Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors 08/04/2026

For those present today who feel more comfortable making their comments in Spanish, please let us know. We have someone available who will translate your comment into English. For those who require translation of the whole meeting, please make arrangements in advance with the clerk of the board, either by visiting their office in person or by calling our office at 831454 2323. We want to hear from our non-English-speaking community. So, please do so. Request translation assistance if you feel language is a barrier to your participation. for contact. Good morning. I'd like to call to order the August 4th, 2026 special meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. Will the clerk please call the role? >> Good morning. Yes. Supervisor Dura, >> present. >> Koenig >> here, >> Hernandez >> here, >> Cummings >> here, >> and Martinez >> present. Thank you. >> We'll now begin with a moment of silence. Would any of my colleagues like to recognize anyone this morning for a moment of silence? Seeing none, I'm going to ask the room to please join me for a moment of silence. Thank you. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. So since today is a special meeting of the board of supervisors, we are not going to begin with or we're going to be calling the one item on today's agenda. We'll have an opportunity for public comment on that item only towards the end of the item. So at this time I will call item number three consider adopting a resolution declaring a state of fiscal distress adopting an urgency ordinance amending chapter 4.22 22 of the Santa Cruz County Code to establish a temporary supplemental 1 half cent transactions and use tax to address conditions of persistent fiscal distress. adopting resolutions calling for a special election on November 3rd, 2026 for a countywide measure to include the retail transactions and use tax by 1 half cent for five years and establishing budget priorities in the sales tax measure pass if the sales tax measure passes and take related actions. Four fifths vote is required for this item. For today's process, we're going to start with a staff report and then I'm going to invite my colleagues to ask their questions. We'll then go to the public for any public comment and then we'll return to the board for discussion and action on this item. With that, I would like to introduce our CEO Nicole Coburn and Deputy CEO Spven Stafford for this item. Welcome. >> Thank you, Chair Martinez, and good morning members of the board. Um uh I'm going to be running through a presentation and then at the end we'll be happy to answer your questions. So today we are here really about helping to save our safety net in Santa Cruz County. Federal and state funding changes are creating a new fiscal reality for our local safety net. Federal reductions are already reaching our local services and we're starting to see the impacts. Um, this has also impacted state budget choices that determine how much of the these pressures are reaching counties such as ours. Our focus today, we're going to be discussing the impacts on Santa Cruz County, the county's capacity to deal with these impacts and a temporary local response for dealing what's happening for addressing what's happening. So, first I want to talk to you about um why federal and state decisions are landing so directly on Santa Cruz County. So, counties here in the state of California are the local delivery system for many state federal and state safety net programs. In some other states, actually many other states, states administer these safety net programs. But in California, they've been delegated to Cal counties. Counties administer a wide variety of safety net programs. These include medical, which is Medicaid nationally, CalFresh, which is SNAP nationally, um various behavioral health programs, public health programs, and various other human services. State realignment has shifted responsibility to counties but at the same time have not provided enough resources. Because of this, local systems just do not have the ability to fund national and state safety net programs. Uh the structure matters because the biggest changes from HR1 are still ahead of us. We have not felt them here locally. So, the largest impacts are coming. HR1, the federal reconciliation bill, is really a multi-year disinvestment, and we're only beginning to see its full effects. Initial funding and eligibility changes are already underway. Um, there have been various CalFresh changes that have taken effect in 2026, but the vast majority of changes that will be impacting counties and our residents begin after the November 2026 midterms. These include work requirements, renewals, and provider cuts which deepen the impacts in 2027 and 2028. We will be losing funding and face increased costs with all of these changes that are ahead of us. These impacts are going to compound over time and are going to impact our entire health care system and the safety net. These changes will not just stop at the county budget. And I want to reinforce this is going to ripple across the entire local safety net. So as I just mentioned um this is a very interconnected system of care. This will impact hospitals and emergency rooms, ambulance and emergency services, medical services, our safety net clinics which include everything from primary health care, preventative care, oral um health care, um medical health providers, food security and housing partners. We have estimated that potentially there is more than 200 million in a potential annual loss to the local provider network including the county and our community partners. So we are going to have less coverage and less reimbursement which means more uncompensated care more crisis demand within our county and greater cost pressures across the entire system. this um because the county is the mandated service indigen health care service provider and provides our safety net um we will be faced with covering more of these costs. At the same time we have limited capacity to deal with these impacts. As you know we only receive 13% of the property tax dollar. Um, we have limited ability to raise additional taxes. Um, and so we have had to identify what options are available to us. We have estimated more than $150 million over the next five years in impacts to the c county and some of our community partners. But more broadly, we mentioned that two $200 million number. In the current fiscal year alone, we have absorbed $25.6 million of impacts. And I will talk a little bit more about how we have done that. So, uh, the federal actions really are worsening an already difficult budget situation. Um, we have balanced this year's budget with one-time revenues and are already supporting the safety net. Because of this uh with our financial situation both including a structural problem and the impacts from HR1, we are asking the board to adopt a resolution declaring a fiscal distress. Um we are wanting to remind the board that we have used $43 million in one-time reserves to balance the fiscal year 202627 budget. About half of this $21 million were from Health and Human Services reserves or restricted funds that went to the safety net shortfalls. Nearly half of our reserve use is supporting this safety net contribution and federal actions only worsen the county's fiscal condition. This is the basis for declaring a state of fiscal distress. Against that backdrop, the proposal before the board is intentionally temporary and locally controlled. The proposed measure creates a temporary source of locally controlled revenue. Uh we are asking the board to place a measure on the ballot that is a half cent countywide sales tax, a transaction and use tax. It has a 5-year sunset that would raise $27 million annually. This would be placed on the November 3rd ballot and the funds would stay in Santa Cruz County. We really think it's important for the community to decide uh whether or not it wants to tax themselves to help save the safety net, which is going to impact all of us. This scale is important because this measure cannot replace the funding that we are expected to lose. Um, I also want to note that this measure is best understood as triaging the situation. It is not replacement funding. The $27 million in local revenue is only a small portion of what we are expected to lose countywide at over $200 million. As I mentioned, this is really triaging the most serious impacts and protecting our critical local capacity. It's going to buy us time over the next five years as we are also working on other solutions for these problems and that makes the board's priorities important in determining where the local the limited local resources are going to be spent. So in terms of where the board intends to guide the local funding, we have identified six areas that are most impacted by federal actions including HR1. Uh we have presented the board with a resolution establishing county budget priorities. They include um the categories you see here um that uh touch on the emergency medical services I mentioned and health care, the mental health and substance use services, food security, housing stability and homelessness response and other essential safety net services. These priorities are going to guide spendings but are not legal earmarks. Um this is a general tax that is coming into the general fund. So on an annual basis, we are going to be working on developing an annual spending plan that we will bring to the board that I hope will address the greatest needs. And because of that, we need some flexibility as this situation evolves and develops to identify what those highest needs are and come back with a plan that makes most sense to address um what is most critical in our community. The resolution has been written to be flexible because this is a general tax and because we need to um have be able to identify those greatest needs. As I mentioned, this measure is one tool within a broader multi-year fiscal stabilization strategy. It's going to help us but not entirely solve the problem of preserving and saving our safety net services. We are also working diligently with local and state partners for additional resources. Um we did get some additional funds in the state budget for this fiscal year for um some of our safety net needs including um the human services administration of medical and calresh eligibility. This is but just a small piece of what they are faced with to administer the new requirements. We did not get any additional funding for addressing our additional um costs that we're incur or funding that we're going to lose for the indigent health care system. And we continue to advocate for help in that area. We are also looking at county cost controls and service redesign that will help us potentially make better use of county funds. we are really talking about a structural uh bal rebalancing over time including this five-year period. And so with that broader strategy in mind um I will move to the final slide which lays out the specific actions before the board today. So today we are asking that the board de adopt a resolution that declares a state of fiscal distress that the board adopt uh an urgency ordinance relating to the transaction and use tax. That the board adopt a resolution calling the November 3rd election with the proposed ballot measure for the transaction and use sales tax. We also have the resolution adopting uh county budget funding priorities. And then we are asking that you direct us to return after the election with imple any implementation actions if the measure is successful and passes with voters. And with that um both myself and Sven Stafford um who oversees the budget right now u will be happy to answer your questions. >> Thank you CEO Coburn. appreciate the presentation. At this time, I'm going to return to the board to ask any questions that they have of the presentation. Again, then we'll go to public comment and then we'll return to the board for our discussion and action. I'll start with Supervisor Koig. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh thank you for the presentation. Um I my question is uh really about something that you you mentioned in the presentation but I just want to make sure it's explicit which is so even if this is a county general tax we could still potentially use some of those funds to help our uh help health providers in the county. I mean for example uh Watsonville Hospital, Dominican Hospital or any other of the um federally qualified health centers. >> Yes. So, we're looking this as a community measure. We are looking at to help the county and our partners who are also impacted by HR1. So, it could mean the hospitals. It could mean our federally qualified health centers. Um, it will mean any of those partners that are serving populations on medical, CalFresh, and other benefits that have been impacted by HR1. Obviously, this is not enough money to go around. So, we're going to have to be really diligent and thoughtful about how we come up with that spending plan. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's just important to to double double underline is that this is, like you said, a community measure. I mean, with the county acting as the collector and distributor of those funds and this board deciding what where the highest needs are that we should allocate those to. But, um, I mean, I don't think anyone is thrilled about the idea of paying more taxes at a time when the cost of living is already high. But at the same time, we all depend on the emergency room to be there. We don't know if we're going to need it today or tomorrow or or maybe not at all, but we need it to be there. And our community already has one of the lowest uh rates of emergency beds per capita and uh we just certainly cannot afford to lose any more. Uh and so um you know they see this as uh really an essential action and one that the community deserves the opportunity to vote on this fall. Um and we just need all options on the table at this point. It's certainly not something we can preclude going forward. >> Thank you. Uh Supervisor Dura. >> Um thank you. Um, can you help me understand the difference between um the phrase fiscal distress versus a fiscal emergency? Are they the same thing or are they different? >> Um, there's a refinement there. I would like to ask Jason Heather County Council to >> Yeah, they're different. They're different. They're different phrases. You know, the the the the idea of declaring a fiscal emergency calls into question the idea of creating a local emergency under section 87, you know, 20 of the of the government code. And it also invokes um some other statutes in the revenue and taxation code related to bankruptcy and the like. We're not doing that. >> Right. We're we are declaring a a state of persistent fiscal distress in order to educate the public and um and provide a basis for the actions that your board is being asked to take today. >> Okay. And does the does a resolution of fiscal distress have any bearing on our ability to borrow money, our bond rating, etc., etc., etc.? >> No, we do not believe it does. And actually by going forward with this measure um it it indicates to anyone from whom we are borrowing that we are actively working on problems related to our fiscal situation. >> Okay. Um and then I do have a question just about our structural situation. Um, have we been working with our labor partners to try to come to to work together to come up with any concessions or any um >> is there any news there I guess is >> yeah um so we have worked with our uh our employees and labor partners on ideas for dealing dealing with our structural problem and we've gotten a lot of ideas from staff what we doing right now, and I'll let um Mr. Stafford speak to it is um working on our fiscal model to try to figure out where we are related to um our cost increases and um our revenues and and figure out what we need to discuss with labor unions going forward in terms of if we are faced with layoffs, what that means for groups. And um Sven, do you have anything else to add? >> Yeah. No, I would just say that we normally in our budget process, we do our forecasting and planning work in October, November, and we've accelerated that to be already underway and hope to have a concrete plan that we're working on with our department budget staff and and other staff. That's um you know, gives us more time and ability to collaborate with our labor partners and other groups. So, um, just so the public knows, we have already elim, and I I know it's in the backup, but some people don't have time to read that. Um, we've already implemented um the elimination of how many positions in the county at this point? Is it 58 or >> Yeah, I'd have to check what >> I think we landed on almost 63 FTEES. Okay. So, 63 FTEES are no longer those positions have been eliminated. >> Correct. >> Um, simultaneously we have implemented and I know the language that was used in the backup were hiring controls, but that essentially is a hiring freeze with the exception of positions that um are either really important or hard to fill. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah, that's correct. Um can you speak to some of the other provisions, some of the other things that we have um implemented to um make sure that our budget is as tight as possible and responsible. >> Yeah, absolutely. We've been, you know, also trying to control travel costs. Um, we've been, again, as Miss Coburn said, looking at places in our budget where um, where we think we can reasonably reduce, working with staff to identify those areas, and then um, and then we're going to be bringing a series of items to the board over the course of the fall that will be taking proactive actions to reduce our budget deficit in this current year, which will help us in the out years. And so we plan over the course of September, October, November that you all can expect several items coming forward that will help us actively manage our situation. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> Supervisor Cummings. >> Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I have a number of questions. Um I'm just curious. So, when we passed Measure K, it was anticipated that it would generate about $10 million per year in new revenue. And I just wanted to just check in to see how much have we been generating year-over-year since the passage of Measure K. Like, have we been achieving that $10 million uh revenue earnings or like roughly how much have we been generating since the passage of Measure K? >> Yeah, we have been generating over $10 million. I think it might be up to over 11 or 12 by now. Um, and so that's coming into the general fund. That is only assessed in the unincorporated area and we can only use it on services that benefit the unincorporated area. Um, and so this tax is different in that this is a countywide sales tax. This will be assessed in the cities and the unincorporated area and will be used countywide. And that is why it generates $27 million versus $10 million. >> That's helpful because I was a little confused with where it was going to be levied and who was going to be impacted. And I think it's important that the voters understand so that in every single jurisdiction the sales tax will increase by half a cent. >> It will. And um I should mention that we there are three cities currently at the sales tax cap. And so that is why we have worked with Senator Leairard to put forward legislation which is currently SB762. It has passed the legislature and is on its way to the governor for signature to allow us to go above the cap. And so we have um a 5-year period to pass a measure and uh assuming that the governor signs. And so this is our first effort to do that to help with these impacts we're experiencing. >> Thanks. Um I'm just wondering with this the passage of the state budget, like how is that going to impact the county? It sounds like there was some, you know, revenue that was unanticipated before that that was included into the budget that will help around these types of services. I'm just curious if there's any update on kind of how Santa Cruz is going to be impacted by the state budget. >> Yeah, we are expecting additional monies. Um I can say for human services and eligibility, we don't have the final allocations because that has to go through the state process of determining what each county gets. Um but we are estimating based on our current percentage of allocations to receive about over $3 million over three years. And so we are having to spread that out over the three years. Um and it will um it's not going to solve all of our problems. We are coming up with a plan right now that we hope to present to the board in September about how we wish to spread those funds and what it would go towards. Um and so Mr. Morris, our director of human services, he can answer further questions about that if you have any. >> Great. Thanks. Um I think I have two more questions. Um so just hypothetically speaking, if 2028 we see, you know, a change in the federal administration, we see them restore funding for these types of services, what would then happen to the revenue that be generated by these sales taxes? Like would the sales tax sunset? Would it still continue to be levied? And if so, like how would that money be used? because I know this is something that's been coming up in terms of having these conversations with people in the community. >> Yes. So if the administration changes in 2028, this measure is for 5 years. So it would not sunset until 5 years after it is implemented and unless there were some action taken to um no longer levy the tax, which I think might be possible, but I'll defer to county council. That would be something that the voters would um would put on if they wanted to no longer have the tax collected. >> Supervisor, I would just also note that you know the previous election was 2024 and the biggest impacts are happening in 2027. So often even when there's a administration change at the federal level, the you know the impacts of when those policies are able to take effect are relatively slow. >> Right. And I think it's just important for the community to understand that so that, you know, if we do see a change in the federal administration, if people saying, "Well, why are we still paying this tax?" It's, you know, being able to explain to them the reasons why. I think it's really important for all of us, especially as we're having these conversations to convince people during a time when people are pretty strapped for cash why they should pass this. Which brings me to my last question, which is if this were to not pass under the current impact from the federal administration, what would that look like and what does that translate to in the community? because I feel like we're talking a lot about indigent care, you know, so care for, you know, our lowest income people, but for people who have higher means and more income, they say, "Well, what's in it for me? Why should I vote for this?" So, I'm wondering if you can explain like if this were to not pass, like how would the system be impacted and how would that impact the average citizen here in Santa Cruz and the counties and the cities? Yeah, I mean I expect so as more people uh the central California Alliance for Health projects a 27% decline in medical membership. So those will be people who are no longer receiving preventative care. Um they will likely fall uh uh show up at the emergency rooms for emergency care which will place additional pressures on our hospitals um to serve both those um those people and anyone else showing up for emergency care. Um there will be less reimbursement coming in to cover those services. So what we are anticipating is the entire health care system is going to see an impact. It's likely that people will have difficulty accessing care. That cost for care will go up because that care, the uncompensated care will still need to be covered. So that will be picked up by government and private payers in other ways. And so it's really um the impacts don't just dis, you know, there will be impacts on everyone within the whole community in in different ways. to supplement that answer. What's in the what's in it for me question? If Watsonville Community Hospital were to close, for example, we would have one hospital in this county. Anybody down in South County that needed an emergency room, whether you're rich, poor, or otherwise, is going to be sitting on the freeway heading to uh to North County. So, that's that's a that's kind of a a direct question. What's in it for me? I appreciate it because it's just, you know, again, at a time when people are feeling pretty strapped for cash, trying to make sure that we are able to explain to them what the impacts are, why this is important, I think is really critical as we're moving towards putting this on the ballot because we have two months to convince voters that this is something that they should support with ballots dropping, mailing ballots dropping in October. So, with very small timeline, it's really important for us to be able to explain why this is important. So that's why I'm, you know, asking these questions so that members of the public really get a clear understanding as to why we should be supporting this across the board. Thank you. >> And supervisor, I just want to know, you know, we don't take this lightly. We tried to advocate very hard for state funding for indigent healthcare and um unfortunately at that this time we don't have any and so we are looking as this as a solution for that. And so we really want to help mitigate the negative impacts that we anticipate could happen. And so we want voters to know what's happening. I don't think they do right now because we haven't seen all of the changes from HR1. And um it's very important and I think we have a strong message to convey. Supervisor Hernandez. >> So my question was uh with legislation aimed at hindering and limiting local uh tax measures uh for cities and counties, have we made sure to make it bulletproof despite this legislation 43 prop 43 I believe it's it is uh to limit counties or if not bulletproof at least assuring that it's uh it has minimal impact on us. >> So Prop 43 is a separate measure. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Yes. The the answer is yes. We've done whatever we could to make it as bulletproof as possible. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Um I'll start off by just really expressing my gratitude to um the team for bringing forward a really proactive effort to address the impacts of HR1. And when I look at this, you know, this is really about preserving life sustaining services for our entire county. And I I really appreciate that. Um, I'm going to ask you some questions to kind of drill down on a particular area because we already have a population in our community that kind of has a disproportionate impact on our health care system. Um, so that's people who are experiencing chron chronic homelessness or the high utilizers of our emergency services. Can you just help me understand how HR1 may impact that population? Will it make conditions for that population worse or how that might trickle to the general population? >> Um yeah, and I would like to invite um Director Morris up. um he can speak to the populations that will be impacted by HR1 based on what he is dealing with along the lines of the eligibility aspects of the work. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Yeah, good morning chair and board members. Welcome back from your recess. Um I'm assuming you want me to start with speaking about medical HR1 impacts on medical. Um, if so, let me just set the stage that when Obamacare passed in 2014, formerly indigent, unsheltered people on low-inccome were ineligible for the federal Medicaid program. And a game changer throughout the United States of America is making people who are indigent, lowincome, poor, and were not otherwise linked to something like age, blind, disabled, pregnant parenting eligible for full scope medical. the unsheltered population throughout the country was eligible for medical and communities like Santa Cruz and most of California worked very very hard to help people who are unsheltered who really are struggling with day-to-day activities of living to be able to apply for medical and keep their medical and we've done a really great job doing that. That is the funding source for a whole source of services that wrap around and support people get and keep their housing to HR1. HR1 is specifically the federal government's effort to undo the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act expansion and do everything possible to get people who are getting publicly funded healthcare through Medicaid and disenroll them. HR1 adds something called work requirements or exemptions. To meet either of those, if you are unsheltered, you either have to prove that you are working towards getting a job, which with the most struggling unsheltered are going to be unable to do so. And absent that, they are going to have to meet a whole mindnumbing maze of criteria to prove they meet exceptions. And HR1 eliminated unsheltered as an exemption category. So throughout the country, anybody who is unsheltered under HR1, the universe of people is going to have to find a way to help them either meet work requirements or meet exemptions, which is going to be very difficult and they're going to lose medical. When they lose medical, the entire universe of funding sources that pays and wrap services around them are gone. >> And when that happens, how might that impact like the average voter, the average community member? Well, I I would be remiss if I didn't briefly add the larger ecosystem of what the federal government is doing because they have also significantly funded emergency housing vouchers and HUDbased section 8 vouchers. When you put those two together, the housing voucher is the funding source for somebody on low income to afford rental mate rental market living shel the vouchers are going away and the funding source to provide services for people who are in supportive housing go away. The end product is we are going to see likely an increase worst case scenario significant increase throughout California in the unsheltered population which has a significant effect from people all ends of the political spectrum worried concerned angry upset fingerpointing and all the progress we've made the last 10 years is going to devolve. Thanks. And I think then my question to CEO Coburn, how do you imagine this ballot measure um either subsidizing or supporting that particular population? Well, you know, we have to be careful in in using these funds to stand up new programs or services. But we already have an ex existing programs and services that are at risk of losing funding because of HR1. We have Live Oak Landing. We have Hope Village. We have various other facilities that we are just opening up or have opened up that provide a place to house those who are have been chronically unhoused or have situations. So, um, we are we would hopefully look at using this measure to help stabilize those facilities if we can to maintain them as a resource for the community to address our um, homeless situation. >> Thank you. Um, I appreciate that because what I'm hearing is that, you know, we already have a very vulnerable population that has a pretty delicate suite of services in place to try to serve them. That system is threatened in addition to really our overall health safety net for for all of us um who may seek emergency services. And so hopefully if passed, this ballot measure would be able to be used to really stabilize the areas of greatest need to ensure that there isn't a disproportionate impact across any particular um part of the system um because there's going to be tremendous need. My last question in a different direction um can you just define who you imagine to be community health centers? It's listed in the priorities. Yeah. So, we have both the county FQC's. We also have a number of nonprofit FQC's. They're run by Santa Cruz Community Health Centers, um, Deientes, um, Salude Paralo Laante. So, it's um, those are the examples of what I'm referring to. >> Great. I'm glad to hear our health partners and our oral health partners included in that as well. Thank you. Any further questions from the board? With that, then I'm going to please um open up to public comment. If you're here to speak on this item, I welcome you to come join a line in front of the microphone and we'll be setting public comment period for two minutes each. Welcome. >> Madame Chair, members, good morning. My name is Fred Keley. I'm the mayor of the city of Santa Cruz. I want to thank the chair and your county administrative officer for many good things and your board generally uh for being such great partners in the health and human service field. Micro focused in on the those experiencing homelessness and how appreciative we are of the work we've been able to do together to significantly reduce the the unhoused population uh living on the streets in our community. We really thank the chair and the CEO for the work in the last uh 30 hours uh where we had some thoughts about some language that uh would lift up essentially some focus on the good work that we have all done to take uh roughly 60% of our homeless population has been reduced. And as you know, as we get further and further into the good work, we end up with uh folks who their lives are are have multiple challenges involved. And so we think that what you're putting on the ballot is quite good and quite helpful and the lack of it would be really terrible with regard to at least the the county seat. And so if you are offering some additional language today that would go to uh those issues, we understand because we have done these kinds of taxes the need uh to be uh broad in its definition. narrowing it down a little bit to raise the emphasis with regard to those that are still experiencing homelessness would be uh especially helpful as we want to help you get that number up uh where the public is supporting this ballot measure in November. So, madam chair, madam CEO, thank you members. Thank you very much. >> Hi, good morning chair and and supervisors. I'm Helen Esto. the COO for Community Action Board. Um, and as you know, as the county's designated community action agency, um, tasked with partnering with the community to eliminate poverty, we serve over 10,000 low-income folks a year, um, including families with children, seniors, the disabled, um, unhoused folks, uh, and low-income and immigrant workers, including service and farm workers. And we're the current service provider for Hope Village that was just referenced a little earlier. So those we serve are struggling in this community and the economy and particularly impacted by the cuts and services created by HR1 including impacts to essential and safety net services including housing, food, healthcare, job assistance and legal services that are critical to their day-to-day uh stability and security. So, we appreciate the steps and efficiencies the county's made in creating this year's budget and those ahead as you're looking forward. And I know none of us is excited about uh paying more in sales tax. But we also know that cuts alone are not going to repair the harm uh from HR1 and some of the state uh impacts. So therefore, CAB urges your board to adopt this fiscal distress resolution and allow a special community um election for the community to decide right on the sales tax um as a local solution to local critical needs. So, additionally, we urge your board to establish budget priorities uh for this potential revenue prioritizing essential and safety net services and establish an oversight committee to ensure that you know these priorities aren't enacted over time. and CAB as always um continues to stand ready to work in partnership with the the county um to ensure hopefully the passage and um also services to our most vulnerable continue. Thank you. >> Good morning board. My name is Becky Steinbrer. I live in uh rural part of district 2. I'm here to declare a a state of financial urgency for the people. There are many in our community on fixed income like myself who this is going to hurt. This is a regressive tax that will hurt those people, the very people that you're saying need the help. My family has to live within our means and I think the county needs to do the same. Yes, these are urgent times for all of us and it is affecting everyone. I don't think putting another sales tax on is an answer. I haven't heard any discussion about um reducing salaries of the upper management only um the SEIU folks. Where is the oversight on this? I don't hear anything about oversight. How will the people know that what you say this tax would fund really does? It sounds to me like it's supposed to be a special tax to fund health care and things, but then it said, "Oh, it's a general tax because we need flexibility on what we can use it for in the future." That gives me no assurance that this money would actually be used for what you're telling us it would be. So, where is the oversight committee? There is no discussion of that and that should be included in this. Um, SB762 has not yet been passed and I think it is uh quite a thing when the legislature has to come in and help us out with what I think is an unconstitutional act. So I urge you not to do this. I don't think it's constitutional and it will harm people more than it will help us. the people are in struggling too and I think you should look at your own salaries. Thank you. >> Good morning everybody. It's not CBA, it's ABC. I come out of this really trusting our CEO. What I can do is personal. I needed emergency. I needed because have heart issue cancer at 89. I personally worry about others that are out there and so I'm honored to be in the room and hope that this passes and then what when we do is the next step to help your team make sure we get that vote out there. I don't know which hat to wear, but we have here the potential of my handout. Those of you who know what a gift we move forward to get the people who are coming here playing basketball to work with the board. Um, I have the handout because most of you know me as grandpa, but also I got an email. I got a phone and I'm looking at the room. I look at August for your next meeting, but I want to say personally, um, if it wasn't for the emergency room, I wouldn't be standing before you. We've got to get to get that vote out, the youth you see in Cababrio, those different people. So, I'm looking forward after this passes today. What's the next step to make sure we get people out there to vote for it? Thank you very much. Just know I may invite you to my 90th birthday will come up in March 13 next year. Bye-bye. >> Thank you. Anyone further in the room? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, is there anyone on the phone? Yes, chair. Carol, your microphone is now available. >> Good morning. This is Carol Bejorn and thank you Becky for your comments. You're um right on with everything you said. So, we can't keep implementing a quote unquote proposed solution that creates the problem that we're trying to solve. So that's really the dilemma. So this sales tax, any tax that you're proposing is creating the problem. It's creating the homelessness. It's creating the drug problems. It's actually creating the mental health crisis. It's surprising to me that that's not obvious at this point with the property taxes. If you can't pay your property taxes, your home is taken and you're on the street. Okay, that's that's what's happening. Now, we're not going to solve these problems with the same proposed solutions. So, we need a brand new solution. And I have an idea, a solution that you've never heard before, and it honors the natural law, which is what we need to be doing here. A sales tax takes property from your neighbor. I can't go to my neighbor and demand that he pays me $100. I can't get five of my neighbors to vote on a piece of paper, call it a ballot, and all all six of us go to my neighbor and say, "Hey, you owe us $100." Voting on taxes is immoral because I don't have a legal authority to take property from my neighbor. You cannot delegate an authority you don't have. I cannot delegate to the government or to anybody else to take property from my neighbor because I don't have the authority to take property from my neighbor. We need to start honoring people and their ability to earn their own income and stop taking their funds. If if we lived in a tax-free society, we would not have homelessness. We would not have drug problems. We would not have a mental health crisis. You all need to start realizing what's actually causing the problems in the first place. >> Thank you. >> Call in user 4, your microphone is now available. >> My name is Gordon and I oppose this sales tax. Stale taxes are regressive and it's a bunch of Democrat pocky. I hate sales taxes so much. People cannot afford to live and these sales taxes will money will be w our money our taxpayer money will be wasted. We don't do crap like that in Modoc County. That money will be going to trades that have their dicks chopped off. That money will be going to to have the bordies and fried chicken. It'll be going in. >> Are we okay cutting this off? Thank you. Go ahead and cut it off. Thank you. >> Are there any further callers? >> Yes, there are. Casey, your microphone is now available. Casey, as a reminder, it's star six to mute or unmute yourself. You may also need to adjust your volume. Casey, we're not able to hear you. >> Chair, it appears the caller may be having a technical issue on their end. >> Thank you. Do we have any further callers? That was our final speaker. >> Okay. Then I'll now close public comment and return to the board. I'm going to start off just by responding to one of the public comments from Mayor Keley who came up to speak who referenced some additional language. um when a motion is made, um I was hoping that one of my colleagues may bring forward language that helps us um to strengthen some of our budget priorities, particularly adding a bullet point around strengthening efforts to serve those experiencing chronic homelessness and high utilizers of emergency medical services. So when a motion is made, I' I'd u appreciate that if that was uh included in some of the language. So with that, I'll see who would like to begin with discussion. >> Supervisor Hernandez. >> You know, I I just want to give also our CEO further opportunity to answer any of the questions from the public comment. Uh I I will move the staff recommendation, all related actions and uh some of the the language that you just mentioned as well. But I also want to ask our uh council if it wouldn't affect, you know, the bulletproof I was talking about and making sure if that wouldn't affect it, if we had further language, uh it wouldn't affect the chances of it getting pulled back from the state. the the type of the type of general language that um Supervisor Martinez has just suggested. I don't think that would be problematic, but you you got to be careful about going too far down the road of identifying any one specific uh constituency or um uh recipient >> right >> of funds. >> Perfect. Okay. Well, I I I will add it as well, too. But I would like to give the opportunity for uh >> So, just before we do, uh was that a motion? >> Yes. >> So, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> A second. >> So, we have a motion from Supervisor Hernandez and a second from Supervisor Derpa. Go ahead, Cio Coburn. >> Oh, so and in terms of the additional language, I think we still need to allow that flexibility. So, I wonder if you would be okay with in um item four in the resolution if we could simply say support homelessness, prevention, housing stabilization, outreach, shelter services, supportive housing, coordinated entry, and other programs that prevent homelessness, address chronic homelessness, and protect recent community programs or progress in reducing homelessness. Um Coburn, can you be um can you specifically say where you're suggesting? >> So on page two of the resolution supporting budget priorities in um on the second page under bullet four towards the end where it says and other programs that prevent homelessness address chronic homelessness. I'm not sure the high utilizers if we need to be that specific. um address chronic homelessness and protect recent community progress. >> Got it. I I'll accept it. >> An agreement. >> Further discussion. Supervisor Koig. >> Thank you. Um, I'm supportive of the motion and I just I think that we need to make it really clear to the community that we're not taking this opportunity to radically expand services. I mean, really what we're we're looking at here is this is a moment where the best way to help yourself is in fact to help others because preserving those emergency services means ultimately ensuring that they're only being used when they absolutely have to be. And that means for our population experiencing homelessness, for people who are high utilizers of the emergency room, trying to reduce the number of times that they're going to the emergency room with preventative care. And so um that's the extent to which we are also investing in these other services besides uh just emergency services is to support emergency services, right? It really all comes back to that as the bottom line. Um, and so, you know, as as as the presentation made very clear, I mean, $27 million a year is not $200 million a year. It's not going to completely cover uh the losses we're seeing and particularly that um our our health providers are seeing, but it's with strategic investments, hopefully we can at least just keep our emergency rooms open and available when people need them. And so that's the basis which with which I'm supporting uh this action today is really in service of that first part of our resolution there or the priorities to protect emergency medical services and healthcare and then everything else um that goes to do that strategically as well. >> Thank you supervisor Dura. Um so have other communities um around us um adopted a similar tax measure that you're aware of? >> Yes. So Santa Clara County had measure A and um it passed uh with voters in March at the primary and it was also a five-year sales tax measure. it was a different percentage. Um, but it's generating a significant amount of money to deal with these similar issues. And um, LA County also passed a measure, actually measure A in Santa Clara County passed previously. The LA County measure just passed at the March primary and other jurisdictions are looking at this as well. Um, as far as I know, we are the there are other counties in our legislation seeking to go above the cap, but we're the only county so far that has is proposing action. >> Okay. Um, thank you very much. You know, we here in Santa Cruz County are facing right now and and this and we've known about this, there's been an on-ramp to this, but we're facing a crisis right now in our healthcare system. Um and uh no more it no more is at most evident in the loss of almost 20 providers with dignity health. So people that have Medicare have lost their providers. Uh the Palo Alto medical foundation is not accepting um those patients and so you have an entire population of older people on and disabled people on Medicare that have lost their providers at this point. Um, people are feeling this. Um, it it's all over social media. I lost my provider. My mom has lost her provider. Um, we're the county is experiencing a crisis. Um, and if there is something that we could do to stabilize people that are the most vulnerable in our population, we must do that. We are a compassionate county and um and I I I while I understand that nobody wants to pay a half cent sales tax moving forward, um it we've seen over and over how Watsonville Hospital has continued to struggle. $25 million a year is not going to save that hospital. So, we must employ uh an array of um ideas to help stabilize our South County hospital. However, um with the progress that we've made in terms of housing the most vulnerable in our community, people with um serious mental health issues or substance use issues that are no longer on the street. Um it would be catastrophic for that particular segment of the population to lose their benefits, to lose their inhome supportive services workers that help keep them safe and supported in their homes and uh for those reasons I um I'm supporting this. Um is there you we heard from the community is there room for an oversight committee? How will this money be managed? And will there be a community oversight of this or is this just >> We've talked about um an oversight committee. This is a general tax, not a special tax. And so um we there's differences in that. Um I uh there are reasons why an oversight committee in this situation would not be recommended. Um at the same time we want to be fully transparent, develop a plan in coordination with the community. Um county staff are actively a part of various collaboratives and coalitions and we are engaging in a what I believe is a very thoughtful way to try to figure out um discuss the needs and um address the impacts within the county. So, I would recommend that we bring forward a plan for these funds to the board that the public can weigh in on that is backed by data that addresses the highest needs in the county and that the board can hear from the public and decide whether or not the recommended plan makes sense, make changes, and then adopt it. And we will do that on a year-by-year basis. Would it be a thoughtful thing to develop some type of a commission to help with studying these issues or um we have a couple venues we're already looking at these issues including the parro valley collaborative and the shield committee which is an ad hoc committee and will eventually need to disband. Um, so there's a potential for the board to have a standing committee to talk about this. Um, I an advisory commission would be just that advisory. It would require staff capacity to manage that. Um, we could think about what that would look like, but at this time I'm not recommending an an official body to accompany this. >> Okay. Thank you, Supervisor Cummings. had a couple other questions. Um, first kind of following up on Supervisor Serpa's last question, I'm just wondering what commissions might already exist where this theme could be fit into kind of like a workflow that they could help address. I know before we had a behavioral health commission. We, you know, we got a bunch of commissions out there, some of which deal with health, some of which we've gotten rid of. But I'm just wondering if there is a commission out there that may where this topic might fit in terms of I mean we do have an emergency services commission. Right. >> We do. We have a number of commissions that touch on various topics that are subject of this measure. Um we could potentially pose some questions to them to help guide some thoughts. Um behavioral health advisory board is one in the emergency medical services commission is another. Um we have um various others that might also be relevant. If you could let us think about the commissions, what currently exists and how it might fit into this. I I would appreciate that. >> Yeah, I think I mean based on Supervisor Dura's comments, which I I agree with. Um you know, we do already have a number of bodies that where members of those commissions I'm sure would be interested in better understanding how these federal impacts are impacting us. really starting to think about what we can do as a community to help address those impacts in addition to the revenue that we're generating. So, I think that as we're starting to have conversations of where the money is going to go, utilizing our commissions to help provide us with some advice, I think would be really useful. Um, and it' be a really good use of their time as well. Um, and so, but definitely want to give you all the flexibility to figure out where it makes sense for them to weigh in. Um the next question I have um based on the fact that we had Mayor Keely here from the city of Santa Cruz. I'm just wondering what conversations have been had with the other jurisdictions because if we're going to move this today and let's say Scots Valley says we want to have X included or Capital says we want to have something else included, we won't be able to go back and make those changes. So I'm just wondering what conversations have been had and where are the other jurisdictions in terms of their support for this measure since it will impact them as well. Yeah, I mean, I've been very transparent and clear with all of the city managers that were pursuing this from the very beginning when this was brought up as an idea. Um, I've been informing them all along the way of SB762 and its progress. Santa Cruz City and Watsonville City are both have been supportive of our legislation and are on record as supporting. um Capitol and Scots Valley have not um voiced uh specific support formally, but they are fully aware. They know these impacts and we've we've been talking with all of them about this and so this should not come as a surprise and um this resolution with budget priorities is guidance. It like I said, it's not a legal framework. the board will always we will always be able to pivot if we need to. So if something comes up that a particular city is expressing is an urgent need, we of course would take that under consideration. >> And then um last question just for the sake of transparency, what would this tax apply to? >> So this is >> or what would be or rather let me rephrase that. What would be >> what would be exempt? groceries and other essential services like diapers, formula and things are not do not incur a sales tax. And so um I know I realize that uh sales tax is often mentioned as regressive. Um I I do acknowledge the arguments for that, but at the same time there are things that are exempt that this tax does not apply to. >> Right. And medication is also included in that. Yes. Right. So I I'll just wrap up my comments. I wanted to make sure that that was clear because I think that as people are hearing another sales tax, they're thinking this is going to apply to, you know, my my day-to-day needs. And the reality is that, you know, for things like, as you're mentioning, groceries, feminine hygiene products, diapers, medication, like this, it doesn't apply to that. And so, um, you know, it's it's going to hit people, it's not going to hit people in a place where like their day-to-day, you know, needs are going to be, um, impacted. Um, I will say that again, and I've mentioned this before, I I do wish we would have made this declaration a while ago when we kind of saw these impacts coming because I think we it's going to be a challenge and it's going to be a lift for us to get the community to understand why we need to support this at this point in time. It is extremely important. um that we that we move forward with this. Um it will not just impact people who are low income. It's going to impact everyone at every income level. I think Supervisor Ser was, you know, when she mentioned how there's a lot of service providers that are leaving, the higher health care costs get and the inability for people to pay, it's just going to drive um healthcare further and further out of our community. Um, and so, you know, this is an opportunity for us to put a band-aid on a gaping wound with the hopes that we will be able to have the shift in our federal administration in the coming years. And hopefully we can get this short up. But in the meantime, one of the things that I think I appreciate the most out of living in Santa Cruz and being in Santa Cruz is that when we have tough times, people want to come together. They want to help. They want to do what they can to support one another. And this is an opportunity for us to really do that. And one thing I also just want to make sure that's clear is that the benefit of this being a sales tax and not a partial tax or a bond is the fact that many people who are coming here, many tourists who are visiting our community are going to be paying this tax. People always say, "What can we do to get the tourists to pay more? This is it." Um because when people are going out to dinner, when they're going to, you know, a concert, when they're going to the boardwalk, they're going to be paying this tax. And so it's not going to fall on the backs of everybody living in the community. It's going to be something that people outside the community are going to be paying into as well. And so I think we need to be clear that we're going to be doing everything that we can to help support our community, but we're also going to be having others who are coming from outside support our community as well through the passage of the sales tax. So I'm hoping that the voters will vote yes on this in November. And I'm happy to support the uh motion. >> Thank you. Supervisor Hernandez. >> Yes. Comments. You know, I'm supportive of this item because, you know, we are facing a period of fiscal uncertainty looming from the recent uh federal legislation, HR1 specifically. And so, we need to protect our most vulnerable. And I think this is about continuing uh our safety net, and that is one of our most important roles uh here in the county, I believe. So, I'll be supportive. >> Thank you. Um, I appreciate hearing the reflections from my colleagues and I too will be supporting this action today. I want to make it really clear that this is coming before the board because of one reason and that's because we have a federal administration that is targeting our vulnerable populations and is attempting to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. And we have many residents who ask, "What can we do? What can we do to stand up against this federal administration? This ballot measure is an opportunity for them to do something. This is an opportunity for our community to step up and say that we support those who are vulnerable in this community. We do not want our safety net to fall apart. We do not want people to fall through the cracks. And so as a local community, we are going to do what we need to do. We're going to stretch for this short period of time in order to support those who are in need in this community. So, I'm very grateful to our CEO um and my colleagues for allowing us to move forward with this. I also want to extend my gratitude to Senator Leard who's been working very hard to move our legislation forward. Um, and I want to thank the public for their consideration of our attempt to support and help those who are vulnerable in Santa Cruz County. So, with that, I am We have a motion on the floor and a second. Madame Clerk, are you clear on the motion? >> For the clarity of the record, if the amendment language that will be going uh in the resolution could be restated, that would be appreciated. Do you want me to I can restate it. So then on page four of the resolution establishing budget priorities bullet four the end of that sentence will say other and other programs that prevent homelessness address chronic homelessness and protect recent community progress in reducing homelessness. Thank you, CEO Kerburn. >> Madam Clerk, will you please call the role? >> Yes. Supervisor Deserpa, >> I. >> Koenig, >> I. >> Hernandez, >> I. >> Cummings, >> I. >> And Martinez, >> I. Motion passes 5 to zero. That concludes the only item on today's special agenda. So, we will adjourn the meeting at 10:13. We'll see you next week. Oh, I know you. >> I know you. I've seen you and enjoy your public comment for years.