Interagency Governance Review Committee for Violence Prevention - Regular Meeting

Hello.

Alright. Everyone, we're gonna convene our, April 13 meeting of our legislative policy committee for the county of Monterey And let the record reflect that both supervisor Daniels and I are present. Supervisor Daniels is joining us on Zoom. Do you have any additions or corrections to the agenda today?

There are none.

Okay. Any general public comments for items not on today's agenda?

I see no hands raised.

Nobody in chambers. Nobody online. Let's go to our first item of business, the approval of the action minutes for March 9. Suraj and Daniels, you're good with those? Your mic is muted.

Supervisor Daniels, give her the minutes. I think she could hear us.

I think she can hear us. Supervisor Daniels?

My apologies.

Okay.

So sorry. I didn't know that my volume had been turned off.

Oh, okay. So you're good with the minutes?

Yes.

Great. Any comments from the public on the minutes?

None on the line.

Seeing none. We'll deem those approved by consensus. Let's go to item number two. We'll start with our brief reports from our legislative offices, and we'll start with any of our federal offices. Any anybody from the offices of Senators Padilla, Schiff, or congress members Panetta or Lofgren?

Okay. Seeing none. How about any of our state offices? Senator Laird or assembly members Rivas or Addis? Nothing to share today? Alright. Last call. Okay. Seeing none. Let's go to item number three. This is our federal reports. We are we're gonna pass the mic over to Maria Triplar and Caitlin Kowal.

Thank you, sir. I'd also before I dive into the this month's federal presentation, I'd like to take a moment, sir, and, ma'am, to introduce you to Trey Miller, also with the Ballard team.

Great.

I'm not sure if he's been promoted to panelist, but he is on and will be joining the Ballard team to support the county of Monterey. As this is quickly gearing up to be a particularly active year, we wanna make sure we have the appropriate staff so that we can promptly respond to all of the county's requests. So Trey will be joining the team, and we're very excited to have him on board.

Alright. Welcome, Trey.

Thank you for having me also. I apologize. My camera, some reason, is not working. Otherwise, I would I would be on screen.

No. That's alright. Thank you for being with us, though, on Zoom. So go for it, Maria.

So as, diving into our first item of business out of the federal government update, on the congressional perspective, as you'll see reflected in the written report, in March, there are two particular bills that took center stage in congress. The last of the remaining f y '26 appropriations bills regarding the Department of Homeland Security and the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, the Save America Act. As of the March, there was not a consensus on a bill to fund DHS, and there was some speculation that the shutdown could lead well into the summer. I will say that we have now partially funded DHS, And in particular, some of the the outcry had to do with challenges with TSA, and other airport security measures. So TSA is now fully functioning, and the remaining components do need to be worked out.

Of course, front and center of all of that has to do with ICE activity and funding for ICE. So we will continue to update as that progresses. The other, of course, being the Save America Act, which the president has called his number one priority in congress. It did pass the senate in December and then in an amended form by the house in February. It is now back with the senate, and is going to be, I think, a rocky progression, which is something that I I don't anticipate anyone at the county is particularly worried about.

The county did submit a letter, last May opposing the SAVE Act, which is, almost entirely included in the SAVE America Act, although the SAVE America Act does have a couple of additional, provisions. And, of course, this this really focuses around voter ID for federal elections and how to administer, changes to voter ID requirements. You may recall that we did work closely with the county's, federal elections official, Gina, last year in looking at some of the challenges, not only from a policy perspective, of course, she she could not opine on those, but on implementation challenges that would exist if the county was required to comply with these provisions. It's unclear exactly how this will ultimately work out within the senate debate. We will continue to closely follow, and update the board as this progress through the senate, and we'll see how that how that ultimately firms up.

Additionally, the president did release his f y twenty seven, budget and submitted those requests to congress in April. There are two key, well, there are several key funding priorities. But in particular, the budget does reduce the nondefense spending by $73,000,000,000, while also increasing support for military and national security initiatives. I'm interested to see how The US engagement with the current conflicts may shape that discussion as it moves forward, especially as we are seeing that that ceasefire with Iran is not likely to hold. But in particular, one of the items I want to highlight is the proposed elimination of the community development block grant CDBG program.

The administration has levied a number of criticisms against this program. However, it is one of the more critical avenues for federal funding for the county, and the county does frequently take advantage of CDBG grants. So that's something that is a concern. And you'll see there's within the written report, there's any number of critical initiatives that could face reductions in spending that we've highlighted for you to include fair housing activities at HUD, including the fair housing initiatives program, which provides certain training and fair housing funding. So I think that that that is of concern, and we'll continue to work with as well the county departments as we learn more about how this ultimately is approved or disproved by the congress, so that I assume it would be approved, and then, of course, on the downstream implications.

And then I will pause there and turn it over to Caitlin to present on the executive branch updates.

Yeah. Thank you, supervisors. So we've got administration updates. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is updating one of its policies for the management of inmates with gender dysphoria, and this would allow federal prisons to stop providing gender affirming medical or social transition care to most transgender inmates. It would create a mechanism for prisons to provide, to stop providing treatment for gender dysphoria, such as providing different hormones, for inmates who are not already receiving them.

And although this is a federal policy change, it does have implications for state facilities which receive federal funding. And just the policy is currently at issue with some active court injunctions which poses a a conundrum for how the or the county and its jails and prisons will comply. And the county is likely to be affected as the custodian of record for certain federal inmates, or even implicated through operation entanglement, such as through transport, perimeter support, or emergency services. Our recommendation at this point in time is that the board of supervisors begin engagement on this policy first by talking to the county district attorney and the county sheriff, and then we would also, the federal lobbyists, engage the federal congressional delegation. And once those conversations are complete and we have a more thorough understanding of where all of the stakeholders stand, we would come back to the committee and propose formal action.

The other notable rule change took place at the Department of State in March, and this rule change amends how individuals can petition for entry into the diversity immigrant visa program. And it would, basically require each petitioner to provide, their sex, age, instead of gender and date of birth. And the rule aims to provide program integrity, combat fraud as stated, and the change will not affect states or counties because this is gonna be implemented at the federal level.

Yeah.

And in terms of exec

Sorry. And and and, Caitlin, I just wanna pause there and see if either supervisor has any questions, in particular, on the Federal Bureau of Prisons policy change since that one could become very thorny very quickly for the county, particularly in light of the nearby state hospital?

Nothing from him.

I I and I would just add that I I I support what looks to be the recommendation that we do begin to engage on this with the district attorney and the sheriff.

Thank you. Alright, Caitlin. Thank you again. You can continue.

I do have a question about something that's already that that might be well, on on the executive order updates, and I have a question about something that was shared earlier. So I guess I'll just wait till the end to chair.

Okay. Thank thank you, supervisors. So two executive orders of note for this report. The first was entitled establishing the tax task force to eliminate fraud, and it cites the recent fraud and waste in Minnesota in regard to food stamps and child care funding as sort of the basis for this order. It speculates that similar problems exist in other states, including California, and as a response establishes a task force to develop measures which would improve eligibility verification, develop appropriate controls, and then investigate and disrupt mechanisms through which the suspected fraud is committed.

And in addition, it empowers the relevant federal agencies to advise on ways in which federal funds, might be held if states don't, have adequate antifraud requirements in place. And then the other order, is entitled removing regulatory barriers to affordable home construction, which seeks to review and revise requirements for federal permitting and regulatory barriers. Specifically, it empowers the secretary of the army to reevaluate the regulatory requirements related to stormwater, wetlands, lakes, rivers, and other bodies of water in order to reduce housing and ownership costs. And then it also empowers other secretaries to limit eliminate burdensome rules regarding development density and then focus construction of affordable single family housing. And those are the two executive orders.

Back to you, Maria. Or

Thank you, Caitlin. Turning to item Can I

ask a question about that?

Oh, yes, ma'am.

So I'm just trying to understand the second one, removing regulatory barriers. So it requires the secretary of the army to reevaluate regulatory requirements. Is it the army corps of engineers, or how how does that work? I mean, what is obviously, it's it seems like it would be reducing some of the protections that are in place for environmental health, but what or, you know, storm waters, wetlands, lakes, etcetera. But where does the Army Corps of Engineers fall? Is it under the Army? Is that why this is the Secretary of Army? I'm just trying to understand.

Yeah. As as written, it's the secretary of the army through the assistant secretary of the army for civil works, which is how that would take place.

Okay. Thank you. Can I ask a question, chair, about an executive order

Of course?

Not on the update? So I just I wanted to draw your attention to something that I saw a lot of of attention paid to this weekend regarding the this is for CDBG, and it's regarding the fiscal year 2627 annual action plan. We did we have one as a county, but this attention was focused on the city of Monterey. And I just wanna understand better executive order one four one six eight, which was Trump the Trump president Trump has called that the defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government. And, it was, brought to my attention because the city of Monterey has cited the executive order in the annual report.

And and and upon reviewing ours as a county, we've also cited this executive order that we won't use grant funds to to promote gender ideology. Do you know if that's something that we are including because we're, we cannot get CDBG funds currently if we don't cite that executive order, or are we choosing to cite that executive order? I'm just trying to understand how both counties and jurisdictions are handling, an executive order that is, for lack of a better word, so disgusting in its nature.

So I can answer that for you. The current grants are requiring a certification. That funding won't be used for such purpose. So in order to be an eligible grant applicant, that's where that requirement comes in. And so if you know, I'm certainly happy to take that back, and coordinate. I believe Ashley is also on relative to the grant program, but that is my understanding that grantees who wish to apply are are that is their requirement. And if that certification is not signed, then the grant application is not considered complete and therefore eligible for consideration.

I I figured there was something like that, but I just wanted some clarification. And and I would expect because of the attention this is getting in the city of Monterey, we might hear something from constituents in the the county level as well. Thank you.

Yeah. And before we go to the funding request, I just wanted to comment on the the threat, for next year's budget to eliminate CDBG funding. Obviously, the county of Monterey for years has been able to, fund, critical projects utilizing that federal funding stream. And, also, the home program, I was stated, it's at risk, for affordable, housing programs, but also the proposal to eliminate the continuum of care. I'm the chair of our local Lead Me Home leadership council, which is at a which is the governing body for an our our, continuum of care for Monterey and San Benito County.

Those two counties are are part of the same COC. But some of the projects that we've been able to realize just in the last two months, a 149 units of housing in in, in in some of that in King City, some in in Soledad, some in Potts or Watsonville, and then Salinas, the the hotel conversion here, were all projects that were collaborative between city governments, counties, and our continuum of care. So so that would really threaten our ability to advance projects in the future, not to mention that our coalition of homeless service providers receive significant funding from the continuum of care funding stream, and they would be at risk of not not not being able to continue or without having most of its staffing severely cut. And that would be a major setback just to, addressing our homelessness crisis in the county of Monterey. So I just wanted to flag just speak to those, because they've been so critical in getting some of these projects across the finish line, and this would just be a total complete setback in being able to to keep them operating and and advancing new projects forward within our county.

Thank you.

Thank you. So now turning to appropriations. As you know, in March, Caitlin and I, on behalf of the county, submitted the f y twenty seven community project funding congressionally directed spending request to the relevant federal congressional delegation members. Member requests, that is of the of the submissions to each office. Each office then will submit a certain number to the Appropriations Committee for consideration.

The deadline for members to submit those requests to the appropriations committees is as we speak. We are expecting that those projects which were submitted to committee will be posted on member websites any day. We do have some information about the status of our projects. Unfortunately, rep Panetta has informed us that he will not be advancing either of the two of the county's projects that were submitted to his office to the House Appropriations Committee. However, we are thrilled to officially report that representative Lofgren has submitted a request to the House Appropriations Committee to favorably advance the San Lucas Clean Drinking Water Project, and she did submit that to the committee at the full $4,000,000 level.

That is significant, and certainly speaks to her support of the county and also recognition of the incredible need for that project within the community of San Lucas. I will say that it is unclear at this stage whether or not the committee will ultimately

request that.

Approve that project at the full $4,000,000 level or if they will potentially reduce that funding amount or eliminate it entirely. However, at this early stage in the process, this I cannot underscore what incredibly good news this is, especially at the full funding amount that was requested for that particular project. We are continuing to monitor the other requests in relation to representative Lofgren's office. We are also still awaiting word from senator Padilla and senator Schiff as to the projects that were submitted to their offices. You will see that our appropriations chart has returned to the federal report, and we will continue to update this chart as the process moves forward.

And we are, of course, happy to, produce it at any point to any supervisor who'd like to see the update, if it doesn't quite line up exactly to a legislative committee meeting. Item c is legislation, and that is pertaining and we've recommended here an opposed position, for h r seven six six one, Stop the the Sexualization of Children Act. And I would say at its outset, while this is, a short title for a bill which would is certainly attention grabbing. Hillary Thayer, the library director, has flagged this one and recommended an opposed position, based on her concerns with the contents of the bill as written, particularly relative to the county's legislative platform. And her concerns center around the potential impact to the universe of available material from which librarians and educators would be able to educate county residents.

The bill does specifically prevent funds allocated under the elementary and secondary education act of 1965 from being used to provide or promote programs, activities, literature, or other materials to children under the age of 18 which contain sexually oriented material. How that is defined requires that it prevents exposing children to nude adult individuals who are stripping or lewd or lechivist dancing or other sexually explicit content as that term is defined in The US criminal code. But where miss Thayer is concerned is as it starts as as she has reviewed this bill and in conversation with the legislative team is that it also potentially involves topics such as classic art. Classic art, of course, as we all know, frequently does involve nude depictions. And the sweeping prohibition and limited exceptions could, in practice, deter educators and public institutions from addressing topics such as human reproduction, personal safety, bullying prevention, and respect for diverse identities.

And the bill does specifically define sexually oriented material as including, and I quote, gender dysphoria or transgenderism, which would have a direct impact on support and education for LGBTQ plus youth. And so based on the, recommendation of miss Thayer as well as the direction of policy within the legislative platform, The team recommends that the county take an opposed position on this legislation. It was introduced by representative Mary Miller from Illinois 15th District, in the house, and there is not yet a companion bill in the senate.

Miss you wanna speak to this bill? Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

You're asking me, Terre? Sorry.

No. I'm asking her head librarian.

Oh, our library, miss Terre. Okay.

Good. Sorry.

Hillary Thayer, library director from Monterey County Free Libraries. I thank you so much for, taking a look at this, critical piece of legislation and for in anticipation of you taking the position an opposed position on behalf of the county. The letter, written in your package is much more eloquent than the drafts I attempted, so I appreciate whoever, crafted that beautiful letter. The legislation's both broad and narrow enough to suppress reading, teaching, information sharing through fear of unknown consequences. Your teachers, your librarians, your educators are not lawyers.

So this is broadly enough that a lot more would get suppressed for fear of doing things wrong. It also does not limit to purchasing materials. It says programming. Is that a reading list? Is that a display? Unknown. It's easy to say, well, this is education money. This isn't money that comes to Monterey County Free Libraries. However, all the dedicated professionals in the county who work for families and for children and to create thriving lives, we work together. We work in an ecosystem, and we each have our spaces and our spheres, but we know it takes it takes a village.

It takes a tapestry to create a thriving child and help them succeed. Monterey County Free Libraries has three libraries on school campuses. Those school campuses get this money. We have many, many more libraries that are immediate school neighbors across the street next door, frequent partners, and they get this money. And this is chilling, chilling federal legislation, local legislation. It's easier to say, well, that's not gonna happen here. This would be nationwide with no room for local control. So we urge an opposed position and preparation to go to the senate because the fear in the library world right now is this is gonna pass. Thank you.

Thank you for for your input. Alright. Happy question.

Oops. I don't have any questions. I'm happy to support the opposed position and the letter.

Yep. Agree to me too. Thank you. The the title is misleading. There's a lot more drastic things that limit our schools, our libraries, and, those people providing these services to our young people.

Is there any comments for the public on this bill?

No. I don't.

K. This is an opposed position, so it sounds like both supervisor Daniels and I are in agreement. So we'll deem that approved by consensus. Thank you. Sure. Very much.

Only remaining item is the attachment of the federal bill and issues track, which is included for your reference, and that concludes my report.

Okay. Let me just ask for the public for any other comments for any other the other reports provided by our federal advocates. You do? You do? Yes. Do. Go go ahead. They presented on several items. I just didn't give a a chance for

the public comment. Quickly. Thank you, supervisor Alejo, John Huerta, community Greenfield. Actually, I came one that was one of the items I came to see if, your federal advocate groups, could give a quick update or maybe in the future about the, cannabis and, how's that legislation moving forward.

K. We'll we'll take that as a request. So it's not an agenda today. Okay. But, for future meeting, perhaps you can give us any updates on on on federal legislation impacting cannabis. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Anyone else? I'm sorry. Go on. Yeah. Go ahead. Somebody diagnosed.

I just have one question about an earlier item, Maria, that you reported on, which had to do with the DHS funding. Is there any update on the disaster relief fund? Because I know that relates to other issues that count the county's focused on in terms of funding. Is there any update on or any progress toward funding the disaster relief fund that would allow for some of the projects that have been backlogged to get signed off on and move?

Yeah. So FEMA reimbursements do continue to be a challenge for the county, as I know you and supervisor Alejo are painfully familiar with. How the specific legislation addresses that aspect of FEMA operations, I'll take that for the record, and and I will email you in the near term and then follow-up formally on the next month's written report for the public with your permission.

That would be great. Thank you so much. Yes, ma'am.

Alright. Anything else from the public on any of the reports? Seeing none. Thank you, Maria Tripler and team. We're gonna go to our state reports, so we're gonna hand it over to Ashley Walker. And there's quite a few items to go over.

Yes. There is. Thank you, supervisors. Nice to see you this afternoon. As you know, the legislature has returned from spring recess.

They had a short one week spring recess. They came back last week and have been really quickly starting up their policy committee hearings again to meet the deadline of April 24 to move fiscal bills over to the appropriations committee. So we have been actively testifying in any policy committee hearings that the county has taken positions on, so far this year. And then at the end of the last month, it was the deadline to, amend any spot bills with substantive language. So we did review those bills and, have brought several positions today to discuss, so we will get to that.

With regard to the state budget, the legislature is actively debating the budget as we speak. The assembly and senate budget both have subcommittees that focus on individual policy areas. They have been taking up all of the governor's January budget proposal items to debate those, discuss those, and figure out what their own priorities are. As you know, lots has changed since January, which is typical, and especially in the last few years for our state budget. So we are now anticipating that budget revenues do continue to run ahead of original estimates in December by the legislative analyst office and then in January by the governor's budget proposal that was released.

Even with that, there are going to be budget challenges this year as you know. The first item I wanna focus on, which is very relevant, of course, to, the county of Monterey and counties across the state, but something we've been actively involved in with CSAC is the impact of HR one to counties and our state budget at large. Obviously, we are highly concerned about the shift of fiscal responsibility that HR one is going to create and the pressures that that is going to then trickle down to on our county budget. We have been working closely with CSAC to make a budget request. This is a multiyear budget request that would help the impacts that I have outlined in the report here for you.

The request is $1,900,000,000 in the twenty twenty six, twenty seven fiscal year, which is the budget being debated as we speak, and a $4,500,000,000 request in the twenty twenty seven, twenty eight fiscal year to address these impacts. The board of supervisors did approve this letter to be sent to the legislature, supporting CSAC's request at large and noting what the impacts to Monterey County, may be. So we're happy to support that request. The next item under the budget is CHEOX, the Department of Healthcare Services budget item. They requested funding for the California Children's Services Program.

We did support that for local health departments. We just want to report that was an item that we supported in the state budget. The budget request that the legislature fund the California Children's Services programs in accordance with staffing standards. As of right now, that program is roughly falling about a $109,000,000 below staffing standards. The third item underneath the budget is CHEAC's budget request for public health IT systems.

This is an item that the local public health department is supporting and the county is supporting their efforts as well. This is an $18,600,000 request. Oh, I'm sorry. That's for the disease intervention specialist, but they're tied together. And without that funding, we have talked with the county health department.

We would anticipate having much less capacity to address communicable disease. And so we do anticipate, that that is a significant request for us and are hopeful that that will be funded in the final enacted budget. As you know, as we move forward, the May revise is gonna be released in about a month from. We will then see kind of a flurry of discussion and debate in budget committees and a conference committee to identify the final enacted budget by June 15. Of course, then the governor will have until June 30 to sign that budget.

The legislature can still make some edits or tweaks to that budget that's passed on June 15, of course, through budget trailer bills. So while we anticipate the bulk of the discussion of the budget to be done in June, mid June, by the June, there still will be some discussion as we move forward through the end of session on any potential tweaks that we may need to make to that budget through trailer bills. Finally, under the budget number four is an item that was requested by supervisor Daniels at our last meeting. I will have this on here, until there is resolution, of course, the Fort Ordune State Park. We do understand that the Department of Parks and Recreation did formally request $1,000,000 from proposition 68 funds that are still outlined in the budget for a new camp campground and beach access project at Fort Ord.

As of right now, it is unclear what the status of that request will be, but we do know that it was officially made. Again, supervisor Daniels will keep this on the agenda as we get closer to that final and active budget and understand whether or not this project will indeed be funded. I I don't know if you'd like me to stop there, supervisor Alejo, to give a moment before I move into legislation.

Yes. On HR one, has that letter gone out? It was approved by the board of supervisors last Tuesday. I just haven't seen I the final copy.

Honestly, I'm waiting for final confirmation from our health directors on on the data that you wanted inserted into the the letter. I just ping them again gently, and, hopefully, I'll have that sent by the end of the day.

Okay. Great. Thank you for that.

And Dominic Dursta has his hand.

Okay. And I did I didn't wanna let just Maria Triplar just know that, the county's association is, we are going to DC on Sunday, so we will be doing legislative visits up there on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, three full days of of of Capitol Hill visits. So I just forgot to mention that earlier. So, Dominic Dursta has his hand raised, so we'll go to him.

Thank you, supervisor. Yeah. I I missed my time to report. I was I was two minutes late, you guys moved quick today. Just one item on the budget letter. We we have seen the letter circulating from different counties. So I have let staff know most likely they'll be seeing one from your county as well. So it is well in hand there. The only thing I would just state probably is if you're looking to insert data, the thing I've been mentioning to local jurisdictions is certainly what is the the specific set of interests where Monterey County is gonna be most affected. And what I mean by that is when all this is being negotiated out, certainly, CSAC is asking for what they're asking for.

But since you lay within the speakers district, we certainly are interested, you know, as well as how Monterey County specifically is gonna be affected and what really are your priorities within those asks, so to speak, on some of those programs. So what's first, second, third, so to speak? That's helpful for the speaker and his policy team as well to know if possible. That's it there.

Great. Thank you for that feedback, Dominic, and I think that's why we wanted some of the more, specific details added to the draft letter we had last Tuesday, and that's what Nicole will will, is getting feedback on. So we'll make sure, hopefully, that's addressed in those three areas, indigent care, the impact to Nativityad as old as public hospital in California, and then the the the eligibility, workers, needed at the Department of Social Services due to the thousands that will get dropped from CalFresh and Medi Cal. But, those were those three areas under that ask. But, we'll make sure to hopefully get as much details as possible that would be helpful to the speaker.

Appreciate it.

Yeah. And we appreciate the speakers' focus on specific impacts to Monterey County. So thanks for that, Dominic.

I could add

Anyone else on this item? I don't see any other comments from the public on each, this first part of your presentation so we can move to legislation.

Let me ask one one question, if I could.

Yes, please.

I just wanna add a comment on the Fort Ord Dune State Park funding. And and just to to reiterate why it's so important is that there's staffing that goes along with this funding for state parks officers that also serve as our lifeguards, our only lifeguards along the entire stretch of coastline. So I brought this up in our last Ledge meeting after we lost a Salinas resident at the gorge, which the state park's lifeguards were the, the the first responders. We lost a child and her father at Sobranes not long ago, and then we lost a student from the Defense Language Institute. So I we've we've lost several individuals just in the last six months, and and so that's why it really is important that, that this funding occur because it also results in, in in in these public safety officers that serve as lifeguards.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We can proceed to legislation.

Yes. I have several bills. So if, the legislative committee is okay with this, we've done this typically in the past when there's a large package of bills. I'm gonna go through and present all of them and all of the positions. And then at the end, you're, free to, of course, pull a specific bill and ask questions about it.

Otherwise, we can vote on them as a package unless, of course, there is one in particular that you'd like to pull for an outside discussion or questions. So with that, I'll start with a b fifteen forty eight by assembly member Pelerin. This bill does establish a new authority, a an authority that would be called the Monterey Bay Area Stewardship Authority. That would include Monterey County, San Benito County, and Santa Cruz County, and the goal would be to raise and deploy funds for conserving lands or improving access to lands, natural and working in the region. The county does have outstanding concerns.

We have been actively engaged in a working group with the other two counties and the sponsors of the bill and the author's office. As of now, our suggested position is to watch while we continue to seek amendments. That position may change, of course, and we may bring another suggested position in a future legislative committee meeting. We do actually have a letter drafted now that outlines all of our concerns and suggested amendments that we would like to seek. It is not quite finished.

That is why we are today just suggesting a watch position, but I would like to just reiterate to the legislative committee that we have been highly involved in this, discussion and the development of potential amendments to this bill.

So And, Ashley, I don't normally interrupt you, but I also wanna note, we're looking at this at every angle at the CAO's office in terms of debt issuance. We have a lot of eyes on this right now. So that's why we'll we'll have that letter drafted, and you will be able to see that letter before it goes out, of course.

Thanks, Nicole. I appreciate it. Feel free to interrupt me whenever you'd like.

I can then interrupt you on this one item. I know you wanted to go through all of them beforehand, but I just want to recognize that that I I wanna articulate that I am very supportive of the development of this stewardship authority. And so it would be really helpful to me to get some clarity sooner rather than later what the concerns are of the county because this is the creation of this entity is something I'm very interested in seeing happen, and I'm very supportive of the legislation. Thank you.

Thanks, supervisor Daniels. I don't know, Nicole, if you want to get into some of the details of the concerns today. We we can. And then

Actually, what I could do, supervisor Daniels, let's talk about it offline. I have some memos from some of our past meetings that outline some of our concerns, but this is moving fast. So our concerns are kinda updating daily. So let's just check-in offline on that bill.

That would be fine. And then perhaps we can have some clarity prior to the next time we meet as a ledge committee.

Right. And the

next want the train to leave the station, you know, without being able to provide some input.

And and just to add, at the next May LC meeting, we will have a little bit more in terms of committee analysis, bill analysis, and, hopefully, some amendment incorporation.

So Okay.

Are we ready to move on? Yes. We are. Okay. Our next bill, a b seventeen sixty one.

Oh, I I do note under each bill too. I'll just flag this as you can see that we have our suggested position for the county, but we also include CSAC's position just as a reference point here. Of course, because a b fifteen forty eight is very specific to three counties, CSAC does not have a position on the bill. And our next bill, a b seventeen sixty one, related to electricity and the calculation and method methodology for data, that CSAC does have a support position on that bill. We are suggesting a support position on that bill as well because it does ensure that any and all data that's used to calculate electricity costs are being disclosed, including cost inputs, forecasting assumptions, and methodologies.

So that that bill, we have a support position on. Our next bill, a b nineteen thirty four by assembly member Bennett. This is related to a home hardening certification program and implementation plan. Wildfires have been a focus of the counties and a priority of the counties, and, CSAC has a support position on this bill. It directs the state fire marshal's wildfire mitigation advisory committee to develop an implementation plan for a voluntary home hardening certification program.

We do have that support position recommended there. Our next bill is a b twenty fifty one by assembly member Wicks. We have a support suggested position here along with CSAC supporting the bill. The bill asks the Natural Resources Agency to consult with EPA to develop and figure out what, issues there are along the coastal lands of California in either administrative actions or legislative recommendation recommendations to streamline permitting. So this does not streamline permitting itself.

I wanna be really clear because I don't want anyone to think that this bill is trying to get around, permitting projects on the coast. But what it does do, which I think is really neat and interesting, is it puts together a working group to identify what those permitting issues are and to potentially develop some administrative actions or legislative recommendations that would help to streamline and accelerate, permitting for coastal resilience and sea level rise adaptation projects. We will, of course, be hand in hand looking at proposition $4 for those projects. So it'll be interesting to see what this working group comes up with should this bill move through the process and be signed by the governor's office. So we are suggesting a support position there given that we are along the coast, and, of course, we will have coastal resilience and sea level rise adaptation projects, and we already do, that we're working on.

Our next bill, was requested by assembly member Addis to help support her in moving this bill forward. CSAC does not have a position on it. It is a b two six nine one. The bill adds felony convictions for sexual assault or human trafficking to the list of disqualification offenses that would bar a person from candidacy or election to state local office. Very simple bill, and we have a support position recommended there.

Next bill, second to last bill, we have s b ten forty by senator Choi. This is the Veterans Cemetery Endowment Fund Match Act. The bill would create a state local matching fund program for the state's Veterans Cemetery. I know Jack Murphy is on this call. I'll let him make comments on the bill.

I just wanna note that we did meet with the senator's office to discuss a potential amendment. Although we are suggesting a support position still, CSAC has no position on the bill. We have supported similar endeavors or proposals in the past, and our amendment is very simple in nature. We did get some good feedback. I'll let Jack talk about that.

Thank you, and and thank you, supervisors, for a moment. I do wanna recognize, Ashley and Nicole for their hard work in trying to to get me in front of the author for, this proposed amendment. So what does s b ten forty would do is provide a $1 match to every dollar that's raised by a nonprofit. The the money would obviously go to CalVet. In this case, s b ten forty would be to establish an endowment summit, an endowment fund for veteran cemeteries.

Of course, this is of interest to us because of the Central Coast Veterans Cemetery thing. We have a very robust, nonprofit, the Central Coast Veterans Cemetery Foundation, that does have quite a significant, amount of money that they can continue to support the cemetery with. The amendment that I am requesting is that it is the the language of the law or the bill would be inclusive of any funds that have already been endowed to Calvet but haven't been spent yet. There is a an amount of money, I believe it's $90,000, that, Calvert has carried carried over for about a decade, if not a little bit longer, that was expressly provided by the Central Coast Veteran Cemetery Foundation for the operations and maintenance of this cemetery here. So I would like that 90,000 to get matched as part of this legislation.

The other, ask of this bill is that they try to honor earmarks as established by the donors so that the state or CalVet isn't free to use the the funds that are donated for purposes, outside of the scope of what the donating agency or donor wanted. Wanted. As Ashley mentioned, they're very simple. I think they're common sense amendments. The the staffers seem to, be very receptive to them, and, I do recommend the the county takes poor position on this, ex especially because of of having, the Central Coast Guard Cemetery here within our, county. Thank you.

Thank you, Jack. I appreciate that, and your comments, and, we should have feedback from the author's office soon on those potential amendments. But either way, the bill is, positive in terms of policy impacts we feel, and so that's why we have the support recommendation no matter what. Our final bill is s b eleven thirty eight by senator Padilla relating to load serving entities. CSOC has no position on this bill.

We have a support position recommended on the bill. The bill requires the PUC to allow load serving entities. Those are your utilities, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers, as you know, to meet up to 25% of their resource adequacy obligations through short term transactions with other load serving entities. It is anticipated that the bill would save ratepayers, potentially millions of dollars on unnecessary costs by updating these rules to allow for these types of transactions on an hourly basis because it does limit unnecessary purchases. For that reason, we do have a suggested support position.

That concludes my suggested positions on legislation. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. There are support letters attached to your packet that outline the details of these bills as well.

Great. Thank you for the presentation on all the bills. Any questions, supervisor, Daniels?

I do. And I'm sorry that I'm actually just looking at the letters right now and haven't understood this or or thought this through prior to doing this on the fly right now. But I have a question about a b two six nine one. What are the what's the list of felony offenses that currently exist today that would disqualify someone from running for office? I'm trying to understand if this is just, like, an oversight that there is an exhaustive list that already exists and human trafficking is not on it, or if it's a relatively limited list and we're adding human trafficking to it.

Yeah. I'd have to look up the code to pull what that is, supervisor Daniels. I don't have that in front of me. I I'm I'm happy to do that if you wanna give me a minute. But What says

in the letter is that public trust crimes are what usually preclude a person from running for office or for holding office. And if the list is exhaustive, I'm fine with this. If the list is not exhaustive, my concern is and my question is we live in a country where the voters decide who gets to who gets to hold office. And so, you know, if we already have a system where the list is exhaustive, then I'm fine. I didn't make the laws.

But if there's laws that exist that say a felony a felon cannot run for office, and that's a pretty exhaustive list, and we've somehow overlooked human trafficking, that's one thing. If it's not an exhaustive list and we're adding human trafficking, I'm just trying to understand, are we circumventing the system, or or or trying to control a system that in its very nature is already fairly democratic? I know this is high level, and I'm not meaning to complicate what could be a very simple bill, as you described it, but it it it is causing some consternation for me. I'm not sure why.

Yes. Supervisor Daniels, I I looked up the bill, and, they're amending the elections code. And it's pretty, narrowly, there's a narrow list of crimes that would bar somebody with a felony conviction, and it's limited to and and this is the language, involving, like, accepting or giving or offering to give any bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes. So it seems like it's embezzlement, theft or extortion of public money, bribes. And then in that in that paragraph, in the elections code, they're just adding any crime of sexual assault

Or human

and human trafficking.

Yeah. Or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.

Yeah. Yeah. I I mentioned that.

I just needed a minute to pull that up, and I appreciate that because I didn't have it right in front of me. But, thank you for doing that, supervisor Alejo. Is that helpful, supervisor Daniels? I am more than happy

to support assembly member Addis and and add this. I just I'm I'm as I'm I'm saying, I I would hope that the electorate is the appropriate body that would not want to see someone who has engaged in human trafficking, elected to hold office. And so all I'm saying is, you know, if it's that that obviously, these are financial crimes and human trafficking as as as well as being a a a crime against humanity is also a financial crime. So it makes sense. I just it was something that did trigger for me a certain level of discomfort about just how our democracy works and, and and the hope that you know?

I I wanna make sure that it's it's, it's it's integrity remains intact. Thank you. I'll leave it there.

And can I ask staff who who who, made did, assembly member Addis make a request for

That's right?

The user on this bill?

Assembly member Addis made the request. That's correct.

Got it. Supervisor Dominic Dursa.

Alright. So let's go to Dominic Dursa. He has his hand raised.

Just wanted to flag you may you may wanna check out a b twenty seven fifty three as well. Assembly member Soria is doing a similar bill. There's a situation in the Central Valley where a candidate there's somebody seeking to run for office with a sex offense on their in the record, and they're not backing down, so to speak. So assembly member Soria introduced a bill as well, but just wanted to flag that for your reference.

Thanks, Tom.

Alright. Any questions on any of these bills from the public? Seeing none, I just wanted to just meant go back to the bill on the Monterey Bay Area Stewardship Authority. The first analysis is out. It's I think it's going to natural resources and then to local government.

Has a double referral. But I I don't see any positions yet from any of the county governments. There's a lot of, conservancy organizations listed. There is concerns from the forestry association. But I I I would just say there there is, I think, some concerns still to be worked out, in terms of the governance of a stewardship authority concerns over whether it would conflict with the housing elements of city and county governments and, and also the the ability to, put taxes on the ballot and not have, the county governments picking up some of the costs that are listed within that bill.

These are all things that I think are still being worked out in San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties are providing input. The bill just wanted to print not too long ago. Anyways, I look forward to this coming back next month, and the the recommendation is no position so far on this bill. But on the other pieces of legislation, it's recommended for support position. Are you good with that, supervisor Daniels?

Yes. I am.

K. Alright. We'll deem that approved by consensus. Do you wanna go to governor's actions and executive orders?

Yes. Thank you, supervisor. I have outlined several different actions taken by the governor's office since we last met. Some of them, I have alerted you in our Friday reports that we send out, so I won't take too much time on that. But if you have questions about any particular one, please let me know.

And then finally, our state bill and issues track is attached. Of course, now that we have approval on these positions, those will be added to that tracking document at our next meeting and reflective of the actions taken today. We also track, of course, budget items or other issues that we send letters on. Example would be requesting the select committee on ICE reads or the CSAC budget priorities document. Those are all tracked on that document as well. That concludes my state report.

Alright. Thank you very much. Is there any questions from the public on the last item? Seeing none. Okay. We're almost to the end. We're on item number five now, our grant report, also in.

Thank you. I wanna just start again with the San Lucas drinking water project, and thanks to the speaker's office. He's been very they have been very helpful staff in to discussing how the $4,000,000 for the community of San Lucas drinking water project will be able to be spent. We are consistently working on that project moving forward with the county and the state water board, But we are also monitoring proposition four grants once those solicitations open. We have been in touch with the public works department about ensuring that we are ready to apply for proposition $4 should those be released, and we anticipate they will be released soon.

And I'll tell you why in a second. B is the Carmel River floodplain restoration and environmental enhancement project update. We have continued to participate in discussions about the FEMA funds for the CR free project, but, also, we have requested from county staff an outline of any potential grant funds that are at risk of expiring so that we better understand exactly what we need to do moving forward, whether it's with our the legislature or with the state agencies administering the funds to ensure that those funds do not expire. So we are actively working on ensuring that we retain all of the grant funds that we have successfully secured for this very important project. Item c is that, finally, hurrah, proposition for dam safety and climate resiliency program funding is supposed to be out within the next few weeks.

Department of water resources did say that a draft solicitation will be released within the next month. There's going to be $228,000,000 available to be committed to projects by 2028. They want those funds to be expended within the next two years. We were working on an application with Water Resources Agency, as you know, for Nos Manto in San Antonio prior to the dam safety program being stopped and halted. Now that there is this influx of funds with proposition four, we will be sure to work with, water resources agency on an application moving forward.

And finally, I did just wanna note that the proposition four did include, a requirement to comply with Administrative Procedures Act, the APA. The legislature took an early action item to in a in the budget trailer bill to waive APA requirements from prop four only in the current fiscal year, the 2025, '26 fiscal year. But what that means is that we will now start to see solicitations come out more quickly. We had not seen that in the past six months or so due to those APA requirements. There is still a bill we are supporting.

We have a support position on a b 35 by assembly member Alvarez that seeks to apply that waiver to all of proposition $4 moving forward. It's unclear whether or not that will stay as a standalone bill or it will be pulled into a budget. Discussions could be a potential as well. But I just want you to know that because of that waiver, our grant solicitation process will be moving more quickly. So we are on the lookout for any and all proposition $4 moving forward.

And finally, our grant track is attached. We have sent several new funding opportunities. You will notice, everything from forest health to housing and community development infrastructure to division of boating and waterways funds, we have been sending out to departments so that folks are aware of what's available out there, and we're ready to help if needed. And that concludes my grant report, but I am happy to answer questions.

And any questions from supervisor Daniels first?

Only question I would have is, I know that we were unable to, qualify for the Scenic Road protective structure for a FEMA grant that we had applied for. Any any opportunities that you see for that project?

I do think that there are potential opportunities in proposition four with regard to climate resilience funds, supervisor Daniels, and I can talk with, the appropriate county department staff about what that looks like. Great.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Great. Any comments from the public on the ground report? Yes, please. Mark?

Mark Gonzales with the Water Resource Agency. I see where it's $228,000,000 is available through prop four. Just to let you know, the water resource agency has engaged a firm to identify the values of the reservoirs, how they manage flood control and their economic, engines, how they affect everybody in this valley. Hopefully, we can get that information and use that to support other grants, but it sure would be nice to see that 02/28 to be a lot larger because there's a lot more reservoirs in this county that need help. We're in a unique position because of our reservoirs are privately owned.

It's not like anybody tied to the aqueduct where there's a lot of money available for them, and we struggle. So we appreciate the opportunity and look forward to at least 25,000,000 coming to us.

Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Any any other members of the public online? None online. Alright. Seeing no for the, comments, that was our last item. I did wanna go back and give a chance to our state legislative offices. I know that I heard from Dominic and from Marissa from senator Laird's office that they wanted to give a brief report. We'll allow them to do that since they were not able to log on, during that item on the agenda. Dom, you wanna go first, then we'll go to Marissa?

Sure. Why not? Yeah. Like I said, a couple minutes late, you guys move quick. I like that. Couple things couple things to highlight is, one, we just really appreciate all the communication we've been getting from the county on the challenges of a or HR one and other issues. That's really helpful for staff as we seek to summarize to the speaker all the different demands that are coming in, and certainly that budget presentation you had departments do recently. That was helpful for staff to see as well because it certainly is a troubled time. As far as what you see going on, just one thing I wanna highlight from the budget. Jason Sisney, who leads out a bunch of negotiations for the speaker, sends out a substack each month.

There is a lot of chatter about increased receipts coming in over what was projected in the governor's budget in January, what was introduced in the governor's budget in January. Just a couple things we still wanna make sure we're emphasizing to folks. Number one, even if the receipts are coming in higher, prop 98 still gets a certain chunk of that as well that goes to education for all those who don't know. And prop two were also mandated to put a little bit in the reserves. One of the things I wanna call out that Jason mentioned about the prop 98 funding is within the governor's introduced budget, there was about a 5 to $6,000,000,000 chunk of funding that's still needed to be found between what was introduced and what was potentially gonna need to be put in according to Prop 98.

So a lot of that may end up coming out of those increased receipts that you're seeing that's coming in. I think Ashley did mention, we're having a little bit of slowdown in how what we're seeing the stock market do currently. That doesn't affect our receipts immediately, but it certainly gives the legislature and the speaker pause as they have to look to next year. Because one of the the challenges we have is, of course, I think supervisor Daniels put it up called it out when the city of Monterey is having to navigate what federal agencies are having to navigate because congress is not taking a ton of time under the Republican administration to figure out the consequences of what they're doing. And so we're having to play catch up as federal agencies send out guidances.

And then, of course, it's just a chain reaction. And so we continue to see how that affects us. I think lastly, the one other thing I'd like to call out is the speaker through his communications team just highlighted last week. The assembly select committee on CalFresh enrollment in nutrition Nutrition met, chaired by Assembly Member Bia Bonta and Assembly Member Sharpe Collins of San Diego. Of course, a lot of concerns about those cuts to CalFresh benefits, what it does for California residents, and we certainly heard county concerns as that as well.

So the legislature and certainly the assembly were continuing to to garner feedback, not just from our region, from across the state to try to figure out how we're going to navigate this budget challenge. As far as the speaker's priority, it's we're we're gonna have to figure out ways to make sure most vulnerable residents are not harmed as significantly as they could be by these federal cuts, but it is gonna require some tough decisions because the overarching challenge is this. We can't backfill all the budget holes caused by HR one. But select committees like that were held last week and feedback like we received from you certainly helps guide the speaker's negotiation and this team in Sacramento as we seek to figure that out. And that is it, for our end.

Thank you very much, Dominic. We appreciate that, that insight on, what to expect before the May revise comes out, in about four weeks from now. Marissa, we'll go to you representing center alert.

Yeah. Thank you, supervisor Alejo and supervisor Daniels for allowing me the opportunity to provide legislative remarks on behalf of senator Daird. Really quickly, I just wanted to share as that legislative session progresses, I wanted to highlight the people that the senator introduced. I think one of the most

Marisa, you're cutting out a bit. Maybe you wanna turn off your video, but your audio is being interrupted. There you go. Maybe that may work. Yeah.

You're still cutting out, Marissa.

Oh.

Yeah. I don't know what's going on, but, yeah, we can't hear. It's not coming through.

Maybe I can app Alright.

Marissa, maybe you wanna try to log in again. I don't know what, it's hard to to hear from on Zoom and in the chain in the in this room. Maybe we could come back to you. Is there any other state legislative offices? Alright. Marissa, you wanna give it one more try? Maybe she would she's gonna log back on.

I'm happy to touch base with Marissa too on the bills that, she wanted to highlight for senator Laird and ensure that if there's any bills that they would like us to consider next month that we bring them forward.

Alright. I'm gonna see if she logs back on here.

Just give it

a quick minute.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So I wanted to share about Senate Bill ten fifty five, which would provide the regional the Federal Regional Flood Management Agency with additional tools to, more effectively deliver levy and flood control improvements and be able to, protect our Bajaro Valley community. Currently, this bill has been referred to the senate standing committee on local government and has a scheduled hearing on for April 22.

I would also like to share a status on the senate bill nine seventeen. This is the family for our California's wine industry by directly with consumers. This bill has been referred to the appropriations committee. And then lastly, senate bill ten eighty one. This is also a local district bill that provides small communities like Mabotista with greater flexibility in addressing state water quality fines by allowing healthy funds to be reinvested into critical infrastructure improvements.

So this bill is important because it's it supports long term quality, both in a trip that limited local resources are used to strengthen systems rather than just simply paying penalties. And this bill has also been referred to the creations committee. And I would just like to end with our celebration for woman of the year in Sacramento. This is a statewide recognition honoring outstanding women across California, And our woman of the year for Senate District 17 was doctor Janine Gus. And unless there are any questions, it could be the end of my report.

Great. Thank you, Marissa. We got most of that, and, Janine Gus is certainly a great choice, before she goes into retirement for leading our our schools, in our county. We got those bills. I think it was the Pajaro bill.

Certainly wanna look at that closely, for the for the levies, and then I think it was 1917 and then October, which makes sense to be able to use any potential fines to actually get the the work done on on on the infrastructure. But we'll take a take a look at those and see how we could be supportive, on those three important bills by senator Leonard. Any other legislative offices? Any comments from the public on any of the reports by the speaker office or senator Leonard's office? None on one. See none? Alright. I think we can adjourn. Thank you very much, and we'll see you next month.

Thanks, everybody.

Have a day.

Thank you all.