, UM, I HAVE GREAT CONCERN THAT THE STATE WILL CHARGE EVEN MORE.

I HAVE A DOCUMENT HERE I WILL SUBMIT FOR YOUR REVI-REVIEW.

IT IS A BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL FOR THE 26-27 STATE BUDGET.

THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD REQUESTS $952,000 ONGOING AND 4.0 PERMANENT POSITIONS, UH, FOR- FROM THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACCOUNT TO REGULATE SMALL WATER SYSTEMS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND KINGS COUNTY.

THOSE TWO COUNTIES SURRENDERED THEIR LOCAL PRIMACY AGENCY.

WITH THE STATE BUDGET THE WAY IT IS, WE HAVE NO GUARANTEE THAT THE STATE WILL ACTUALLY FUND THIS KIND OF WORK.

AND THE STATE'S ANSWER WILL BE TO CONSOLIDATE SMALL WATER SYSTEMS TO REDUCE THEIR WORKLOAD.

THAT IS NOT THE ANSWER THAT MANY [CHUCKLES] OF US IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY WANNA HEAR.

I DO NOT WANNA BE PART OF SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT.

BUT THAT WOULD BE THE STATE'S ANSWER.

AND SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT DOES NOT WANT US UNLESS WE PAY EXORBITANT AMOUNTS TO UPGRADE OUR SYSTEM WHICH NO ONE CAN AFFORD.

I WANNA SAY THAT, UM, BIG BASIN WATER COMPANY WAS UNDER THE STATE'S JURISDICTION.

IT WAS THE COUNTY THAT STEPPED IN AS THE HERO IN THAT INSTANCE.

SO WE NEED TO KEEP OUR LOCAL CONTROL.

IN ALL MANY- IN MANY THINGS WE ARE LOSING LOCAL CONTROL, DON'T GIVE THIS UP.

DO NOT GIVE THIS UP.

I AM WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR MY WATER TO HELP OUR SYSTEM AND OTHERS LIKE IT IN THE COUNTY KEEP LOCAL CONTROL.

THIS IS JUST- UH, JUST AN ANOTHER EXAMPLE... - THANK YOU.

- ...OF UNFUNDED MANDATES, THE EFFECTS OF THEM.

- SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN THE ROOM, MADAM CLERK, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE PHONE? - YES, THERE IS, CHAIR.

- THANK YOU, BECKY.

- IPAD MD3 FOR YOU? - HI. YES.

- YOUR MICROPHONE IS AVAILABLE. - MY NAME IS ADAM HOLBERG.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ADAM HOLBERG.

I'M SORRY, I WASN'T ABLE TO SET THAT UP EARLIER.

UM, I'M, UH, THE D1 OPERATOR FOR JARVIS MUTUAL WATER COMPANY UP IN, UH, SANTA CRUZ HILLS.

UM, AND I JUST WANNA, UH, SPEAK ON MY DESIRE, UM, TO MAINTAIN LOCAL CONTROL OF OUR WATER SYSTEMS. UM, BEING ABLE TO HAVE, UM, NATHAN, IN PARTICULAR, UH, MOST RECENTLY TO HELP WITH OUR ASSISTANCE WHEN WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH THE WATER HAS BEEN IMMENSELY HELPFUL.

UM, IT'S BEEN A COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP THAT, UH, I A-A-APPRECIATE AND I'M CONCERNED THAT IF WE- WHEN WE TRAN-, IF WE TRANSITION THE STATE, THAT IT BECOMES MORE OF A CONTROVERSIAL RELATIONSHIP WHERE IT'S MORE THAN PENALIZED SYSTEM AS OPPOSED TO A SYSTEM WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OF ALL MAKE GOOD WATER CHOICES AND HAVE HEALTHY WATER FOR EVERYBODY.

UM, SO I REALIZED THAT THERE'S A GREAT FINANCIAL INCREASE TO THIS.

UM, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE'S PROBABLY LIKELY INCREASED FINANCIAL COST THAT WILL BE EXPERIENCED BY US, WITH THE INCREASED, UM, COST FROM THE STATE, NOT INITIALLY BUT AFTERWARDS, AND THEN ALSO THROUGH PENALTIES THAT THE STATE WOULD, UH, INCREASE.

SO MY APPRECIATION FOR EVERYBODY'S TIME.

[01:15:02]

UH, THANK YOU.

- GREG, YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOW AVAILABLE.

- OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I-I'M A RESIDENT, UH, IN THE, UH, WATER DISTRICT THAT, UH, ADAM HOLBERG, WHO JUST SPOKE, UH, RUNS.

AND I WANTED TO ADD MY SUPPORT, UH, TO WHAT HE SAID, AND WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAID RECENTLY, AND ALSO TO MAKE A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS.

UH, ONE IS THAT I STRONGLY SUSPECT AT LEAST THAT THIS IS A ONE WAY TRICK, WHICH IS TO SAY THAT ONCE WE SURRENDER LOCAL CONTROL, THERE IS NO WAY OF EVER GETTING IT BACK.

UM, AND THAT SHOULD BE CONCERNING FOR SOME OF THE REASONS PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY RAISED, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, THIS IS BEING MARKETED TO US AS BEING SOMETHING WHICH IS GONNA BE COST-SAVING AND SO ON.

UH, BUT ONCE LOCAL CONTROL HAS BEEN SURRENDERED, WE HAVE NO GUARANTEES THAT, UH, SIGNIFICANT PRICE INCREASES NOW IMPOSED BY A STATE WHICH, YOU KNOW, HAS NO-NO CHECK UPON IT WON'T BE COMING DOWN THE LINE, RIGHT? THERE WILL BE NO RECOURSE FOR US IF THE STATE STARTS TO- TO CHARGE US MUCH, MUCH MORE.

AND THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE POINTED OUT, UM, IS THAT WATER- LOCAL WATER BOARD LIKE OURS, UH, ARE STAFFED BY VOLUNTEERS LIKE ADAM HOLBERG.

UH, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE IN THESE AREAS TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE BURDEN ON THE LOCAL VOLUNTEERS WHO RUN OUR SYSTEMS. UM, THIS PEOPLE ARE, UH, I THINK FROM ALMOST ALL SMALL, UH, WATER DISTRICTS LIKE OURS VOLUNTEERING THEIR TIME, UH, AND TO ASK THEM TO DEAL WITH A LARGE, UNRESPONSIVE, IMPERSONAL STATE BUREAUCRACY, UH, IT'S JUST ADDING TO THE ALREADY SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN THAT THEY'RE CARRYING ON ALL OF OUR BEHALFS. RIGHT? AND SO MAINTAINING LOCAL CONTROL I THINK IS-IS ONE WAY TO MINIMIZE, UH, THE ONUS WHICH, UH, RESTS ON THEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I SEE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE, CHAIR.

I WILL NOW RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR QUESTIONS AND ACTION ON THIS ITEM.

AND I'M GONNA START ON MY LEFT WITH SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

- UH, THANK YOU.

UH, I-I'M NOT SURE I HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS.

I FEEL PRETTY WELL BRIEFED.

UM, I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES HERE.

UH, THE IS I HAVE THE MOST WATER SYSTEMS IN MY AREA.

27, I THINK, ALL TOGETHER.

AND I'VE HEARD FROM MANY OF THEM, NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT I'VE HEARD FROM MANY OF THEM THAT THEY REALLY DO NOT WANNA MAKE THIS CHANGE, SO TODAY, I WILL BE STANDING, UM, WITH MY SMALL WATER DISTRICTS AND PUTTING NO ON THIS.

I DON'T KNOW-, UH, THERE IS AN APPEAL THAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, SAN ANDRES MUTUAL HAS A- IS IN LITIGATION WITH THE STATE TO STOP SOME OF THESE HEAVY, HEAVY HANDED REGULATIONS ON CHROM-6 AND OTHER THINGS.

UM, IF IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THAT COMES OUT THAT WOULD THAT APPEAL WAS JUST, UM, FILED IN, I THINK, JULY OF 2026.

BUT THAT MIGHT GIVE SOME RELIEF, UH, TO OUR SMALL WATER SYSTEMS AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NEITHER HERE OR NOR THEIR.

U-UM...

- HERE, LET ME GO BACK, UM...

SO, LOOKING AT THE LIST OF OUR CONSIDERATIONS, HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM STANDARDS COMPLIANCE IS ONE OF THEM.

BUT IT IS ONE OF MANY.

IT'S NOT REALLY THE ONE THAT'S MAKING OR BREAKING WHAT THE NEXT FIVE YEARS LOOKS LIKE.

UM, THE HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM STANDARDS ARE EXTREMELY STRICT.

THE-THE STATE WILL HAVE THE STRICTEST COMPLIANCE STANDARDS IN THE WHOLE WORLD FROM MY ANALYSIS.

UM, THEY ARE VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE AND THIS IS A, UM, A COMPOUND THAT IS NATURALLY OCCURRING HERE.

SO IT'S-IT'S NOT CAUSED BY INDUSTRY LIKE IN THE ERIN BROCKOVICH MOVIE.

UM, THAT WAS HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM THAT SORT OF WHAT BROUGHT THIS TO PEOPLE'S ATTENTION.

UM, BUT I-I DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT THAT CHANGES ANYTHING.

EITHER THEY WILL OR THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO MEET THESE STANDARDS, WE WILL HAVE TO ENFORCE THE STANDARDS IN THE SAME WAY THE STATE WOULD.

UM, DELAYING THIS DECISION JUST CREATES MORE UNCERTAINTY FOR US,

[01:20:03]

FOR THE STATE, AND FOR THE WATER SYSTEM.

SO, THAT... YOU KNOW, I-I CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND PUTTING THIS OFF FOR THAT DECISION, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THIS DECISION IS- IT WAS MADE BY THE STATE.

IT WAS, UH, THE STATE WAS SUED.

THE STATE TOOK MANY YEARS TO RE-EVALUATE.

THEY REINSTATED THESE REGULATIONS.

THEY GOT SUED AGAIN.

THEY LOST THAT LAWSUIT AND NOW WE'RE IN THE APPEAL FOR THAT.

SO IF WE [CHUCKLES] ARE WAITING BASED ON THE HISTORY OF THIS, WE MIGHT BE WAITING A VERY LONG TIME.

UM, I- YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY THAT I F- I JUST WANNA THANK THE STAFF, UM, WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING IN THIS AREA FOR THE COUNTY AND, UM, THE SURVEY AND, UH, AND THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TALKED TO ME DIRECTLY REALLY APPRECIATE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HERE THAT A LOT AND, UH, IN THIS LINE OF WORK AND, UM, I JUST WANNA THANK YOU AND NATHAN AND, UM, ALL THE REST OF THE TEAM FOR DOING SUCH A GOOD JOB.

UM, I THINK THE-THE WATER SYSTEMS IN-IN OUR COUNTY FEEL VERY TAKEN CARE OF BY YOU AND WOULD PREFER TO STAY WITH YOU.

SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU.

- SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

- YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UH, I WANTED TO THANK THE GENTLEMAN WHO MANAGES A SMALL WATER SYSTEM FOR SPEAKING ABOUT SOME OF YOUR FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE AND DOING SO, AND OF COURSE, YOU DESCRIBED THAT, UM, AND YOUR WORK WITH THE STATE.

IT SOUNDED LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, SORT OF BYZANTINE WHATEVER, KAFKAESQUE EXPERIENCE OF, UM, STATE, A STATE DIVISION THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, IS NOT UNFAMILIAR TO MANY OF US WHO WORK HERE AT THE COUNTY.

BUT, UH, MS. RYAN, YOUR DESCRIPTION OF SORT OF THE RETOOLED OFFICE, YOU KNOW, LOCATED IN MONTEREY, CLOSE BY, GENEROUSLY STAFFED, UH, WAS VERY DIFFERENT.

AND SO, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PEOPLE, THE SAME DIVISIONS? MAYBE YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT? - NO, THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD IS A HUGE AGENCY AND HAS GOT MULTIPLE ARMS. YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH THEIR REGIONAL BOARD, WHICH IS AN ARM OF THAT THAT'S BASED IN SAN LUIS OBISPO.

THEY OVERSEE WATER RIGHTS, THEY OVERSEE THE STATE, PARTS OF THE STATE WATER PROJECT, AND THEY OVERSEE DRINKING WATER FROM MANY ARMS. SOME OF IT IS FUNDING.

THAT'S, UM, THE SAFER PROGRAM, UM, THE, UH, STATE REVOLVING FUND, IS A FUNDING ARM.

AND THEN THERE'S A REGULATORY SIDE, THE DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER.

AND THEN THERE ARE OFFICES OF THAT.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT, THE LOCAL STAFF THAT ARE BASED IN MONTEREY, THAT ARE THE DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER DISTRICT 5.

THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN A STAFF THAT ARE AT THE STATE DEVELOPING THESE LARGE PORTALS, DEVELOPING THESE ONLINE TOOLS, AND DEVELOPING THESE POLICIES THAT WE ALL HAVE TO WORK FOR.

SO, THEY ARE PART OF THE SAME AGENCY, BUT THEY ARE NOT, IN ANY WAY, THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE.

- OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, THAT-THAT'S HELPFUL.

THAT WAS MY IMPRESSION AS WELL, AND...

BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT THE CHANGE IS HARD AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE OFTEN PREFER THE DEVIL WE KNOW RATHER THAN THE DEVIL WE DON'T.

UM, IT-, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FACING A SITUATION HERE WITH JUST MOUNTING STATE REQUIREMENTS.

I MEAN, THIS COUNTY, IN GENERAL, FACES SO MANY UNFUNDED MANDATES.

AND SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO ACTUALLY LET THE STATE DEAL WITH ITS OWN MANDATES, SO I'M INCLINED TO DO THAT.

UM, I MEAN, IF IT...

[SIGH] UH, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S-IT'S ALWAYS DIFFICULT TO, YOU KNOW, RECREATE A SYSTEM ONCE IT'S-IT'S DISMANTLED A LITTLE BIT.

I MEAN, BUT IF WE JUST, YOU KNOW, HEARD HORROR STORIES FROM THESE SMALL WATER SYSTEMS, WHATEVER FIVE YEAR DOWN THE-THE ROAD, I MEAN, WE COULD ALWAYS RE-ESTABLISH, UH, THIS DIVISION A-AND TAKE BACK AUTHORITY, RIGHT? - I-I BELIEVE, THEORETICALLY, YES, WE-WE COULD IF-IF IT WAS REALLY FAILING AND OUR SYSTEMS WERE STRUGGLING, WE COULD PETITION TO GET PRIMACY AGAIN.

- RIGHT.

SO, I MEAN, I'M INCLINED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ACTIONS BEFORE US TODAY, UM, GIVEN THE ASSURANCES OF-OF MS. RYAN THAT, UM, THIS IS A RESPONSIVE AND WELL-STAFFED, UH, DIVISION, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, WILL HELP TO REDUCE COUNTY COST, ALLOWING US TO INVEST THAT MONEY, UH, IN OTHER SERVICES FOR OUR PUBLIC CARE.

THANKS.

FURTHER COMMENTS FROM MY RIGHT? DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS? UM, I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR ALL THEIR WORK ON THIS.

UM, I HAVE A FEWER, UM, OF THESE, UM, WATER FACILITIES IN MY DISTRICT, UM, AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS TRANSITION.

UM, I DO WANT TO SYMPATHIZE FOR ALL THE FOLKS WHO DON'T WANNA SEE THIS CHANGE.

UM, PERSONALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS

[01:25:04]

THAT'S BEEN VERY FRUSTRATING IS ALL OF THE UNFUNDED MANDATES THAT CO- HAVE BEEN COMING FROM THE STATE.

AND IN THE TIME WHEN WE ARE REALLY GONNA BE PRESSED TO FIGURE OUT HOW ARE WE GONNA SAVE COST, THIS DOES SEEM LIKE AN AREA WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE WILL LIKELY NOT SEE A SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS, AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE CAN HAVE SOME COST SAVINGS.

AND SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT THIS WILL BE A SMOOTH TRANSITION.

I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO GET AN UPDATE, UM, MAYBE SIX MONTHS FROM NOW ON HOW THE TRANSITION IS GOING.

UM, BUT I'M INCLINED TODAY TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

UM, I'LL JUST START OFF BY SAYING THAT, UM, THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE RECEIVING IS COMPLETELY, UM, A RESULT OF YOUR GOOD WORK. [CHUCKLES] UM, SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE, UM, COUNTY STAFF THAT WE HAVE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, GREAT PARTNERS, RESPONSIVE, KNOWLEDGEABLE, AND SO I HOPE YOU SEE THIS AS A-A COMPLIMENT TO YOUR DEPARTMENT.

UM, AND WITH THAT, I-I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS, UM, HOW MIGHT THE LOCAL COUNTY LEVERAGES EXPERTISE? IF-IF THERE WAS A NEED FOR SOME TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY MIGHT BE ABLE TO OFFER? - W-WE WILL STILL HAVE A DRINKING WATER PROGRAM BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO REGULATE OUR STATE SMALL WATER SYSTEMS. UM, I STILL PARTICIPATE, UM, AT THE STATE LEVEL ON THE DROUGHT RESPONSE IN INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIP, WHICH IS ALL ABOUT IDENTIFYING DROUGHT RESPONSE LONG TERM PLANNING AND SUPPORT FOR SYSTEMS. SO, UM...

AND THEN, CERTAINLY, WHEN IF-IF THINGS ARE REALLY CHALLENGING FOR WATER SYSTEM AND FOR, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE OUR CONSTITUENTS.

WE CAN STEP UP, ABSOLUTELY, UM, IN KIND OF AN AS NEEDED BASIS AS WE DID WITH BIG BASIN WATER COMPANY, WHICH WAS NOT ONE OF OUR REGULATED SYSTEMS BUT WHICH WE DID INTERVENE WITH AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY COULD.

UM, WE MAINTAIN AN EXCELLENT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER.

WE CAN REACH OUT TO THEM AT ANY TIME IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, IF WE'RE HEARING THINGS, IF WE SEE THINGS THAT THEY DON'T SEE.

UM, SO I-I'D SAY YES, YOU KNOW.

OUR INTENTION IS VERY MUCH TO STILL BE AVAILABLE, ESPECIALLY DURING THIS TRANSITION PERIOD, UM, AND FOR SEVERAL YEARS, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A HISTORY WITH THESE SYSTEMS. - AND WOULD THEIR BE SOME KIND OF FORMAL ROLE BETWEEN YOU AND THE STATE? DO YOU, YOU KNOW, MEET WITH THEM REGULARLY? IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU COULD BE THAT TYPE OF LIAISON? - UH, WE CERTAINLY COULD MEET WITH THEM REGULARLY.

AGAIN, THEY ARE JUST IN MONTEREY.

THEY'VE- THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE TO US.

UM, WE TALK TO THEM ABOUT OTHER ISSUES AS WELL.

UM, SO ABSOLUTELY, WE COULD- WE COULD SET UP INTERNAL ANNUAL MEETINGS WITH THEM.

I-I DO THINK HAVING THEM COME PRESENT ANNUALLY TO THE WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION IS, UM, SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO DO, UM, TO TALK ABOUT HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING.

SO I-I HAVE NO INTENTION OF LOSING THIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SYSTEMS OR WITH THE STATE.

YOU KNOW, TH-THE SYSTEMS ARE STILL INTEGRAL TO OUR GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCIES, UM, TO OUR- WE-WE STILL ISSUE WELL PERMITS FOR THEM.

SO WE HA-, WE HAVE MANY ARMS THAT ARE RELATED TO THEM, IT'S JUST THIS ONE PIECE THAT WE WOULD BE RETURNING.

- AND IF, UM, ANY OF OUR CONSTITUENTS IN OUR DISTRICTS HAVE CONCERNS OR ARE HAVING TROUBLE GETTING A HOLD OF THE STATE, UM, AND THEY CONTACT US, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO DIRECT THAT TO YOU TO HELP...

- SURE. - ...MAKE THAT CONNECTION? - YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

- OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'RE BRINGING BEFORE US TODAY.

UM, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT OUR BUDGET HEARING PROCESS BACK IN JUNE, WE STARTED TO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT OUR COUNTY WAS SUBSIDIZING NON-MANDATED SERVICES AND WE'RE RECOGNIZING WITH SOME OF THE STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES THAT OUR COUNTY IS FACING THAT WE NEED TO FIND SOURCES OF SUSTAINABLE LONG TERM FUNDING OR SUPPORT OR RESOURCES FOR THOSE MANDATES THAT, UM, ALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR THEM.

SO THIS-THIS MATCHES WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE BOARD GAVE THE CEO'S OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENTS AS IT RELATES TO FINDING COST-SAVINGS.

UM, THESE ARE DIFFICULT DECISIONS AND IF WE HAD ALL OF THE RESOURCES, WE WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE TO OFFER THIS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, UM, BUT AT THIS TIME, I'M-I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? UM, THEN I'D ACCEPT A MOTION.

[01:30:02]

- I'LL MOVE ITEM NUMBER 7.

- I'LL SECOND THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.

SO WE HAVE MOTION FROM SUPERVISOR HERNANDEZ A SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE? - SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS? - AYE. - HERNANDEZ? - AYE.

- KOENIG? - AYE.

- DE SERPA? - NO.

- AND MARTINEZ? - AYE. MOTION PASSES 4 TO 1.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOOD WORK.

- WE'LL NOW BE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 8, WHICH IS TO CONDUCT A STUDY SESSION ON CONFLICT CRIMINAL DEFENSE, PROVIDE INPUT ON THE PROPOSED PROCESS FOR CONFLICT RES-REPRESENTATION BEGINNING JULY 1ST, 2027 AND TAKE RELATED ACTIONS.

[8. Conduct study session on conflict criminal defense, provide input on the proposed process for conflict representation beginning July 1, 2027, and take related actions]

- ALL RIGHT.

- WELCOME. - GOOD MORNING, BOARD.

GOOD MORNING, BOARD.

UH, IT'S SVEN STAFFORD.

I'M DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

I'M JOINED THIS MORNING BY GINA DE MARTINI-KUHNS, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST IN OUR OFFICE.

WE ARE BEGINNING A DELIBERATE PLANNING PROCESS FOR CONFLICT DEFENSE SERVICES STARTING JULY 1ST, 2027.

UH, THAT'S WHEN OUR CURRENT CONTRACT EXPIRES.

GINA AND I ARE GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH WHY THE, UH, REVIEW IS NEEDED, HOW WE PROPOSE TO EVALUATE THE OPTIONS, AND THE PATH TO A RECOMMENDATION.

SO FIRST, WE'LL PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AND CONTEXT THAT BROUGHT US TO THIS POINT.

UH, WE'LL DESCRIBE THE RANGE OF VIABLE CONFLICT MODELS AND HOW WE PROPOSE TO COMPARE THOSE, AND THEN THE INTENDED RESULT TODAY IS, UH, APPROVAL OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO RETURN IN DECEMBER.

OVERALL, THE STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES.

UH, AND IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY THAT THEY'VE DELEGATED TO THE COUNTY.

IT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE ORIGINAL UNFUNDED MANDATES.

UH, IT DATES BACK A LONG TIME.

OUTSIDE, OVER THE PAST, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN CONTRACTING FOR THESE SERVICES SINCE THE- SINCE THE 70S, UH, AND REALLY STARTED TO LOOK AT IT SERIOUSLY ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO.

WE CONDUCTED A, YOU KNOW, IT INCLUDED, UM, INCLUDED SEVERAL REVIEWS OVER-OVER THAT TIME IDENTIFYING RECURRING CONCERNS WITH THE WAY THAT WE WERE CONTRACTING FOR-FOR THESE SERVICES ACROSS OUR MODEL AND RESULTED IN THE 2020 6TH AMENDMENT CENTER REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED.

UH, AS A RESULT OF THAT, OF THAT REPORT, THE COUNTY AND THE BOARD AT THAT TIME RESPONDED BY ESTABLISHING THE INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, WHICH WAS CREATED IN 2022, AND THE IDEA WAS WITH THAT 2020 ASSESSMENT AND THE- AND THE TRANSITION.

THE INTENT WAS ALWAYS TO INCLUDE THE CONFLICT INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES AS-AS PART OF THAT, UM, UM, AS PART OF THAT CONTINUING OVERHAUL.

AND SO DURING THE, UM, BUDGET HEARINGS, THE BOARD ASKED STAFF TO, UM, TO COME BACK AND COMMUNICATE A LITTLE BETTER EARLIER AND, UM, AND BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THE BOARD WITH DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF HOW WE MIGHT CONSIDER, UH, A NEW MODEL TO NOT DO IT AS HASTILY AS WAS PROPOSED.

TODAY'S STUDY SESSION IS REALLY BEGINNING THAT PUBLIC PROCESS WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO- FOR US TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS AND RETURN IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY, UH, WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU ALL THAT, UH, SCHEDULE PRESERVES APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS TO IMPLEMENT THE SELECTED MODEL BEFORE THE CURRENT CONTRACT EXPIRES.

AND SO, AGAIN, TODAY, THE BOARD IS SIMPLY DECIDING AND PROVIDING GUIDANCE ON HOW THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DEVELOPED, UH, NOT WHICH MODEL WILL BE IMPLEMENTED.

UH, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT WILL ESTABLISH WHAT I-INFORMATION WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION, HOW WE WANNA GATHER IT, UH, WHICH STANDARDS WILL APPLY AND WHOSE PERSPECTIVE WE'RE GONNA BE SEEKING OUT.

AND WE HAVE INFORMED THE-THE CURRENT CONFLICT FIRM AND MET WITH THEM, UH, AND THE SUPERIOR COURT ABOUT THIS PROCESS AND WHAT TO EXPECT.

UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE EXPECT THAT THE, UM, THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE CONTRACT PAGE FIRM WILL, UH, COMPETE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE, AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA EN-EMPHASIZE THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN PRE-DETERMINED IN THAT REGARD.

[01:35:01]

AND SO WITH, UH, WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, MS. DE MARTINI-KUHNS TO WALK YOU A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THE PROCESS.

- THANK YOU, SVEN.

GOOD MORNING, BOARD.

GINA DE MARTINI-KUHNS, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST IN THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE.

AS MR. STAFFORD SAID IN HIS INTRODUCTION, I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH HOW WE PROPOSE TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL OPTIONS AND WHAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND BEFORE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.

COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA PROVIDE CONFLICT DEFENSE REPRESENTATION THROUGH EITHER CONTRACTED OR INTERNAL MODELS.

CONTRACTED MODELS INCLUDE PRIVATE FIRMS, WHICH IS WHAT SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HA- USES FOR FIRST TIER CONFLICTS OR IN INSTANCES WHEN THE PRIMARY OFFICE CANNOT REPRESENT A CLIENT.

MANAGED ASSIGNED COUNSEL OR A MANAGED COUNSEL PROGRAM IS ANOTHER MODEL THAT REFERS TO WHAT WE CALL HERE IN SANTA CRUZ OUR CRIMINAL DEFENSE CONFLICT PANEL OF ATTORNEYS.

IN SANTA CRUZ, THIS MODEL IS USED FOR INSTANCES WHEN THE PRIMARY OFFICE AND THE PRIVATE FIRM ARE CONFLICTED ON A CASE.

THEIR PRIVATE ATTORNEYS CONTRACTED WITH THE CO- WITH THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO SERVE- TO-TO CLIENTS.

COUNTY COUNSEL CURRENTLY MANAGES OUR PANEL A-AND SOME COUNTIES RUN AN ALL PANEL MODEL FOR CONFLICTS.

WITH THE CONTRACTOR MANAGING THE ATTORNEYS AND ANY SUPPORT OR DISCIPLINARY- INTER-DISCIPLINARY S-S-STAFF.

UM, COUNTIES WITH MANAGED COUNSEL INCLUDES SACRAMENTO AND SANTA CLARA, WHICH USES A PANEL MODEL FOR SECOND AND THIRD TIER CONFLICTS.

OTHER COUNTIES USE INSTITUTIONAL OR INTERNAL MODELS SUCH AS AN ALTERNATE DEFENDER OFFICE OR DIVISION.

THESE ARE EITHER A SEPARATE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OR AN ETHICALLY WALLED OFF DIVISION UNDER THE PRIMARY PUBLIC DEFENDER.

COUNTIES WITH EITHER AN OFFICE OR AN INTERNAL DIVISION INCLUDES SANTA CLARA, STANISLAUS, CONTRA COSTA, TUOLUMNE, MENDOCINO, EL DORADO, SOLANO, SAN DIEGO, AND LOS ANGELES.

SOME COUNTIES USE A WALLED OFF EMPLOYEE TO MANAGE THEIR PANEL ATTORNEYS, ALSO KNOWN AS A COUNTY-RUN MANAGED ASSIGNED COUNSEL PROGRAM.

THE UPCOMING EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT PROVIDES THE COUNTY AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE HOW TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES TO ENSURE CONSISTENT REPRESENTATION AND ACCESS TO RELATED SERVICES, UH, ACROSS THE COUNTY'S PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S PURCHASING POLICY AND BEST PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PRACTICES, STAFF RECOMMENDS PUBLISHING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL OR AN RFP TO PROVIDE A FAIR AND OPEN OPPORTUNITY FOR PROVIDERS TO RESPOND AND DESCRIBE HOW THEY WILL PROVIDE THESE SERVICES THAT THE COUNTY SEEKS.

THE LENSES HERE WILL BE USED TO EVALUATE THE RESPONSES TO THE RFP.

EVAL-EVALUATION PANEL FOR THE PROPOSALS IS CROSS FUNCTIONAL AND INDEPENDENT.

MEANING THAT THE MEMBERS ARE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN THE FIELDS REPRESENTED HERE, AND THAT THE MEMBER PROVIDING CONFLICTS DEFENSE EXPERTISE WILL COME FORM OUTSIDE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY.

EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION TO THE EVALUATION, UM, EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION REFERS TO THE EVALUATION CATEGORY EXAMINING THE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF ATTORNEYS AND SUPPORT STAFF PROVIDING THESE SERVICES.

THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE EARLY CONTACT AND CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION.

AND THE CAPACIT- AND THE CAPACITY FOR REPRESENTATION, IMMIGRATION ADVISEMENT, INVESTIGATION, RESEARCH, LITIGATION, MITIGATION STRATEGIES, LAW AND MOTION SUPPORT AND OVERSIGHT.

THE INTERDISCIPLINARY SERVICES CATEGORY INTENDS TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROPOSED INTERDISCIPLINARY MODEL, INCLUDING THE INTEGRATION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION WITH INVESTIGATION ADMINISTRATION, AD- AND ADVOCACY INCLUDING DEFLECTION, DIVERSION, MITIGATION, AND IMMIGRATION ADVISEMENT, AS WELL AS LINKAGE AND NAVIGATION TO BENEFITS, TREATMENT, AND OTHER SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

PRIORITIZATION OF C- OF IMPROVED CLIENT OUTCOMES REFERS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED SERVICE MODEL DEMONSTRATES A CLIENT-CENTERED APPROACH, INCLUDING REDUCING UNNECESSARY SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT AND PROMOTING CLIENT STABILITY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY.

AND THEN I'VE GROUPED TO THE LAST TWO CIRCLES THERE TOGETHER, UM, FOR ORGANIZATIONAL STABILITY AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND WORKLOAD MANAGEMENT, AND COST.

THESE WILL EVALUATE WHETHER THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE TO TRACK AND REPORT THE REQUIRED DATA AND MAINTAIN EDUCATIONAL AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.

THE CASE- THAT CASES ARE ASSIGNED ACCORDING TO QUALIFICATIONS

[01:40:04]

AND EXPERIENCE, AND WHETHER CASE LOADS IMPACT RE- EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

UH, THE COURTS AND CASES ARE COVERED IN THE EVENT OF ATTORNEY ABSENCES AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE PROVIDER WILL BE ABLE- WILL BE AVAILABLE IN PERSON TO CLIENTS WHO ARE OUT OF CUSTODY.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE COST.

THE COST OF SERVICES AND WHETHER THE COST CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR.

THE RFP IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF DATA FOR US TO USE IN THE SYSTEM EVALUATION PROCESS.

IT WILL TELLS US ABOUT AVAIALBLE PROVIDERS, THE COST FOR THEIR SERVICES, AND WHETHER THEIR APPROACHES ARE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE SERVICES AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL AND PROGRAMMING THAT THE COUNTY HAS INVENTED IN SINCE 2022.

WE WILL ALSO COMPARE THE OTHER MODELS IMPLEMENTED IN CO- IN COUNTIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA THROUGH THIS LENSES, AND ME- AND HOW THEY COULD BE MEASURED THROUGH THIS LENSES.

RESEARCHING THESE MODELS INCLUDE REACHING OUT TO THEIR STAFF, READING AVAILABLE DOCUMENTATION OR REPORTS, AND CONSULTING WITH THE OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER.

BEYOND THE EVALUATION CRITERIA, WE WILL NEED TO IDENTIFY WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO IMPLEMENT ANY OF THE MODELS THAT MAYBE APPROPRIATE AND DETERMINE WHETHER IS SUSTAINABLE FOR THE COUNTY IN TERMS OF FISCAL STABILITY, AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE MODEL IS SUSTAINABLE FOR THE COUNTY...

OH, SORRY, [CHUCKLES] IN TERMS OF FISCAL STABILITY AND ALIGNMENT WITH BOARD PRIORITIES AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PROCESS AND THE RESULTING RECOMMENDATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE ON THE RECOMMENDED MODEL AND MAKING A NEW RECOMMENDATION IN THE FUTURE BASED ON INFORMATION GLEANED FROM THE ONGOING EVALUATION.

MR. STAFFORD WILL DESCRIBE THE PATH FORWARD FROM TODAY TO JULY 1 OF NEXT YEAR.

- ALL RIGHT. THANKS, GINA.

THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT STEP IS REALLY TO GET US TO, UH, YOU KNOW, A SMOOTH TRANSITION FOR JULY 1ST, 2027.

SO WE WANNA GATHER EVIDENCE THROUGH THE RFP AND DO SOME RESEARCH INTO OTHER COUNTY MODELS AND BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE, UH, REASONABLE DETERMINATION, UH, IN THE WINTER.

SO WE'LL, AGAIN, DO, YOU KNOW, GOOD AND MODEST AMOUNT OF STAFF WORK TO COMPARE THOSE OPTIONS USING THE CRITERIA THAT-THAT GINA DESCRIBED, AND WE'LL RETURN TO BOARD- RETURN TO THE BOARD IN DECEMBER AND JANUARY WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT LEAVES US TIME TO IMPLEMENT THE BOARD'S DIRECTION WITHOUT DISRUPTING SERVICES.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY IS GUIDANCE AND APPROVAL ON THE PROPOSED PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE RECOMMENDATION AUTHORIZING US TO RELEASE THE RFP AND ALLOW STAFF TO MAKE THE UNNECESSARY, YOU KNOW, NON-SUBSTANTIAL ADJUSTMENTS, AND DIRECT STAFF TO EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF ALL THESE MODELS AND RETURN IN DECEMBER WITH REDO- WITH RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION.

AND AGAIN, THE GOAL IS REALLY EFFECTIVE, CONSISTENT REPRESENTATION THAT'S UNINTERRUPTED FOR PEOPLE WHO RELY ON THESE SERVICES.

UM, AND TODAY IS A-A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE, UH, PROVIDE INPUT AND GUIDANCE ON HOW WE WANT THAT TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE COUNTY.

AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSED PROCESS, TIMELINE, CRITERIA, AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.

I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION.

AND AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM.

SO IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, I'M GONNA ASK THAT YOU PLEASE FORM A LINE IN FRONT OF US.

SEEING JUST A COUPLE OF YOU, I'D LIKE TO SET THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR TWO MINUTES EACH.

THANK YOU. WELCOME.

GOOD MORNING.

- GOOD MORNING, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND STAFF.

MY NAME IS ANNRAE ANGEL AND I WORK CURRENTLY AT THE CURRENT ALTERNATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE, PAGE DUDLEY.

I'M ASKING YOU TODAY NOT TO APPROVE THE PROCESS AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

I DON'T THINK THE RFP PROCESS AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS FAIR.

I'VE REVIEWED IT AT LENGTH.

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IT-IT COMES TO A, BASICALLY, AN ENDING THAT IS PREDETERMINED TO CHOOSE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER MODEL.

UM, EVEN THE LANGUAGE HERE IN THE PRESENTATION INDICATES THAT...

I WROTE DOWN A COUPLE OF, UH, THINGS THAT WERE SAID.

SMOOTH TRANSITION TO THE NEW MODEL, UM, CHANGING FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER.

SO THE IDEA IS ALREADY TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM AND NOT KEEP US DOING THE JOB THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.

I WASN'T THERE THE WHOLE TIME BUT IT STILL CONTINUED.

AND THE JOB THAT DOES PRIORITIZE CLIENT OUTCOMES, THAT DOES PROVIDE INVESTIGATIONS, ANXILLARY SERVICES,

[01:45:01]

UM, CLIENT-CENTERED THINKING, ACCESS TO THE OFFICE.

UM, I'M TRYING TO LIST ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE DE-DESIRED AND I APPROVE ALL OF THOSE DESIRABLE THINGS.

I THINK THEY'RE GREAT.

IT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING ALL OF THESE YEARS.

SO IN ORDER TO KEEP THE- OR-OR...WHAT'S... I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT SVEN'S WORDS WERE, BUT TO INTERRUPT REPRESENTATION THE LEAST WOULD BE TO KEEP OUR CONTRACT IN PLACE, TO CONTINUE LETTING US DO THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING.

AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING.

FROM PROBATION, FROM THE COURTS, FROM THE CLIENTS, I HEAR ALL THE TIME, WE ALL DO, ABOUT THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING.

SO UNTIL THERE'S A COMPLAINT, UNTIL THERE'S A PROBLEM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD- YOU SHOULD NOT BE APPROVING THIS RFP.

IT IS UNFAIR AND IT APPEARS TO ME AS THOUGH IT'S A SET UP TO JUST GET WHAT IS DESIRED RATHER THAN A...

- THANK YOU. - ...TRUE PROCESS.

- GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR, FELLOW SUPERVISORS, STAFF.

UM, MY NAME IS MITCHELL PAGE.

I HAVE THE FIRM THAT'S IN QUESTION AND UNDER DISCUSSION HERE.

UM, MY PROBLEM WITH THIS, UM, PROPOSAL TO YOU IS THAT THE DETAILS ARE REQUESTING ON THE RFP, FUNDAMENTALLY, MISUNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE OFFERING IS AN ALTERNATIVE IN TERMS OF RECORD KEEPING, REPORTING.

UM, BUT THE PACE AT WHICH WE WORK PRECLUDES DOING A SCRUPULOUS JOB ON THAT.

AND THE TRUTH IS THE PEOPLE WHO DO IT IN WHATEVER OFFICE THEREIN ARE GUESSING AT BEST BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T KEEP THAT KIND OF TRACK.

THERE ARE PROGRAMS, THEY'VE BEEN OFFERED TO US, THAT CAN FIGURE OUT WE'RE WORKING ON ON OUR COMPUTER FOR THE TIME WE'RE AT OUR COMPUTER, BUT THAT IS NOT NEARLY ALL THE WORK.

IT DOESN'T EVEN- IT'S NOT EVEN THE MOST SUBSTANTIAL PART OF IT.

SO, UM, I'M- I HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THE NEED FOR ACCOUNTING BECAUSE NONE OF THESE NUMBERS, UH, ARE REALLY USEFUL.

AND THE WAY THEY'VE BEEN USED IN THE PAST HAS SIMPLY BEEN TO MISREPRESENT, UH, INNOCENTLY I HOPE, UM, THE NATURE OF THE WORK WE DO BECAUSE THEY'RE COMPARING TO THE MAIN OFFICE AND THE WORKLOADS ARE DIFFERENT.

WE USED TO HAVE A COEQUAL CONFLICTS FIRM.

AND IF WE COMPARE TO THAT FIRM, THAT WOULD BE FAIR.

BUT TO THE MAIN FIRM, IT IS NOT.

THE CASE LOADS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.

UM, I HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHY THEY ARE- WHY IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MANY CASES WE HAVE.

I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM IF I HAD 20 LAWYERS ALL WORKING HALF TIME IF WE DID THE JOB CHEAPER THAN IT CAN BE DONE OTHERWISE.

AND THE NATURE OF THIS WORK LENDS ITSELF TO PEOPLE HAVING SOME TIME OFF, HAVING A BREAK FROM THE INTENSITY.

THIS WEEK, I HAD SOMEONE WHO WAS NEAR QUITTING... - THANK YOU.

- ...BECAUSE OF THE STRESS OF THE WORK.

YEAH, YOUR TWO MINUTES IS UP.

- GOOD MORNING. I'M NIKKI PENNEBAKER.

I'VE WORKED FOR MITCHELL PAGE FOR OVER 25 YEARS.

AS AN ALTERNATE DEFENDER FOR SANTA CRUZ, I THINK, UM... I'M ASKING THE CO- THE BOARD TO NOT ACCEPT THIS PROPOSED RFP.

I BELIEVE IT'S OVERLY ONEROUS AND DESIGNED TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO FORM A-AN ACTUAL, UM, YOU KNOW, RESPONSE THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

UM, OUR INTENTION IS TO RESPOND TO THE RFP WITH, UH, AS OUR NON-PROFIT, WHICH HAS BEEN FORMED FOR A WHILE NOW WITH A WONDERFUL BOARD OF-OF, UM, PROFESSIONALS FROM OUR COMMUNITY, AND TO CONTINUE OUR WORK AND SERVE OUR CLIENTS AS WE HAVE SINCE 1978.

UM, I THINK THAT CHANGING THE MODEL REALLY WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE CLIENTS.

UH, THERE'S GONNA BE EITHER, UH- IT'S EITHER GONNA BE WAY MORE EXPENSIVE FOR A FULLY STAFFED ALTERNATE DEFENDER OFFICE UNDER THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, UH, MISS ROGERS.

OR IT'S GONNA BE UNDERSTAFFED AND THERE'S GONNA BE MORE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND MORE CASE IS GOING TO PANEL ATTORNEYS.

PANEL ATTORNEYS DO NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE STAFF THAT WE DO TO PROVIDE THE HOLISTIC SERVICES THAT THE COUNTY SAYS THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, WANT, AND THAT WE WANT TO HAVE OUR CLIENTS HAVE.

SO THERE'S GONNA BE MORE PEOPLE RECEIVING LESS SERVICES THAN THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SERVED BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.

SO THIS JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.

WE'RE ASKING THE, UH, THE BOARD TO MAKE THIS A FAIR PROCESS SO WE HAVE A-A CHANCE TO CONTINUE THE WORK THAT WE LOVE TO DO, THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING, SERVING THE CLIENTS THAT, UM,

[01:50:02]

ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO US.

OH YES, AND THERE WAS AN RFP FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THAT WAS VERY REASONABLE, AND I THINK YOU, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE 73 PAGES OF CHANGES FROM 20 PAGES IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER MODEL IS WHAT ENDS UP, UM, BEING THE RESULT.

FURTHER COMMENTS IN THE ROOM? SEEING NONE, MADAM CLERK, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE PHONE? - I SEE NO SPEAKERS ONLINE.

- THANK YOU. I WILL NOW RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION, AND ACTION ON THIS ITEM.

START WITH SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

- THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND, UH, THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM.

UM, SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT, UM, ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS CURRENT RFP AND THE PREVIOUS RFP.

BECAUSE, UM, LOOKING THROUGH, I AGREE THAT IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT'S ALREADY KIND OF SKEWED IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

IT SEEMS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED.

SO I WAS WONDERING, IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO KIND OF SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES AND HOW YOU HANDLE THE MOST DIS- DIFFERENCES.

- YEAH, THE DIFFERENCE- I MEAN ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THIS RFP FROM THE PREVIOUS RFP WAS THERE WAS...

I MEAN THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT EVOLUTION IN THE WAY THAT, UM, THE WAY THAT THESE CONTRACTS AND BEST PRACTICES AROUND THEM HAVE DEVELOPED WITH A LOT OF GUIDANCE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER AND A LOT OF THAT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED.

AND I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I WOULD ALSO ADD IN THE-, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S THE PREVIOUS RFP OR THIS RFP.

UM, IT-IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE THEIR- PUT THEIR BEST FOOT FORWARD AND-AND GIVE US A PROPOSAL THAT THEY THINK IS WITHIN THEIR SCOPE TO DELIVER AND THAT ADDRESSES AS MUCH OF THE RFP AS-AS IT'S POSSIBLE.

AND SO...

- OKAY. UM...

NEXT QUESTION I HAVE, UM, YOU MENTIONED OR IT WAS MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY IN TERMS OF, I GUESS, THAT'S RELATED TO WHO'D BE REVIEWING THIS RFP.

AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHO WOULD BE REVIEWING THE APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN? - YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT? - UM, SO I HAVE WORKED ACROSS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER IN THE COURSE OF WORK, AND THAT CAN SPEAK TO THE IMPORTANCE AND THE DELIVERY OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SERVICES, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S- OFTEN, THIS INTERDISCIPLINARY SERVICES ARE ALSO- OFTEN INTERACTING WHEN THE OTHER SERVICE, THE OTHER SYSTEMS, NOT JUST SERVICES BUT SYSTEMS, THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM ARE IMPACTED BY USUALLY FOR EVERY ONE PERSON THAT MIGHT BE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM, THERE'S MULTIPLE INTERSECTING SYSTEMS UPON THAT SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, NOT TO MENTION, THEIR FAMILIES AND ANYONE OUTSIDE.

UM, I'VE ALSO ASKED, UM, FOR SOMEONE WITHIN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE TO PARTICIPATE ON THE EVALUATION PANEL TO SPEAK SO THAT WE HAVE THAT REPRESENTATION, UM, THAT PERSPECTIVE REPRESENTED.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, UM, CLIENT-CENTERED RESULTS, WHO BETTER TO SPEAK TO THAT THAN SOMEONE WHO HAS COME OUT SUCCESSFULLY THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

AND THEN FINALLY, UM, THE, I HAVE REACHED OUT TO ANOTHER COUNTY WHO HAS AN INDIGENT DEFENSE REPRESENTATION ROLE AND I'VE ASKED THEM TO PARTICIPATE, UM, WITH CEO COBURN'S FACILITATION AND THEY-THEY'VE AGREED.

UM, I- AND SPEAKING WITH THE PURCHASING AND LOGISTICS MANAGER, I WAS ACTUALLY ADVISED NOT TO SHARE THE-THE PANEL INDIVIDUALS TO AVOID, UM, ANY ADVOCACY OR INFLUENCE ON THEM.

I THINK TODAY IS REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT THE PROCESS.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WE'RE, WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THIS PROCESSES.

SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO GO WHEN I PUT TOGETHER THE PANEL AND MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS NEUTRAL AND THAT I COULD SPEAK TO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CLIENT OUTCOMES AND INTERDISCIPLINARY SERVICES.

- YEAH, AND I GUESS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT IS UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHO THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE IN TERMS OF LIKE THEIR EXPERIENCE.

SO LIKE, ARE THEY JUDGES, ARE THEY LAWYERS, ARE THEY...? THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET UP BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND IN TERMS OF WHO'S GONNA BE REVIEWING THESE APPLICATIONS FOR THESE SERVICES.

LIKE, WHO ARE WE YOU TALKING ABOUT? RIGHT? BECAUSE JUDGES ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GONNA BE WORKING MOST CLOSELY WITH THE ATTORNEYS WHEN THE ATTORNEYS ARE GOING TO COURT WITH THEIR CASES.

AND SO IT WOULD SEEM AS IF THE LAWYER, THE JUDGES WOULD HAVE SOME INTEREST IN WHAT THIS NEW PROGRAM IS GONNA BE.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN ENGAGEMENT SINCE WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S ON...

THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHO IS THIS PANEL.

- SURE. - WHO'S GONNA BE REVIEWING, YOU KNOW, WHICH OF THESE PROGRAMS WERE GONNA BE INITIALLY SELECTING.

- SO IT INCLUDES A CO- AN ACCOUNTANT, SOMEBODY WHO'S FAMILIAR

[01:55:03]

WITH INTERSECTING SERVICES, LIKE I SAID, UM, OTHER IMPORTANT SYSTEMS LIKE THE MEDICAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES, SINCE THAT IS A REALLY IMPORTANT, UM, COST RECOVERY MECHANISM THAT IS AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC DEFENSE PROVIDERS WITH THE USE OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SERVICES.

UM, WE HAVE TALKED TO, UM, THE COURTS AND THE REQUEST FROM THE COURTS WAS ACTUALLY TO CONTACT CEO SASHA MORGAN AND PRESIDING JUDGE, UM, BEN LOEWEN FOR THE COURT'S FORMAL OPINION.

AND-AND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM OSPD, AND I BELIEVE ALSO FROM THE SIXTH AMENDMENTS CENTER REPORT IS THAT, UM, PUBLIC DEFENSE BE FREE OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE PUTTING, FOR EXAMPLE, A DISTRICT ATTORNEY ON THE EVALUATION PANEL OR THE JUDGE ON AN E-, OR A JUDGE ON AN EVALUATION PANEL.

IT'S REALLY ABOUT WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY NEED, WHAT- AS, YOU KNOW, AS IDENTIFIED BY ALL OF THIS REPORTS FROM THE GRAND JURY TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENTS CENTER AND HOW WE CAN DESCRIBE THAT SYSTEM, AND HOW WE THINK IT CAN BE DELIVERED, AND WHAT INFORMATION CAN WE GAIN EITHER FROM BY COLLECTING RESPONSES, OR NOT EITHER FROM BUT INCLUDING BOTH COLLECTING RESPONSES, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER COUNTIES DO AND WHAT THEY DO SUCCESSFULLY, AND HOW THEY MANAGE COST AND PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES.

DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY MY RESPONSE? - SOMEWHAT, YES.

[CHUCKLES] - ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

- UM, SO I-I'M NOT GONNA DRAG THIS OUT MUCH LONGER BUT I HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING THIS FIRST STUDY SESSION TODAY, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING, YOU KNOW, A REPORT BACK ON DIFFERENT MODELS IN DECEMBER AND THEN YET AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH AN RFP PROCESS.

UM, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO RECONCILE HOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS, AND YET AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE SENDING AN RFP THAT KIND OF HAS ALREADY PRE-DETERMINED WHAT THE OUTCOME IS GONNA BE SINCE WE AREN'T GONNA HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO EVALUATE THE DIFFERENT MODELS BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE RFP PROCESS.

SO, UM...

AND I ALSO SHARE SOME CONCERNS, UM, THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE RECEIVED, UM, ON THIS IS THAT THE PRICE- THE PROCESSES SEEM BIAS, AND HASN'T SEEMED FAIR.

AND I THINK, AND I FEEL THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WILL BE GOOD IS FOR US TO GO THROUGH THESE SERIES OF STUDY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WANNA DO, WHAT ARE GONNA BE THE COST OF THE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, AND WHETHER AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BECAUSE, UM, I WILL AGREE, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT WE'RE SEEING TRANSITION BY JULY MEAN- TO ME, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE DECISION'S ALREADY HAVE BEEN MADE.

BUT WE'RE GONNA-, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA TRANSITION TO A NEW PROGRAM, WHEN THE REALITY IS WE, AS BOARD, HAVE NOT MADE THAT DECISION YET.

AND SO, PERSONALLY, I'D BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE WITH- WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT WE HAD THIS STUDY SESSION, WE DIRECT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER RETURN ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 15TH, 2026 WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MODEL OR THE VARIOUS OPTIONS OF MODELS TO PROVIDE COMMON CONFLICT, TO PROMOTE DEFENSE REPRESENTATION, UM, AND THAT WE MAINTAIN THE CURRENT RFP PROCESS.

AND THAT'S A MOTION THAT I'M GONNA MAKE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE MOVING INTO A NEW RFP PROCESS WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE.

- CAN I JUMP IN? UM, SO I WOULD S- SO WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE, AT A MINIMUM, WE HAVE TO DO AN RFP BASED ON IT'S BEEN SOME TIME SINCE WE'VE DONE THE LAST ONE.

AND SO WE NEED A COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO FIGURE OUT IF WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO CONTRACT.

UM, WE'VE RUN INTO PROBLEMS IN THE PAST, INCLUDING WITH THE GRAND JURY, WHEN WE SPEND YEARS JUST GIVING SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENTS TO OUR MAIN FIRM AND OUR CONFLICT FIRM AND SO, IN THE MINIMUM, IF NOTHING ELSE, WE NEED TO ISSUE AND RELEASE THE RFP TODAY SO THAT WE CAN FIND OUT WHAT IT WOULD COST AND WHAT THE SERVICES WOULD BE PROVIDED TO CONTINUE CONTRACTING.

WHAT WE'RE ADVISING IS THAT WE WANT TO GIVE THE BOARD ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENT AVENUES WE COULD GO DOWN WITH, UH, FIRST TIER CONFLICT SERVICES.

UM, WE HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION.

WE ARE IN A, UM, A REALLY SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL SITUATION, AS YOU KNOW, AND SO IF IT ENDS UP BEING THAT, CONTINUING TO CONTRACT WITH THE FIRM IS THE BEST OPTION BASED ON COST, BASED ON OTHER FACTORS, UM, WE'LL BE WILLING TO GO DOWN AND RECOMMEND THAT ROAD.

BUT I THINK THE BOARD DESERVES ALL THE INFORMATION WE CAN POSSIBLY PROVIDE TO YOU TO MAKE THE BEST DECISION.

- AND-AND I WILL SAY I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION COME BACK AND THAT WE MAINTAIN WHATEVER CURRENT RFP PROCESS IS THAT'S BEEN USED, THAT WE MAINTAIN THAT PROCESS WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT'S PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED INSTEAD OF WHAT'S THE NEW PROCESS THAT'S BEFORE US SO THAT WE CAN HAVE MORE INFORMATION IN DECEMBER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT NEXT TRANSITION IS GONNA BE.

UM, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION TODAY.

AND YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT RFP'S HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THE PAST, SO WHATEVER THE PAST RFP PROCESS HAS BEEN,

[02:00:02]

I'M MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT PROCESS, NOT SOMETHING NEW WHICH IS BEFORE US TODAY...

- UH... - ...AND CONTINUING TO GET MORE INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN...

YOU KNOW, IF-IF WE'RE GONNA TRANSITION, WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION HERE TODAY.

- YES, SO REGARDING THE RFP, EVERY TIME WE DO AN RFP, IT'S UPDATED BASED ON BEST PRACTICE AND INFORMATION.

THE LAST RFP WE DID IS NOT BASED ON CURRENT PRACTICE.

SO THIS WORK IS CONSTANTLY EVOLVING AND, UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING TO INCORPORATE THOSE PRACTICES INTO THIS RFP PROCESS.

I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND GOING BACK TO THE LAST RFP WE ISSUED.

UM, WE...

YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD TODAY IS OUR RECOMMENDED RFP.

AND OBVIOUSLY, WHOEVER, UM, THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS, UM, THE PAGE & DUDLEY FIRM WAS THE ONLY RESPONDENT TO THAT RFP.

I IMAGINE THAT MIGHT VERY LIKELY BE THE CASE AGAIN WITH THE CURRENT RFP, AND WE JUST WANNA SEE WHAT INFORMATION, UM, THE CURRENT FIRM AND/OR OTHER FIRMS PUT FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN GET THE BEST PRODUCT COMING OUT OF THIS RFP PROCESS AND, UM, THEY ARE ASKED TO PROVIDE AS MUCH OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AS POSSIBLE, AND- SO THAT WE CAN JUST SEE WHAT THAT IS.

- I'M GONNA ASK ACTUALLY PAGE & DUDLEY IF THEY CAN MAKE SOME- PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK ON THIS.

- THANK YOU. SO, IF I MAY...

- BEFORE-BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'M-I'M HOPING WE CAN HEAR QUESTIONS FROM THE REST OF THE BOARD BEFORE WE CALL ANYBODY ELSE UP.

LET ME JUST SAY THAT I-I-I-I HEAR THE CONCERN AND I HAVE A MOTION THAT I MADE.

HAVE A SEAT. THANK YOU.

UH... - I'LL JUST...

IF THE BOARD WANTS TO GET ON THAT ROUTE, GREAT.

IF WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE CAN VOTE.

BUT I'M GONNA STICK WITH MY MOTION BECAUSE I FEEL THAT WE HAVE TO- WE'RE MOVING IN TO A CHANGING LANDSCAPE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I DON'T FEEL THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE TODAY, UM, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATIONS COMING BACK TO US IN DECEMBER ABOUT WHAT NEW MODELS COULD BE.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, DECIDING ON A NEW RFP PROCESS BEFORE WE HAVE INFORMATION MAKES SENSE.

AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO GO WITH THE NEW R- WI-WITH AN RFP PROCESS, LET'S USE THE OLD ONE.

IT'S NOT PERFECT, WE CAN COME BACK IN A YEAR.

WE CAN DO IT AGAIN.

BUT WE'LL HAVE THE INFORMATION BY THIS TIME, NEXT YEAR OR EVEN WITHIN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS ON WHAT A NEW PROCESS CAN LOOK LIKE AND WE CAN ALL VOTE ON THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE- IT'S KIND OF LIKE WE'RE GONNA CREATE A NEW PROCESS, WE'RE PUTTING OUT A NEW RFP AND WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION HERE.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M GONNA CONTINUE TO [INAUDIBLE].

- WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

IS THERE A SECOND? CAN YOU REPEAT THE MOTION, PLEASE? - YEAH, THE MOTION IS, UM, DIRECT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO RETURN ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 15TH, 2026 WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MODEL TO PROVIDE CONFLICT CRIMINAL DEFENSE REPRESENTATION.

AND THEN, UM, TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT RFP PROCESS AND-AND ISSUE THE RFP.

- I'LL SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION FROM SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS AND A SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR KOENIG.

SUPERVISOR KOENIG? - YEAH.

UM, THANK YOU.

YEAH, AND I SECOND FOR THE, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

I-I'M GONNA GENERALLY AGREE THAT, UM, I'M NOT...

THE-THE-THE RFP BEFORE US FEELS, A-AND THE PROCESS OUTLINED DOES FEEL LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY THE VALUATION METRICS INCLUDED IN THE RFP.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST BASICALLY A-A-ASKING FOR A LOT MORE OVERHEAD, UH, AND BUREAUCRACY.

AND FRANKLY, WHAT I APPRECIATE ABOUT THE PAGE FIRM IS THAT THEY PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY REPRESENTATION WITHOUT ANY OF THAT.

[CHUCKLES] RIGHT? I MEAN, WE ARE NOT KNOWN FOR COST EFFICIENCY IN THE COUNTY.

UH, HENCE, THE ITEM WE JUST LOOKED AT BEFORE WHERE WE GAVE UP A FUNCTION BECAUSE WE COULD NOT PROVIDE IT COST EFFECTIVELY.

AND YES, WE DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND OUR BUDGET THERE.

I MEAN, WE'RE $1.6 MILLION FROM RESERVES.

I MEAN, WE ARE ON BORROWED TIME WITH JUST THE CURRENT SPENDING FOR THIS DEPARTMENT.

UM, WHEN-WHEN I... MY FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE, 21-22, UH, FISCAL YEAR, THE BUDGET FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS $14 MILLION, AND IT'S UP TO $21 MILLION.

THAT'S A 44% INCREASE, SO EXCUSE ME IF I'M A LITTLE BIT HESITANT TO JUST JUMP IN TO MORE COUNTY-PROVIDED DEFENSE SERVICES, BECAUSE THAT FEELS PRETTY EXPENSIVE.

AND I, ONE OF- MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS, WHERE ARE WE SEEING $7 MILLION OF SAVINGS ELSEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM? HOW ARE WE ACTUALLY QUANTIFYING THAT THIS MODEL IS SUPERIOR? I MEAN, AND I KNOW YOU PROBABLY MAYBE NOT, CAN'T ANSWER THAT TODAY BUT THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE EVALUATION BECAUSE FOR ME, THAT IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE.

[02:05:02]

UM, E-EFFICACY AS WELL BUT, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT TO SOLVE THIS $1.6 MILLION BUDGET GAP FIRST AND FOREMOST.

AND, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF FEELS LIKE THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT WAS WITH THE ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.

BUT AS I SAID DURING BUDGET HEARING THERE WAS, I THINK, SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, UM, OVERSIGHT OR, UM, MISCALCULATION IN TERMS OF HOW THAT SOLUTION WAS PRESENTED.

I MEAN, WE'RE BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT POR- HAVING HALF AS MANY LAWYERS PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC DEFENSE.

AND WE WERE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR ALL THE CASES THAT THE PAGE FIRM IS CURRENTLY DOING.

AND WE WERE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THE COST OF THOSE CASES THAN GOING TO THE MORE EXPENSIVE PANEL FOR TERTIARY PUBLIC DEFENSE.

AND SO, UNLESS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE COST OF MEETING THE CURRENT DEMAND, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY, UH, ADEQUATELY CALCULATING, UM, THE-THE COST OF PROVIDING THESE SERVICES AND ANY SAVINGS THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED.

SO THAT'S THE-THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN ANY, UM, IN ANY ANALYSIS.

SO I-I AM INCLINED...

UH, YOU KNOW, THE O-ONE-ONE AREA WHERE IT ALSO I'D LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED IS, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE W-WHAT THAT WE CAN DO INTERNALLY IS THIS MEDICAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES BILLING. RIGHT? AND SO, I KNOW THIS CAME UP DURING, UH, DURING BUDGET HEARING.

IT'S A QUESTION OF WELL IS THERE SOME WAY TO ALSO RECOUP SOME OF THOSE COST, UH, THROUGH CONTRACT PUBLIC DEFENSE.

UM, SO THAT'S A QUESTION I POST FIRST TO STAFF, AND THEN YEAH, I WOULD ALSO BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM THE PAIGE FIRM, UH, IF THE CHAIR ALLOWS.

- YEAH, WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH A LOT OF OUR DIFFERENT PARTNERS ON TRYING TO FIND WAYS THAT WE CAN UTILIZE MORE FUNDING AND BRING IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE COUNTY.

WE THINK THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF, UM, PAIGE FIRM ACTIVITIES OR ANY CONFLICT PROVIDER ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO DRAW DOWN SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE WITH THEM ON.

I THINK WE ALL ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH DOING A MORE, UM, COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM IN GENERAL.

ONE OF THE KEY PIECES IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO EVALUATE THAT I THINK IS GETTING DATA FROM THE RFP IN ADDITION TO BEING ABLE TO DO A MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND MAYBE SATISFACTORY REVIEW FOR ALL- FOR YOU ALL OF, UH, WHAT AN ALTERNATE DEFENDER OFFICE MIGHT LOOK LIKE, WHAT A PANEL ONLY MODEL MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND BE ABLE TO BRING BACK A COMPARISON ACROSS ALL THREE OF THOSE THREE OF THOSE OPTIONS.

UM, I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WORKING A LOT ON-ON FAITH AND HEARSAY THAT A GOOD JOB IS BEING DONE AND WE DON'T HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, IF THE...

IT'S JUST THAT IT CAN'T BE THE CASE THAT...

WE MIGHT NOT BE, WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO MEASURE COMPLETELY BUT WE CAN MEASURE SOMETHING, AND I'M OPEN TO CONVERSATION OF, UM OF WHAT THAT IS, HOW WE DETERMINE WHETHER A FIRM OR A SYSTEM IS, UH, EFFICIENT AND ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.

UM, BUT WE CAN'T JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE...

YOU KNOW, THE WORK IS SO INTENSE THAT IT PRECLUDES US FROM TRYING TO DO SO.

- S-SIR, I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO SIT DOWN PLEASE.

- AND-AND I'M GONNA SAY WHY.

- OKAY.

AT-AT THIS TIME, THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING A PROCESS FOR PURCHASING A SERVICE.

SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PROCUREMENT PROCESS WHICH IS HEAVILY AUDITED AND REGULATED.

WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A PROVIDER THAT CONTRACT AS I UNDERSTAND ENDS AT THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.

AND WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROCUREMENT.

IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR A SOMEBODY WE ARE PAYING TO DELIVER SERVICES TO BE THE SIXTH MEMBER OF THE BOARD AT THIS TIME TO ENGAGE IN THIS DIALOGUE ABOUT HOW TO GO ABOUT A PURCHASING PROCESS.

WE ARE- WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT COLLECTIVELY HOW WE WANT TO PROCURE OUR CONTRACTS.

AND SO, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU TO SIT DOWN AT THIS TIME.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

I'M COMING FROM THIS FROM THE LENS OF SOMEBODY WHO DID CONTRACTING WITH THE COUNTY FOR OVER A DECADE AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE WAY THAT COUNTRY FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS ISSUES RFPS, THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIRED, THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, UM, OUR OWN FINANCIAL PROC-POLICIES

[02:10:03]

AND PROCEDURES THAT WE MUST FOLLOW FOR PROCUREMENT.

SO I'M WONDERING IF EITHER, UM, CEO COBURN OR MR. HEATH MIGHT SPEAK TO THOSE PROCESSES.

- YEAH. UM, I'M HAPPY.

SO WE HAVE A PURCHASING POLICY THAT GOVERNS HOW WE PROCURE SERVICES AND SO, WE'RE REQUIRED TO CONTRACT OUT AS SERVICES EVERY FOUR YEARS.

UM, AND SO WE ARE AT THAT POINT, UM, WITH, UH, THE LAST TIME WE ENTERED THE NEW CONTRACT IT WAS A SOLE SOURCE.

UM, AND SO WE NEED TO BID THESE OUT AND SO OUR OFFICE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH OUR PURCHASING MANAGER IN GENERAL SERVICES TO DRAFT THE RFP.

THERE'S A TIMELINE IN THE RFP AS TO WHAT'S GONNA TAKE PLACE AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BIDDERS TO ASK QUESTIONS, TO SUBMIT THEIR PROPOSALS.

UM, THE-THE GRADING OF THE PROPOSALS IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE RFP AS TO, UM, THE CRITERIA AND THE WEIGHTS AND ALL OF THAT.

AND THEN THE SCORES WOULD BE CONTABULATED AND, UM, THERE WOULD BE A DETERMINATION AS TO, UH, WHICH RESPONDENT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE AWARDED THE RFP, AND SO WE WOULD B-BRING THAT BACK TO THE BOARD.

AND SO, ALL OF THAT IS, UM, VERY DEFINED AND, UM, IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE, UM, NEUTRALITY AND COME BACK W-WITH A-A RECOMMENDATION, UM, BASED ON THE PROCESS.

SO, I HOPE THAT HELPED ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, SUPER- CHAIR MARTINEZ.

UM, UM, DEPENDING ON IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

- THANK YOU. AND-AND FOR PURPOSES OF CONVERSATION, UM, AND PROCESS, THAT WOULD THIS BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME IF ANY COLLEAGUES WANTED TO PROPOSE, UM, SCOPE MODIFICATIONS TO THE RFP OR SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR THE STAFF TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT RELATED TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE RFP? IS THAT PART OF THE QUESTION TODAY BEFORE US? - YEAH. I MEAN, IF YOU, UM, WANTED TO GIVE US SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO RETOOL THE RFP, AND THEN WE, AS STAFF, WOULD COME BACK AND BRING, UM...

IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS RFP MAY NOT BE THE ONE YOU WANNA APPROVE TODAY AND HAVE AS RELEASE BUT, UM, WE CAN REWORK IT AND BRING- WE WOULD NEED TO BRING BACK THE ACTUAL RFP THAT WE INTEND TO RELEASE ON A SUBSEQUENT AGENDA.

I WILL SAY THAT THESE TIMELINES TAKE TIME AND WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, SO WE NEED TO ISSUE AN RFP PRETTY SOON IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS.

AND THEN IF CONTRACTING IS THE WAY THAT WE CONTINUE TO WANNA PROCEED, WE THEN NEED TO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT AND BRING THE CONTRACT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL BEFORE THE SERVICES END AT THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.

SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET GOING ON A RETOOLED RFP IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT THE BOARD WANTS US TO PROCEED.

AND, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I NOTICED IN THE RFP THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS THE FREE- THE FEE STRUCTURE.

CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THAT ABOUT HOW-HOW THAT WAS DESIGNED? - I'M GONNA REFER TO, UM, GINA AND SVEN.

- YES, SO THE CURRENT CONTRACT, UM, ALLOWS FOR A FLAT RATE ON THE 1ST OF EVERY MONTH, REGARDLESS OF THE HOURS WORKED, REGARDLESS OF THE EXTENT TO THE SERVICES PROVIDED.

UM, THE SAME STRUCTURE WAS APPLIED, UM, OR INCORPORATED INTO THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT MODEL WITH THE FORMER PRIVA- UH, PRIMARY DEFENDER BEFORE IT BECAME AN INSTITUTIONAL, UM, INSTITUTIONAL MO-MODEL.

AND, UM, REPEATEDLY, THROUGH MULTIPLE GRAND JURY REPORTS, THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY WHEN YOU PAY A FLAT FEE AND THE ARGUMENT AGAIN THAT'S MADE IN SIXTH AMENDMENTS SENATE REPORT IS THAT A FLAT FEE, UM, INTRODUCES A SYSTEM-WIDE ECONOMIC CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF THE REPRESENTATIVES AND THE, UM, UH, THE CLIENTS LEGAL INTEREST.

AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY- THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT ONE PARTY OR ONE FIRM IS DOING ONE THING OR NOT.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PAIGE FIRM WHO SPEAK AT LENGTH ABOUT THE TIME THAT THEY SPEND WITH CLIENTS, AT LENGTH ABOUT THE TIME WORK, AT THE LENGTH THAT THEY GO TO THE MANAGE BOTH THEIR WORK-LIFE, UH, WORK AND LIFE BALANCE THAT SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE DESERVES TO HAVE.

AND AS COUNTY EMPLOYEES, AS COUNTY STAFF, AS GOOD FISCAL STEWARDS, UM, PARTICULARLY WHEN LEGISLATION

[02:15:01]

HAS BEEN INTRODUCED AT THE STATE LEVEL SUGGESTING THAT FLAT FEES WON'T EVEN BE LEGAL IN THEN COMING YEARS, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK AT A STRUCTURE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A CONTRACT WITH A NEW ENTITY, WITH PANEL, WITH WHATEVER THE CASE MAYBE, COMPARED TO HOW OTHER COUNTIES ARE DOING IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S THE BEST- THE BEST PROCESS AND THE BEST INFOR- INFORMATION, THE BEST STRUCTURE.

UM, AND TO THE POINT ABOUT USING LANGUAGE ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE TRANSITIONING TO A NEW FIRM OR NOT, THE PAIGE FIRM HAS ALSO BEEN VERY OPEN ABOUT THE HARD WORK THAT THEY'VE PUT IN TO ESTABLISHING A NON-PROFIT TO PROVIDE MORE TRANSPARENCY TO DO THAT WORK THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TO HAVE THE CAPABILITIES FOR REPORTING.

AND SO EVEN WITH A NEW ENTITY WITH WHATEVER THE PAIGE FIRM BECOMES IN THEIR NON-PROFIT, THAT'S STILL A TRANSITION, THAT'S A NEW CONTRACT, THAT'S SETTING UP A NEW VENDOR IN OUR SYSTEM, THAT'S NEGOTIATING A NEW SET OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, UM, AND I THINK I'D LIKE TO REITERATE NICOLE'S TIMELINE AS WELL OR NICOLE'S POINTS ABOUT THE TIMELINE AS WELL.

UM, IF RELEASING AN RFP NOW TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN, AND BEFORE WE EVEN NEGOTIATE ANYTHING TO COME BACK WITH- TO THE BOARD WITH THE RESULTS OF THE RFP ARE COMPARED TO SOME OF THESE OTHER MODELS THAT ARE AVAILABLE, UM, THAT GIVES US THE REST OF, YOU KNOW, JANUARY THROUGH JUNE TO MAKE SURE THAT IF IT'S THE NEW-NEW PAGE FIRM, IF IT'S ANOTHER FIRM, IF IT'S ANY OTHER KIND OF MODEL, THAT WHILE BUDGET SEASON IS GOING ON FROM JANUARY THROUGH JUNE IN HEARINGS, WE ARE ALSO MAKING SURE THAT THE CONTRACT, UH, NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONTINUING APPROPRIATELY.

UM, SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY AND FEE STRUCTURE.

UM, AND JUST A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS JUST ABOUT THE BEST PRACTICES, UM, DURING THE BUDGET HEARINGS, WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT CASE LOADS.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

WHERE ARE WE... DO WE HAVE A PREDETERMINED CASE LOAD SIZE OR WHERE ARE WE GETTING THAT INFORMATION SO WHEN WE REVIEW RFP, AN RFP OR OTHER PROPOSALS, WHAT'S GUIDING THE BEST PRACTICE? RIGHT NOW, THE MAIN, UM, BODY OF WORK THAT IS KIND OF THE ONLY BODY OF WORK IS THE NATIONAL PUBLIC DEFENSE WORK LOAD STUDY, UM, WHICH IS SOMETHING LIKE MR. PAGE HAS IT NOW.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING LIKE A 120 PAGES THAT WAS ON MY SEAT ON MY FIRST DAY AT THE COUNTY TO FAMILIARIZE MYSELF.

- 180. - 180. I WAS LEFT BY 60 PAGES.

AND, UM, I THINK THAT, LIKE I SAID, EVERYONE DESERVES A GOOD WORK-LIFE BALANCE, AND I DON'T KNOW, I CAN'T SAY TO WHAT END THOSE WORK-THOSE WORKLOAD RECOMMENDATIONS ARE REASONABLE.

I THINK WE'VE HEARD THAT EVEN THE PRIMARY OFFICE WOULD NEED SOMETHING LIKE 30 MORE ATTORNEYS, AND THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE.

WE KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE.

UM, AND SO WE HAVE SOME-WE HAVE SOME HARD QUESTIONS TO ASK, AND SOME HARD QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.

AND, UM, OR/AND, AGAIN, WE'LL ALSO BE WORKING WITH THE OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER THAT I KNOW IS DOING WORK TO RIGHT SIZE SOME OF THESE CASE LOADS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ACCORDING TO THE CASE LOADS THAT ARE, UM, DISTRIBUTED IN CALIFORNIA.

- THANK YOU. UM...

- CAN I JUST INTERJECT FOR ONE SECOND 'CAUSE PAGE 5 OF THE RFP HAS THE NUMBER OF CASE LOAD BY- ANNUAL NUMBER OF CASES BY TYPE FOR TOTAL OF 847.

- AND THAT'S BASED ON ACTUAL.

THAT'S THE- THAT'S SO WE'RE BASING THE ACTUAL HISTORY...

- OKAY. - ...OR WHAT WE ANTICIPATE THE WORK LOAD TO BE BASED ON THE ACTUAL HISTORY, AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY THINGS COULD GO CHANGE GOING FORWARD.

BUT THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.

- YEAH.

- THANK YOU. SO , UM, GIVEN WHAT I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE TIMELINE THAT WE'RE HOPING TO STAY ON AND, UM, I-I- WHAT I HEAR IS A COMMITMENT THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION TODAY ABOUT THE TYPE, UH, THE MODEL THAT WE ARE AGREEING UPON.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP US ON THE PROPOSED TIMELINE FROM THE STAFF.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AND SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT MOVES THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND ASKS THE STAFF INCORPORATE ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD TODAY IN RETOOLING THE RFP PROCESS AND BRINGING IT BACK AS-AS SOON AS YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CAN SO YOU CAN STAY ON THE TIMELINE.

IS THERE A SECOND? SEEING NONE, THAT MOTION DIES.

WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

[02:20:01]

UM, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION? - YES, SO ESSENTIALLY, ITEM NUMBER 3 IN THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS, DIRECT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO RETURN ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 15TH, 2026 WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MODEL TO PROVIDE CONFLICT CRIMINAL DEFENSE REPRESENTATION AND TO, UM, ISSUE THE MOST RECENT RFP THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY RELEASED.

SO THAT WILL KEEP US ON TIME.

ALL IT'S SAYING IS WE'RE NOT GONNA ISSUE THE RFP THAT BEEN RECOMMENDED SINCE THERE IS AN URGENCY ROUND TIME, WHATEVER THE PREVIOUS RFP WAS, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ISSUING THAT AND THAT WILL KEEP US MOVING ON THE TIME.

AND-AND THE THING TOO IS THAT THIS IS GONNA COME BACK TO US AGAIN IN A YEAR.

I MEAN, I THINK WHEN WE GET THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT CHANGES THAT ARE GONNA BE RECOMMENDED WILL LAND ON A MODEL, WE'LL LAND ON THE NEW RFP.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD.

BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME SERIOUS CONCERN.

THERE'S CONCERNS AROUND BIAS.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANNA MOVE FORWARD, THEN MY RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THAT WE JUST REUSE THE PREVIOUS RFP AND WE CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD.

- UH, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT JUST THE BOTH LEGAL OR ETHICAL ISSUES WITH THE EXISTING, UH- THE-THE PAST RFP.

I KNOW THAT RFPS ARE REVISED BASED ON CHANGES IN STATE LAW, CHANGES IN THE BEST PRACTICE, CHANGES IN OUR FISCAL POLICIES.

UM... - YEAH.

- TELL U-, TELL US WHY... - SO WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT RFP.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO UPDATE IT BASED ON CURRENT LAW POLICIES AND WE WILL PUT IT- HAVE TO PUT IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA TO RELEASE IT.

SO WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO JUST RELEASE IT ON OUR OWN SO WE WILL BRING IT, WE'LL HAVE TO WORK IT.

UM, WE'LL TRY TO GET IN ON EITHER THE NEXT MEETING IN SEPTEMBER OR THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER.

BUT WE WILL HAVE TO DO, UM, PREPARE AND BRING A NEW RFP TO THE BOARD THAT, TO MAKE SURE IT REFLECTS ALL OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORKS WE HAVE TO WORK WITHIN.

- SO THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE MOTION IS SUGGESTING.

- WELL, J-JUST TO, JUST TO JUMP IN, UM, I-I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOUR BOARD NOT TO JUST SAY WE DON'T LIKE THIS RFP, BUT TO PROVIDE STAFF WITH GUIDANCE ON WHAT YOU DO WANT TO SEE IN THE RFP BECAUSE STAFF IS GONNA BE BRINGING BACK A NEW RFP FOR YOU TO CONSIDER POTENTIALLY AS EARLY AS THE NEXT MEETING.

AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE GUIDANCE FROM YOUR BOARD ON THAT ISSUE, THEN WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE IN THE SAME SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW.

- LET ME JUST ASK.

MAYBE Y'ALL CAN HELP ME ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

UM, WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED BETWEEN THE LAST RFP PROCESS AND THIS RFP PROCESS AT THE STATE LEVEL? BECAUSE THAT'S- SOUND LIKE THE CONCERN IS WHETHER IT'S GONNA BE- IF THE DOCUMENTS CAN- THE RFP PROCESS IS GONNA BE LEGAL.

UM, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WELL INTENDED OTHER, UM, ASPECTS OF THE RFP PROCESS OF THE INDIGENT DEFENSE CARE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, UM, WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS-IS BASED ON THE PREVIOUS RFP PROCESS AND NOW, WHAT LEGAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE SO THAT THOSE CAN BE INCORPORATED AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND MAKE A DECISION ON THAT NEXT RFP.

UM, SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU ALL KNOW.

- I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE'RE-WE'RE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEADS RIGHT NOW.

UM, WE CAN OBVIOUSLY BRING THAT BACK AND-AND PUT IT IN THE STAFF REPORT AS-AS WE BRING THAT BACK TO YOU ALL.

AND I THINK AS-AS MR. HEATH HAVE POINTED OUT, IF THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF THE RFP THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDED POLICY PIECES THAT WE DO HAVE CONTROL OVER, IT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE GUIDANCE FROM-FROM THE BOARD ON THE DIRECTION YOU ALL WANT THERE.

- ON THAT POINT, [CROSSTALK] I WOULD...

- I-I WAS JUST GONNA WEIGH IN JUST ON THE LEGAL ASPECTS OR WHATEVER.

I- UM, SO THERE-THERE'S-THERE'S BEEN A MOVEMENT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS TOWARDS THE ELIMINATION OF FLAT FEE CONTRACTS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT HAS BEEN, UM...

IT'S NOT QUITE THERE YET AT THE STATE LEVEL BUT STAFF HAS TO ANTICIPATE WHAT THE WORLD LOOKS LIKE OR MAY LOOK LIKE IN A YEAR OR TWO YEARS.

UM, AND SO, JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON WHAT'S CHANGED? NOTHING IS OFFICIALLY ABSOLUTELY CHANGED YET BUT THERE HAS BEEN A MOVEMENT, NOT ONLY ON THE FLAT FEE ISSUE, BUT ON A LOT OF THE OTHER HOLISTIC ASPECTS OF REPRESENTATION THAT, UH, EVERYTHING IS TRENDING IN THE DIRECTION THAT STAFF HAS PUT TOGETHER IN THIS RFP THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW.

YOU COULD STILL SAY, "HEY, WE DON'T CARE AND WE DON'T- AND WE DON'T-AND WE DON'T LIKE IT, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA PLAY." BUT-BUT WE NEED, BUT-BUT THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS-IS SOMETHING TO COME BACK THAT YOUR BOARD CAN ENGAGE WITH AND WILL ENGAGE WITH SO THAT WE CAN JUST OPERATIONALIZE IT

[02:25:02]

AND MOVE TO THE NEXT, UH, THE NEXT PHASE.

- AND JUST AS A RESPONSE, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GONNA BE GETTING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DIFFERENT SERVICES AND ASPECTS OF THESE SERVICES THROUGH THIS PROCESS. RIGHT? I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA GET REPORT BACK IN DECEMBER, AND SO WE'LL KNOW MORE AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE DIRECTION WE WANNA GO IN.

THE REASON WHY I'M SAYING WE SHOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PREVIOUS RFP WAS IS BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY THAT EVERYBODY'S JUST SAYING, THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW.

OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CURRENT- WHAT'S PRESENTED BEFORE US, AND SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IF YOU ONLY NEED TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, MINOR LEGAL CHANGES OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER LEGAL CHANGES TO THE RFP THAT WAS ISSUED BEFORE AND BRING THAT BACK, THAT SOUNDS FINE TO ME.

UM, BUT I'M TRYING TO KEEP US ON TRACK WITH MOVING FORWARD.

AND ALSO, WITH TRYING TO BALANCE THE CHANGES THE BOARD HEARING AT THE STATE THAT HAVEN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL WITH THE, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUS RFP PROCESS.

AND AS WE CONTINUE TO LEARN MORE AND ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY, WE CAN SETTLE IN ON WHAT'S GONNA BE THE BEST MODEL, THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, DRAFTING WHAT THE NEW RFP COULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE NEW SERVICES COULD LOOK LIKE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP US ON TRACK FOR, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT ALL IN AGREEMENT AND WANNA KEEP THE RFP MOVING.

- YEAH, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER I-I-I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANYTHING FLATLY ILLEGAL ABOUT THE PREVIOUS RFP, BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND TO ME LIKE YOU'RE BOARD IS EDUCATED ENOUGH ABOUT THE PREVIOUS RFP OR H-HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE PREVIOUS RFP LOOK LIKE FOR YOU TODAY TO JUST SAY, "HEY, ISSUE THAT RFP." UM... - THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION IS BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE USED IN THE PAST.

SO THERE'S PRECEDENT THAT'S BEEN SET.

WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AT THE NEXT MEETING BUT I'M TRYING TO KEEP US MOVING ON TRACK, UM...

AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M-I'M RECOMMENDING THAT THAT BE A PROCESS.

IT'S ONE YEAR.

SO, IT'S NOT LIKE WE WON'T BE BACK HERE AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.

- ACTUALLY... -ACTUALLY, THAT'S A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. IS IT A ONE YEAR? OR WHAT WAS THE CONTRACT PROPOSED TO BE? - THE CONTRACT PROPOSED IN THE CURRENT RFP THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS THREE YEARS.

UM, IF WE DO AN R-...

THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND TIME THAT GOES IN TO AN RFP JUST TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT CAN BE PUBLISHED, FOR THE ADS TO BE RAN, FOR QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TO BE ANSWERED FROM DIFFERENT VENDORS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, THAT INVESTMENT IS CERTAINLY, UM, [CHUCKLES] IT WORTH MORE THAN A ONE YEAR CONTRACT, UNLESS THERE WERE SOME REAL JUSTIFICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT.

UM, AND I THINK IN THIS CASE, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTINUITY OF CASES AND THE CONTINUITY AND THE CONSISTENCY OF SERVICE ACROSS THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, WHICH MIGHT BE BETWEEN THE INSTITUTIONAL OFFICE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE TERTIARY PANEL.

UM, THAT ONE YEAR, WHAT I WON'T RECOMMEND.

ALL THAT TO SAY I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND AN RFP FOR ONE YEAR.

- BUT I'M HAPPY TO HAVE IT BE FOR TWO YEARS.

I MEAN, IF THAT'S GONNA BE SOMETHING WE CAN- WE CAN HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE CAN LAND ON SOMETHING THAT'S AGREEABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE CONTRACTS CAN BE, BUT...

SO...

- RIGHT, I HAVE, UM...

UH, LET'S SEE.

I HAVE A LITTLE CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING AT THIS, AT THIS TIME.

UM, I THINK... WELL, YOU KNOW, LET ME...

I-I THINK THE BOARD IS IN AGREEMENT THAT WE DO NEED A NEW CONTRACT COME '27.

IS THAT ACCURATE? AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE DO NEED A PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

I THINK WE ARE IN AGREEMENT ABOUT THAT.

SO TO GET THERE, UM, I-I THINK THAT WE'RE LIKELY IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD WANT THE NEW PROPO- RFP TO INCLUDE CURRENT BEST PRACTICES AND PURCHASING STANDARDS IN IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT A JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION? I-IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY THAT WE DON'T WANT BEST PRACTICES OR A CURRENT PURS-PROCUREMENT STANDARDS IN IT.

- I THINK WE HAVEN'T AGREED ON...

I MEAN, THIS IS A PART OF THE-THE CHALLENGE, RIGHT? IT'S THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH WHAT THE DIFFERENT MODELS ARE, WHAT ARE OUR VARIOUS OPTIONS.

AND WHILE SOME, THERE MAYBE BEST PRACTICES, YES, THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO INCORPORATE, BUT IT'S ALSO LIKE WHAT ARE THOSE COST? RIGHT? AND WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT DISCUSSION.

THAT'S WHEN WHAT I WAS HOPING THAT WE GET THROUGH THIS.

I MEAN, THE-THE, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE STAFF COME BACK IN DECEMBER TO DISCUSS THE DIFFERENT MODELS AND WHAT THE DIFFERENT MODELS LOOK LIKE, I THINK THAT'S GONNA REALLY HELP US BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE TYPE OF SERVICE THAT WE WANT TO ADOPT.

AND THAT'S GONNA HELP INFORM THAT NEXT RFP PROCESS.

UM, WHAT WE DO KNOW IS RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT WORKS.

WE DO KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA BE MAKING CHANGES TO THAT SYSTEM.

BUT TO ISSUE- BUT THE RFP, THE WAY IT STANDS RIGHT NOW SEEMS LIKE IT'S ALREADY TRANSITIONING US TO WHAT THIS NEW MODEL WILL BE, AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS THAT'S COME UP.

[02:30:01]

SO [CROSSTALK] THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, TRYING TO KEEP US...

I MEAN, WE CAN ALSO JUST PUT OFF THE RFP AND HAVE STAFF COME BACK IN THE NEXT MEETING WITH WHAT THE PREVIOUS RFP WAS, WHAT-WHAT IT LOOK LIKE TO HAVE IT UPDATED, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO ANYWAY.

SO...

- I THINK I... WELL, I THINK, UM, WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR TO GETTING IN DECEMBER WAS INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUE COSTS AND SERVICES DELIVERED BY OUR CURRENT VENDOR IN A- SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE MODELS.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED STAFF TO COME FORWARD WITH THESE OTHER ALTERNATIVE MODELS.

THEY'RE GONNA DO THEIR HOMEWORK.

THERE ARE EXISTING PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE OR PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND EVEN IN THE ROOM, UM, BUT THAT WILL BE HER HOMEWORK, I ASSUME.

UM, WE ALSO HAVE, YOU KNOW, AS-AS SOMEBODY WHO CONTRACTED WITH THE COUNTY, I-I- RFP IS NOT A DIRTY WORD.

IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORWARD WITH TRUE COSTS, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE YOUR TRUE COSTS COVERED, TO STATE WHAT YOU'RE DELIVERING SO THAT WAY, THE COUNTY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE PURCHASING, HAVE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CONTRACT.

YOU WANT TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS 'CAUSE THAT'S HOW IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE.

AND IT RAISES THE TIDE FOR EVERYBODY.

IT-IT'S A, IT'S A PROCESSED IMPROVEMENT.

AND SO I- RATHER THAN KIND OF ASSUMING, UH, THAT WHAT WORKED FOR THEM FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS WOULD WORK FOR THEM AGAIN IN DECEMBER FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, IT'S PROVIDING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITH...

ACTUALLY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS AND WE CAN HOLD THAT INFORMATION SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE ALTERNATIVES, AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE DISCUSSIONS.

SO WE'RE JUST PROPOSING A-A, UM, A PROCESS BY WHICH TO GET THAT INFORMATION AND HAVE THE REAL DISCUSSION IN DECEMBER.

- I DON'T, I DON'T DISAGREE... - I...

CA- OH, CAN I... - LET ME JUST- LET ME JUST SAY I DON'T DISAGREE AND WE-WE HAVE AN RFP BEFORE US THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDING ON THAT HAS A LOT OF THE ASPECTS OF WHAT A NEW PROGRAM CAN LOOK LIKE ALREADY EMBEDDED WITHIN IT, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE FOR A- WE HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION.

SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU AT ALL.

BUT THAT'S WHY IF WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN RFP WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING WE JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH PREVIOUS PROCESS AND THE PREVIOUS RFP IS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION BEFORE WE-WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS- WHATEVER THIS NEW PROCESS IS GONNA BE.

AND THE RFP BEFORE US HAS A LOT OF THOSE ASPECTS ALREADY BAKED INTO IT WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING IT TODAY.

- I JU- I JUST WANTED TO... - CEO COBURN.

- ... CLARIFY THAT EVEN IF WE WEREN'T COMING BACK TO THE BOARD WITH, UM, THE FULL ANALYSIS OF ALL THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD, UM, AND IF WE WERE JUST ISSUING RFP, WE TRY TO ISSUE OR DRAFT IT BASED ON WHAT THE PROGRAM SHOULD LOOK LIKE GIVEN ALL THE ADVANCEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC DEFENSE.

AND SO, UM, THAT...

SO THIS IS OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR WISH LIST OF THINGS WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE CONTRACTOR.

IF CONTRACTORS AREN'T ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE THINGS, UM, WE'LL SEE THAT THROUGH THEIR PROPOSALS AND THEN WE'RE ABLE TO CONTRACT FOR WHATEVER WE'RE, UM, WHATEVER LEVEL OF SERVICE WE'RE-WE'RE ABLE TO GET.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, UM, THIS COULD STAND ON ITS OWN, ABSENT ANYTHING ELSE WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT BUT WE WANTED TO HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE.

UM, SO I-I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT US TO GO BACK TO A SLI- A SLIM DOWN VERSION OF, UH, SENDING OUT THIS RFP, WHICH WE CAN DO.

UM, I WANNA ALSO MAKE CLEAR THAT SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE ASKING FOR IN HERE LIKE THE, UM, ITEMIZING OF HOURS IS TO HELP US WITH THE MEDI-CAL CLAIMING.

SO THAT'S AN ASPECT THAT WASN'T IN THE PREVIOUS RFP, THAT, UH, THAT I-I WOULD THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO INCLUDE IN A SLIM DOWN VERSION.

SO THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF A CHANGE WE MADE THAT I THINK YOU AS A BOARD WANT TO HAVE IN THERE, AND THAT I KNOW THE FIRM IS ALREADY DOING.

UM, SUPERVISOR KOENIG? - THANK YOU, CHAIR.

SO BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION, I MEAN, IT SOUND LIKE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WE NEED THE CEO'S OFFICE TO RETOOL THIS RFP AND BRING IT BACK TO US.

UM, YOU KNOW, I-I SEE THE-THE MERIT OF THE ARGUMENT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO TRACK HOURS IN ORDER TO-TO INTEGRATE BETTER WITH, UM, MEDI-CAL BILLING, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THOSE ARE THINGS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PAGE FIRM AND PROBABLY OTHER RESPONDENTS TO THE RFP ARE ALREADY DOING.

SO, I MEAN, GIVEN THIS, I'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE MOTION THAT, UH, OUR CHAIR MADE WHICH IS BASICALLY DIRECTING THE CEO'S OFFICE TO COME BACK WITH A CON- WITH A REVISED RFP.

UH, I THINK JUST WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, UM,

[02:35:05]

MAYBE IN TERMS OF WEIGHT ON EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION AND PRICE, UM, AND MAYBE GENERALLY BE SLIM DOWN A LITTLE BIT, UM, RIGHT, TO TRY TO-TO EMPHASIZE THOSE QUALITIES.

I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE RESPONDENT CAN'T DISCUSS TO UH AT ANY LENGTH OR BREVITY THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE PASSED, I MEAN, AS YOU SAID, IT'S SORT OF, UH, WE'RE PUTTING OUT THERE WHAT WE THINK WE NEED, UH, OR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, AND...

I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, THEIR RESPONSES ARE THE RESPONSES, SO...

UM, I THINK IF THE CHAIR IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UM, I'D BE...

UH, [CROSSTALK] - HOW ABOUT A NEW MOTION...

- OKAY. - ...BECAUSE I DIED.

[LAUGHS] - THEN ALL RIGHT, VERY WELL THEN.

UH, I MOVE, UM...

LET'S SEE HERE.

UM... I WILL MOVE, UH, THAT, UH, RECOMMENDED ACTION 3, THAT THE, UH, DIRECTING THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO RETURN ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 15TH, 2026 WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MODEL TO PROVIDE CONFLICT CRIMINAL DEFENSE REPRESENTATION BEGINNING JULY 1, 2027, UH, AND ADDITIONAL DIRECTION FOR THE CEO'S OFFICE TO, UH, REVISE THE RFP AND BRING IT BACK FOR BOARD APPROVAL AS SOON AS PRACABLE- PRACTICABLE, UH, WITH AN INCREASED EMPHASIS ON, UH, EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION AND PRICE, UH, AND LESS OVERALL REQUIREMENTS.

- SECOND.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? - YEAH, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. - SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

- SORRY TO BELABOR THIS BUT I HAVEN'T SPOKEN YET ON THIS.

WE'RE SPENDING IN THIS COUNTY A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY ON PEOPLE THAT COMMIT CRIME.

AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE HOL-HOLISTIC DEFENSE MODEL, I DO, AND, UH, I APPRECIATE IT, IT'S VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE.

IN THAT GROUP A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AND I ASKED HER TO TELL ME ABOUT A CASE, AND SHE TOLD ME, UM, HOW SHE HAD WORKED FOR THREE WEEKS TRYING TO FIND PLACEMENT FOR SOMEBODY WHO, [INAUDIBLE] [COUGH] UH, HAD STARTED MULTIPLE FIRES IN OUR COUNTRY.

THREE WEEKS WORTH OF HER WORK AT WHATEVER HER HOURLY IS TO FIND PLACEMENT FOR SOMEBODY WHO STARTS FIRES.

I UNDERSTAND, UH, THE REASONS WHY HOLISTIC DEFENSE IS A GOOD THING. I DO.

BUT WHEN THE FISCAL SITUATION, THE FISCAL CLIFF THAT WE'RE FACING, I- THE-THE-THE NICETIES OF TRYING TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO MANY, MANY PEOPLE IN ALL DIRECTIONS, WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT THAT AND DETERMINE, CAN WE AFFORD IT? I DON'T THINK WE CAN AT THIS POINT.

AND SO TO ASK A CONTRACTED PUBLIC DEFENDER OR AGENCY TO PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE IN TERMS OF AN ENTIRE SOCIAL WORK TEAM AND NAVIGATION OF IMMIGRATION AND ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES, WHO ARE ALREADY BEING- WHO ARE PAYING OUT ON THEM FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT, FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, FROM MULTIPLE CONTRACTS, UM, TO HELP PEOPLE GET ON THEIR MEDI-CAL SO THAT THEN, YOU KNOW...

I MEAN, IT IS STAGGERING HOW MUCH EACH ONE OF THESE PEOPLE, UH, COST TO THIS COUNTY.

I-I DO HAVE, UH, AND-AND I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH ANY OF THESE BACK UPS.

SOME OF IT SEEM TO BE AI GIBBERISH, HONESTLY, AND SOME OF IT WAS ABSOLUTELY WHAT-WHAT THESE PEOPLE CAME IN HERE AND TOLD YOU WITH THE MICROPHONE IS EXACTLY HOW I FELT WHEN I WAS READING, AND I WAS LIKE, "THIS IS ALREADY COMPLETELY PRE-CONCEIVED," BECAUSE WE HAVE- STAFF HAS, OR CEO'S OFFICE, I DON'T KNOW WHO, HAS AN AGENDA TO WALL OFF IN THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.

SO UNLESS YOU CAN MEET THIS VERY STRICT CRITERIA, ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO SEE HAPPEN, YOU ARE NOT GONNA GET AWARDED THE CONTRACT.

THAT WAS VERY INSULTING.

THE OTHER THING THAT I FOUND INSULTING, UM, WAS THE CHART THAT SHOWED LIKE, UM, HOW MANY HOURS OF TIME IT WAS GOING TO TAKE TO, UM, CHOOSE A NEW MODEL. RIGHT? SO 300 HOURS OF GINA'S TIME, 40 HOURS OF SVEN'S TIME, AND 15 HOURS OF NICOLE'S TIME.

THAT'S 355 HOURS.

SO I CALCULATED IT BASED ON YOUR SALARIES.

[02:40:07]

$23,738.

AND I KNOW FROM TALKING WITH MITCHELL PAGE THAT HE'S FOREGOING HIS SALARY TO MAKE IT WORK FOR HIS FIRM.

I-I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE STILL, BUT THAT WAS WHAT YOU HAD TOLD ME BEFORE, IS THAT YOU HAVE EITHER TAKEN NO SALARY OR YOU'RE TAKING A HALF SALARY.

AND YET HERE WE ARE AS A COUNTY SPENDING 23,738 TO DO THE WORK OF CHOOSING A NEW MODEL.

WE KNOW WHAT MODELS WORK AND WHAT MODELS DON'T.

THE OTHER THING, I-I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID, GINA, BUT I- I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT IT.

THE P- THE DA'S OFFICE, OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY KNOWS A LOT ABOUT PANEL CASES, CO- UM, ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC DEFENDER, AND OUR PUBLIC DEFENDER.

THEY KNOW HOW MANY CASES GO TO EACH ONE AND WHAT THE OUTCOMES ARE.

THEY HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DATA.

WHY... I-I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

MAYBE IT'S A BEST PRACTICE, I'M NOT SURE, BUT WHY CAN'T THEY BE PART OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AROUND WHAT MODEL THAT WE CHOOSE? 'CAUSE THEY'RE COMPLETELY EXCLUDED, I NOTICED ON THAT THING.

THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY IS THAT, STILL TO THIS DAY, I JUST HAD BREAKFAST WITH THE RETIRED JUGDE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THANKING ME FOR MY SUPPORT OF, UH, THE MITCHELL PAGE GROUP BECAUSE THEY'RE EXCELLENT.

NOT ONLY THAT.

I WILL SAY...

AND MAYBE I'M RUNNING INTO A BIAS SITUATION HERE SO, JASON, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP WITH...

THE THING I WANNA SAY NEXT IS THAT IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I HAVE BROUGHT MANY PEOPLE THAT I-, AS A SOCIAL WORKER, THAT I WAS HELPING TO-TO THE MITCHELL PAGE FIRM IN THE PAST TO HAVE THEIR RECORD EXPUNGED SO THEY COULD GO ON FIELD TRIPS WITH THEIR KIDS AT SCHOOL, THEIR DISABLED CHILDREN AT SCHOOL, AND THEY HELPED THESE PEOPLE AT NO CHARGE, THE PEOPLE THAT I WOULD PRESENT TO THEM AND HAND OFF.

THEY'RE DOING HOLISTIC [CHUCKLING] DEFENSE.

THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT.

I KNOW IT 'CAUSE I'VE SEEN IT.

AND THEY DID IT AT NO CHARGE.

SO, THANK YOU.

THE OTHER THING IS OF THE 58 COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA, WE WERE GIVEN A LIST OF 9 COUNTIES THAT ARE USING, UM, I THINK THE WALLED OFF VERSION OF PUBLIC DEFENSE.

MOST OF THEM ARE GIANT COUNTIES THAT HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF REVENUE.

WE'RE NOT THAT. WE'RE NOT THAT.

THERE WERE-, I THINK 2 COUNTIES ARE SMALL, TUOLUMNE AND MENDOCINO, I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY'RE PULLING IT OFF, 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A LOT OF REVENUE.

BUT THEY, UM, BUT MAYBE THEY ONLY HAVE 1 OR 2 PEOPLE WORKING THERE, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN AFFORD THAT ANYWAY.

AND SO I WOULD- AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I W-...

T-THIS DID NOT FEEL LIKE A STUDY SESSION TODAY, I'LL JUST SAY THAT.

LIKE, UH, I NEED TO KNOW MO-, AND I-AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT- WE CAN MEET, UH, YOU CAN MEET SEPARATELY WITH ALL OF US TO HELP EXPLAIN OR GET SOME FEEDBACK.

UM, BUT I-I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT ARE- WHAT THE OTHER MODELS ARE AND IF THEY'RE, UM, APPROPRIATE, PERTINENT, IF THEY WOULD WORK HERE IN OUR TINY, TINY COUNTY.

I CAN'T IMAGINE PUTTING MORE PEOPLE ON OUR PAYROLL IS GONNA SAVE ANY MONEY WITH THE BENEFITS AND THE CALPERS.

IT IS NOT COST, UH, EFFECTIVE TO DO THAT, TO ADD MORE STAFF ON THE COUNTY SIDE.

SO, UM, THAT IS, I THINK, THE E- SORRY, I'M NOT-I DON'T THINK I ASKED SVEN ANY QUESTIONS BUT THAT-THAT'S THE END OF WHAT I WANTED TO SAY.

UM, THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO, UM, MOVING THIS FORWARD.

- SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

DO YOU HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR? MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? - SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS? - AYE.

- HERNANDEZ? - AYE.

- KOENIG? - AYE.

- DE SERPA? - AYE. - AND MARTINEZ? - AYE. MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0.

WHAT DO WE HAVE NEXT HERE? - LET ME TALK TO YOU.

- I THINK WE CAN GET THROUGH NUMBER 9.

[9. Consider accepting a report on the certification of the METRO Initiative Petition sufficiency and, if certified, select one of the options per Elections Code Section 9118, and take related actions]

I'M GONNA CALL ITEM NUMBER 9, WHICH IS TO CONSIDER ACCEPTING A REPORT ON THE CERTIFICATION OF THE METRO INITIATIVE PETITION SUFFICIENCY.

AND IF CERTIFIED, SELECT ONE OF THE OPTIONS PER ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 9118 AND TAKE RELATED ACTIONS.

OH, YOU GOT HERE ALREADY.

WELCOME. GOOD MORNING.

[02:45:03]

- GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MARTINEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME IS DAVID BROWN.

I'M AN ANALYST IN THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE.

AND WITH ME TODAY IS OUR COUNTY CLERK AND REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, TRICIA WEBBER.

AND WE'RE HERE TO PRESENT THE ITEM IN FRONT OF YOU, WHICH IS THE SELF-SU- THE...

IN REGARD TO THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND CERTIFICATION OF THE METRO INITIATIVE PETITION.

METRO IS AN ACRONYM FOR MODERN EFFICIENT TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AND OPERATIONS.

IN FEBRUARY 2026, THE PROPONENTS OF THE METRO INITIATIVE PUBLISHED A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION AND SATISFIED PRELIMINARY LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO BEGIN COLLECTING THOSE SIGNATURES.

THIS INITIATIVE, UH, ORDINANCE WOULD ESTABLISH A ONE-HALF OF 1% SALES TAX BEGINNING APRIL 1ST, 2027.

THE OBJECTIVE OF THE TAX IS TO MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE BUS AND PARATRANSIT SERVICES, EXPAND ROUTES, INCREASE IN- INCREASE PARA- UM, PARATRANSIT SERVICES AND...

I'M SORRY.

INCREASE RIDERSHIP, SUPPORT FREE AND REDUCE FREE- FEE PROGRAMS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRANSIT-RELATED SERVICES.

ON AUGUST 4TH, THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY METRO INITIATIVE PETITION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY CLERK REGISTRAR OF VOTERS DEPARTMENT FOR AN EXAMINATION OF THE 15,473 SIGNATURES THAT WERE GATHERED.

THE COUNTY CLERK REGISTRAR OF VOTERS HAS DEEMED THE PETITION SUFFICIENT WITH 11,377 VALID SIGNATURES.

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS THE AUTHORIZING BODY RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING THE ACTIONS ON PETITIONS MEETING SUFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS.

AND BECAUSE THIS TAX IS- OR BEFORE THIS IN- BECAUSE THIS INITIATIVE IS A TAX MEASURE, THE BOARD MUST SUBMIT THE INITIATIVE TO VOTERS.

TO REITERATE TODAY'S ITEM, I ASK THE BOARD TO ACCEPT THE SUFFICIENCY REPORT, AND DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS WITH THE NECESSARY RESOLUTION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS TO CALL THE ELECTION AND PLACE THE MEASURES ON THE BALLOT OF THE NEXT ELECTION PERMITTED BY LAW.

UH, OUR COUNTY CLERK REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, TRICIA WEBBER, IS PRESENT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PETITION EXAMINATION AND THE SUFFICIENCY REPORT.

I'LL NOW GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NONE, MADAM CLERK, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE PHONE? - I SEE NO SPEAKERS ONLINE, CHAIR.

- THANK YOU. I'LL RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS.

SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

- I'LL MOVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION.

- TO CLARIFY, I THINK YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH OF THE TWO OPTIONS HERE PREFERRING.

- O-ON... - [INAUDIBLE] ACCEPT THE REPORT ON THE CERTIFICATION OF METRO INITIATIVE PETITION AND DIRECT STAFF'S RETURN TO BOARD WITHIN 30 DAYS WITH THE NECESSARY RESOLUTION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS TO CALL THE ELECTION PURSUANT TO ELECTION CODE SECTION 1405 AND SUBMIT THE METRO INITIATIVE TO THE VOTERS PURSUANT TO ELECTION CODE SECTION 9118.

- SECOND.

- ARE YOU SUGGESTING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION 2A OVER 2B? - NO, CHAIR. UM, IT'S BASED ON THE-ON THE REVISED...

- OH. - ...UH, PAPERS THAT WERE- THAT WERE, UM, SUBMITTED, UH, LATE YESTERDAY.

- OH, GOT YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

UH, SO WE HAVE MOTION AND- FROM SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS AND A SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR HERNANDEZ.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? S-SUPERVISOR KOENIG? - SO I WAS ACTUALLY A PROPONENT ON THIS INITIATIVE SO I THINK I FEEL THAT I SHOULD, UH, AT LEAST ABSTAIN.

IF NOT, WOULD YOU RECU-RECUSE MYSELF AND MAYBE EVEN WALK OUT OF THE ROOM AT THIS POINT UM, BUT, UM, SO I'M NOT GONNA SAY ANYTHING.

- OKAY.

UM, I'LL JUST COMMENT.

I JUST WANNA CONGRATULATE THE METRO- FRIENDS AND METRO FOR GETTING THE SIGNATURES GATHERED TO BRING THIS BEFORE US TODAY AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? - SUPERVISOR DE SERPA? - - HERNANDEZ? - AYE.

- CUMMINGS? - AYE.

- AND MARTINEZ? - AYE. MOTION PASSES 4 IN FAVOR AND 1 ABSTAIN?

[10. Hold public hearing to consider approving in concept an "Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz Granting a Planned Unit Development as Allowed by Santa Cruz County Code Relating to the Establishment of Development Standards for Application No. 251276 (APNs 025-032-33, 025-032-34, and 025-032-35)” and adopting a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and take related actions]

IS THAT CORRECT? - YES.

- ONE NOT PRESENT.

- I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY BREAK FOR A CLOSE SESSION.

- OKAY.

AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RECESS FOR CLOSE SESSION

[02:50:01]

AND WE WILL RETURN AT ONE O'CLOCK.

IS THERE ANYTHING REPORTABLE FROM CLOSE SESSION? - NO. - THANK YOU.

- RECORDING STOPPED.

[CLOSED SESSION AGENDA]

- WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY.

UM, AS A REMINDER, WE HAD NOTHING REPORTABLE FROM CLOSE SESSION, CORRECT? - CORRECT.

SO WE'LL NOW OPEN WITH ITEM NUMBER 10, WHICH IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVING IN CONCEPT AND ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ GRANTING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS ALLOWED BY THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CODE RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS FOR APPLICATIONS NUMBER 251276.

UM, AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND TAKE RELATED ACTIONS.

WELCOME.

- HI, GOOD AFTERNOON.

UM, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

ALVIN DETMARS, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER WITH CDI PLANNING.

UM, THIS IS AN APPLICATION.

UH, THE APPLICATION UNDER REVIEW TODAY IS A PROPOSAL FOR A 6-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, WHICH INCLUDES A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR POD APPROVAL.

SO THE REASON THIS PROJECT IS BEFORE YOUR BOARD TODAY IS, UH, PRIMARILY THE PUD ASPECT OF THE PROJECT.

NORMALLY, BOARD APPROVAL WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OF LESS THAN 20 UNITS.

UH, HOWEVER, THIS PROJECT'S PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IF ADOPTED, WOULD GRANT THE, UH, PROJECT'S SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT DEFER FROM THE UNDERLYING R16 ZONING STANDARDS.

UH, THESE STANDARDS ARE ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD APPROVAL.

UM, BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER INTO THE APPROVAL MECHANISMS, I'M GOING TO JUST PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING FOR APPROVAL.

SO THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED BETWEEN SOQUEL DRIVE AND THURBER LANE.

UH, [INAUDIBLE] OR I'M SORRY, UM, IT'S LOCATED BETWEEN MISSION DRIVE AND THURBER LANE, JU- UH, JUST NORTH OF SOQUEL DRIVE.

UH, IN THIS IMAGE HERE, DOMINICAN HOSPITAL IS JUST OUTSIDE OF THE IMAGE ON THE LEFT.

UH, SOQUEL DRIVE IS ON THE BOTTOM PART OF THE IMAGE.

UH, WINKLE PARK, UH, IS OVER TO THE RIGHT, AND THEN THE PROJECT SITE IS AT THE TOP OF THE IMAGE.

[INAUDIBLE] THE PROJECT, UH, SITE IS OUTLINED IN RED.

UM, IT'S ACTUALLY COMPRISED OF THREE PARCELS, WHICH ARE INDICATED BY THE B- THE BLACK LINES THERE.

UH, THERE'S ONE PARCEL THAT CURRENTLY HAS CORRIDOR A- ON MISSION DRIVE ON THE LEFT.

[INAUDIBLE] CORRIDOR ACCESS FROM MISSION DRIVE OR FROM THURBER LANE.

AND THEN A-A TRADITIONAL LOT, UM, WHICH WOULD ALSO TAKE [INAUDIBLE] FROM THURBER LANE.

[INAUDIBLE] THE- ALL THREE OF THESE PARCELS ARE ZONED R1- [INAUDIBLE] CONVENTIONALLY CORRELATE WITH 6000-SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.

THE GENERAL PLAN [INAUDIBLE] UH, FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS URBAN LOW DENSITY, UH, WHICH PRESCRIBES, UH, DENSITY RANGE OF FOUR TO 10 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

UH, THIS IS A STREET LEVEL VIEW OF THE SITE AT MISSION DRIVE.

UH, 3522 MISSION DRIVE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE IMAGE IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT.

UM, BUT ONE OF THE SIX LOTS WOULD, UH, TAKE ACCESS FROM THE CORRIDOR THERE ON THE RIGHT THAT'S- THAT'S SHOWN BY THE GATE.

UM, AND THEN AT THE OTHER END OF SITE ON THURBER LANE, UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE THREE PARCELS, UM, ON THE SITE, VISUALLY, UH, IN APPEARANCE, THIS IS JUST ONE VACANT LOT.

UM, AND-AND THIS IMAGERY IS NOT READILY APPARENT FROM- FROM THE IMAGES I HAVE HERE, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS SURROUNDING THIS PROJECT SITE IS SINGLE FAMILY IN NATURE, UM, EXCEPT THAT LOWER MISSION DRIVE, WHICH TRANSITIONS TO MORE MULTI-FAMILY AND, UH, MEDICAL TYPE USE AT DOMINICAN HOSPITAL.

SO GETTING BACK TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THOSE THREE LOTS WOULD BE RECONFIGURED AND SUBDIVIDED TO CREATE SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.

THAT, AND THAT'S SHOWN HERE ON THE TOP IMAGE.

ONE LOT WOULD TAKE ACCESS FROM MISSION DRIVE, WITH A CORRIDOR OR A FLAG LOCK CONFIGURATION AND FIVE LOTS WOULD TAKE ACCESS FROM THURBER LANE.

UH, THE BOTTOM LEFT SHOWS A CONCEPTUAL RENDERING OF WHAT THE PROJECT WOULD LOOK LIKE VIEWED FROM THURBER LANE.

AND THEN THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT KIND OF GIVES A REPRESENTATION

[02:55:01]

OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND ELEVATIONS AT THE FRONT OF THE HOME.

UM, EACH OF THE SIX HOMES PROPOSED UNDER THIS PROJECT, UH, WOULD BE 2400-SQUARE FOOT, UH, 4-BED ROOM UNITS WITH A 2-CAR GARAGE.

UM, AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, UH, THE R16 ZONING IS ASSOCIATED TYPICALLY WITH 6000-SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

AND A COR- THE CORRELATING GENERAL PLAN DENSITY, UH, ANTICIPATED AT THE SITE WOULD BE 3 TO 8 UNITS.

UH, THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING A DENSITY WITHIN A RANGE AT 6 UNITS.

UM, BUT THE LOTS WOULD BE SMALLER THAN 6000 SQUARE FEET AND THAT IS WHERE THE PUD BEGINS COMING INTO PLAY.

SO WHAT THIS SLIDE IS SHOWING HERE IS A CHART WITH, UH, ALL THE TRADITIONAL R16, UH, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THEN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PUD.

AND THE PUD IS A DEVELOPMENT TOOL THAT IS OFFERED BY, UH, COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 1830, AND ITS PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS THAT WOULD, UM, NOT OTHERWISE CONFORM WITH COUNTY CODE BUT WOULD, UH, ACCOMPLISH THE COUNTY'S, UH, GOALS AND POLICIES.

AND A PUD WILL ESTABLISH A SPECIFIC SITE STANDARDS OR EVEN USES.

UM, AND, UH, IT'S- IT WILL DEVIATE FROM THE NORMAL R16 STANDARDS.

THIS PROPOSED PUD DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY, UM, DEVIATION FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.

IT WOULD STRICTLY U- ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

UH, THE LAST WOULD BE QUITE A BIT SMALLER THAN THE 6000-SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM.

UH, YOU CAN SEE IN THE, UM, FIRST ROW THERE THAT SOME OF THEM, UM, DEEP DOWN THE SMALLEST 4200 SQUARE FEET.

UM, AND THE ACTUAL BUILDING AREAS ARE RIGHT- ARE FURTHER REDUCED, UM, WHEN YOU DEDUCT THE SHARED DRIVEWAY THAT GOES ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE SITE.

UM, THE SMALLER LOTS ARE ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH REDUCED SETBACKS, AND THE RESULTING DEVELOPMENT 2400-SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS HAS A PROPORTIONALLY HIGHER FAR BECAUSE OF THAT.

AND SO THAT'S IN THE THIRD, UH, FROM THE BOTTOM ROW.

SOME OF THESE, UH, LOTS INCLUDE 64% FAR WHEN WE WOULD NORMALLY SEE 50% FAR.

AND THAT'S PRIMARILY RELATED TO THE PROPORTION OF THE HOME TO THE PARCEL SIZE.

UH, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, THE HOMES ARE JUST 2400-SQUARE FOOT DWELLINGS.

UM, A PUD IS A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND REQUIRED FINDINGS.

UM, FOR MOST, BEING A FINDING OF SIGNIFICANT NEIGHBORHOOD BENEFIT.

UM, AND THE COUNTY CODE DOES NOT SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT THE SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD BENEFIT IS, BUT IT DOES GIVE SOME EXAMPLES, WHICH INCLUDE ENHANCED RESOURCE PROTECTION, UH, EXCEPTIONAL PUBLIC AMENITIES, DESIGN EXCELLENCE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, JOB CREATION, PUBLIC VIEW SHED PRESERVATION, OR SUPERIOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, ET CETERA.

UM, SO, UH, THE POINT HERE BEING THAT THE CODE IS NOT EXPLICIT IN WHAT THE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC BENEFIT IS, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE THE APPROVAL TO INCLUDE A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT, UM, WHERE IT DEVIATES FROM NORMAL STANDARDS DOES HAVE SOME PUBLIC BENEFIT.

SO THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT WE'RE, UM, IDENTIFYING IN THIS PROJECT IS TWO PARTS.

UM, THE FIRST IS, UH, EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS THAT WOULD PROVIDE, UM, ACCESS BETWEEN MISSION AND, UH- MISSION DRIVE AND THURBER LANE.

P-, UH, PRESENTLY, THERE'S NO THROUGH ACCESS AT THE UPPER MISSION DRIVE PORTION.

UM, AND THIS WAS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FIRE ACCESS, UH, SHOULD IT BE NEEDED TO GET BETWEEN THESE TWO NEIGBORHOODS.

UM, IT IS STRICTLY FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.

IT'S NOT A PUBLIC ACCESS.

IT'S NOT FOR THESE RESIDENTS USE.

IT IS JUST GONNA BE LOCKED FOR EMERGEN-EMERGENCY ACCESS.

UM, THE SECOND, UH, OPPORTU- UH, THE SECOND COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROVIDED BY THIS PROJECT, UM, IS IDENTIFIED AS THE CREATION OF THREE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS.

THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY APPROVED FOR THREE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.

UM, AND ON THE SAME SITE AREA, UM, WE'RE, UH, ACCOMPLISHING A- A TH-THREE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE DEVELOP HERE.

AND SO THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT THERE IS THE CREATION OF SINGLE FAMILY, UH, LOTS AND ADDITIONAL HOUSING.

SO I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENTS, UM, ON THE- FROM THE NEIGHBORS BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, AND TODAY'S MEETING WHO ARE REALLY ON THE PROJECT ALL TOGETHER.

UM, WE DO, DID HAVE SOME NEIGHBORS PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS, UM, REQUESTING, UH, SOME CLARITY ON THE PROJECT AND REQUESTING SOME ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO BE INCORPORATED.

UM, ONE OF THOSE INCLUDED SOME FENCING ALO-AROUND THE, UH,

[03:00:03]

SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT SITE FOR PRIVACY, 'CAUSE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE PROPERTIES.

UM, SO THAT, UH, RECOMMENDATION, OR THAT REQUEST WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

UM, AND THEN THE OTHER, UM...

THE OTHER THAT WAS, UH, REQUESTED WAS TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, NATIVE LANDSCAPING IN THE LANDSCAPING PLANS.

SO THE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN, UM, IS CONDITIONED AS PART OF THIS PUD TO INCLUDE, UH, A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF NATIVE VARIETY, LANDSCAPING, UM, THAT WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR THE SITE.

UM, SO WE DON'T TYPICALLY SEE PUDS FOR SMALLER SCALE DEVELOPMENT AS I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS PROJECT.

UM, AND A LOT OF LARGER PROJECTS WE'VE BEEN SEEING AS OF LATE, UM, WOULD TEND TO USE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS SUCH AS DENSITY BONUS.

UM, BUT THE PUD DOES OFFER THE UPSIDE OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, WHICH IS THE ABILITY TO APPROVE A PROJECT THAT DOESN'T PERFECTLY FIT INTO OUR NORMAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

UM, AND SO WE'VE EVALUATED THIS PROJECT AS BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGBORHOOD, LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH, UM, THE NORMAL STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD HAVE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UM, WITH JUST SOME DEVIATION FROM, UM, FROM THE PRESCRIBED AND ADOPTED CODE.

UM, WHERE IT DEVIATES FOR ROAD ACCESS, UM, IT DOESN'T REDUCE THE ACTUAL TRAVELLED RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THE ROAD IS AT- HAS A FULL-WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY.

UM, IT MEETS THE FIRE TURNAROUND REQUIREMENTS SO...

UM, AGAIN, EVEN WHERE WE'RE COMPROMISING FROM-FROM OUR ADOPTED STANDARDS, UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I THINK, SAW THE BENEFITS OF THIS PROJECT AND AT THE JULY 22ND, UH, MEETING, THEY DID ADOPT THIS, UH, VOTED TO PASS A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING YOUR BOARD APPROVE THE PROJECT.

AND THAT WAS, UH, P-PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THEIR RESOLUTION IS THE LAST ATTACHMENT IN THE ITEM 10 PACKET, UM, BUT THAT RECOMMENDATION IS REFLECTED HERE ON THE SITE TODAY WHICH HAS THIS, UH, THIS SIX, UH, RECOMMENDED ACTIONS, WHICH INCLUDE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION TO ADOPT, UM, A RESOLUTION, UH, RECOMMENDING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

APPROVING IN CONCEPT THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD, UH, GRANT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER THE PUD.

APPROVE THE DEVE- UH, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THIS APPLICATION.

SCHEDULE THIS ORDINANCE FOR A SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION ON SEPTEMBER 29TH, AND TO DIRECT THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO PUBLISH THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE SUMMARY IN A NEWSPAPER FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION.

UM, CORRESPONDENTS, UM, BUT- FROM ANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, O-OFFICIALLY, I DID RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM ONE NEIGHBOR IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT YESTERDAY, UM, AND I, UM, BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME A-AT LEAST ONE NEIGHBOR HERE WH-WHO IS HOPING TO SPEAK TODAY.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THERE REALLY HASN'T BEEN ANY OTHER CORRESPONDENCE.

THERE WAS A PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE ATTACHED TO THIS BOARD ITEM THAT WAS RELATING TO A SEPARATE AND OFFSITE PROJECT.

UM, SO IF, UM, THAT'S ALSO BEEN ADDRESSED TO THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WAS THE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR THAT WAS RELATED TO A DIFFERENT PROJECT.

SO, UM, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

WE ARE, UM, RECOMMENDING THE ACTIONS ON THE SLIDE AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL START BY HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM.

IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE, UM, STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND WE'LL SET THE PUM- PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT TWO MINUTES EACH.

- YEAH, HELLO, MY NAME IS JAMES EWING WHITMAN.

I HAVE A, I GUESS A KIND OF SUPPOSED VAST CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND.

I STARTED IN 1988.

LOOKING AT THIS DESIGN, IT SEEMS REALLY PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THE DEVELOPERS ARE REALLY FORTUNATE THAT [SNIFFS] THE NEIGHBORS DIDN'T PUT IN A LOT OF NEGATIVE INPUT, HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS SITUATION MANY TIMES IN MY LIFE AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR. [SNIFFS] THAT CAN BE QUITE FRUSTRATING.

I MEAN, I JUST- I'M GONNA MAKE SOME DESIGN OBSERVATIONS.

I'M WONDERING WHY, WITH THE FIRE ACCESS, WHY THE ROADS WEREN'T CONNECTED? AND I CAN SEE THAT THERE'S THAT TURNAROUND BETWEEN EITHER BUILDINGS 3 OR 4, OR 2 OR 3.

I'M WONDERING IF THAT COULDN'T BE CHANGED BUT IT- I JUST THINK THAT YOU'RE FORTUNATE THAT IT'S GONNA BE AN EASY PROCESS.

SO CONGRATULATIONS BECAUSE THAT IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

- THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM? - I'M FEDERICA WELCH.

I LIVE ON ANGELA AND, UH, YEAH, NONE OF US WERE HAPPY

[03:05:02]

THAT THIS IS HAPPENING BECAUSE THIS FIELD HAS BEEN EMPTY FOR...

OUR HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE MID-60S AND I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE '93 SO I'VE ENJOYED PRIVACY.

WITH THAT SAID HOWEVER, I DO APPRECI-APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE VERY OPEN AND YOU ARE VERY UNDERSTANDING IN OUR FEELINGS ABOUT HAVING ALL THESE HOUSES BUILT BEHIND OUR HOUSE.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE, UM, MY CONCERNS WERE, OF COURSE, FOR PRIVACY 'CAUSE THERE IS- THEY'RE GONNA BE TWO-STORY HOMES AND OURS IS ONLY A ONE-STORY.

THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING RIGHT INTO MY BEDROOM.

UM, BUT THEY ASSURED US THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE UP TO 8 FEET, UH, PRIVACY IN RETAINING WALLS, SO THAT IS GOOD.

I'LL BUY BLINDS.

UM, THE WATER DRAINAGE ALSO WAS A CONCERN.

UM, WE'VE BEEN FLOODED FOR YEARS BECAUSE OF THE EMPTY LOT.

NO HOUSES THERE TO STOP THE WATER FROM GOING INTO OUR FOUNDATION OF OUR HOUSE.

UM, THEY ALSO-THEY ALSO TOLD ME THAT, UH, THE NEW OWNERS WILL ALTERNATE EVERY YEAR AS TO WHO THE CONTACT PERSON WOULD BE FOR US TO COMPLAIN IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG.

UM, [SIGHS] WITH THAT SAID, MANU, I ENJOY YOUR EMAILS.

THEY'RE VERY INFORMATIVE AND, UM, I DID NOT KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME.

I'VE BEEN PRONOUNCING IT MANU, LIKE MANA, THE SINGER. [CHUCKLES] BUT ANYWAYS, WITH THAT SAID, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK IN-IN GETTING SANTA CRUZ THE WAY THAT IT SHOULD BE.

- THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

FURTHER COMMENTS IN THE ROOM? SEEING NONE, MADAM CLERK, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE PHONE? - I SEE NO SPEAKERS ONLINE, CHAIR.

- THANK YOU. I'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS.

SUPERVISOR KOENIG? - UH, THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO S-SPOKE TODAY.

UM, I JUST LIKE- WANNA APPRECIATE THE PROJECT BEFORE US.

UH, APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER, MR. ATRI MACHERLA, WHO IS HERE, UM, PROPOSING A-A PROJECT THAT IS I-I THINK GENERALLY PRETTY, UH, IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING COMMUNITY.

I MEAN, CERTAINLY, COMPARED TO SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS WE'VE SEEN.

I MEAN THIS, IF I-IF I COUNT THE ROW OF HOMES ON BOTH SIDES, THERE'S 5.

UH, THERE'S- IN THIS CASE, THERE'S ONE EXISTING HOME SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SORT OF A 7:5 RATIO.

THAT'S- IT'S A LOT BETTER THAN MAYBE LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, SAY 54:3 THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER CASES.

SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR PROPOSING A-A PROJECT THAT IS, I THINK, CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL HERE THAT, UH, IT'S GONNA PROVIDE MIDDLE INCOME, IN FILL HOUSING, UH, AND THAT GENERALLY FITS WITHIN OUR GENERAL PLAN, UM, FOR THE COUNTY AND MEETS OUR GOALS OF ENCOURAGING INFILL HOUSING.

UM, AND ULTIMATELY, OF COURSE, TAKING ON PAYING ALL THE, UH, ALL THE FEES, THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.

AFFORDABLE- FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, SCHOOLS, PARKS, AND EVERY CHILD CARE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS GONNA CONTINUE TO MAKE SANTA CRUZ A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE.

UH, SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.

- I'LL SECOND.

- THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM SUPERVISOR KOENIG AND A SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR DE SERPA.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SUPERVISOR CUMMINGS.

- THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UM, ONE QUICK QUESTION.

UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF ANY OF THIS WILL BE A MEASURE J UNIT.

- UH, NO, THEY- NONE-NONE OF THEM ARE.

UH, OUR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS DON'T COME INTO PLAY UNTIL DEVELOPMENT OF MORE THAN 7 UNITS.

SO IN- ON A PROJECT LIKE THIS, THEY'LL PAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IMPACT FEES, UM, COMMENSURATE TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE.

- OKAY, THANK YOU.

- SUPERVISOR HERNANDEZ? - SO I IMAGINED THE PUBLIC COMMENT MENTIONED ABOUT DRAINAGE.

I'M-I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT WOULD BE RESOLVED ONCE THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS, RIGHT? THE DRAINAGE GOES... - YEAH.

- ...BACK INTO THEIR BACKYARD FROM THE EMPTY LOT.

- RIGHT. YEAH, THERE'S A- THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ON A SMALL SLOPE AND SO ALL THE UPHILL PROPERTIES DO HAVE TO MITIGATE, YOUR KNOW, THEIR ON-SITE DRAINAGE.

THIS PROJECT DOES INCLUDE, UH, ESSENTIALLY TAKING THE WATER FROM THE UPSLOPE PORTIONS AND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A BIG, UH, SOME DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND A RETENTION, UM, BIO RETENTION AREA DOWN AT THE BOTTOM NEAR, UM, THURBER LANE.