Interagency Governance Review Committee for Violence Prevention - Regular Meeting

Okay. We are good to go.

Ready to go? Yep. Okay. Good afternoon. It's called the order of the list of meeting, 20 meeting here for, May 12. Do we have, any additions or corrections in the agendas?

There are no additions or corrections.

And, let's see. I will have a anybody has a public comment for a couple minutes they would like to make on, matters not on the agenda? Anybody online?

There are no hands raised

on Zoom. Okay.

Vote for public comment. Move to the approval of the, four fourteen twenty five action minutes. Good with those. K. I'm good with those. Any public comment on these? No public comments? So, we can accept these with consensus and move on here to a report from legislative office. And we have to see I know who's doing the report from the legislative, Annette?

I'm sorry, supervisor. I believe you're under the item to call on any reports from the legislative offices.

Right. Do we have I'll I'll go on to that item. Go ahead. Have restart the report on the individual ones here. Sorry about that. Still still getting my my boots in here on this Yes. This chair on this particular committee. It's always a little different. Is do we know if we have anybody from either of the senator's office online, Spadeo or or Chip? Guess not. Do we have anybody report for congressmen? Don't wanna be jumping too fast here in case somebody hugs me on. For congresswoman Lofgren? K. Senator Laird, any updates?

We have Isabel Meza with her hand raised.

Alright. Please go ahead, Isabel.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Isabel Meza, and I'm here on behalf of state senator John Laird. Just a quick update. Senator Laird and our capital team have finalized December's legislative packet for this legislative sequence. Just one, though, I wanted to mention is SB two eighty eight, the Clean Energy Act, ensures local fire department can install and expand battery storage facilities as they go online. This bill also mandates that

the facilities adhere to the highest safety standards as a safety and hazard mitigation, standards. Other than

that, continue to engage with the district. He was honored and really happy to welcome the East Alvarez High School boys soccer team to the Senate floor in recognition of the Northern California Beloving one CF championship. And that is it for me.

K. Thank you very much. Anybody from speaker Rebus' office?

Yeah. I'll go ahead real quick there. Just a few things. I know there'll be a a further state report later on, but couple deadlines just coming up. One, for any bills of interest, that you may have, the deadline for them to be heard in policy committees is this Friday.

That leads into the fiscal deadline next week, where they have to be if they do need to be heard in appropriations, the deadline is next week on Friday for them to be heard. And then our house of origin deadline comes up on June 6. So anything starting on the assembly has to make it out by then, and vice versa for the senate. A more significant topic is you've probably heard about the May revise. The governor will be releasing that this week.

That is where updated budget proposal is released, by the governor. And, of course, if if you read some news reports, it's not positive. So there will have to be, some significant questions answered, with whatever the deficit may be, projected in this, May revise. But then also note, that whatever comes out to this budget and is agreed to by June, there'll still be challenges based on whatever actions the federal government takes, that may require the legislature, to meet when they might ordinarily be out of session during the summertime. And that's it on our end.

Thank you much, Don. And do we have a, report from assembly member ads? Nobody online? Nobody online. No way to the line. Okay. Any public comment regarding any of those reports from our elected officials?

No. No comment.

Okay. We'll move on to the federal report then and with the federal government update.

Thank you. So congress returned from Easter recess at the April and has been very busy at work with the budget reconciliation process. That's still primarily happening on the house side of the White House, or, excuse me, of the Capitol Building. Several committees have held their budget reconciliation markups already, which is the term used when a committee meets, and votes. It's typically a business meeting, mostly passing various proposition and amendments on party lines.

The overarching theme has very much been implementing existing White House policy and furthering president Trump's policy priorities. So the example we've noted within the written report is at the judiciary committee's reconciliation markup, used its 110, and that's 110,000,000,000 deficit, to propose tens of billions of dollars in funding for immigration authorities. In addition, the committee proposed establishing fees for the legal applicants to the immigration system, including a thousand dollars for asylees. That's fairly new and is very much seen as a revenue generating proposition to help sustain, the agency that oversees immigration, CIS. The House Armed Services Committee advanced a proposal to increase federal defense spending by just over a $150,000,000,000, despite, any number of attempts by Democrats to condition funds on changes to secretary Hegzeth's leadership.

As we've all seen, of course, the the challenges facing DOD right now and and any number of senior staff there that have recently been shown the door. However, those proposals were voted down by Republicans. Written report does detail a number of other changes proposed and then voted on within various committees. But the the biggest piece here, in my opinion, is going to happen this week in the world of budget reconciliation and how it will affect the country writ large. Ways and Means Committee is supposed to and this and I apologize.

It's not in the written report since this is brand new information. But this morning, there the chairman's proposal for the House Ways and Means Committee was released, and it will address any number of tax implementation and changes. That markup is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon at 02:00. The current record for a longest markup in the house is somewhere along the lines of twenty six hours, and that was in the past by the ENC committee, energy and commerce. And it will be interesting to see if that record holds this week.

I would not be surprised if the Ways and Means Committee markup was longer. And, of course, any changes to US tax code would have significant implications on the county and county residents. So we will follow that very closely, of course, and, of course, report on those changes. But very much, I would say, reconciliation is dominating the house's work right now. The senate, of course, continues to be focused on, processing various presidential nominees, and and then we'll we'll see what happens with reconciliation proceedings on the senate side.

So with that, I will turn it actually over to Caitlin Cogle to speak on item two, executive order updates.

Great. Thanks, Maria. So probably of most note is the, first executive order that we highlight protecting American communities from criminal aliens. And this would require the attorney general and then the secretary of homeland security to publish a list of state and local jurisdictions, so called sanctuary jurisdictions that they deem to be in violation of federal law. It would then allow the various department and agency heads to end contracts with the violating jurisdictions.

It would require the attorney general to notify these jurisdictions that they are in violation of federal law and then empower the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security to take any action for jurisdictions that choose to remain in what they deem as violation of the federal law. We also note that the White House, ended taxpayer subsidization of, what they call biased media, so that cuts funding to PBS and NPR, which could be of of note for the county's various residents who depend on PBS for maybe educational programming. And then there is also enforcing common sense rules of the road for American truck drivers. This would enforce the English language proficiency requirements for anyone with a CDL going across state lines. And then after the writing of this report, the White House also issued establishing project homecoming, which seeks to really subsidize and facilitate the voluntary deportation of illegal immigrants.

So anyone who's willing to get on a plane, by establishing project homecoming will facilitate those those deportations.

K. Thank you. I'll, we'll go through the the full report here before I open it up for the public. So, just do have you any any comments or anything, just feel free to jump in, supervisor. Should we go to the budget update?

Sir, I can start on that if you'd like.

Alright.

So the White House did release a skinny version of the president's budget blueprint, and I do note this is the skinny budget. A more robust explanation of the budget is expected in the coming weeks. And the skinny blueprint contained over $163,000,000,000 in federal cuts or savings, depending on your perspective, while keeping military funding at almost $893,000,000,000 Highlights of the budget include an 84% cut to the state department and tens of billions of dollars in cut to each of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. And I will note that, we are still analyzing, what that exactly means for the county, and we'll know more and have be able to report on those reductions once we do have the more robust version of the budget. I know that there has been conversation, within county staff about exactly what those impacts would look like for the county, particularly when it comes to health and human services and the impact on homelessness, in in any number of programs.

But I will say that when we have the the intention is that when we have a fuller version of the budget to give a much more detailed accounting of that. And, of course, it's reflected in the house budget markups, which we addressed above for reconciliation. The Trump administration priorities very much do appear to be immigration and defense, with the president's budget allocating an additional $113,300,000,000 to DOD and 42,300,000,000.0 to Homeland Security. And, again, we will discuss more about each of those once we have the full version of the budget. And as disc and I will also say that the the skinny budget came out very, very much in the same time that the written report is was due, and was drafted.

So apologies. We don't have those details in this version. And as discussed at the and turning slightly at our April, we discussed the fact that both the house and senate have provided entities such as the county with the opportunity to apply for earmark funding, that is community project funding for f y twenty six. And in mid March through mid April, we did submit the county's priorities to each of the members of the federal delegation, and we are thrilled to share that miss Lofgren has selected the San Lucas Clean Drinking Water Project and Salinas Regional Soccer Complex

Yes.

To recommend to the house appropriations committee for federal funding. I understand from representative Panetta's office that he should have his selections available to us by the May, And the senate, of course, is still working through its exact timeline. So I will say that we do know about those two projects, which we're very excited about. But the other three members of the federal delegation are still making their selections, so our list could continue to grow as the process moves forward. I'd also like to highlight that on April 29, the Ballard team coordinated with Chair Lopez on behalf of the board of supervisors to provide a letter of support to miss Loughran for the research conservation district of Monterey County's request for funding to enhance long term resilience and stewardship of the Salinas River watershed.

And so that that was a a very collaborative experience. And, you know, I I thought it was very rewarding to be able to work with our partners within the county to ensure that we are maximizing the availability of federal funds to county residents. And I do have an update to the chart within the written report that does reflect the two projects that miss Lofgren selected to move forward. The strikeouts that are under funding requested indicate those projects that she did not select and will therefore not be moving forward. There was quite a bit of work last month on federal advocacy.

And the Pajaro Sunni Mesa Springfield area regional consolidation project was something that came up unexpectedly. And that came to us on April 30, and I received an alert from supervisor ask you that a $20,000,000 federal grant for the Pajaro Sunny Mesa Springfield area was at risk. That is when the the community water center had received a grant to essentially consolidate several water districts and to ensure that those communities were able to tie into existing community pipelines to provide water to their residences. Unfortunately, the CWC has now received a termination notice that the federal government will not, in fact, be dispersing those funds for the project. And I am coordinating with the board of supervisors and other partners within the community to ensure that we are doing everything we can to preserve that project, knowing that it will have significant impacts on those residents.

And in fact, if this project does not move forward, those residents are likely to be on a bottled water order, which, of course, would be a significant burden for those residences. So, again, we're we're working with our federal delegation with CWC, also been in contact with Martha Guzman, who is following this very closely in a personal capacity. And, you know, we'll we'll we'll see what we can do here, and we'll continue to provide updates, see if we're able to have this project funding restored.

Yeah. If I could just jump in on that. That press conference you guys had? Well, I I want that's exactly what I wanna explain because there's a little confusion Yeah. Yeah.

I do hear too. It's just when I heard about this, I thought, all this groundbreaking that's happened last Friday wasn't gonna happen because the money's just been cut. But there's two actually, parts to this. There's a groundbreaking for Springfield Water project, which is really the southern part of it that was funded by 15,000,000 from the state, and that includes the the the Strobe Road, the mobile home park at Strobe Road and and up in the Springfield area. What this project here was going to do was more for the the north, which was going to involve a little more of the community of Pajaro and Sunny Mason, deal with some of the Chromium six issues, also, as you're saying, consolidation with water systems, and was gonna go out towards the Bluff And Jensen Road areas and then eventually connect these two projects in.

But this one, as Maria just explained, is that this one is now dead out there because the money's been pulled on it. So I wanted to kinda clarify that a little bit because the other one got a little publicity, and the names were very similar. If there's any more you wanna any any or do you have anything you wanna add add to it there or anything? Otherwise, I'll let you continue with the federal app.

So is there what what's the what's the strategy here to is there is there an ability to save that, or is it gonna be an uphill battle?

Candidly, I believe it will be an uphill battle because the funding has been pulled, and so it would require EPA to reverse its decision to terminate the federal funding. So I've had multiple conversations with our federal delegation. Three out of four of them have actively engaged, and the fourth has also been engaged. It's hard to say. It's hard you know, I think internally, although within the delegation and within EPA, folks are doing what they can to reverse the decision.

But I I believe it's it's going to be a very difficult one to untangle, and and I'm not certain it can be done since the termination notice has already gone out.

Yeah. I I fortune I had some discussions with the water, you know, or, you know, Pajaro Sunny Mesa, which is the one involved into this, and they're they're they're aware quite aware that this project is really looks like it's pretty much dead for the time being.

Yeah. Well, seems like the ground went through the community water center, an environmental justice organization. So I get as part of the clawbacks on a lot

of Mhmm.

Similar organizations, I could see why it was targeted.

That's probably why it was targeted. Exactly. Good. So, unfortunately, this doesn't look like it's gonna happen. It'll have have to probably take another administration to to change it.

So did you want any other any comments on this or if you wanna move ahead to the federal safety net. I know you have that on the agenda too.

Yes, sir. Just wanted to provide a brief update that on April 26 with support from the legislative program, the county's chief administrative officer, Sonia De La Rosa, wrote to Senators Padilla, Schiff, and Schiff, and Representatives Panetta and Lofgren, notifying the county's congressional delegation of the county's position to support and protect federal funding for essential safety net programs that serve county residents. And of course, the goal is to ensure that families and individuals receive the necessary benefits to which they're eligible. And this relates to some challenges that there may be significant cuts to key programs in the pipeline, including Medicaid through Medi Cal, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs, that is SNAP, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TAM, block grant. And in the face of these cuts, the state may be unable to backfill billions of dollars to maintain these services and potentially jeopardizing the programs entirely, in which case those costs would be passed along to the counties.

I do have some data points and additional details in the written report for your review. But, of course, you know, this is the high area of concern. For example, the county's health department operates 12 federally qualified health centers and has over 43,000 assigned patients, with eighty six percent of those enrolled in Medi Cal. And so any reduction in funding for Medi Cal would certainly have a devastating impact on the county residents and the provider network. And and certainly, you know, that would certainly not help our residents in the least.

And, of course, SNAP is such an impressive tool and effective in fighting hunger and poverty. And so if the federal government were to reduce that funding, it would certainly have an impact on the partnership with the state and the counties in funding the critical program, which benefits primarily vulnerable families, seniors, and children. And a similar challenge, of course, with TAMP, which, you know, in 2024, 14,189 families received CalWORKS, which aided 11,835 children. And in FY twenty four through twenty five, the county received 40,000,000 over $40,000,000 in federal temp spending. So, again, reductions in these safety net programs would have ripple effects and provide challenges not just to the residents receiving those services, but an impact on the county to fill any federal funding gaps.

And, of course, you know, just looking at TAMP and realizing how much money is spent through TAMP, let alone through the Medi Cal and SNAP programs certainly gives a sense of the potential impact there. Turning to item d, legislation. This is HR 22 is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. And supervisor Askew has requested an opposed position on behalf of the board of supervisors. And advocates of this bill do claim that it would prevent voter fraud in federal elections.

However, opponents state that it would hinder millions of eligible Americans from registering to vote by requiring citizens to present a birth certificate or passport in person to register. And this is actually a piece of legislation that the California Association of Clerk and Election Officials have spoken out on, and and their position is far from politically motivated. But in addition to, some of the the overarching concerns with the intent of the legislation, there are some very specific technical concerns with the bill as written and how it would be implemented. Gina Martinez is has joined us. And if there are questions on the technical components of the bill without asking her to provide, an opinion or to address any of the political implication, she is available as a subject matter expert to speak specifically on the technical implementation concerns that may exist with this legislation.

She is, of course, one of our election officials.

Do you have any questions for Gina on this? No.

I wanna hear she I think she's gonna speak first.

Good afternoon, supervisors. Thank you for having me here. So as a member of the board of directors for the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, I was one of the voting members who authorized a letter of concern regarding HR 22. Overall, as an election official, our duty is to administer the law in a manner that supports both access to the ballot and integrity of the ballot. To that end, as a member of the association, we support and recognize the principle that citizenship is a requirement for voter registration and voting.

And as sworn election officials, we as I'm speaking on behalf of the association of clerks and election officials are dedicated to upholding the law while ensuring that every eligible voter, regardless of personal circumstances, profession, or political affiliation, is welcome into the democratic process. Looking at HR 22, the intent, I think, if if people read this and really just hone in on the title, the SAVE Act, we're looking at proof of citizenship. Well, when you read the details of this proposal, you're seeing that it really conflicts with law. So we're in a lose lose situation already. So whether we implement this, we're violating law now related to our military and overseas voters act.

We're violating law related to ADA and the voting rights act. It it just there's so many points of conflict, and there's really no reconciliation on how we as election officials would be able to implement this law and still meet our other obligations of law. In addition, much of it much has been made about married women and their last names being different on documents, whether they're married, divorced, separated, and those last names have varied, it's even more pronounced for communities in the Latinx community. And that is something that we're very sensitive to in Monterey County, where when we look at the corridor that we serve from North Monterey County to Salinas to South Monterey County, our poll workers are trained to always ask voters who arrive at the polling place, could you be registered under a different last name? Because there are multiple last names within this community, and these last names vary depending on the official document.

So not only are we looking at disproportionate impact on married or divorced women, but a disproportionate impact on those communities that would have multiple last names. So just in terms of election administration, the cost for Monterey County alone would be upwards of 1,000,000 additional dollars per election. We would need additional permanent staff members to process hundreds and thousands of voter registration updates. And then there's there's a ripple effect that extends beyond the election. What would happen in the citizens initiative process?

Right now, voters can sign a petition and update their registration simultaneously so that their address is correct, and we can count their signature on a citizen's initiative. And should this go through, it would really call into question even the act of of being able to propose propose questions for the ballot as a citizen, which is really another right of our citizens. So that and that is all I have. Again, we are not well, we are in support and recognize the principle, again, that citizenship is a requirement to vote. That is that is something that is already in existence.

It is a law it's illegal for somebody who is not a citizen to register and vote. So as an election official, we are here to uphold the law, but also serve our voters.

And, Gina, have may I ask you that? You say it cost a billion dollars for the elections department to to be able to handle this legislation. Does does that take into consideration any of the other problems that this could create and how that would be additional, wouldn't it?

That it it this is only to implement. So the legal considerations that would stem from this, we are not factoring in that dollar amount. So this would be additional permanent staff members to be able to process 219,000 registered voters and their appearance before me in our office to be able to staff alternative sites across the county and on election day to be able to provide the technology and staffing at each of our 66 locations across the county to allow them to vote. It does not take into consideration any legal issues that may arise from this, and there would be legal issues. Because not only am am I subject to criminal penalty, but our poll workers and anybody else who assists in in voter registration or processing these records would also potentially be criminally liable for an error or someone else trying to provide us with false documents, and we we accept them.

Thank you. And this doesn't even take consideration that there's probably thousands or tens of thousands of people who are citizens and qualified to vote who would would lose that.

Correct.

So I I, you know, very much opposed to this bill myself. See. There is another Sir Yes?

I would say, sir, I would highlight that HR 22 has passed the house and awaits action in the senate. I did just wanna highlight that this is a a moving piece of legislation. So I do believe that time is of the essence. I just wanted to highlight that, because this could be called up in the senate at any point. And then assuming it would pass, it would go directly to the president for signature.

Yes. Thank you. So we'd support a Opposition. Position. Yep. Yep.

And I just wanna thank, our registered voters, Gina Martinez, for raising this and for her association for raising concern, putting up more barriers for our for our voters when California has been moving to make voting as easy as possible, would go against our our our values. But, also, we haven't seen any problems that, you know, that showing I an ID in order to vote is somehow gonna improve or reduce any any problems or concerns regarding voting. We we just haven't seen it anywhere anywhere in in a significant numbers across our state. So if other states are are doing, I think majority of states are moving in that direction, but, but California is one that has has made strides in trying to make easing voting as easy as possible, across across our state.

Very good. Alright, Eagle. Thank you. As I said, I know we're we're both in a position to oppose on that. If there's nothing else to add, let's just move on to the other legislation, the Digital Equity Act.

Thank you, sir. So I would share for the public that on 05/01/2025, the board of supervisors joined with the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership and others to ask representative Panetta to advocate to preserve $137,900,000 in federal Digital Equity Act funding that's been allocated to California through the bipartisan infrastructure law. As stated in the letter that the board of supervisors did sign on to, these critical investments are at risk in upcoming budget negotiations, and losing those funds would stall essential programs that close the digital divide. So I I do know that I don't have a a particular recommendation for this piece of legislation as I normally would since the board of supervisors has already supported the advocacy effort. But I did think that it was worthwhile to highlight for the sake of the public that is watching this legislative committee meeting.

Thank you. And

my final item is the federal bill and issue track, which is attached for your reference.

Right. Thank you for that. This will see if there's any public comment on the on the federal report legislation that all has been discussed. Is there anybody online? See, nobody in the room?

No hands raised on Zoom.

Alright. So I just wanna emphasize that both supervisor Lehoe and I take the position against the safeguard for American voter eligibility. I think that was the only one we had a real action on. Oh, you really asked for public comment? I did ask public comment. I do wanna just point out is just, you know, in terms of the safety net, it's just realizing that half of the population of Monterey County takes Medicaid and and a fifth are on SNAP, and it's really is quality of life issue. People's basic needs for food. With that, we'll just move on to the state. Yes. Please go ahead, Ashley.

Thank you, supervisor Church, and and good afternoon. Alright. Let's get started. The state right now, as I believe Dominic from speaker Revis's office had noted, we had met a couple of deadlines over the last couple of weeks with our policy committee hearings. There were several policy committee hearings to hear all of the bills and meet that deadline for bills to pass those first policy committees and move on to the fiscal committees.

The fiscal committee deadline is May 23, and we understand that the suspense file will be taken up that day as well, Friday, May 23. June 6 is gonna be the last day for each of the houses to pass bills that are in their house of origin over to the second house to start the policy committee and fiscal committee process again in that second house. With regard to the state budget, we have heard that the May revision will be released on Wednesday, this Wednesday, May 14. As we've been keeping you updated throughout, the last couple of months since the January budget proposal was released, we do anticipate that there is going to be a deficit, with with the May revise. We think that the legislature is already and has been discussing where they might provide, different cuts in order to meet and help, fill the potential deficit, the substantial deficit, which is likely.

The legislature, of course, as you know, must pass and vote on a budget bill by June 15, and the final budget has to be signed by June 30. Last year, the legislature did make some additional changes between June 15 and June 30 with an amended budget bill. There's also the opportunity for the legislature and governor to negotiate trailer bills, budget trailer bills. And there may even be budget trailer bills all the way until the end of session. So they do have while the main budget will be passed, of course, and be the bulk of the budget negotiation, there could be additional discussions within budget trailer bills as we even near the end of session.

One item for the committee's consideration with regard to the state budget is that the county was asked to consider submitting a letter for funding for two one one services. The request is for $20,000,000 in one time funds to strengthen the California two one one system. That letter is attached, and we would like the committee to vote on that letter, submitting that letter.

Alright. Good. I'm I'm fine with that self onto the letter. If you can she probably expressed an interest into that as well, so that'll be fine if you wanna move on into the legislation.

Great. Will do. We will get that letter executed and submit it. The first bill is just a report on a b 49 by assembly member Murat Succi, we thought it was important to report on this bill because the county did take a support position early on in January with regard to this immigrant enforcement bill that restricts immigrant enforcement officials from, entering, educational agencies and, at the time, also day cares. The county had taken a support position on this bill and requested that day care centers that are home day care centers be included as well.

Unfortunately, the bill was amended to remove day care centers at all, but the bill does still, of course, support local educational institutions. So we do still have a support position on the bill for school sites, but we did wanna alert the committee that there was the removal of family day cares or I'm sorry. There was a removal of day care centers, and there's no inclusion of family day care centers moving forward. I will move on to a b four three one. This bill is requested to be supported by Monterey Bay Economic Partnership who sent us information on the bill.

The county's economic development manager did recommend a support position on this piece of legislation. It establishes the advanced air mobility zero emission and electrification aviation advisory panel. That panel would evaluate the state's infrastructure feasibility for supporting VertiPort network and create a three year plan to advance air mobility services. The county, in its review, did think that it could be positive for the county and, to impact two of the aviation businesses in the county. And so they we have recommended a support position on the bill and would like the legislative committee's vote on that.

Yep. I'm good with that. Well, Dylan, thinking maybe I should just come back onto these after we do public comments. Go right go right ahead, Ashley. And I know we got one that came on. We don't have a report on that. It's AB928. Yes. That's correct. But I I also I think if Cindy Burnham do know if Cindy Burnham is on? I think from Hitchcock Road Animal Services would wanna request this to be on here. So she can add anything that after you're done.

She has her hand. Great.

Yes. So AB nine two eight, this bill imposes limits on the number of roosters that individuals can keep a raise on their property, but it also authorizes public prosecutors to recover civil penalties and any claims that are brought to enforce against a violation. With that, I can hand it over if Cindy's ready.

Yeah. I'm here. Set her hand to raise. Let me see.

Go go ahead, Cindy. Oh. Hi, I'm We we can't hear you very clear.

Hi. Can you hear me now? Yes.

You can

hear me.

Okay. There we go. Have pulling from the microphone down helps. Hi. I'm Cindy Burnham. I'm the administrator at Hitchcock Road Animal Services. We enforce many of the local ordinances. One specifically, related to roosters on our end is the county ordinance. Our ordinance requires a permit for five or more roosters and has not been an effective tool at curbing cockbiting in Monterey County. There's, in fact, no limits.

Some can house up to 499. We've had permits with hundreds of roosters, and it's just not been a tool for us to use. There's really only one reason to house hundreds of roosters, and that is for cockfighting. We are currently reviewing our ordinance per a board referral to make more effective at eradicating cockfighting in unincorporated Runnery County. And in our review, we found that limiting the number of roosters per partial size is a much more effective tool and something many other counties currently have.

AB nine twenty eight, in fact, is modeled after many of those county ordinances that address noise, crime, cruelty associated with game foul yards by limiting rooster possession. It will prohibit more than three roosters per acre or 25 total when roosters are tethered or housed alone in a cage. It also does have common sense exemptions for commercial poultry, schools, animal agencies, poultry hobbyists, FFA, four h, state Grange. It's important. It's gonna help give us a tool as we provide services to the county of Monterey to prevent game fill yards from becoming large criminal operations.

We do have we anticipate over a 100 plus properties in Monterey County that we suspect that have hundreds of birds. So limiting birds is something we're very interested in. Cal Animals, the state animal welfare organization, has taken a position of support for this bill. The Hitchcock Road Animal Services Joint Powers Agency board of directors will be reviewing a position of support this Thursday. And

we'd like

the county of Monterey specifically because they have a rooster keeping ordinance as well to further support our work to reduce cockfighting in Monterey County. Thank you.

And I just wanna emphasize a little bit what Cindy touched upon, which the sheriff's department has always emphasized with me is it's not really just a an issue of, humane treatment of these birds, but this tends to draw in a lot of, of really significant criminal activity on these events and, creates multiple problems for law enforcement. See. And

This is not a support letter.

No. It was a was a late addition that came up, but Cindy had a, you know, request for

Go to. Yep.

As as well. So, we can move on to the s b 16.

That's great. So s b 16 is just a report, a good report in that, originally, the county had an oppose unless amended position, which was aligned with CSAC's opposition. The author the author, has amended the bill, and that removed all of our concerns as well as CSAC's concerns. So we are going to be submitting a letter you'll see in your pocket that just removes our opposition and moves it to a watch position. And I am, finished with the legislative portion.

Ashley? Yes.

Yes. On on this bill, it's gonna go to appropes. So, and it's in the senate. Right? So that's the appropriations chair is senator Caballero. But maybe if you could follow-up with CSAC, because I think the effort now is to make sure it gets out of committee, because it will be amended when it gets to the senate. But we need to, be able to reach out to senator Caballero, telling her that it's important for the bill to get out of appropes committee so that the the work among partners, CSAC with senator Blakespeare, Blake Blakespeare can continue, once it jumps to the next house in the assembly.

Sure. I'm happy to follow-up with senator Caballero's office, and it did go to approves today. So we we've moved to, I'm sorry. It did go to a suspense today in appropriations this morning. So, yes. Absolutely. I can follow-up and make sure that they are aware of that and, get a copy of our letter also.

Sorry. Are you good with that? So it's church. It's because this is, like, a CSAC is working on this bill. It's a work in progress, but

Got it.

It's a procedural step to make sure it's it's only in, like, a homelessness assessment, but it will be amended when it when it goes from the senate to the assembly. But we just need the to have the vehicle to keep the work going.

Right. We, yeah, remove the the opposition, but we're not putting a support forth with this.

Just a letter asking Cabrera to let the bill continue to the assembly as as I'm working with.

We're good with. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

I will move on to the California Public Utilities Commission letter. When I when I wrote this report, that letter was still being worked on. The letter was requested by the board, of supervisors at the April 28 meeting that we send a letter to the CPUC requesting that they act quickly to review any additional regulatory paths that may strengthen safety and oversight of the battery energy storage system facilities. That letter was finalized and was sent out, so that has been completed at the direction of the board of supervisors. And then finally, I have listed the governor's actions and executive orders since our last meeting.

However, as you may have seen today, the governor did release an additional encampment notice. I did email the full board information about this encampment press release and ordinance model ordinance that was released from the governor's office. The model ordinance includes a prohibition on persistent camping in one location. It includes a prohibition on encampments that block free passage on sidewalks and a requirement that local officials provide notice and make every reasonable effort to identify and offer shelter prior to clearing an encampment. There is some guidance for local governments that is included within the ordinance.

But on the press release itself, it does encourage the public to visit accountability.ca.gov. Of course, on that website, it includes county data and information about homelessness and housing. And so I did just wanna announce that because that just happened this morning, and it was not included in my report. And, finally, I have our bill tracker attached, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thanks. Thank you, Ashley. Is there any public comment on any items from the state report? I see no hands anywhere except for over here.

Yeah. Ashley, just on the the May revise on Wednesday, it's it's supposed to be released as Dominic said. Any word on what what the projected deficit? You know, they said that LEO came out with its numbers, but, it it could be anywhere from 10 to $20,000,000,000 deficit. Somebody said it could even be higher than that.

And and then the second part of that is if whatever budget they vote on in June, it's it's likely gonna be modified either through a a budget, a subsequent budget trailer bill because we still don't know what actions congress is gonna take in the early fall. And do we expect the state legislature to have an extraordinary or special session after September 12 that might have to return to Sacramento to deal with, perhaps, making, changes to the budget in light of any adverse congressional action on the budget?

No. Those are excellent questions. So I have been hearing a $10,000,000,000 plus budget deficit. Also, I think that that's dependent upon federal cuts as was noted. A $10,000,000,000 deficit is that is without federal cuts, anticipated for California.

So I don't think that it would be, you know, out of out of the realm of possibility that the legislature may need to hold a special session, an extraordinary session, should there be additional federal cuts. And we've passed a budget that is based on a $10,000,000,020 $20,000,000,000 deficit without federal cuts. There is gonna need to be some discussion about how to make up

for

that during the time that's gonna pass between us enacting a final budget and the federal budget being, being finalized as well. I don't know if others have comments.

The other big unknown, actually, is that the the governor, delayed LA County from paying its taxes until I think it

was delayed till October. So that's another

big factor, right, that we don't know the full scope of the state budget because big LA County has a has a delay in in when when it's when it has to pay pay the pay its taxes.

That's exactly right. And this is that is been kind of the norm for the past since the pandemic, really, right, is that we've had delays with regard to tax deadlines to October, many years due to either, you know, wildfires, winter storms, the pandemic, etcetera, which has made for, you know, a difficult and and challenging budget outlook when you're in May. So, absolutely, your point's well taken that it's really gonna be dependent upon, you know, how things look in May, but then what comes in in October with the with the tax delay.

Mhmm. Just wanna kinda go over the actions we took here in 02/11. We're having approving the letter to go out for that. Continuing the support on 49, supporting four thirty one, supporting nine twenty eight, removing opposition to s b 16, sending to letter to a senator Caballero, and, I think that was it. Yes.

I I do wanna clarify something. So we have a letter, a memo, that is drafted to senator Blakespeare removing our opposition to s b 16. That will be shared with senator Caballero, and I can discuss that with her staff. But, typically, in order to you know, if if you want to remove your opposition, you you we would file that with the senator. I'm happy to include a cc to senator Caballero to ensure that, you know, it's official that it's on the letter, that it's going to her and the appropriations committee if the if the legislative committee would like to do that.

I think we might have didn't make it clear.

Yeah. Actually but I think I think we're trying to convey to Caballero that we support the bill moving out, of committee, and that's why I was a citizen talking to, CSAC staff, just about the right wording so that it because they they reached out to us. It's senator Caballero represented our county for many years to let her know that we're support, we're in support of this work that CSAC is doing, with senator Blakespeare to allow the the the the bill to move out of appropes and be able to, continue to work as it goes through the assembly.

Okay. So you you would like a separate letter from the one removing our opposition?

Yes. Just just to senator Caballero as the chair of appropriations.

Okay. Understood.

Yeah. I'm fine with that. Yep. Right. So then we have the, grant report.

Okay. Great. We've been very focused on proposition four. As you can imagine, we've been attending several workshops, since the January budget proposal was released. We are continuing to evaluate proposition four grant funding opportunities.

We've also met with the county's delegation to discuss any potential state budget funding or state agency flexible funding that could help finance the San Lucas drinking water project. We are working with the state board to figure out when the, final project alternative will be selected. It's my understanding that they've gone through the entire public process already in terms of gathering feedback from the public about the draft feasibility studies and draft engineer reports. And now, really, it's going to be making a decision on which project alternative is best suited to move forward. The county, of course, as you know, did put a letter in, a comment letter in, with our preferred project approach for San Lucas.

Next, the Coastal Conservancy is already accepting rolling applications for proposition four funding. We did attend a workshop about this particular, funding

opportunity and have alerted the county. We're working with the county to see if there's any potential identified projects and to help with

attend the applications as needed. And then next, we have the proposition for wildfire funding. We are gonna be participating in the coastal conservancy's webinar that's happening in about a week, yes, to learn more about the wildfire resilience program. There will be funding available through the climate bond, of course, and so, particularly, we're gonna be looking out for any funding that may be available for eucalyptus removal. We'll continue to keep the county updated on what types of projects can be funded within the prop for wildfire funding program. And then finally, we have our grant tracker attached, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Oh, and I just wanted to emphasize in terms of, you know, funding from from prop four for any wildfire mitigation is would be really great. The Eucalyptus program that they had last year was really received well, and I've my office was working with that with senator Laird quite a bit. Had a lot of interest from not just to my district, but also outside the outside of of our district into the other other parts of the county about expanding on this. So that's what the request is in there for that as well. I see we do have one hand raised for public comment.

So unless you have any comments you wanna make there. Okay. There there don't nobody in the room. So, Adam, you have two minutes if you'd like to give a comment.

Thank you, supervisor. I I won't take two minutes. I I just wanna express support and appreciation. We've been asking, local jurisdictions for more resources to help property owners comply with defensible space and home hardening requirements, And we've been citing the eucalyptus, removal program, as as a success story. So we really hope to that, that the county and local jurisdictions build on that success, and thank you again.

Thank you. Is there anybody else? Seeing nobody so we can pull a public comment. And let's see. And Is that the end of the am I missing something?

We have one more item.

Oh, one more item. Here, number six. Sorry. Missed on the top of the page. Mhmm. That's for the legislative received report and provide direction on renewal of the county, state, and federal legislative advocacy and grant services contract. Yes. That's an important one. You can skip that.

Thank you, supervisor Church. I wanted to kind of give an overview of where we're at on the county's state and federal legislative advocacy and grant services contracts because those contracts are set to expire on June 30, and so we'd like to get your direction on their renewal. As you know, we've been utilizing the services of Nossiman and Ballard Spar for some time now. And I think that the board has indicated that they've been very happy with their services, and certainly the IGLA team and the CAO's office has been. In looking at their current contracts, we would need to make some minor revisions to their scope of services just to bring them in line with the work that they're currently doing.

I think kind of the most obvious omission that we have in the scope of work right now on the federal contract is that it doesn't really reference the work that they've been doing for the county on community project funding because when we actually issued the contracts, the federal government wasn't receiving earmark requests. So it's just a little bit of cleanup work that we need to do on the scopes of work. And then I wanted to give you a quick rundown on the funding history for these contracts because we are making a staff recommendation that there's a 15% increase to the contracts across the board. So in the chart that's shown on the screen, you'll see that the current amount that the county pays for these services is exactly the same amount of money that we paid ten years ago in f y fourteen fifteen. So there were some reasons why the funding was was reduced in in fiscal year twenty seventeen eighteen.

We did an an RFP on the contracts. And during that time, the county was facing some really difficult budget situation, and so we significantly reduced the amount that was paid under the under the contracts. And then kind of post COVID, I think that really kind of started a ramp up on work, especially in the federal and state legislative advocacy contracts because we began using those contracts more and more to help the county when we were facing emergencies, whether that was COVID nineteen, floods, fires, various natural disasters. And so in recognition of that, in July 2021, the board had restored the contracts to the level of funding that they are being paid now. And so that funding has continued for the remaining years on the contract.

So the staff recommendation is to kind of recognize the work, recognize that there hasn't been a pay increase in quite some time. And so there's a a chart there that kind of lists out what the staff recommendation is. Additionally, because I've spoken about the legislative contracts, I haven't really touched on the grant services contract. I think with all the prop four funding, we're just anticipating needing Nossiman's help on grant services in especially in this next year in a level that's just much higher than they've been providing in the past. So that is unless the board has any like, it's the the one other thing that I'll just mention is that I think it's really important that we've seen the benefit of having the county be represented by the same firms over a number of years.

It takes an incredible amount of time to bring a lobbyist up to speed on all the county's issues so that they can be effective in lobbying for the county's interests and to develop the relationships with our federal and state legislative delegations. And so I think Ashley has been with the county in one capacity or another since July 2017. As you probably remember, Brett Heberly was with Ballard Spar until he handed the reins over to Maria in March 2023. So I just kinda wanted to mention the longevity of their service to the county. So with this report, what we're seeking direction on is just whether or not the committee agrees with the staff recommendation or has a different recommendation.

If you agree with the recommendation, we'll bring the contracts to the board of supervisors with the 15% increase along with the option of approving, extending the contracts for an additional three years under the scheme scope of services on a year to year basis. Thank you.

Is there any public comment on the matter? Nobody?

No.

Raised.

Annette, when was the last time we provided an increase?

So the last time was as you'll see can you up the chart? There you go. So the last time we provided an increase was in July 2021, and that was restoring the contracts to the same level as they were in FY fourteen, fifteen.

Okay. So it's been four years? Yes. Okay. First of all, I I think our advocacy teams do a great job, very attentive, very responsive when we need them.

And our legislative program has become much more active over the years, especially since I've been on became a county supervisor over the nine years. They've seen us do more work. And especially during emergencies, they, they were there to respond fairly quickly on a new on many items that arose. I think 15% is is kinda high, but considering it's over four years, I'm good with it. But I I did wanna note, we did intentionally, put up the state advocacy contract for an RFP, shortly after I became a supervisor in 2017.

So I believe that was 2018, 2019, and we did significantly drop it. Obviously, Nassimon was competitive, and we dropped it, I think, to a $90,000 a year contract if I remember correctly. So here we are at $1.06 $1.01 44, now moving to $1.65. So we've, increased it significantly over the last, what, seven years. So I just wanna push back a little.

I'm kinda hesitant. 15% is significant. It's another, $52,000. So and our budgets are getting tighter. But considering it's over four years, I'm I'm supportive, but with little reservations here as well.

Yeah. I, you know, look at this here too as as supervisor was pointing out over four years. It, probably relates out, according to inflation. I mean, we'll partially, maybe not even quite matching it for that matter. Although, as it was pointed out is that it was originally cut in twenty seventeen, eighteen because of some financial hard times, and now we're right back here, probably even more financially difficult times.

It wasn't only financial. It was that the previous firm we had wasn't doing a very good job. Exactly. That that was probably more than anything. But then with with an RFP process, you're able to put it Yep. Get competitive bids, and and, fortunately, gave us the best bid and has gave us way better advocacy services for sure.

Well, I appreciate that historical background onto it, and I agree. I mean, this is I'm really happy with what we're getting here from, our our state and federal advocates on there. So I'm I'm okay with this. I mean, it's it's a tough time this year. It's happy asking it, but there hasn't been anything down here. We have gone through and raised some portions of some budgets up while we're having to cut some others. But this is this is big because then it might be it's gonna be really important here in the next few years from because we're gonna be relying on the state for a lot. And the federal government, we're gonna be just trying to claw claw whatever we can and keep whatever we can. Whatever we can. Yeah.

So it's it's a real challenging time, and I'm quite aware that we're really gonna we're really gonna need the kind of the good work we've had. So I will, know, be willing to support this going ahead myself. And with that, I think we do come to adjournment. Alright. Alright. Thank you, everybody. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. Bye. Thank you.

Always always that touchy subject. I know.