City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning, everyone. It is Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026. We are here at the Monterey County Board of Supervisors meeting. Let the record show that all supervisors are present. Are there any additions or corrections to our closed session agenda this morning?

No additions or corrections, Chair.

All right. We have items number 1A through C on the Board of Supervisors closed session. Is there any public comment on our closed session agenda? seeing no one in chambers or hands raised we'll close public comment and recess the board of supervisors into closed session but before we leave the dais we're going to call to order the board of supervisors of the monterey county water resource agency letting the record show that all supervisors are present are there any additions or corrections to our water resource agency closed session agenda No additions or corrections. All right. We have closed session item number 1A on the Water Resource Agency agenda this morning. Is there any public comment on that item? Seeing no hands raised, we'll close public comment for closed session and recess the Board of Supervisors for the Water Resource Agency into closed session. And we'll be back here at 1030 for the remainder of our agenda. Thank you. It is June 23rd, 2026, and we are going to reconvene the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, letting the record show that all supervisors are present. We do have Spanish interpretation services with us at every board meeting. Diego Salas is with us remotely. Diego, can you make our Spanish interpretation announcement, please?

Yes, good morning.

Thank you, Diego. We appreciate having you with us here. All right, we're going to move next to the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all stand and join me in the pledge. Right. Are there any additions or corrections to our agenda this morning?

There are four under appointments for item number seven, a revised attachment a was received. Also under appointments for items number nine and 14. A revised term and date was corrected in the term end date should be June 30 2030 and not June 30 2026. And lastly, under scheduled am matters item number 20 received a revised attachment a

okay thank you um we'll go next to our summer ceremonial resolutions we have items number two through five on our ceremonial resolutions agenda this morning um i'll see if there's any public comment on our ceremonial resolutions we'll close that bring it back to the board move approval the motion from lopez second from church all in favor aye Aye. All right. We're going to start with our deputy honoring our deputy probation officer three Ricardo Balcazar upon retirement from the county of Monterey. And I'm going to have the chief join me at the front. Right. It is an honor and a pleasure. And I see you've got a lot of friends here to celebrate your retirement as well. But always an honor and a pleasure to celebrate and recognize Monterey County individuals who have committed their lives, their career, their time, their energy, their talent, their compassion in service to our residents and our communities. So thank you for choosing Monterey County as a place that you spend your your career. We're recognizing Deputy Probation Officer Ricardo Balcazar upon his retirement from the County of Monterey Probation Department after spending more than 25 years serving our community. Richard Balcazar began his distinguished career with the Probation Department in 2000, September of 2000, as a temporary probation aide and advanced through the ranks to Deputy Probation Officer III. along the way, demonstrating exceptional competence, leadership and dedication to the department's mission for more than two decades of service. Richard Balcazar served in a variety of assignments over the years within juvenile and adult services, including school based supervision, youth center operations, sex offender supervision, supervised home confinement, pretrial services and juvenile court services. While assigned to the Youth Center, Richard Balcazar voluntarily assumed additional responsibilities to support institutional operations, contributing to collaborative community investments through the At-Risk Grant Program, and participated in efforts to improve youth services and reduce recidivism through his involvement with Dr. Letessa Committee. Whereas as a deputy probation officer, Richard Balkasar played a key role in development and implementation of the department's pre-trial services program, helping establish operational protocols, compiling and analyzing program data, and assisting in the implementation of evidence-based assessment practices that changed and enhanced departmental effectiveness and service delivery. Your colleagues have shared with us that they know you to be a dependable, highly organized and respected team member who consistently volunteers for additional assignments, mentors and trains new staff and maintains exemplary professional standards while setting a positive example through your sound judgment, your integrity and your lasting contributions to our department and the community that we serve. As you choose your retirement from the county, we on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in the county wish you joy and laughter and all of the things that you didn't have time to do while you were working in service to our community. I'm going to pass this to you and say on behalf of our county, we thank you for your service.

Good morning, everyone. I would like to say a few words. I've known Rick for a long time, probably a little over 20 years. But good morning, board and guests. Thank you for being here. I would like to thank Richard, we call him Rick Balcazar, for his 25 year career with the probation department. His hard work, kindness and help has helped many people change their lives. And this includes adults and juveniles together. Rick has always shown dedication, and he's such a great example to our team, and he's such a great person, caring, loving. I know his family's here from Chicago. It means a lot. But, you know, you're dearly going to be missed. On behalf of the probation department, thank you, Rick. for your 25 year commitment to the probation department. He has always been super positive. I don't think I've ever seen him upset or having a bad day. He's such a good inspiration to a lot of us. Again, he goes above and beyond and I'm gonna truly miss you. Thank you.

Wow, can't believe it's been 25 years. First of all, I'd like to thank God, my family for being here, my mom, my wife, my beautiful wife, Elizabeth, my son, my two boys, Angel and Ricardo, who bring out the best in me, my sister, who always inspires me. I always look up to her, my older sister. Definitely, and I'm gonna say a couple of words in Spanish for my mom. Trying not to choke up here. Thank you to my mom. She's my inspiration, my rock, my everything. Thank you to my coworkers. for making my 25 years. You don't do it alone. I have good, I've been blessed with exceptional coworkers who've always been there for me, who were there during challenging times. I appreciate all their help, them being there for me during the hard times. The chief, the probation department, when I started, my career i never thought how it was going to be more than just a career i met a lot of wonderful people there there at the probation department and i just want to thank everybody for being here for their time the board and everyone thank you and definitely i enjoyed my career i enjoyed what i did i hope i made a difference in the community i really gave it my all and i'm still going to continue to to be involved in the community thank you thank you everyone for your time

Bring the board down to please. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Randy, it's just for, oh, there's Brian back there. Sorry, I guess I was looking for you in less formal attire. And everybody from Parks and Murray, come on up here. So just to start with, this year is actually the 60th anniversary of Monterey County Parks. We celebrated that actually on Labor Day in September when 60 years ago Royal Oaks Park opened. And so it's really... really proper at this time to really give attention to parks and the importance to them as we have the month here dedicated in July for two parks and recreation. Parks are really something special. It's a place for people to come and enjoy some outdoors, whether they're hiking or they're biking or just going out for a picnic or taking part in some sports like in soccer or baseball. It's an opportunity for families to be together. It's an opportunity for people to have a little bit of solitude. And we have a lot of parks in Monterey County and That gives us a great opportunity for the people in this county and visitors to share in them. And so it's also a place for the environment, for the plants and animals to thrive. And it's... It's really important for parks because they represent a quality of life for all of us, whether it's local parks or state parks or national parks or whatever it may be. So I'm... Just want to read a little bit from here because back in 1985, the National Recreation and Parks Association launched Park and Recreation Month as a way to celebrate the wonderful parks of our nation and recreational activities that take place in all communities. In 2009, the United States House of Representatives designated July as Parks and Recreation Month. This year, 2026, it marks the 45th anniversary of National Park and Recreation Month, highlighted by the theme of the power of parks and recreation. It encompasses the power of play, nature, community, belonging, well-being, and the people who make these experiences possible, and some of those people, all of these, are up here today. So it's a really great honor here to proclaim the month of July 2026 as Parks and Recreation Month and July 17th, 2026 as Park and Recreation Day. So with that, I'll give it to the Parks Director here to say a few words here first, but maybe Randy wants to speak too.

Thank you, Supervisor. Board, thank you. Members of the public. Just to kind of piggyback on what you were saying, parks are very important. We learned that during COVID. Parks were where everybody went. Our employees, our parks employees became essential workers. We came to work when everybody else was sheltering in place. Our parks are not just picnic tables, some grass, playgrounds. There are many cities. We have sewer systems, electrical systems, water systems, irrigation systems. All of that takes skill and effort to maintain and keep running. So our parks are great places for people to visit. We have our ranger unit who encounter everything from gang violence, domestic abuse, life-threatening injuries, people's legs chopped off by boat props, all different kinds of things. And then we have our administrative unit that kind of makes the world go around in parks, keeping the wheels greased and the reservations up to date and things like that. I'd like to thank all of our staff, all of our park staff that are online, that are listening, that are unable to join that will get this message. But great thank you from myself, from our staff, from the community. And thank you very much.

morning supervisor church and members of the board thank you all very much for the ceremony resolution dedicating this month of july as national parks recreation month and the park professionals day our head of parks flores has articulated it very well. The county has 30,000 acres of parks and open space that we maintain for our public and for our visitors who come to them to enjoy our recreational spaces. And as Sue Reiser Church had noted, this dates back to 1985 when the National Parks and Recreation Association established this month. And it highlights the importance and the essential nature of our local park system in that it provides for community health, wellness, and conservation. And the Park Professionals Day recognizes the hardworking staff who maintain those park places. We thank the Board of Supervisors for continuing to see to it that our day use parks are free. for anyone who wants to come to our day use parks. We thank them for the community funding to keep our lakes and recreation spaces open, and we welcome the members of the public to come out to our parks ranging as far north as Royal Oaks Park in the North County, down to Lake Nascimento down in the South County, and Laguna Seca Recreation Area and our other park places. So we thank the board very much, and we thank you, the public, for your continued support and patronage. Thank you very much.

All right, we have another retirement to celebrate this morning. I'd like to invite Kate McKenna, the Executive Officer for Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission, to join me here. I'm going to pass this to you. So Kate McKenna is retiring from LAFCO, which many folks don't know what that is, but it's probably one of the most important significant agencies that we have here in Monterey County and across the state of California. And Kate has been at the helm of this organization, leading it for the past 25 years with care and integrity and a backbone of steel. And with your retirement, we just want to take a moment to recognize and celebrate the legacy that you will be leaving everyone who visits Monterey County, who lives or works in Monterey County. The impact that one person has is significant when we talk about Kate McKenna. So I've had the honor and pleasure to work with Kate for some years now, most recently as chair of our LAFCO commission and chair of the California Cal-LAFCO board. And one thing that has always impressed me about Kate is that she cares so deeply about her work, about the people of our county, and about the land that serves our community and allows our community to have the quality of life that we do. For 22 years, Kate has run LAFCO of Monterey County, an agency that Monterey County residents rely on constantly, even if you've never heard of it. She's the reason that Salinas Valley cities have permanent agricultural edges instead of sprawl creeping into foreign land. She oversaw nearly 5,000 acres of annexations of cities while simultaneously protecting thousands of acres of prime farmland in the process. Just a couple years ago in 2024 she led our commission through the rewriting and adoption of an agricultural preservation policy amendment which received statewide recognition. Prior to coming and joining us at the helm of LAFCO, Kate spent 25 years as an urban planner in Cupertino and Sunnyvale, the county, and at AMBAG. She's mentored colleagues across the state and is deeply respected by all those who work in the LAFCO community. And she's picked up nearly every honor that the state LAFCO community gives out along the way. Recently, Kate ran her first marathon, and not just any marathon, the Big Sur marathon, maybe the hardest course in the country, and did so with a humility and a grace that I can only aspire to achieve. But all of that is who Kate is, whether it's protecting farmland or finishing a marathon, she shows up. She does the work and she does it with a kindness and a compassion and an inclusivity that is aspirational. One thing that isn't in your resolution, Kate, but for me has always been meaningful and I just wanted to take my moment to comment on it is that you're also a mom and you're a mom of three beautiful, talented young women who you speak with of pride and love and deep care. And as also a mom, I've looked hard and wide. I'm always looking for examples of mentors who are women, who've also been mothers, who've navigated a career path to the levels that you have. um because there aren't there aren't a lot but the way that you speak about your role as a mom as it's connected and interconnected to the work that you do is something that I've appreciated deeply about you and Kate's daughter was here with us last night as we gave a resolution at the LAFCO meeting and there's just a there's a there's a tie that connects all of the the work of protecting our land and our people to who you are Kate and it comes through and shines through brightly and everything they do and I personally have appreciated that so Kate thank you for your 22 years of service here at LAFCO thank you on behalf of all of us who've had the privilege of working alongside you your committee assignment is one that we have fought for amongst ourselves but um we do appreciate uh you and navigating all of these challenging spaces and on behalf of this board of supervisors um and our entire county we want to wish you um the best in retirement your legacy um is one for the history books here in our community thank you maybe we should actually make some comments you want to say anything just for a moment

Right. Well, thank you so much. And thank you also to all the members of the Board of Supervisors here. I appreciate each and every one of you and and the wonderful teams that you have all the wonderful departments that I've got the chance to work with over the years. you're a very big part of our community partners, as well as the special districts and all of the cities and unincorporated communities of Monterey County that I've had the privilege to get to know and enjoy. So I appreciate this honor. I also would like to acknowledge express my appreciation to your assistant CAO Nick Chulos. He brought me here to Monterey County 37 years ago. And so I owe this huge and best chapter of my life to the start that Nick gave me in your county planning department. So again, thank you. And I'll be here in the community continuing to in my roles as a volunteer. So I'll be here and hope to see all of you out and on the trails, of course.

Thank you, Kate.

Nick, you should join us. Thank you.

All right, Cherie, will you come up and join me? Come on. We got you, we got you. So this year's, 2026's Read to Me Teacher of the Year, Cherie Smith, coming out of Mary Chapa Elementary in Greenfield, 12 years dedicated to serving our community. This resolution has a lot of words on it, but the most important pieces are about not Cherie, but the impact that she's leaving in the tiny town of Greenfield. She's emboldening young people, helping them find their voice, helping them learn. how to read out loud in front of others, developing confidence, developing skills, and most importantly, becoming the people that we need them to be in our little towns. It's not a mistake that you're standing here today. Read to Me is an incredible project that helps inspire young people to learn to read. It's an initiative that is born here, of here, and for here. And Sheree, you embody that. You're the type of teacher our communities deserve and the fact that you continue to stand up and serve these young people and not just through the Read to Me project. There's a paragraph in here I don't often read, but I'm going to read this one because to me it shows that ability to go beyond. And so there's this one paragraph in here that says, in addition to her work in literacy education, Sheree Smith serves as director of school plays, the talent show coordinator, the spelling bee coordinator, further demonstrating her dedication to enriching the full educational experience and fostering student creativity, confidence and leadership. Thank you for what you do. This is a well-earned honor and it's our honor to stop this Board of Supervisors meeting today to present you this resolution and thank you for your commitment and acknowledge that you are this year's 2026 Read to Me Teacher of the Year. Congratulations.

I decided to bring one of my favorite students. I just wanted to say a little something because I don't know if you guys know that song by Tim McGraw, Live Like You're Dying. This is one of those moments. Between my wedding and this, I'm trying to figure out which one is, you know, because what he just did right now sounded like wedding vows to me. I'm like, oh my gosh, that was amazing. And he wrote it down. I just wanted to say, I love that I got an honor involving reading, because one of the ways God talks to you is through the Bible. So in this day and age, our kids seem to not really value reading enough. I don't know if it's because it's free or because maybe they could watch the movie, but reading is so crucial that even the prisons base how many beds they will need by looking at the third grade reading scores. please stand family i want to i just want to make sure they know i'm sure they know but that's my mom uh beside her is my best friend Her name is Veronica. That's my family. My cousins, when they say, Dorothy was saying there's no place like home, I needed to have family standing beside me and they drove all the way today. And then my beautiful students, mom and her son. Thank you for standing. You can have a seat. Love you. last paragraph i want to thank god foremost for this honor because the read to me project people they could have picked any more of a qualified teacher they could have picked a better reader but they they chose me and i want to just say thank you for deciding to change my life forever oh my god what are these coming out of my mouth

My ears.

Oh, not my ears. Let me read. And you will never find a more grateful teacher. Thank you. Please come on up to take pictures. I can just take your job now.

I want to ask Jason if he'd share a few words with us on behalf of the Read to Me project.

I would be honored to. And I just want to thank supervisors. Thank you so much for allowing us to be back in this chamber. When the going gets tough, it's just right for us. To make a difference and make an impact. I'm not sure if you already have seen like the literacy scores and literacy crisis that we are in. When the going gets tough, it's just right for us people to make an impact. And Cherie, you have made an impact not only in the lives of the kids in your classroom and the community that you work with in Greenfield, but in our organization of Reach Me Project. You've elevated the bar of what it means to be a teacher with our program, to really just work with your students and to really just make it fun, to make it personable. And you know you're the best, because I mean, come on, that's what I'm talking about. So I just want to say it's an honor for us to join you today, and we love just to keep on tuning in to celebrate you and everything that you do. So thank you so much.

And if you can come up, I brought us reading material to take pictures with.

Team, family, everybody, come on up.

And while they come up, I'll just share. If you didn't know, we launched the Dolly Parton Imagination Library in Monterey County last week as well. All children zero to five can register and get a free book every month until they turn five. So make sure to sign your children up. Those links are available.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Congratulations. All right, we're going to continue on with our appointments today. We have appointments listed number I'm gonna make sure I didn't miss any six through 15. We're going to pull out item seven for because we'll need to have some discussion on that item. So is there any public comment on appointments item six through 15, excluding item seven?

I believe it's item six, the GSA appointments. You know, there's already a very heavy, big ag influence on the GSA subcommittees, the Water Resource Agency in particular. And I know Mr. Supervisor Church is doing an excellent job serving in that capacity, and he represents an area that's already largely agricultural, big agricultural interests there. So I'm not sure why you need to add another person such as Director Bailey, who's obviously very closely tied into agriculture and the northern landowner interests. You have other directors on the Water Resource Agency board of directors that I think would be fully capable. Ms. Deidre Sullivan comes to mind. I think she would be an excellent choice. She represents an area, a marina that has some potential seawater intrusion problems. And I think she would be a balanced addition to Supervisor Church in representing that area and representing Monterey County as a whole. So I know you have the power to do it. I would just, Hopefully you would consider swapping Mr. Bailey for Ms. Sullivan. Thank you. And by the way, your live feed is having a problem on Granicus. It's about 20 minutes behind and it's stuttering. So you might want to have somebody look into that. Thanks.

Thank you. And we'll have IT investigate the situation. yes that's great Supervisor Daniels just commented that the live stream is also available on YouTube so I'm not sure if Granicus folks will hear us saying that but the live stream is also available on YouTube of this meeting but we will look into the issue is there any other public comment on our appointments excluding item seven not seeing any others we'll bring it back to this board and I'll just comment on item six we did look at the the water resource agency and the salinas valley basin groundwater sustainability agencies bylaws and effectively what's on this what the recommendation that came to us my understanding is is the only option that we have based on how those bylaws are written. But I do think it's a good practice and I would encourage us to make sure that we're advertising vacancies and opportunities for folks to apply when we have the opportunity to do so. This looks like it's a reappointment. sorry it's a it came from the the agency but I would again always ask that we're including the the proof of advertising of those vacancies to know that they're that they're they're they're fair and transparent and how the appointments are occurring with that any other comments from the board items to pull or we'll entertain a motion Happy to enter. Motion for item six through, okay. Do we have a second? Second. All right. We have a motion from Alejo, a second from Daniels. And then this is for items six through 15, excluding seven. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. right item is items are approved and we'll just say thank you to our to our volunteers who serve serve the public items number there's a number of appointments here as well for Carmel Highlands Fire District and again I'll just go on record saying that I think for all of our special districts that have their bylaws state that the Board of Supervisors is the appointing agency that the We need to make sure that that process is clearly being followed for vacancies as for item six. And I'd like to find a way that we can include that on the agenda to ensure that we're following formal process, that all those who have an interest in serving the county, whether it's on a county commission or a special district board, have fair opportunity to know when those vacancies are occurring and have the opportunity to apply. Okay, we'll move on to item number seven, which is to consider making an appointment to the Monterey County Regional Fire District Board of Directors for four year term effective upon appointment through June 23, 2030. And there is our presentation on this item.

Good morning, board members. Karina Bokanovich with the County Administrative Office. The item before you today is to consider appointing a member to the Monterey County Regional Fire District Board of Directors for a four-year term effective upon appointment through June 23, 2030. Following a 30-day solicitation period, five applications were received. Four applicants met eligibility requirements excuse me eligibility requirements while one did not meet the residency requirement the applications are included as part of boards your staff report and the corrected findings and current composition was provided to your board this morning as part of additions and corrections the recommended action before you is to appoint one candidate for a four-year term and that concludes staff presentation thank you

and so we have the i'll open this up to public comment is there any public comment on this item yes thank you chair again my name is bill light the resident of monterey county and and maybe i didn't catch the the update that was made because there was a there were was a there was a reports listing names one of whom wasn't qualified but they didn't seem to match up at all with the applications that were and this was online i checked it earlier but it may have been corrected and i just hope that it was because it was a little bit confusing because there's two terms there's one gentleman on the board currently who's in an expired term so i didn't know if that was being appointed or if the vacancy was being appointed so uh I just I raised that and maybe it got fixed and I just haven't seen it. Thank you.

No, this is a public comment on item number seven.

Good morning, board and guests. Excuse me. My name is Colby Varley. I'm one of the applicants. Some of you, I had the pleasure of meeting in person, teleconference or phone. Third generation, Monterey County, 34 years. My wife and I are currently raising two under two. I'm a business owner. I currently employ about 40 people. My neighborhood. My neighborhood was affected by the river fire, evacuations, houses were burned. So it's very important to me. Also, making sure that we're staffed correctly are those engines with two individuals, three individuals. having kids, grandparents, community members. We need to make sure that we have the correct resources. I was able to do a ride along prior to today in Carmel Valley with a couple of the team members, and it was very positive interaction, and they seemed very enthusiastic that somebody applying for the board was coming to visit with them, hear them out, and see where they're working every day. I'm a team player, I'm a problem solver, and I think I could really help. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment? And we will invite also, thank you Colby for speaking, we will invite comment from any of our other applicants as well, if there's anyone with us online or in chambers. All right, I'm not seeing anyone approach or raise their hand online. So let's bring it back to the board, clarify the corrections that were submitted if we could. So who currently serves made if we're able to show that on the screen, maybe who currently serves on the board in which seat we're filling. Or if we can read the names off, I'll just read the names off. So the current composition that we have in front of us is that Amy Dolly is serving and residing in District 5, serving with the term expiring March 2029. Brent Buki serving with the term expiring May 2028, representing district or residing in District 5. Chad Lindley, with a term expiring March 2027, residing in District 3, and Steve Duran, with a term expiring in February 2030, residing in District 2. So there's a vacant seat that we're looking to fill today. And I'll bring it to the board for any discussion.

I'll move Colby Marley. I think he has done the work up front to understand the importance of this district. He has lived it, and having done a ride-along, having visited with several of us ahead of time, I, being the only one that showed up today, I think it's appropriate. So I would move Colby for the position.

I'll be the second. All right, we have a motion and a second. I'll just comment that I really appreciate the process that is bringing in more applicants to apply. So whatever we're doing with our outreach, I wanna thank the fire district, we have the chief here with us today for supporting outreach to the public about the vacancies that occur. I think we've found that there have been a number of qualified applicants who are interested in serving and through the outreach that we're now doing, we're able to bring those applicants into consideration. So with appreciation to all those who submitted applications, appreciation to the district for supporting additional outreach and appreciation to our county team for having a process that we can follow that is fair and transparent, I will call for the vote. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. All right. Passes unanimously. Thank you, Colby, for your service. We look forward to hearing your updates. All right. Moving on to item 16, we have our consent agenda items number 29 through 102. It was a large consent calendar. I'm just double checking any corrections to the consent calendar that we want to... No corrections to the consent calendar. Okay. All right, is there any public comment on the consent calendar this morning? We have one hand raised online, phone number ending in 902.

Good morning, this is Nina Beattie. I had two points. One, I just hope that the public does read the consent agenda. The amounts that are on it for mental health are very significant. To me, that indicates that there is a very large mental health problem in Monterey County, and the county is having to pour millions and millions of dollars to deal with this issue and assist people. So I hope that people are looking at that and asking questions. What can we do as a county better to address mental health so that the county isn't spending its not spending not huge amounts of revenue to deal with. Secondly, I again request, as I have in the past, that the board put ceremonial resolutions on the consent agenda so that the business meeting can flow more quickly and that public comments can be increased three minutes instead of the two minutes or minute and a half that it's currently being given. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll just for the record note that the health department items on the consent calendar are items 46 through 67 with many Behavioral Health Service Act contracts. Any other public comment on the consent? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board.

Just can I get a separate vote on 100?

On 100? Yep. 100. Anyone else? I just okay I have a comment on item 94 which is and I'll make my comment and then we can do a separate vote item 94 is an interim inc shelter cove amendment and I just wanted to call out the significance of these programs in the community this is a program that exists in marina that provides housing and services to our homeless individuals This is allowing interim to replace one existing building. So it's a reduction in the number of beds from 32 to 30, but we'll ultimately be adding 23 permanent supportive housing units to support long-term stability in a pathway to a permanent home for some of our residents who really need that support. I want to give credit to the City of Marina for supporting these projects in the community. This is not just affordable housing, but it's housing that is comes with wraparound services for residents and community members who need additional support. So Marina is home to so many shelter beds and supportive housing units. And I just want to appreciate that it doesn't just take the county to have these programs work. It's our nonprofit partners and with full support from the city leadership. So recognizing those and appreciating that support when we have it. All right, we'll vote on consent items 29 through 102, excluding item 100. All in favor? So moved. Oh, yeah, we need a motion. We have a motion from Lopez, a second from Alejo. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. All right, and then we'll go to item 100.

Don't need additional comments. My position is just not changing. That's all. Somebody else wants to make that motion.

And item 100 is the ordinance adopting prohibiting parking at all times on both sides of Highway State 1 at Bixby Bridge. So we'll take a motion.

I'll move to approve.

Second. Okay, we have a motion from Church, a second from Daniels. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

One abstention.

One abstention. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, we can now move on to general public comment. For those of you who've been waiting patiently, thank you for joining us today.

Good morning, Karen Cameron, Concerned Salinas resident. I want to remind you that the public review period for the draft environmental justice element has been extended until July 31st, so the public can make comments. This specifically impacts several disadvantaged communities, Baronda, Bradley, Castorville, Chular, Las Lomas, Lockwood, Moss Landing, Pajaro, Pine Canyon, San Ardo, and San Lucas. You can all look online and get specifics, particularly about your pesticide pollution burden, which in many of those communities up to 99% according to the research cited there. I came last week, I believe it was, to talk to you about pesticides near schools. Two schools I'm tracking, University Park School has had 30 methamil applications since May 10th. University Park, oh excuse me, the first one was McKinnon, the second University Park at 27 methamil. How does it, I have this information from spray days. cdpr.ca.gov, please sign up and you'll get information too of those pesticides that are toxic and restricted more than within one mile of you. Why does this matter? This particular chemical, methamil, has been banned in 50 countries. China restricts its use and its sale, will not allow it, period. And we should do the same. But our Ag Commissioner signs off to these. Methamil is, according to research, within one mile of an application site, drift or runoff poses severe risks. Health effects include nervous system, nervous stimulation, causing nausea, blurred vision, muscle tremors, and respiratory failure. It's also highly lethal to bees, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. which is why cdpr environmental justice advisory committee urges one mile buffer zones around all schools and i urge you to take that same action hold our ag commissioner accountable for sustainable practices that we can live with in the future and as we heard earlier there needs to be better planning around the schools and farm mix thank you for your time

Good morning, Bill Leip, chair and supervisors. Just one quick thing on that item six was that was a that was a board that's not an open application. The board voted to have these names put forward and I believe you control that overall apparatus. So it's just a point of contention there. I'm here to ask the county to investigate governance and animal welfare concerns at the Salinas Valley Fair in King City. The fair matters. It's a jewel for families, children, youth exhibitors and the whole community it's great family event i love it that is exactly why its governance must meet a public standard the fair operates on county-owned land under a county lease and receives taxpayer support brown act compliance should not mean simply posting a bare agenda the public should have meaningful access to the materials behind board decisions including board packets financial records and documents needed to understand what is being decided This is a Board of Directors issue, and it's a leadership issue. Under Board President Darla Mantel's leadership, the public has seen continuing concerns about transparency, incomplete records, conflict of interest safeguards, and governance decisions that appear to have produced more than $100,000 in legal defense costs for problems that should have been avoided through basic compliance, recusal, and sound process. Animal welfare should not be lost in this. Veterinary concerns about livestock handling, stress, and fair scheduling deserve serious documented review, not internal politics. And now the CEO is stepping down amid ongoing turmoil in King City. The county should not wait for more damage before asking what is happening on tax on land. I respectfully ask this board to investigate the fair's governance, require full Brown Act, including public packets, review conflict of interest practices, examine the legal spending was big and protect the fair's mission for the family, children, exhibitors and taxpayers. It is supported to serve. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll go online to phone number ending in 902.

Good morning. This is Nina Beattie again. Two updates. One on AT&T. AT&T has been trying to stop copper line landlines nationwide and also in California with multiple efforts at the state and federal levels. Public action was able to stop a California constitutional amendment in the legislature, which would have eliminated state and PUC oversight of utility companies, including AT&T. However, AT&T has two applications at the FCC right now. It has additional ones, but these are the ones with comment deadlines coming up. These two applications would preempt California regulations over it, and it would eliminate its Lifeline program. The deadlines for commenting have been extended to July 7th, with reply comments due July 22nd. So there's two opportunities to comment. I urge the county and the public to oppose AT&T's applications. Instructions are on my website, MontereyBayMatters.org. Secondly, data centers are damaging communities and Monterey Park banned data centers this month by voter approval. Their measure and a summary of news is also on my website, montereymatters.org. Data centers use huge amounts of water and electricity, strain the electric grid and drive up electrical rates. They're often sited on farmland. They cause health damaging constant noise and pollution and are used for AI and surveillance systems. And by the way, I was disturbed to see AI components in the county's climate action plan webpage. That's totally unnecessary. I request that the county pass an ordinance similar to Monterey Park to put this on the ballot in November as an urgent matter to preserve Monterey County and protect residents. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go next to the 831 resident. Hello. We've got two minutes on the clock for you. Thank you for joining us.

Hi, thank you. I'd like to speak on item 24. My name is Joel Ruiz. I'm from Castroville. I'm speaking on the Sheriff's Office budget overrun. Specifically, I'd like the numbers in the report to be scrutinized a bit. The Sheriff's Office budgeted $4 million for overtime for fiscal year 25 to 26. And as of May 29th, the actual overtime expenditures had already reached over $11 million. That's over $7 million. over $7 million. This isn't a rounding error. It's a systemic failure in fiscal planning and personnel management. And what makes this even more difficult to accept is that the sheriff's office was here a few months ago demanding more money for flock investments.

Sorry to interrupt. We're at general public comment right now. We're just verifying that this is a scheduled item for the afternoon. So we'll take public comment on the scheduled item this afternoon.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. All right. Do we have any other general public comment for items that are not otherwise on the agenda? Okay, I don't see any. We'll bring this back to the Board of Supervisors.

We're going to... Madam Chair, could I have a moment of personal privilege here just to introduce a few folks who have joined us in the room. We have our summer program, our South County Young Leaders, who are here sitting in the center of the room. I wanted to take the opportunity just briefly to thank them for stepping up and doing the program this summer with us. We have Roxana, Griselda, Delilah, Michael, Eduardo, and Giovanni, all residents of different cities within Southern Monterey County, but true leaders within the community. So I just want to welcome them to our chambers this morning. Thank you.

So while we still have general public comment open, would you like to introduce yourselves briefly? Come on up to the dais and if you make brief comment, this is the time. It's a great experience.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, board. My name is Michael Romero. I'm a former student board member for the South Warner County Joint Union High School District. I'm currently serving as the youth ministry leader in St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in King City. I'm honored that I was allowed to be part of this program. I've been able to meet really inspirational local leaders and the ability to be able to explore a possible career paths i have not considered before has definitely been valuable i definitely appreciate all the connections that i've made and i look forward to keep on learning from all these people thank you

Hello, my name is Giovanni Lazaro. I am from Greenfield, California. I joined this program and so far I've been liking it because I have made a lot of good role models teaching us about our community, the problems within them and how to fix them and how to help contribute to our cities and counties, especially from where I'm from. Sorry. I've enjoyed the program and so far I actually like this work. I kind of want to step into it now as my major or my goal was to be a forensics analysis detective. But so far I've been liking this field of work. And well, I just want to thank you guys for having us today. And that's it.

Hi, good morning, board. My name is Eduardo Aguilera. I am a Harnault College student majoring in biology and chemistry. I'm really excited and happy to be here. Thank you, Supervisor Lopez, for having us. I blanked out, but thank you.

Good morning, board. I'm Delilah Reyes. Thank you for having me. I am born and raised in King City. I'm currently entering my second year at Hartnell College. I'm really excited to continue this summer being a South County Young Leader intern. I'm really excited to learn more about how to advocate for my community and be a leader in my community. And thank you for having me. Thank you for inviting me up here, Supervisor. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. My name is Roxana Lopez Hernandez. I'm going to be a third year student at UCLA, majoring in political science, minoring in public affairs. I'm extremely excited to be here, extremely excited to take upon this opportunity. Hopefully in the future, I want to be an attorney, but I'm still open to seeing different pathways that there is to navigate. Currently, I'm also interning at the Public Defender's Office. So like just two floors above here, I've come every other week or every other day. So that's been pretty exciting, pretty awesome to work with Michelle. And yeah, I'm super excited. And thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. Thank you, guys.

thank you so much for your comments today and I know it's intimidating to stand in front of that microphone but you did a great job thank you for your service all right we now will recess the board of supervisors and reconvene the board of supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency on our public agenda items letting the record show that all supervisors are present are there any additions or corrections There are none. All right. We have general public comment for items within the purview of the Water Resources Agency. But that are not otherwise on this agenda. Is there any general public comment on the Water Resources Agency agenda? Right? I'm seeing none. We'll close general public comment. We'll bring it to our consent. We have one item on the consent calendar. Is there any public comment on the consent item? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board for discussion, action. Second. Motion from Lopez, a second from Daniels. All in favor? Aye. Motion is approved. We will... We can recess the Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resource Agency, reconvene the Board of Supervisors, and we have a couple scheduled items this morning. We do a quick time check, it's about, we've got about 20 minutes to work our way through a handful of items, starting with item number 18, which is, I welcome Shane Strong up. We have our Monterey County Eligible Legislative Body Policy regarding disruption of real-time two-way communication.

good morning chair and supervisors two minutes uh this policy is required by statute so uh this uh the language is very self-explanatory i doubt that there are any um questions i did want to just briefly introduce uh morgan toddy who's an intern in our office and helped us in the drafting it but the policy just adheres to the statute for the benefit of staff and the public uh in the event that there is an interruption in a zoom link and you want to appear through zoom my recommendation is this spend about five minutes hitting refresh and if you you can't get a hold of us i would recommend you consider safely driving into the city of salinas to appear in person because pursuant to this policy if there is a disruption in zoom for over an hour the board may choose to carry on the people's business and with that i yield for any questions chair

Thank you. We'll open and thank you to our intern for supporting us in some policy work. We will open this up to public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? Right. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Bring it back to the board for questions or action.

I'll move to approve the staff recommendation on the item.

second we have a motion from church a second from Daniels all in favor aye aye all right motion is approved thank you so much thank you all right we now have a couple civil grand jury recommendations and findings to review we'll start with item number 19 to review our 2526 Monterey County civil grand jury report titled seawater intrusion a shared problem in Monterey County and to consider our draft response

Thank you, Madam Chair and Board members. Good morning. A very brief introduction. Every year the Civil Grand Jury looks into various issues related to governmental operations and provides a really important public service. They spend a fair amount of time and effort looking at issues of importance and come up with very thoughtful and well thought out recommendations. I believe that the Civil Grand Jury Chair may be present today. Ms. Andrea Kingman. I'd like to recognize her service and any other member of the Civil Grand Jury that may be here this morning. I want to thank them for their service. The first item today, as you mentioned, is going to be the response to the Civil Grand Jury report regarding seawater intrusion. As Darian, our general manager of the Water Resources Agency, actually drafted this response and is going to present it to you, go over it with you. That response is due to the presiding judge by August 9th. So we have a couple of time constraints. Just want to make that clear to the board. And I'll cover the other one on the second matter when we get to it. So at this point, Madam Chair, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Darien.

So for today's action it would be to review the findings and recommendations of Monterey County civil grand jury report entitled seawater intrusion a shared problem in Monterey County Consider the draft response to the civil grand jury report and then authorize the board's response to be filed with the presiding judge of the Superior Court So the civil grand jury investigated seawater intrusion this isn't the first time It's just the most recent and groundwater sustainability particularly in northern portion of the Salinas Valley through document review public meeting observation site visits and individual interviews and Transmitted their report on May 11th 2026 as mr. Chulos noted a response is required within 90 days and And so we are bringing this to you today. Overall, find the report to be thoughtful. Certainly it's well sourced and generally we agree with its findings. And so I'll just quote from the report. Civil grand jury recommends that the governing boards of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency and Monterey County Board of Supervisors establish clear implementation timelines, identify sustainable funding mechanisms, and advance specific mitigation projects to construction. And these are all certainly important recommendations and things that we continue to work towards and aspire to. More specifically though, we offer practical responses. The grand jury report notes that water management in Monterey County, which is true in many other regions of the state, is a hodgepodge of multiple entities and agencies. The report produces four findings and recommendations. Findings one and four are specific to the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, and they will be producing their response in their own timeframes. They don't have the same time constraints that we do. Finding and recommendation two was specific to the Water Resources Agency, and we presented the response to its board of directors last week, and then finding and recommendation three is specific to the County Board of Supervisors. So visiting finding too quickly, it notes, and this is a summary, infrastructure has not been implemented in other areas, and by that meaning outside of the existing Casserole seawater intrusion project, that are experiencing groundwater stress. And the Water Resources Board of Directors, of course, agrees with that statement. The recommendation is to prepare and publicly present a feasibility and financing plan identifying options to expand existing alternative water supply infrastructure or develop new projects including the Castorville Eastside project to reduce groundwater extraction and coastal aquifers outside the current Castorville service area by March 31, 2027. The Water Resources Agency Board of Directors certainly agrees with the intent of the recommendation but will not implement it because it is impractical. As the report accurately states, the Salinas Valley Basin GSA is responsible for groundwater management within the Salinas Valley Basin, and it has been working vigorously in the development of projects that it is currently evaluating as it moves towards developing a portfolio of actions to be proposed to be implemented in the future. So their decision timeframe on that is they're seeking to have the portfolio identified by August of this year, and then they will update their groundwater sustainability management plans and submit those to DWR in January 2027. Our concern in undertaking an independent effort would be multiple. One is just worsening the public confusion regarding SGMA roles and responsibilities. It's already really confusing. It could lead to duplicative efforts or worse yet, competing proposals. and all of that would result, of course, in higher costs. The Water Resources Agency is working closely with the Salinas Valley Basin GSA, providing technical support, and we think it most appropriate that we maintain that role until a project advances to a higher stage of design and near permitting. Finding three is specific to the Board of Supervisors and it states the State Water Resources Control Board may intervene in SGMA implementation, which could result in mandatory pumping reductions and increased regulatory oversight. This is a true statement and we would say the County Board of Supervisors agree. The recommendation is for the Board of Supervisors to conduct a publicly noticed study session to evaluate long-term funding mechanisms to support groundwater sustainability projects developed by the Salinas Valley Basin GSA and direct staff to report back with recommended funding options by June 30th, 2027. Again, we recommend the Board of Supervisors agree and further recommend that the purpose of this session be expanded to consider a wider array of water management challenges. The Civil Grand Jury Report focuses in on groundwater actions and specifically seawater intrusion, but the simple fact of that is many water management and development problems and solutions are interrelated. With the Salinas Valley Basin GSA, the feasibility studies that they're analyzing now, There's a variety of water sources that are being contemplated to be put to future use, including recycled water, brackish water, both surface and ground, surplus river water, and so it's hard to look at these solutions in any sort of isolation. There's also the fact that collectively there are a number of water supply projects currently being considered. Certainly the Water Resource Agency has its dam safety projects that we've consistently estimated in the range of $200 million. The Castorville seawater intrusion project itself. Optimization projects are being considered that could range from 60 to 100 million. The Salinas Valley Basin GSA's portfolio of activities could be in excess of a billion dollars. The city of Salinas has its needs. Monterey One Water is considering upgrades to the regional treatment plant. And so all of these separate entities are fulfilling their management responsibilities and moving their missions forward, but the consequence of a number of disparate and individual decisions could be an overwhelming financial burden upon the communities served because there's a lot of overlap in those communities. And so through expanding this discussion about regional water management planning and development, we would aim to bring to light what those variety of different actions are and then begin a discussion about how we prioritize actions so that we can achieve affordability through developing an integrated regional strategy. And so that would be our recommendation there. And so I conclude with today's action, receiving this report, considering the draft responses and potentially authorizing the response to the presiding judge. And I'm available for any questions.

Great, thank you. Let's open this up to public comment.

I see the young folks here. Bill Leib, resident of Monterey County, and thank you, Ara, for the report. You know, we were told, I want to say a year ago, that there was going to be a playbook so that we wouldn't have these disparate independent one-offs by different agencies that have the authority to do certain things. The Water Resource Agency certainly has their own autonomy here. They do not have to comply with SGMA. They can almost do whatever they want, money aside. They're not beholden to actually helping the GSA. I know they are, and I'm not saying they aren't, but technically they don't have to. the biggest problem is seawater intrusion and the ticking the ticking clock right now is that DWR you know put out a warning back in December that the plan for the 18400 does not look complete it looks incomplete and that risk as was stated earlier in the presentation state intervention And it's not just about, you know, pumping reductions. It could be just shut it down. You're causing damage, continuing to cause damage. And so the GSA's 10 years in, they spent $20 million. And if you've watched at all the advisory committee meetings, who's now sort of the group that's responsible for giving something to the board that the board can hopefully make a decision on, It's not very clear, and they're saying they're not going to come up with a resolution to this. So, you know, it's a lot of effort for about 15,000 acres that doesn't have water, and it's right out here west of Salinas. You could just follow that ground and say, hey, we'll bring it back to life when we figure out what we're going to do, but no, we're not doing that. So I have a lot more to say on this, but only two minutes. Thanks.

Anyone else in chambers for public comment on this response? All right, we'll go to online. We have Thomas.

Thank you, Chair. I would ask you, this is Tom Versnick. I make frequent comments at Salinas Valley based in GSA and in other places, principally around Sigma. I have clients in the Salinas Valley towards the south. So I'm not going to disagree with what anyone said, certainly not, well, either the public comment or the official presentation at this point. I'm just going to float. Unfortunately, this gets into things like terminology and acronyms and things. But to understand what the challenges actually are in SGMA, there is a sometimes missed reference to Bulletin 118, which is a DWR document. publication that defines which are the quote basins for SGMA purposes. This is a technical definition in an actual work, which is online, but it used to be a book. And so that will tell all which specific lands may be subjects to state intervention at a given moment. Because the important part is that the way SGMA works It's basin by basin in sigma terms, and in sigma terms, the Salinas Valley Basin doesn't exist. It exists in reality, but for sigma, it doesn't. It's a series of discrete basins, and the discrete basin in which there may be state intervention is the 18400, more commonly known as the pressure. So to identify the actual problems and challenges, like we know where the dams are. They're in specific locations. They're not in, say, Castroville. We know that. So to also identify for stigma terms what areas of land may actually be subject to state intervention and then what that means, which may be farther reaching, needs to be part of the discussion in order for any entity to make genuine and reliable decisions i just find that that's something that has been from my perspective woefully misunderstood for a very long time thank you all right is there any other public comment all right we'll bring this back to the board for discussion we'll go to spurs lopez yeah i'll just share that i know

We're widely accepted the first well was dug in Monterey county in 1872 by Sam else up and we didn't start really drawing up water till about 1900 so it's taken us 125 years of real pumping to get to this position 150 if you go back to the first wells Doug but. it's going to take us a lot of time to get out of the issue, even with a solution in place that we find ourselves in and that we face so looking at these challenges. I think the response at this point is appropriate. The one piece, and I know that we had a difference historically on this board that I struggle with, is I love the term regional, but when we start to define seats and table, given the way that the GSA and SGMA has positioned the requirement to solve the issue under the Salinas Valley, I think it's a Salinas Valley problem we need to find a solution for. And so if we're talking about the Salinas Valley region, I'm on board, but City Council Chambers, If we're talking about going broader as i've stated in the past, I have concerns about having broader conversations when needing the folks at the table to solve this first problem first. City Council Chambers, So just wanted to be on the record with that, but I support the letter is put together in response, given the clear responsibility that is the GSA is the responsibility that is not ours, but overall the need to be a partner at the table, which I think we have done, and I think this letter states that well.

If there's no other comment. Okay. Yes, please.

I just appreciate the response. And I want to thank the civil grand jury for doing the work that they do and providing the opportunity for us to get engaged in this way on these critical issues. I had a couple questions just just for context. And then I wanted to address why I support what you have presented here. But I'm curious in regards to the page number nine, that the state water resources, this was finding three, control board may intervene in segmentation, which could result in mandatory pumping reductions and increased regulatory oversight. We had a presentation not that long ago, and I think it was from Water Resources Agency and the GSA together. And if I remember correctly, we heard that following wouldn't get us to the reductions in seawater, wouldn't stem seawater intrusion to the levels the state's asking us to stem simply by following the land. Is that something I'm remembering correctly?

Yes, you are.

Okay, and then the second thing that I think is important context for this conversation is the impact to the local economy following the land, what impact that would have. And if I remember correctly, it was jobs, it was employment, it was sales tax revenue. Can you remind me of the figure that was given to us if you know it offhand?

Well, there's been a number of studies that the SVB GSA has conducted for different purposes, and sometimes the comparisons are a bit apples and oranges. But for the brackish groundwater restoration project, one scenario that they looked at would be a 30% reduction in groundwater extractions And under that scenario, labor income was estimated to be reduced by nine hundred ninety three million dollars. Value added loss of one point five six billion and economic output loss of one point eight five billion. So the numbers from demand reduction are are significant.

So and the numbers actually I mean whatever whatever they are in terms of who looks at them and what we're actually looking at could vary but it's a large number so I just want to offer to my colleagues that when I think of regionally and what I have to do as a district five supervisor is I need to help folks that don't live in the Salinas Valley some of my residents residents are in the basin, if you consider the seaside basin being or serviced by the basin, if you think of seaside, and it's also being part of a larger Salinas Valley Basin, but who are in general pretty removed from the from the Salinas Valley, what the economic impact is to the county as a region and why it should matter to them. When I think about the economic impacts, the impact to our county budget, the impact to the county economy, I think that's really important, and I think I'm going to really try to help residents in District 5 understand, you know, what exists if this land is fallowed. It doesn't mean it's going to be public open space. It doesn't mean that it's going to become parkland and hiking spots, and it will be developed. It'll be developed at a lower impact in terms of water usage But when you don't have an economy any longer to support that development, we're going to exacerbate challenges that we already have today. So when I think of regionally, I think of sort of all of us getting our districts sort of on board with understanding the larger impact to our region not solving this problem has. And so what I like about your recommendations is even in the public comment today, we heard the silos, right? And we need to move beyond the silos as a region. I don't know what that looks like. You all are the experts, but I think it has regional significance. So your recommendation is moving us in that direction, and I do support it. And I just thank you for putting the work that you did into this response, and I thank the members of the Civil Grand Jury, those volunteers who did that service to allow for us to have this conversation today and to respond. Thank you.

And just not too much, but I'm basically in full support of what Supervisor Daniels just said. I mean, there are no easy choices as we're moving ahead on it. They're just uncomfortable choices all around. And there is The economic impact, whether it's 30 percent or nine to 14 percent or two billion, give or take, you know, at this point where there's three billion or one and a half, it's an immense amount of impact upon this economy. And it is regional in that way, as I think Supervisor Daniels was emphasizing there. if it will have an impact not just on the county but you know and neighboring counties as well from that economic impact if on depending on the right the depending on whatever choices that we make in terms of you know fallowing maybe 15,000 acres I'm not even certain if it would be a reduction in water I mean if that land's going to be fallowed it's unless it's going to be you know purchased and that probably cost a couple billion dollars the people who own it aren't it's not going to have it sit there they're going to be paying property taxes on it and and it's valuable land and and the problem with that is is that it potentially becomes potentially used for homes and it becomes potentially the the situation where We become a bedroom community. If we do not have this, we do not find a way to manage this properly, and we could see Salinas grow from here to the coast, become another San Jose, and that has an impact on tourism as well. The choices that be made in the next few months are going to be immense and going to be difficult and I don't think any of us know how they're really going to turn out but all the options are are daunting and expensive and concerning so I appreciate the what you're presented a Thor here because I think it gives a the full picture of of That this is really a countywide problem in many many ways. I

And I'll just briefly comment to thank the Civil Grand Jury. I think there are these issues that we know exist, but when you start diving deeper and deeper into them, you start realizing, oh my gosh, the complexities become even more and more interconnected and challenging. Who's responsible for what? How are those agencies working together? What does the governance structure look like? How are the funding streams working or not working? And I just want to say with appreciation, echo the comments of my colleagues, for choosing this as a topic to dive into. And just acknowledging, you know, clearly there are differences of opinions about how we proceed, but the agreement is that we recognize that there is groundwater intrusion occurring and that it does represent an existential threat to who we are as a county. um and an economy uh and it's something that we we do need to figure out how to to navigate forward uh with um and the hard work to do that is really how do we continue educating um educating everyone regionally um representing District 4 and you know as sort of a bridging of the peninsula and Salinas City uh making sure that the residents that we represent who may at some point be either affected directly by the loss of access to drinking water because of the continued intrusion of seawater or who are expected to pay for solutions. Everyone needs to be a part of the conversation and at the very least understand the issues that are at play. So I support the response that's been drafted and look forward to continuing the conversation. All right, with that, we will...

Move approval of staff recommendation and response. Second.

All right. We have a motion from Lopez, a second from Church. All in favor? Aye. All right. And I did just see a hand raised. I'm not sure if that was for the next item, but we had closed public comment on this item earlier in the conversation. All right. With that, we will move on to our next item, number 20, which is a response to the civil grand jury regarding emergency radio coverage gaps.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, real briefly. This item, the response was prepared chiefly by our Information Technology Department with input from Emergency Communications. And Alex Zhang, the Deputy Chief Public Information Officer, is here to briefly overview this for you.

Good afternoon. Chair, member of the board, county staff, and member of the public. My name is Alex Zhang. I'm the Deputy Chief Information Officer, County of Monterey Information Technology Department. The item before you today is to consider and authorize county's draft response to the 2526 civil grand jury report of the emergency radio coverage gap impacting Monterey County fire agencies. and to direct that the response be filed with the presiding judge of the Superior Court. To summarize, the Civil Grand Jury Report has three findings. The first one is a radio coverage deficiency. The second one is a manual switching required between the engine digital and analog system. The third one is about some fire districts lacking funding for the subscriber radio equipment. Their recommendation is around ask ITD to develop a coverage improvement plan and also identifying the funding sources to help fire district obtaining subscriber radios. Before discussing county's response to the grand jury suggestions, I would like to give a very brief introduction of our public safety radio system, which is called NGEN, and it's a governance structure. NGEN stands for the Next Generation Radio Network. It is our public safety radio system within the Monterey County area. It provides critical public radio services to law enforcement agencies, fire agencies, EMS, and some other agencies within our area. It actually services the Monterey County with a land area about 3,711 square miles as compared to our neighboring radio authorities offered by Silicon Valley, which is around 1,300 square miles and EBRICSA, about the same size. So we are serving three times as big of an area as our neighboring radio authorities. The system actually is governed by two governance bodies, two boards, through the established engine service and governance agreement. The exact board provides policy directions, strategic oversight, and overall governance. It oversees cost and system nature and scope-related decisions. It comprises of four city managers, county sheriff, CAO's office, plus one rep from fire district. The operations board guides operational policies, goals, and operational enhancements. It comprises of the law enforcement and fire agency chiefs, county directors from the ITD and ECD. The presentation that I made and also our proposed response has been provided to both boards and we received their support regarding our draft responses. Regarding our draft responses in the report, there is references to 14 fire districts. that are in the Monterey County rural area. I'd like to make several important clarifications. The engines coverage responsibility is limited to our member agencies. There are 19 of them. And out of the 14 fire district referenced in the Civil Grand Jury Report, seven of them are dispatched by Cal Fire Dispatch and utilize the Cal Fire radio services. The second clarification I'd like to make is regarding the confusion introduced in the Silver Grand Jury report about the roles of the two components of our radio system. One is the engine digital radio component versus the analog radio component. So the engine as a project was initiated in year 2009 in response to a FCC mandate for the narrow banding and also with the objective to adopt a protocol called P25 to promote the interagency communications based on lessons learned from the 9-1-1 incident happened in New York City. The system was eventually completed around 2017. The engine digital system Scope and boundary of the system was impressively limited because of the funding constraint. As you know, Monterey County has a huge area to cover, and therefore because of the funding constraint, the digital system was limited based on the figure that is displayed in front of you. The area with the red border is the engine digital mobile coverage area. Areas in green over the green border is the engine digital portable area and the area with the yellow are the important coverage area. The rest of the area are supposed to be covered by the engine analog system. And therefore, when you measure a radio system such as ours, which is a hybrid system, you have to measure the coverage based on the combined radio coverage of the both components, which include the digital and analog. As illustrated in our response, table A1 through ATB1 and B2, 16 out of the 19 participating agencies, including five out of the seven unincorporated fire district, their mobile coverage is exceeding 95%. 95% is industry norm when you assess a radio system performance. Overall mobile radio coverage is approximately 83.69%, and we cover 99.8 populations. Through ITD's field study and our radio modeling, we concluded that our coverage deficiencies are mainly concentrated in the first one is the Big Sur area. As you know, Big Sur area has difficult times. We have two fire districts that receive our services in the Big Sur area. They are the Big Sur Fire District and Midcoast Fire District. We also have coverage deficiencies in the portions of the Monterey County unincorporated area, which impact the Monterey County Regional Fire and Monterey County Sheriff's Office. So you have a list of the areas listed here, including Camel Valley Village, San Bernardino, Pajaro, Prunedale, etc. The coverage issues are mainly regarding their public coverage issues. Some of the areas are covered well by mobile. And around the North Salinas area, we also have an unincorporated area such as Boston Nose, which have probable coverage issues. ITD has been making and providing improvements to the engine digital coverage since day one when we assigned the engine operation and maintenance responsibilities. We have done a list of the things to improve the coverage both indoor and outdoor. The first one is that we established the in-building radio coverage implementation policy and standard for the agencies to follow so that they can improve various in-building coverage challenges. We also established a capital improvement plan to allow us to add additional capacity and also upgrade the system on an ongoing basis. As a matter of fact, as part of this five-year plan, the coverage improvement is one of them. This year, we're going to focus on using the traditional land mobile radio technology to improve certain coverage deficiency areas. And for the last few years, we've been using the same technology to edit a few sites, such as Glen Devon, which benefits the Midcoast Fire District. Piedras Blancas, which benefit the Big Sur Fire District, Carmel Lobos Ridge, which benefit the Carmel Highland area, and the Carmel PD area. We are in the process of adding another site in the Greenfield area, which should be able to resolve the coverage issues around that area and also for the benefit of the Greenfield Fire Protection District. Last but not least, We've been experimenting a solution by leveraging LTE and FirstNet so that we can not only rely on the legacy technology or traditional technology such as LMR, we are looking beyond and outside of the box by leveraging the LTE and cell signals by integrating that with our engine system so that we can drastically and cost efficiently improve the overall coverage area of the system. The challenge here is that if we choose to adopt this solution called Motorola Smart Connect by integrating LTE, some of the agencies who already purchased the handset, they need to change their handset into another kind of a handset that allow them to integrate with the LTE. However, some of the agencies such as Monterey County Sheriff's Office, Camel PD and Dairy Oaks, they already purchased this forward thinking radios. So we have a total of about 500 radios which can benefit from this LTE integration. But in summary, the future engine digital expansion, of course, we're depending on funding capabilities and also the engine boards approval. Monterey County area has a huge land area of 3,711 square miles. We could potentially cover every square inch of the ground, but it's a huge funding challenge. In 2009, we spent $12 million to have established 14 digital sites. Compared to AT&T's coverage around this area, they have 103 radio sites. Do your math. For us to cover every square inch using the one single system that is Engine Digital, it's quite a funding challenge. And therefore, we have to look into some good solutions. Regarding the manual switching concern between the Engine Digital and analog. As long as we have a hybrid system that includes both systems, that is by design. So when a user enters into an area that is fully covered by a digital system, the system should be able to, or the headset should be able to auto run between different channels. Same is true for the analog system. It is when they get into the area that has a digital coverage deficiency, they have to switch over to the analog. They have to press that switch of the button in order to switch. Some of the fire district may need some additional trainings for them to properly utilize the headset or the system. We are more than willing to train and provide assistance. The subscriber equipment concerns, the system, And also all the member agencies are under the governance of the agreement called the Engine Service and Governance Agreement. It is clearly stated that subscriber equipment, procurement of it, the lifecycle management of it is end user agencies responsibility. With that being said, ITD has been trying their best to help various member agencies with their grant applications, procurement support, and other support needed. Fire District critical public safety powers and ITD remain committed to support them in every way possible. With that said, ITD will comply with the civil grand jury's requirements and produce all the deliverables requested in the report, including produce a coverage improvement plan and also establish a framework and also conduct feasibility studies to help fire district with the acquisition of the various radio handsets. we have to come up with a practical solution and at the end we appreciate the civil grand jury's thoughtful report its findings and recommendations thank you thank you we'll open this up to public comment to start with any comments from the civil grand jury representatives from here no okay yeah come on up yeah we'd love to hear from you

I can't really comment on any of the content by code, but I just want to thank both respondents for taking the time to develop these thorough responses and so quickly. We very much appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And thank you for being here as well. If you could pass our appreciation along to the rest of the folks who worked on these reports. Yeah, thank you. We'll open this up to public comment. We have one hand raised online, Eric Tynan. And Eric, we'll give you permission to unmute and we'll need you to unmute on your side of the computer. Eric, we see you've unmuted, but we don't have any audio from you. We are not getting your voice. Okay, if you maybe want to try logging back on again and we'll hold the line for you, but we'll bring it back to the board for a discussion.

Supervisor Daniels? I just have one question. Thank you, Mr. Zhang, for your presentation. And again, thank you to the Civil Grand Jury for the work that you put into the report. I'm wondering if, first, Annette, and the developments that have happened lately, we just got a presentation at the Big Sur Multi-Agency Advisory Council about this public-private partnership with AT&T, and we will have a proposal that's going to run through the county permitting process that would, as far as I can tell, in particular in the Big Sur Valley region and then as you move east, expanded, a lot of expanded coverage. And so does that deserve a little bit more of a paragraph or anything in the response? As you said, funding is the biggest challenge. And the funding for this is outside of us as a county. And it could, I think, significantly support the NGEN and the analog hybrid model that we have in an area that in this report is clearly one of the areas that's most lacking in terms of coverage. So I don't know if you wanted to add anything, if you're familiar with the proposals in Big Sur and whether or not there should be a sentence or two that just expands on what we hope will be coming in the near future.

Thank you, Supervisor Daniels. You're absolutely correct. LTE and FirstNet is the future. And in our responses, we explained this future-proof solution that is going to allow us to integrate the engine system with FirstNet and other LTE providers. Given the huge land area that Monterey County has to cover, I believe the only feasible way for us to quickly improve the coverage solution is through the integration with the FirstNet and LTE integrations rather than the traditional LMR solution or land mobile radio solution. As I mentioned in my response earlier, we have about 34 radio towers. 14 of them are digital radio towers. AT&T has 103 radio towers. If we can integrate them together, that is going to significantly improve the coverage including Big Sur, they made a lot of progress around the Highway 1 and also Big Sur area. And our preliminary studies show that it is a very promising solution.

That's very helpful. Thank you so much for that response.

I just want to appreciate the shifts made in the presentation to outline the differentiation of some of those districts that I know I sent up a flag about ahead of time. I know we've heard repeatedly from districts around the King City area about areas that just are not getting coverage, areas that are struggling with response times because of it. And so I just appreciate that being covered. I understand that they're different. But as we look to solutions, understanding that those the folks that live in our communities do not understand the difference of who is and isn't a member or a partner. And so as we build solutions, trying to integrate them as quickly as possible and make it just as we struggle with finances, so do some of these small districts. And so making sure that we make it as accessible as possible for them and as easy for them as possible to make the decision to join us, I think is important. But thank you for the work that you've done to respond to this very timely and appreciated light shown by the grand jury. Thank you, Alex.

Thank you, Supervisor Lopez.

All right, I will just, going back to Supervisor Janels, were you asking to, do you need direction to add a paragraph?

What was articulated was very helpful, at least it's on the record here, but I will just leave that in your court to decide, and maybe Nick, you know, if there is the elaboration that you just provided in terms of it being the promising future, and you do refer to LTE FirstNet, In your presentation. I don't remember where that was in the in the actual response So just I can leave it up to you to see if there should be some further elaboration On that future potential that would be I think it would make the response even stronger madam chair We'll work with IT and make sure that that's included.

Okay, and I think since we're giving direction and approving the report We'll just need to make sure that's part of our direction.

I would love that to be included as part of the direction Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you Would you like that to be a motion? That will be a motion to accept and provide that, accept the report and provide that direction.

Great, thank you. I will second that. And then I would just also like to, I think sometimes we have our civil grand jury works, like put so many hours into these reports. And sometimes I want to make sure that when we are sending our responses back, they can be fairly technical and, you know, I would say dry but just technical in in our responses so I would just ask that if we could in addition add a letter of appreciation to the civil grand jury for the items that they've studied and the opportunity to make improvements based on the recommendations as noted

I should have mentioned that at the outset, Madam Chair. We will definitely do that. The transmittal letters for both of these items will be in that vein.

Great. Wonderful. Okay. And with that, just again, appreciation. I think there's the issues of how do we continually make improvements to our system so that it meets the needs of all of our residents and visitors. and is effective for our first responders. But knowing what those improvements are and how they will be paid for and who's gonna pay for them, I think will remain a challenge that we have with all systems in local government. So thank you for the response. We have a motion from Daniels to accept the staff recommendation with the additional language requested. A second from OSCU and all in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Aye as well. And Eric Tennant's hand has gone down, so I'm not sure why we weren't able to get him online, but we will be back again this afternoon. We are now going to recess for back into closed session, and we'll be back here at agenda items today.

Okay. Thank you.

There's Eric.

I just figured it out. Sorry.

Thank you.

Diego Celis is with us remotely. Thank you, Diego. We appreciate having you with us. We'll start with item number 20.1, receiving a presentation on Assembly Bill 2728 regarding groundwater de minimis extractors fee exemptions. And we have Nicole Hollingsworth, who's our county legislative... Um, program director and Sean Murray from general manager of the water resource agency deputy general manager was a lot of resource agency. We just gave Sean or maybe we have our, I was like, we've given a promotion to somebody. All right. We'll pass the 4 to you. Thanks.

Well, good afternoon, Madam chair and supervisors today. I'm appearing remotely as I'm under the weather, but aura is there with you today with the Monterey county resources water agency. And we have a special opportunity to present to you to sponsor legislation. So please note this legislation is coming to you today because the ask is for one, to sponsor a bill, which is a step up from supporting or opposing a bill. Two, this is an urgent gut and amend bill that will have massive impacts to Monterey County. And three, since this bill is moving so fast, we did not have time to take it to the legislative committee first, which is our usual practice. because we canceled July's legislative committee. So here we are today. For the sake of time, I'll go ahead and pass the invisible microphone over to Ara, but he's here to present on an issue that's not at all new to the board of supervisors. It's about de minimis well users and how legislation might be able to ease this issue of the extra fees they are being faced with. So today we have proposed solution to this problem and I will hand the invisible microphone over to Ara to tell you more about this legislation.

Thank you, Nicole. Good afternoon, Supervisor Zahraj Darian, General Manager of Water Resources Agency. And if we could, oh yay, thank you. So short presentation today. We'll talk a little bit about, you know, why this legislation is necessary and receive direction on where to go with it. So, you know, in a short word, it's SIGMA, which means the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. It was a series of three laws that were enacted in 2014 that established state mandates to manage groundwater locally with sustainability targets set in the future, 2040 or 2042. And, you know, to do that it means monitoring groundwater levels, groundwater quality, and groundwater usage. In 2017, the Salinas Valley Basin GSA was formed, and they are the entity that's responsible for achieving the mandates of SGMA. They're the ones who have the relationship with the California Department of Water Resources. We have been providing them significant technical support. And so when they began developing their groundwater sustainability plans and DWR was offering recommendations about how to improve the existing monitoring network, the SCB GSA was at a crossroads. Either they could stand up a duplicative program or instead, and as was ultimately decided, leverage the experience of the Water Resources Agency and our historical long-term trend data to be able to inform their planning. We set out on a nexus study to establish a regulatory fee under Prop 26 and that ironically resulted in a separation in the legal context for de minimis users. and I'll explain that a bit more in the presentation. Ultimately, the groundwater program was approved with the regulatory fees in October of 2024, but the question of how to fund participation for de minimis well owners has been with us throughout that time. In the current fiscal year, of course, they're being funded through grant dollars. In the upcoming fiscal year, absent this legislation, there has been a request forwarded to the Measure AA Committee for funding. But we look at the legislation as a long-term solution. So why did we end up allocating costs on a per well basis? It was really more about the legal defensibility under prop 26 and it was any requirement of the monitoring program itself we recognize that not all landowners are well owners and we recognize that the level of effort necessary to implement the monitoring program relates more to the number of wells being monitored and not necessarily the the usage the unintended consequence of that though of course is regressive because the way costs are allocated now PER THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, A HOUSEHOLD DRAWING TWO ACRE FEET PER YEAR OR LESS IS ESSENTIALLY PAYING THE SAME THING AS A NONDEMINIMUS EXTRACTOR THAT COULD BE DRAWING HUNDREDS OR EVEN THOUSANDS OF ACRE FEET. SO THIS DISPARITY IS SIGNIFICANT ESPECIALLY FOR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS. For reference, I just wanted to provide quickly what the fees are per sub basin and per service level. And so this reflects, you know, well ownership costs. It's beginning at about $140 a well in certain portions of the county up to almost $280 per well in other areas, depending on what services the groundwater monitoring program requires. So why are we moving forward with AB 2728? So Prop 26 doesn't allow the Water Resources Agency as a non-GSA to charge one group of well owners more in order to offset the cost to others. And de minimis groundwater extractors are defined in SGMA. And SGMA also shields ground, de minimis groundwater users from And so, if we were a GSA, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but since we're not, we need to create this solution. And so this is why 2728 was introduced. It addresses this unintended regressive impact. And we recognize that the monitoring program itself doesn't change the purpose for the monitoring program. It's a means to an ends. The ends is the sustainability of the groundwater basin. and that's most important to the non-de minimis extractors. And the costs of the program overall don't change as a result of this. So by sponsoring the bill, the County of Monterey is supporting constituents facing increased water fees due to legislation, SGMA, and ballot proposition Proposition 26 that had unintended consequences. And we just recognize that water usage as a whole continues to be a challenge that we will continue to work with and that this legislation is one positive step in the right direction to improving things for many well owners in the Salinas Valley. So I will pause there and happy to take any questions.

Great Thank you i'm going to open this up to public comment, to start with, is there anyone in chambers for public comment. Anyone online for public comment I will close public comment and bring it back to the board and I get.

yeah move approval of putting us in the position that's requested by staff to help.

I'll second it, but I just have one brief comment on that. And I just, you know, I mean, we've all surprised Lopez and I have both raised this issue quite a bit. But I want to give particular credit to Supervisor Lopez because he was brought this to the speaker, discussed it and made, you know, pushed forward to find a way for a legislative action on it. It's you know, as I pointed out, this is five percent. 5% of the people of the water, you know, the people using 5% of water are paying for 50% of the program. And this is kind of correcting that. And as we had talked about earlier, there's a lot of fees going to be coming down. And this is just one way to try to equalize something. And it's, it's one of these, you know, things we we see here in Monterey County that is going to solve a lot of problems statewide. And it's anyway, just wanted to

give credit where it's due on this board. Thank you, and I just also want to thank the folks behind the scenes who helped make this possible. The language itself was drafted by RCRC's team, specifically Arthur Wylene, Pat Blacklock, and the support came from Eric Will, Marianne Warmerdam, and the legislative team. CSAC has jumped on board supporting this, as has RCRC. I want to thank Assemblywoman Soria for being willing to amend the bill that she had that wasn't moving to put this in play for us. And this morning at about 10 a.m., it passed through Committee on Consent. So we're moving now. So just appreciation to everybody, including Kelly as well, and Ara, who stood ready. Ara almost wasn't with us today. He was prepared to be in Sacramento this morning to testify if necessary. But it's been a labor of love, and everyone who has been approached about this has been largely supportive, and it's taken some education. But we've done that, and we're sitting here today with a moving bill. So thank you.

Thank you for the work you guys did and for getting this to this place, and I'm happy to support. A couple questions for you, Ara, is since the intention was to capture the number of wells and the cost wasn't based on the amount extracted, but to ensure we were capturing the numbers, how are we going to do that Now do we do you predict any issues or is there any kind of strategy that we are going to shift in terms of? Getting folks to register ensuring that they register because I think you still need that accurate count Yeah, absolutely and so the groundwater monitoring is

program, which was created in consultation with the Salinas Valley Basin, GSA, defines what we do by sub basin. And well registration is a key component to that. And we've worked hard over the past year to bring new wells into the registry, and we will continue that work through outreach and education and and informing well owners why it's important for them to register. I suspect some of the reticence that is out there may be alleviated if AB 2728 passes and they recognize that they aren't gonna be subject to future fees. So that makes registration less risky. And we'll continue to monitor the County Health Department and the Department of Water Resource well databases because as wells are repaired, permits are pulled. And for those who haven't registered, they will appear on our screen.

And I appreciate that this is addressing the imbalance that Supervisor Church just articulated that you had 50% of the well owners covering the cost of 50% of the program. So that's definitely something that needs to be addressed. But how are you covering the cost of the program now?

If 2728 passes, then just as the A GSA would do, we will reallocate the existing costs, which don't change, among those non-de minimis well users. And so, depending on the timing of passage, you know, we will come in and recalculate those rates and, you know, move that forward.

So anyone outside of the de minimis category, now the rates will just be adjusted for everybody that is still in the program?

Correct.

Great. Well, I'm happy to help move this forward.

Are following up on what you just said right now, so then the other existing potential payers would pay substantially more?

I don't know how much more. We haven't done that math. So whether it's a large increase or a small one, I'm not certain at this moment. But they will pay more. Yeah, well, it should be significant.

5% was paying 50%. They're no longer going to pay the 50%. So then that gets spread among everyone else that was supposed to pay that other 50%.

It could be as high as that. I don't know that it will be.

Well, I support this, obviously, and I did want to acknowledge Supervisor Lopez for late in the legislative process to get an assembly member, Esmeralda Soria, to get an amend her bill that was already in the Senate and to remove its contents and use it for this purpose is a very hard thing to do because there's, I think, another week remaining and then they go off for a month for summer recess and then they're back for the most hectic four weeks of of end of session so I just wanted to commend that and thank uh as more us as assembly members for willing to carry this for us and for the rest of the counties in a similar predicament thank you

Yeah, I'm also happy to support. And I think we had been moving forward because we believe that we need to move forward. And having this take into play would be, I think, a solution that that was being asked for, which allows us to continue moving forward while addressing the issues that were that were being raised along the way.

so minor things i was remiss and not also thanking the speaker the my colleague here had already called out the speaker so i want to thank him as well for making that connection and also i want to thank ashley from nasa man walker who's been a key support and help through this making sure that we have the latest details and if i missed anybody else apologies all right would you like to make a motion already i think i already did and seconded it so we're sorry we did we yes we do have a motion call for the vote

All in favor?

Aye.

Passes unanimously. Thank you. We can move on to our next item, which is item 21, which is a public hearing to hear protests or opposition against the proposed annual assessment by County Service Area 17, Regittiera Grande. And we have Lindsay Laravel with us to do brief introduction.

Right. Thank you, Chair Rudoski, members of the board, CAO De La Rosa, Council. My name is Lindsay Rabel. I'm the Assistant Director for Public Works, Facilities and Parks. Before we get started, I want to announce there's a correction to attachment G of the package. It was just a example of the sample ballot and mailer that went out to all residents or to all CSA members. So today's agenda item is to convene the public hearing pursuant to Prop 218 requirements to hear protest or opposition against the proposed annual assessment for CSA 17 Rancho Tierra Grande or otherwise known as CSA 17. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, staff will tabulate the ballots in the Monterey conference room on the second floor of this building and it will be open to the public. Once the balance have been tabulated and certified, staff will return to announce the results of the election or at least we'll let the clerk of the board know and we can announce the results. If a majority protest exists, no annual assessments shall be imposed for the fiscal year 26-27 annual property tax bill. If no majority protest exists, the board of supervisors shall adopt a resolution approving the annual assessment for CSA 17. We'll now turn it over to the chair of the board to open the public hearing. Members and just to note members of CSA 17 may cast their ballot if they have not already done so before the conclusion of the public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you. So with that, we will open the public hearing and would like to welcome a public comment from anyone in chambers. You can just walk up to the front of the room if you'd like to make public comment. We have two minutes on the clock. Okay.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Farah Farhang, and I live on Mercurio. I don't know if you need to know the exact address. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on CSA 17. Wanted to let you know that our street, one of the questions that I have is why Mercurio is lumped with Tierra Grande. We have 16 homes, a total of 17 parcels. One is land, and we're a very active group of homeowners. And we've gone as so far as checking the drain systems regularly, being part of the firewise and doing the maintenance that's required. And the opposition is that we are doing our part regularly and would rather have those funds controlled by our board rather than by the county and respectfully request that we be separated from the TR Grande group.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment in chambers? Is there any public comment online? We're calling for public comment on the public hearing to hear protest or opposition against the proposed annual assessment by county services area 17 rancho Terra Grande. I see one hand raise Paula.

Yeah, yeah, Paolo back front here one day. Just to say out loud, that while I do understand the need for such services, the price is really high. And on limited income, it's just a crazy amount of money to add to the current property tax that I owe, in addition to skyrocketing fire insurance rates, along with everything else. So I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no further public comment. I will question. Oh, okay, we'll do some questions. And what happens next is we'll do board questions and then public votes will be tabulated at the close of the hearing upstairs on the second floor in the Monterey room. That room will be open for anyone who would like to observe the tabulation of votes. But we'll bring it to the board first for questions, comment.

Thank you. I think for perhaps Ms. Larrabelle, I just want to get some clarity. It would address I think the two questions that we just had or the comments that we just had. Can you help me understand the relationship between CSA 17 and the original conditions of the permit for both Rancho Tierra Grande and Mercurio's neighborhood, the subdivisions. Was there a relationship between the formation of the CSA or the requirement to either form or join the CSA when the subdivision was approved? um that's a good question so i don't have the documents in front of me but i know you created a faq page and i believe that's where i read it that both the from the the original subdivision which was the tierra grande subdivision not the mercurio neighborhood um had a condition to to form the csa that is correct and then i believe when the mercurio subdivision was approved there was a requirement to join CSA 17 perhaps. I'm not remembering for sure, but there's a relationship and I just want to get really clear so we can answer the question. So also the neighbors in the Mercurial subdivision know where to go if they do want to change that relationship.

correct so in 19 um in august of 1980 mercurio was annexed into the rancho tierra grande it just happens to be it was just a separate division so it is part of csa 17 since the 80s and so that's why it's included in the assessment if the question is how do we annex that out of it we'll have to follow up we'll work with the consultant and talk if that is the will of the community we can look at that

Sure, I just wanted folks to understand that that this was part of the subdivisions development.

Yes, it's been for multiple years. That's correct. And but just to clarify that that will have to be a community funded effort. If that is where it goes and not hasn't been deterred. counted for in the assessment in the engineer's report so we'll have to understand what that looks like. And then a couple more things.

The second thing is that currently the CSA is responsible for storm drainage maintenance and what else? and open space okay so some fuel mitigation kind of yes okay that's correct and then this uh vote that the community is taking right now would also be to add street maintenance that is correct it will say the term sidewalks there are not sidewalks in that community but that's what it takes to gets lumped under under lafco but that is correct it will add street maintenance into the And then I really hate to be so blunt, but as a new supervisor, I inherited this request for this CSA increase and I want to be very clear that it came from the HOA and there was some repaving that was done in both neighborhoods and that that repaving was proposed as as we will do this repaving as a county, but that the HOA would then rally the neighborhood and get the neighborhood behind this CSA increase. And I haven't seen that happen. And so we're here today to see the results of the vote. Maybe it happened without my knowing, and therefore we'll have a successful vote today, but maybe it won't. And so what I also want to be clear about is what happens if this doesn't pass today. We're expecting an El Nino, Super El Nino this summer. That's something that does impact storm drains. I'm really glad that it sounds like the Mercurio neighborhood has taken on the responsibility of clearing storm drains because that makes a world of difference in uh in a storm but what happens in areas where the community hasn't been so um has not done that work or the county has not done that work yeah um there has been some work done but what is going to happen to me in the fiscal year they're going to start their fund balance with a negative fund balance so it will not be appropriate funds we'll get some funding from ab um

EIGHT, CORRECT, THANK YOU. IT COULD BE ABOUT 18,000 AT THE MOST SO IT'S VERY MINIMAL AND STAFF HAS TO CHARGE THEIR TIME TO THE CSA AS WELL AS ANY WORK AND EFFORTS SO THERE WILL BE BASICALLY WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO RESPOND BUT IT WILL BE ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS OR IF NEEDED WE'LL COME TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ASK FOR A LOAN. that will that's where we're at okay if it does not pass we also have to wait 12 months before we initiate the next election so um we'll have to go through a full fiscal year for helping us get clear about that yes thank you any other discussion um at the board level

All right. And so we are going to at this point direct the clerk of the board or designee via our team to tabulate and certify protest votes received upstairs in the Monterey room. As I said, it's on the second floor and that room will be open for anyone that would like to monitor or observe the tabulation. We will continue this item until we have a result of the election. We'll bring that back downstairs after the next item. Oh, and then we will also close this hearing now. Thank you. All right, so this item we will table for while votes are counted, and we'll move on to item number 22, conducting a public hearing to collecting delinquent fees for solid waste collection. It looks like we have Shreece Walters from and Marnie Flagg from Environmental Health.

Good afternoon, Chair Askew and members of the board. As said, I'm Marnie Flagg, the Assistant Bureau Chief. I'm here today with Carice Walters, our Management Analyst 3. We're here to conduct a public hearing to collect delinquent fees for solid waste collection in Monterey County. We will be asking for the board to accept the report of delinquent fees as indicated and consider any objections or protests of landowners that are liable to be assessed for any delinquent fees. and we would like the board to adopt a resolution to confirm that report of delinquent solid waste fees authorize the fees as set forth in the confirmed report following the conclusion of the dispute resolution process Authorize the clerk of the board to file a certified copy of this report with the auditor controller and also authorize and direct county staff to take any and all necessary further steps to continue and complete this request. So Monterey County established mandatory garbage service in the unincorporated areas through a 2010 ordinance that protects public health and safety prevents illegal dumping and ensures the financial viability of waste collection services. Because services mandatory accounts are tied to the property parcel rather than an individual owner. On December 3 2024, the board approved a new unified franchise agreement with waste management and directed us to remove unpaid customer debt from the rate setting process. So under this new UFA, outstanding balances may be recovered through a special assessment process that includes customer customer notification, the potential for dispute resolution and also public hearing. Waste management has sent four monthly notices starting in January and ending in April of 2026. The county itself mailed a notice of public hearing in June of 2026. And these notifications targeted both residential and commercial accounts. Here's a view of the total number of delinquent accounts starting in January 2026 to the number in June. So from January to June there was a 65% decrease in the total number of residential accounts and a 56% decrease in the total number of commercial accounts. property owners are responsible for ensuring payment is received by the deadline the payments may be made by phone online or by mail. However checks can take 10 or more days to process and should be meld whale well in advance of the deadline. property owners that are disputing the fee at this public hearing must provide proof of vacancy change of ownership or proof of payment if the notice was received in error or there's a discrepancy related to ownership or vacancy status property owners should contact waste management for assistance we do also have waste management here today to provide any answers and assistance to anyone that needs it The deadline for property owners to submit a dispute or appeal is July 25th, 2026 by 5 p.m., the close of business. Any fee that remains unpaid after this deadline will be added as a special assessment to the property's 2026-2027 tax bill, and the tax roll list must be submitted to the auditor-controller by August 1st, 2026. So after July 25th, there will be no corrections or anything to this list. It will have to be done paid through your property tax. So our recommendations were to conduct a public hearing today to collect these delinquent fees for solid waste collection. Please accept the report of delinquent fees and consider any objections by landowners liable to be assessed for these delinquent fees. We also would like to adopt the resolution that confirms our report of delinquent solid waste fees and authorize us to move forward on this path and authorize the clerk of the board to file that certified copy of the report with the auditor controller and allow us to continue the steps of the special assessment process. Thanks. Are there any questions?

Thank you. Let's take it up to public comment first, and then we can bring it back to the board. Are there any members of the public for public comment on this item?

Hi Chair Askew, members of the board. Liz Hall here, public sector manager for waste management. I just wanted to take a lesson learned from last year and make everyone in the crowd aware that there is help available for you here at the public hearing. So if you do have questions or still need assistance, anyone please see me after the hearing. I did want to publicly thank staff for the collaboration. We took a lot of lessons learned in implementing this process last year. and I wanted to publicly thank our local customer service agents. They have done an amazing job in handling a lot of the calls for this. It's cut down significantly on the questions and concerns coming up, so I just wanted to publicly thank that group. I also wanted to state that last year when we sent the notice of public hearing, there were over 1,400 accounts that got the public hearing notice. This year it was a little over 650, so a big difference. And then as of yesterday, we had about 550 accounts for residential and less than 35 for commercial remaining. So I think we have seen good progress through this process. Appreciate the support and appreciate y'all's patience as we work through all the nuances. So I'm here to support. If anyone needs me, please see me in the lobby after the hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Liz. And thank you also for answering all the questions we sent over yesterday about the data. Any other public comment? All right, I'm seeing them. We'll close public. If you'd like to make public, yeah, please approach the front of the room.

Hi, my name's Miguel Medrano, and I live on 37 Long Valley Road, and I received this bill from Waste Management, and I haven't been using Waste Management for the past three and a half years, almost four years. I've been dumping the trash myself, and I don't know how can Waste Management prove that they're picking up my trash. That's the only question that I have. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll get some answers to these questions, but we'll have the next public comment. Thank you.

My name is Barbara Cole. I live in the San Benito area off of Highway 68. And first of all, I want to thank all of you and other people for what you do. This is a serious issue and I understand that. I have lived on my property for the last 40 years. At that time, and I live at the end of a very long and high lane. At that time, Waste Management, whatever the name was, came up to where my actual property is, my house, and they turned around there and they were able to take care of everything. Now, it is almost impossible for me to get to San Benicio. In fact, I could not because of the length. But also, I returned to my property after COVID, during which I found that my tenants had essentially... almost decimated my my property i've been in the process of trying to put that together items such as carpeting that i've had to take out of the house all those kinds of things waste management of course would not take in in the bins so during this time i have had no service whatsoever from waste management i have never used them there has not been any item from my house that has gone into anything for them to pick up. I pay someone to take away the, when I've had to have large items and everything taken out. I also try to compost, I try to recycle, I do anything and everything I can to make sure that I don't have any excess If I could have zero waste, I would be happy with that. That's what I would ultimately prefer. So I'm very frustrated by this, and I'm pleased to know that there is a process, an appeal process. And I'm sure I'm not the only one, but it is a challenging situation. There is no doubt about it. And perhaps a wiser woman would find another place to live. But I have been there for many years, although I've done lots of traveling and lived out of the country and so forth. I do, in fact, love this area and I love where I live and I'm ever so thankful for it. And as I say, I appreciate all the work that many of you do to make sure it's a good community. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Is there any other public comment? Anyone else in the chambers who would like to speak?

yeah i've also i live on san miguel and i've also been charged for onto my property tax for waste management and i have receipts and everything not all the receipts but i do have some receipts stating that i'd go and take well my brother takes the my trash and for me in marina so i don't think i should have to you know pay all that money thank you

Thank you. Any other public comments?

Hi, my name is Martha Sutton. I go by Marty. I got this in It's from my tenant and he already paid. He's got the he's got the receipts in his pocket. And so I don't believe I'm liable for this because I owe the property. Okay, so I was gonna go with that lady afterwards. Okay, when we're done, I just go with her. Okay, cool. Thanks. All right.

Thank you. All right. Final call for public comment. Okay, I'm not seeing any additional public comments. We'll close public comment, bring it back to the board. Can I just ask our team to respond to some of the process questions for those who are in the room today, what's required to have service, and then for those who have a dispute, what needs to happen, if we could just reiterate that.

Environmental health will be outside as well to answer any questions that anyone has.

Okay, so for anyone who had a specific issue, we have Marnie Flagg, who's here from Environmental Health, and we have Liz Hall, who's waving her hand from Waste Management, who can help review the specific situation, specific scenario, and identify what options exist for your unique situation. Let's bring it back to the board. Any comments, questions yet?

So just a question, if you could remind me, Because I remember this from last year, but I do not remember the process. Is there a process? And what is it if you do not want service and you have a legitimate reason? I mean, there was a woman who shared that just the length of her driveway to get to San Bonancio Road makes it infeasible unless you mean I know myself if I have a I need a truck to take my garbage to the top of the hill. So if someone has a legitimate reason. Is there a way to be exempted from service?

There is, Supervisor Daniels. So waste management has a lot of options. They have curb collection. They have services that will help you get your trash down to the curb. But the mandatory garbage exemption

form can be filled out and given to our office and the property will be assessed if waste management is able to service your home or not and if you qualify then yes you can self-haul your trash so anyone wanting to should go try to find that form fill it out and just then they'll be um they'll be notified if they are qualified so that's step one as well as today find out the information that you need for the appeal process because the window is really short right now Yes, thank you.

So I'm a little familiar with that, the exemption process. I actually have the exemption. I have a long driveway and the way it's some other complications, but it is very narrow on the exemption that allowed and I do get people that contact me periodically that say, you know, I have a hauling business or something like this, you know, why can't I just take my own trash? Or, you know, there's various other cases like that. And, you know, I don't know where the best way for us to do it here. Maybe go to one of the committees or something, but I think it might be good to really look at that exemption process and try to make it a little bit more flexible if it's possible, if it's necessary. Because I do, as I said, I hear from people around and I don't know, you know, some of the other supervisors might have that same complaint.

I agree, Supervisor Church, that the mandatory garbage exemption process does need to be looked at. It is outlined in the unified franchise agreement now that's in place. So it's there would be a process to amend or update that. But the next time the next cycle comes around and we do another franchise agreement, that would be a great time to take a look at the garbage exemption.

And that, but that is like five or so years, correct? Yes. We probably may not have the same board here and thoughts on that. So question is, is whether or not we're able to potentially address that now and make an addendum. I, you know, whether waste management is open to that and

we can discuss with our council that represents us on the unified franchise agreement and see how we would go about that yeah I'd like to hear back on that thank you yeah I'd support that I know historically there was the formal narrow process and there were some informal processes that worked and we've broken those processes decided we're not going to honor them anymore and so for that reason I would only be able to support today if we give direction as a board to revisit that and sooner than when the contract reopens I've toyed with the idea of making my own referral, but given that this was coming, I think this is that opportunity. This is the moment I'd like to see the board give that direction to revisit that now and find a clear path for those folks who would like to find alternative paths. And I think that it can be crafted not in a broad way, but in a narrow way that really makes clear an understanding of the realities of rural living in Monterey County.

So I can support the request to take a closer look at what's in the agreement, our unified contract agreement, knowing that things are crafted in such a way that the numbers have to pencil out for all involved. But happy to support the request to open that conversation, our direct staff to open that conversation with waste management to see what options might be available. So that is the motion.

So moved. I just didn't know if the gentleman's concern was addressed by waste management. You talked to him already? Okay, perfect. Thank you. Yes.

This is the form we're discussing in the process. Yeah.

A second.

Okay, so I have a motion from Lopez, a second from Church, and that's to proceed with staff recommendation in the agenda with the additional request for direct staff to look at the exemption process and forms. Prior to the, right, thank you, okay. Okay, all in favor? Aye. All right, passes unanimously. And we'll just make sure, Marnie, if you can raise your hand again real big so everyone can see you. And Liz, if you could raise your hand again so everyone can see you. So for those who had outstanding questions or needed additional information, please follow the two representatives out to the lobby. Thank you. And we can have them follow up specifically. Okay. Do we have our I don't see our protest hearing back yet. So we'll move on to item number sorry, item number 23, which is hearing to consider adoption of the ordinance amending our county code to require spaying and neutering of dogs and cats while allowing for certain exemptions.

All right. Good afternoon.

Elsa Jimenez, Director of Health Services and Cindy Burnham, Animal Services Administrator.

So we are here today before you, Chair Askew, members of the board, members of the public, returning for an updated first hearing for a proposed spay and neuter ordinance for the County of Monterey. So today we are going to introduce and wave the first reading and and set to consider adoption. Sorry. Introduce, waive the first reading and set today at 1.30 actually as a date and time to consider adoption of an ordinance that would amend chapters 8.04 and 8.08 of our county code that would require spaying and neutering of dogs and cats while allowing certain exceptions. And as was stated when we were here previously, this is in response to board referral number 2025.10 that was issued to the health department and Hitchcock Road Animal Services by Supervisor Alejo.

and just for clarification i think you're introducing a wave reading and setting july 23rd 7th oh yes july 7th sorry as the adoption okay

Yes, sorry, a little frazzled. I rushed here. I apologize to everybody and the members of the public. So yes, we are setting the formal hearing for July 7th, 2026 at 1030 a.m. And so at the last time that we were here, there was direction from the board regarding additional language that they wanted to see in Monterey County chapters 8.04 and 8.08. And so here before you today, we are with those updates.

Yes. So section 8.0 4.0 1 will amend to insert the definitions. These are the same definitions for neutered and spayed that were presented last time. We are amending chapter 8.0 8 to include the terms mandatory spaying and neutering. In addition to the vaccination and vaccine certificate and license section. Section 8.0 8.0 6.0 is amended to add mandatory spaying and neutering. This ordinance requires Spang and neutering of dogs over six months and cats over five months unless holds an unaltered animal certificate. This ordinance holds that any person providing care or substance for a dog or cat, including feral cats, and that's because Monterey County has a definition of feral cats separate from just domestic cats, is the owner of such dog and cat. Exemptions, dogs documented as having been properly trained and actually being used by public law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes, or dogs designated as breeding stock for law enforcement purposes by the appropriate agency or organization approved by the animal control officer after consultation with knowledgeable professionals. Dogs or cats certified by a licensed veterinarian as having a health reason for not being spayed or neutered, or dogs and cats which are owned and in the custody and control of persons who do not reside in the unincorporated area of Monterey County but who are temporarily visiting the county or traveling through the county for the unaltered animal certificate and I won't get into all the specifics but it's for animals over the age of six months there's no more than two violations in the preceding 24 months the animal is being housed and cared for to include proper food and water shelter The area where it's being kept is cleaned and disinfected. It must be fully contained on their property and they're complying with any other laws. It also states that the owner of an altered female dog furnishes the ACO with a signed statement agreeing that the animal will not have litters per year unless they obtain a breeding permit. It includes a breeding permit in addition to an unaltered animal certificate. This breeding permit is written authorization issued by the ACO giving permission to breed a dog or cat. It's valid for one year and may be renewed annually. There will be an annual fee. Persons convicted of animal cruelty or neglect do not qualify. Additionally, the breeder's permit must be displayed on any advertising. This is not for animals under 12 months or over seven years of age. It allows for keeping records for three years. Also, animals that are sold, transferred, or given away, they have to keep that information. All puppies must be microchipped or have some other form of identification acceptable to the ACO and will be licensed. For violations, first time violators receive a correction notice and have 60 days to comply. Second violations may result in an administrative citation of not more than $500 and third or subsequent violations may result in an administration citation of not more than $750. Enforcement will include education, resource flyers, website, social media, both in the fields and the shelter, issuing of correction notices, administrative citations. This ordinance rule will the ACOs to establish a certification program to include an unaltered animal certificate and a breeding permit, as well as establish an administrative citation process.

with that the consideration of adoption is set for July 7th 2026 at 10 30 a.m. we're here right thank you questions we'll go to comment we'll go to public comment first is there any public comment on this item

Good afternoon. My name is Melissa Finley. I'm a longtime resident of unincorporated Monterey County. Most of my waking hours for the past 20 years have been spent helping animals in Monterey and Santa Cruz County through an animal rescue that I'm affiliated with. We help approximately 600 cats and kittens a year, either through direct rescue and rehoming from the local municipal shelters or direct intervention and assistance via spay and neuter of owned animals. Spay and neuter is a cornerstone of animal welfare and basic animal care. An ordinance requiring spay and neuter with some common sense exemptions will help lower the number of animals being born on the street suffering and needing rescue. Importantly, over time it will also help to lower the number of animals coming into the local shelter, increase morale there, and lower euthanasia numbers. Spay and neuter is the kind of gift that keeps on giving. An animal must only be spayed or neutered once to see the benefit of them not being part of further overpopulation problems for the entirety of the rest of their lives. their owner, their neighborhood and community all benefit from this action as well. And ordinance also provides an important tool in the toolbox of animal control to help them be able to address folks consistently creating these problems within their neighborhoods and community. With that, it is my request that you all support the passage of a spay and neuter ordinance for unincorporated Monterey County and I thank you for your leadership on this topic.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment in chambers?

Good afternoon. My name is Shay Kurtz. I showed up today to make sure that there was strong language included in this ordinance. I volunteer in the feral cat vertical and I'm here today to speak about why we need to include stronger language in the proposed ordinance when it comes to feral cats. Without strong language we will not be able to make the headway necessary to get the overpopulation problem under control. We do not have the resources to monitor whether or not members of the community have been feeding feral cats for 30 days or more, which is what would be required of the ACO if the language is not changed. The trappers that are out attempting to help with the overpopulation are met with all sorts of excuses and reasons why they do not want the feral cats on their property to be trapped. fixed and released. They range from not wanting individuals on their property to only wanting to fix the male cats or only certain breeds of cats or not fixing them at all because they like the kittens prancing about their property. employer to make this ordinance as strong as possible and to include feral cats in the language of this ordinance and I would also support a higher fee for the breeder permit I don't think that's high enough I think it needs to be at least a thousand thank you all right any other public comment in chambers we'll move online we have Melanie Sobel

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, thank you for joining us.

Okay, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Melanie Solo. I'm currently the director of Denver Animal Protection, and I spent 12 years as a general manager of the Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter. I feel my experience there successfully managing a mandatory spay-neuter ordinance and implementing the planned petri-free and low-cost spay-neuter program is very relevant to your discussion. I've worked for the past 26 years in open emission government animal shelters, which I feel serve the neediest and most vulnerable animals in the community. Denver also has a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance. Targeted aggressive spay and neuter efforts have proven over the past 50 years to be the most effective strategy to combat pet overpopulation. With several efforts, much work in concert with this. Progressive programming includes legislation, education and awareness, affordable resources, along with enforcement. Each component of this cannot have as effective an outcome as all efforts working together. This approach takes appropriate leadership. Just as law enforcement has embraced less punitive enforcement strategies, as this community policing model, animal control officers can do the same. Interactions with residents can be informative and educational. Conversations on the reasons behind the law can provide resources and issue fix-it citations. Spanning an ordinance is enforced like any other ordinance, mainly through complaints, The ordinance simply provides yet another resource to use to address irresponsible pet owners and incentive for pet owners to do the right thing. Past 50 years, the number of animals euthanized in shelters has steadily decreased, mostly as a result of increased public awareness of pet of our population and increased information about and access to spay and neuter. All reputable animal shelters and rescue groups spay and neuter animals prior to adoption. It's considered the best practice. In addition to preventing additional unwanted animals, sterilization improves a pet's health and temperament, reducing susceptibility to certain cancers, and reducing aggressive and territorial behaviors. Spay and neuter is the most humane and fiscally responsible way to address pet population. Mandatory spay and neuter is a common good law. Rabies has been eliminated due to- Thank you.

We are out of time. Thank you. We'll go next to iPhone. We have a... Hello. There we go.

Thank you. Sorry about that. It takes me a moment to switch here. I'm also very much for the ordinance. Thank you for your leadership with that. And I would also agree on higher fees. It really defeats the purpose to just give a slap in the hand when they're selling... five or six dogs for three thousand four thousand dollars which of course they I don't think people would mind paying 500 if they know that they're still making a lot more from that loss so please a stronger language and higher fees please thank you thank you we'll go next to Lucy

Good afternoon, my name is Lucy Aarons, lifetime Monterey County resident, volunteer, and animal welfare advocate. I am here today to express my strong support for enacting a spay-neuter ordinance for the unincorporated areas of Monterey County, primarily for the prevention of pet overpopulation that results in animal suffering and unnecessarily high euthanasia rates. The status quo is not working and it is time for a new approach. Please pass a spay-neuter ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go next to Anayeli.

Oh, hi. Good afternoon. My name is Anayeli and I am a Salinas resident taxpayer and trapped neutral return volunteer. I'm here to express my support for the ordinance. I began trapping cats in 2016 because I could not stand by and watch abandoned animals. and continue to suffer on the streets. I first used to take the cats to SPCA where they cost me $40 per cat and eventually I had to stop based on their increasing of the prices. I reached out to the animal services and animal control and Unfortunately, at the time, I was told that there was not enough funding and staff for jurisdiction to support the trapped neutral return efforts. Then SNPAS came to Salinas and everything changed. Because of their free spay and neuter clinics, I have been able to help sterilize more than 200 abandoned animals throughout the city. Today, I continue to care for three separate cat colonies, each with more than 15 cats. Every day I provide food, water, and ongoing care using my own time and my own money. I don't do this for recognition. I do this because it is the right thing to do. I have even spoken with Supervisor Alejo about the need for a formal trap-neuter-return ordinance, just like the ordinance that was passed in Seaside and how it had a positive impact for their city. He agreed that volunteers need support. Volunteers are not a problem. We are part of the solution. Every cat with trap is sterilized and vaccinated. It's one less litter born on the streets, one less animal entering the shelter, and one less burden on taxpayers. Today, I respectfully ask the entire city council to stand with the volunteers who have dedicated years to help our community. I'm not asking the city to begin this work. I'm just simply asking you to please support the ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think I see a couple of folks from the chambers that missed our earlier call. So come on up and we'll work our way through their final public comment for those in chambers.

Hello, I'm Lisa Sears from Seaside. Our Seaside ACO Alex started his position in March of 2023 after interviewing and being turned down for position with Hitchcock Road Shelter. Lowering intake numbers from Seaside to the SPCA was his number one motivation for taking this job. Five months into the job, he came to us, the citizens of Seaside, asking him for help passing an ordinance when he realized there was a certain population of pet owners where education and offering spay-neuter services would not result in compliance. I'm very happy to report that today his job satisfaction is better than ever, as he has achieved a 30% decrease in shelter intake since the ordinance passed in December of 2024. Now let's talk about Hitchcock staffing. The current vacancy rate is 36%, or 12 out of 33 positions. Five of them have left in the last six months. One vet, one vet tech, one principal office assistant, one animal care tech, and one part-time care tech. We have to start asking whether the very models being pushed into shelters by big box organizations, such as managed intake capacity of care, community sheltering, are creating impossible working conditions for frontline staff. inside the shelter staff are carrying the emotional burden of what these policies actually look like i'd like to read a recent post from a hitchcock employee that i follow she writes the last few months have been a constant daily battle at the shelter getting kennel space has become the mantra the driving factor the goal our shelter and seemingly every shelter in california is full or over full mostly filled with larger breeds dogs these dogs who keep flowing in are often passing through the shelter system without having any real interest. The shelter staff and volunteers become very emotional. We get to know these dogs quite well, and it's impossible not to get attached to the ones who don't make it to the adoption floor. Let's help them the shelter workers by passing this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Lisa Carter. I'm the 15 year former executive director for the Santa Cruz SPCA, also serving on several boards, including the State California Animal Laws Board of Directors. I was there in 1995 when over 14,000 cats, dogs, puppies and kittens entered the Santa Cruz SPCA, which at the time was contracted to perform animal control for the county. They walked in, were carried in, often dragged through the front door. Many ended up leaving through the back door every week, frozen in a dumpster simply because there were not enough people to adopt them, and too many of them. The vast majority were loving dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens, and over 25% were purebred. The morale of the staff was depressed at best. Staff turnover was high, just like at the Salinas shelter, who lost just two more employees this past month. Asking people who love animals to have to euthanize a healthy animal is devastating. The number one reason people gave when asked why they were bringing a basket full of puppies or a garbage can full of kittens We've been meaning to get her spayed, but just never got around to it. The second reason was they didn't know a cat or a dog under six months could breed, or they wanted to show their children the miracle of life, not realizing the shelter workers were barely able to sleep at night, having to clean up what that miracle had created. In 1995, Santa Cruz County had enough of spending millions warehousing and killing animals and was one of the first counties in the country to pass a differential licensing legislation or mandatory spay neuter bill. Prior to 1995, the intake numbers were well over 14,000. Since 1995, The animal shelter population steadily has decreased. After just 10 years, the intake numbers were under 5500, a two thirds decrease. I was there to witness this and have seen similar laws passed mirroring Santa Cruz County. Finally, I applaud each of you for your interest, compassion and fiscal responsibility. Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. Imagine staring down the barrel of a gun, your life ending in an instant simply because there was no space left at the rescue. Imagine being a large dog leaving Hitchcock, your tail wagging, believing you finally had a chance at a forever home, only instead to be euthanized by a gun after a transfer to Miranda's rescue. Sadly, this has been the outcome for multiple dogs that left Hitchcock. Today, sheriff officers, the DOJ, USDA, and FBI are all currently excavating the property at Miranda's Rescue. Today, you have an opportunity to create meaningful change for the animals in Monterey County That kind of change takes courage, it takes vision, it takes leadership. And if you're willing to act, this ordinance can do more than help our county. It can become a model for communities across California and across the nation. Shelters nationwide are being pressured to rely on reduced intake and community sheltering models. This shifts the burden from the shelters onto the residents and rescuers, and ultimately the animals themselves. And our community deserves better. Mary Hannah Blue, Ray Kareem Yuki, Mickey, Darla, Lola, Tony, Bliss, Merkle, Franklin, Zora, Skipper, and Cat are just 16 of the 85 dogs transferred to Miranda's rescue from November this year. Only three made it back to Hitchcock. We cannot bring these dogs back, but we can honor them by preventing tragedies like this from happening again. We can address the root cause of animal overpopulation and reduce the number of animals entering our shelters in the first place. This ordinance is about responsibility. It's about prevention. It's about giving future dogs and cats a better chance at life, a better chance at adoption, and a better chance at finding the loving homes they deserve. The animals of Monterey County cannot speak for themselves. They're relying on us to speak for them today.

Thank you. Okay, we're gonna one final call for any public comment in chambers. Is there anyone else in chambers for public comment on this? Okay, and we have another hand raised online Leah. Yes, hi, can you hear me?

Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you so much. Sorry about that. My name is Lee Jeter-Stanford. I have been a homeowner and taxpayer in South Salinas for over 20 years. My background and expertise is with the City of Salinas Animal Shelter Advisory Board. I was a council representative for District 3 when Steve McShane was the council representative. I was on the Animal Friends Rescue Project Board for seven years. I was also the president of that board. I'm also with Animal Welfare Assistance Group, which provided spay and neuter and also medical assistance for people with owned animals who ran into financial challenges. I've also over the years worked with many SPCA events. Essentially, I have worked with every rescue organization in Monterey County, whether as a volunteer, transport, foster, board member, or attending their fundraising events. Even when not working directly with rescues, I would go to the shelter and help promote large breed dogs who are being passed up for adoptions with videos and pictures on social media. I still help with networking rescues and our shelter dogs and doing transports, including most recently taking a German Shepherd and her 10 puppies to a rescue organization in Oregon to a group who could accept her and her 10 puppies into their program from our shelter. I'm acutely aware of this unhomed animal problem in the city of Salinas and other surrounding areas of Monterey County. For 20 years, we have done nothing different in how we manage animal control in our county or city. The shelter staff are continually overwhelmed in efforts to help these animals make it out of the shelter alive. In 2025, we adopted out almost the exact same number of animals that were euthanized. Over 1,200 adopted, over 1,200 euthanized. We have to do better. And right now, we have the opportunity to do better by creating the spay and neuter ordinance. We have never had more options for low-cost spay and neuter available than right now. We have a wealth of resources. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Nothing else has changed this problem. Why wouldn't we try to do something that could be different and actually help our community? Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board, please.

Thank you. First of all, I just wanted to thank all the public speakers at our last meeting, this meeting, to thank them for sharing their opinions, their concerns, and also to commend them for their volunteerism. People really care about animals, dogs, and cats throughout our county, and they've been doing it for a very long time. I was honored to meet some of the volunteers who trapped the... the feral cats and bring them to these clinics so they could get spayed or neutered. Very commendable. And just meeting some of the professional staff is really eye-opening. If people could see what happens at these clinics, people I think would be even more supportive of why we need this ordinance. To Ms. Burnham and Ms. Jimenez, I want to say thank you for updating the ordinance along with our county council. There were just some areas that I think still I'm not totally clear on. At last, in my motion at the last meeting on this topic on the breeding permit, we did include their language in the motion to increase the breeding permit. So it's an amount that's more meaningful I think I think last time they said it was like 250 we had mentioned maybe it needs to be raised to a thousand or the minimum five hundred dollars the language on the breeding permit says that the fee will be a set forth in the fee schedule and that's the only reference it makes but it doesn't say what that amount or how we are addressing that concern because it hadn't been updated in many many years that it should be updated in an amount that

address some of the concerns from the public but also it should be increased if I can address the fee schedule so the kennel permit fee is set and it has been updated recently in the last couple years it's based on the 2022 fee study that we did where we did update the fees and we were not able to Increase the or have the permit fees higher than what our cost was and so that's that's the pert That's the current kennel permit, which is not this breeders permit, right?

We were asked to do a separate breeders permit But last week we were specifically talking about a breeders permit and that it should be increased 2000 at the minimum 500 I think seaside if I'm not mistaken charges a thousand Mary justice your chair

Yeah. So just to clarify, and I know a couple of the speakers had mentioned fees in this ordinance, and there aren't fees in this ordinance. The amounts for violations are fines. They're penalties of $500 and $750. Fees in order for public entity to adopt fees, it's a separate process. There are no fees in this ordinance before the board. There's a constitutional process that has to be followed in order to determine what fees can be charged because constitutionally the fees have to correspond to the actual cost of whatever the permit process requires so there are no fees in this ordinance and as I said, it's a separate legal process to Adjust to reevaluate the fees and adjust those Okay, I'm gonna get back to this but it It says it set forth in the fee schedule so Either

There'll be follow-up on this then. It was already included in the motion that this needed to be addressed, just saying that it's going to be by the feeding schedule. It wasn't addressed, the concern raised in the motion last week. So because you talked about a kennel permit, kennel as we talked about last time was was referencing a facility whereas under the seaside definition a breeder is by definition a person under that ordinance not not a facility or building so so it seems like This hasn't been adequately addressed and if we need to do the follow up, that's going to be if it has to be on a separate track then so be it but I don't want to let this drop that by saying oh we're just referencing whatever the fees are. When we, we, we had met we had brought it up, the community had raised it that it didn't seem that that was an adequate amount but What is that amount? Was that $210 for a kennel permit?

Yeah, if I may. So you are talking about two different things. So yesterday our joint powers agreement, Hitchcock Road Animal Services Board of Directors adopted their fee schedule. uh for the operation and they adopted um a new fee schedule that for kennels fees to cover all appropriate animals housed at a kennel that is owned kennel meaning uh 228 dollars per year there's a boarding kennel where there are no animals owned by the kennel that's 185 and then there's pet shop there's other fees but what is referenced in the ordinance as we've stated is is a new fee that would be just directly tied to this ordinance a new breeders permit fee and that is not a fee that we've had in place before this so we're as as council indicated we need to determine like what our costs are going to be to be able to successfully issue and ensure that the breeder is complying with the breeder's permit. So we need to go back and figure out what percentage of staff time it's going to take to fulfill all those obligations that are included in the language so that we can come back before your board to adopt a fee schedule specifically for the breeder's permit that is referenced in our draft spay and neuter ordinance.

Yes, it seems like On the breeders, the way this is ran, the breeding permit, which wasn't included last week, and we had a discussion that the existing ordinance only has the kennel permit. And this breeding permit is referring to a schedule that doesn't even talk about a breeding permit. The current schedule that seems to be adopted seems to talk about fees for a kennel permit. And I just want to make a distinction because if you read our existing language on a kennel permit, it's talking about a facility under the revised ordinance under breeding permit says no person shall cause or allow a dog or cat owned, harbored, or kept within the Uncompromised County to breed with intent to sell, gift, or transfer, so on and so forth. So this is a very different definition. This is on a person, not on a facility itself. So it seems like the fee schedule and now this new ordinance, they're not matching.

So, yes, and I totally understand your concern, supervisor. I assure you there will be a fee for the breeder permit. It's just a legal question about the process. The breeder's permit that's referred to in this ordinance doesn't yet exist. This ordinance has to be adopted, and then it has to come back and have a second region and be adopted, and then we have to wait 30 days. So once the permit exists, then the process is for staff to determine what's the actual cost of issuing permits, how much time goes in, how much expense, and then we take that, and then we take how many permits are expected that have to be processed, and then staff comes up with a permit fee that the county doesn't make a profit on, but the county hopefully doesn't lose money on. The permit fee actually reflects the actual cost of uh of processing the permit and so that can't happen until there's there's a permit what is that breeders permit cost in the CDC site today I don't know you know

does our animal control nobody knows what the cdc site is charging we we can't base our permit fee on what they cost i'm saying because if we're saying we have to base it on this 228 dollars and our our neighboring city has a higher amount then it doesn't seem like that that so so if i may i think we're talking about two different fee schedules

the fee schedule that i referenced where we have breeders permit i mean kennel permits that is the fee schedule for hitchcock road animal services adopted by their board of directors for unincorporated monterey county and for the city of salinas with this draft ordinance there's going to be a separate fee schedule that will come back before your board to be able to help us implement the ordinance that only applies to the unincorporated area so The fees proposed in this ordinance and what the amount is going to be is not going to be presented to the Hitchcock Road Animal Services. It's going to be presented to this governing board for action.

Great. I would have avoided that had that been explained that way earlier on. Okay. Now, just going to the... And the answer is $250,000, Supervisor. No. $250,000.

For the kennel.

I'm getting some mixed information on that. Going now to the fine, I know that we tried to mirror the language of seaside When it comes to penalties, this is like the last section of the, almost the third to the end, third to the last section of the ordinance. It says, for the first time violators that will receive a correction notice detailing the particular violations, violators who have 60 days from the date when the owner has received the first notified of the violation to correct the violations. What if they don't correct the violation within 60 days, what happens?

Well, then we then we would move to issuing an administrative citation.

OK, and that's the reason I want to because what's missing on our ordinance with what exists in the seaside ordinance, because that language mirrors seaside. But what seaside has, I just really looked up their ordinance at the very last section of theirs. there's two findings that are relevant when it comes to enforcement. One is where it says prosecution, it says, in any prosecution under this chapter, the person who is shown in possession of the premises shall prima facie be deemed in possession and control of the animals, therefore kept or maintained. So that just makes an assumption when there's an enforcement action, who is in possession under the seaside ordinance, they make that assumption. That wasn't included here. The last section of seaside that's relevant, which puts some teeth when somebody doesn't enforce or doesn't correct the violation within 60 days, is this section here that says violation, it says penalty. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter, which could include the cure and correct. Any person or a provision, Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any requirement of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction unless otherwise specifically stated. So the seaside ordinance has that. So they said if you don't comply even with their current correct you'll be deemed with an infraction whereas our ordinance didn't add that last two provisions I read.

If I could address, Supervisor, yeah, the the and I think maybe I addressed this at the last meeting as well. The standard penalty for a violation of any Monterey County ordinance is that the district attorney has the discretion to charge it as an infraction or to charge it as a misdemeanor. SO THAT'S IN OUR CODE AT I BELIEVE TITLE I SECTION 2022 RIGHT THERE IT TALKS ABOUT THOSE PENALTIES SO THOSE PENALTIES EXIST FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE AT THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD IS ADDED ADDITIONAL PENALTIES WE TALKED ABOUT THE STANDARD PENALTY BEING $100 FINE THEN A $250 FINE SO AT YOUR REQUEST WE'VE PROPOSED THE $500 FINE AND THEN A $750 FINE

All I'm trying to see here though is where is the language that if they do not cure and correct within 60 days they'll be deemed with with an infraction of violation and in fact the CDC side adds a daily charge for not complying after that under their their language here. You said it does, but I'm just saying where does it say that in our existing ordinance or in this ordinance that they will be deemed within a fraction if they do not cure and correct within the 60 days?

Well, so the violation is to be an owner of an unspayed and unneutered pet that's required to be. So the violation occurs every day. As long as someone has a pet, they can be cited every day. Now, the first penalty is we give a 60-day notice, obviously, to correct. If they don't, then they're still in violation, and they can be cited again for a violation. So it's not just one incident where they violated the ordinance in a discrete period of time. The ordinance requires at all times that their pets be spayed or neutered. And so it's a violation every day that their pets are not spayed or neutered.

So you're telling me that I'm just asking where is it? It might be under our existing ordinance. If you could just cross reference that so I can know we didn't put it in here. The language that Seaside has because we have that provision in our existing ordinance. That would be helpful. Okay, I can research that. Then it's already in there, right? And I know that the language will, that this provision that we're saying here of the cure and correct within 60 days will have teeth if somebody does not comply within the 60 days.

I can research that for you. Okay.

And then this is a typographic letter on the findings under Section C, the first page. It talks about what the fines are, the 60-day current correct, and then it says the second violation is 500, and the subsequent one would be up to 1,000. But that doesn't match with the paragraph we were just talking about, the last page. It says 750 instead of the 1,000 on the first page.

Yes, that is correct. That is a typographical. And it was not offered as a correction on this ordinance because it's a finding and it doesn't affect the ability to have a fine of $750 to have the finding that we could find up to $1,000. But yeah, that was not the intent. So the answer is it doesn't need to be corrected legally because it's a finding, but it certainly could be corrected.

We can fix it, and it won't affect the adoption on July 7th.

Okay, great. Thank you. And Mr. Willing, if meanwhile we ask other questions, if you could help me find that language in the existing ordinance about infractions. Certainly.

That's 1.22, I believe, chapter 1.22. I think you already referred that.

Yeah, Michael, I'm probably going to have some more questions for you here because I want to make sure I'm understanding exactly these fines here too. So you can, you'll be warned for 60 days and then you have a $500 fine. If you haven't, if it hasn't been corrected after 60 days. When does the third violation come? You're saying this fine is like every day? Or is there another 60 days on the $500 fine before the 750 is imposed?

Well, so a certain amount of this happens by the discretion of the animal control officer. When they find violations, and it's not that different from our land use codes, when they find violations, they give a warning. If it's not fixed, there's another violation cited. And if they still don't fix it, then at the discretion of the enforcement officer, it could be cited as a third violation.

okay well so and this is where my my problem comes up within the ordinance and a couple of commenters have have addressed it um is it might you know if you're if somebody's going to you know breed these dogs sometimes they're referred to as backyard breeders or not quite as it almost not considered necessarily by the breeding association is that as legitimate that way or as legitimate and they will sell that litter for three to six thousand dollars How is, you know, how is this fining process? Warnings for 60 days and then a fine for 500 and then with a discretion, you know, after that, how is that discouraging this from happening?

Yeah, so just so you realize, our direction two weeks ago was to come back with an ordinance that mirrors the seaside ordinance.

And I also mentioned that I was particularly interested in dealing with backyard breeders. That doesn't mean that the board, you know, it was a... The direction of fully from the board right I had kind of mentioned on to there that I was also concerned Is that I really wanted to see the violators? You'd be the ones going to be carrying the cost of some of this, too So I know we you know we're coming back with that But I'm my you know if anybody can answer for me how the $500 fine or warning and then $500 fine after 60 days and then how that 750 so is going to impact a three to six thousand dollar litter and perhaps even two litters over a year, which that's my biggest concern. But I know you're not in the process of trying to defend one side of the other. It is trying to put the facts down. But that is That's where I'm not comfortable with this, with the fines process on this ordinance. I think it needs to be something stronger. I think it needs to be a lot stronger onto there. And also to justify for an animal control officer to have to go out there for a $500 fine is... is not, you know, it's $500 fine, it's fine, but it needs to be something to discourage this. And I look at it as much as it was early on a few years ago when we had a $100 fee on illegal dumping, which is that the cost is go to the dump. I mean, that isn't going to discourage anybody. Now we have a much higher fee. I don't know if it's working or not, but it's a higher fee anyway for a penalty onto it. So I have... I need for me to support I need to see something come back stronger and I'm not quite sure you know I think there's other there's there's people and and the uh in animal welfare operations that probably have a better idea of what that fee should be than me. The other thing I wanted to kind of raise is that when I looked at the board report there was no cost put down for this program, but yet we're talking about adding in a breeder permit, an unaltered animal certificate, and also an education and enforcement process. So I think when it comes back I'd you know I wonder if we could take a closer look at that and really see what the the cost the impact would be because obviously animal Hitchcock animal service is there or you know we we have limited dollars over there so I'd kind of like to know what that's going to run as well and I guess you know I mean my biggest concern is with the is I just If it's $250 for a breeder per band, I think that keeps it low. But the penalty really has to be far above that. And the only other thing, and this I'm not going to hang a yes or no vote down on, is I know there are... Older dogs, bigger dogs, it's always recommended that they should be spayed or neutered at a little bit older age. And if there was an easier way in which to incorporate that in, I don't know exactly how to handle that, but that's just something that came to mind, particularly as being a large dog owner. But I am just uncomfortable with the fines are not high enough to discourage the backyard breeding.

Supervisor, I just in two of the items that you've just mentioned, the age I think is covered under the health. There is a language in there that if the vet says, you know, there's a specific health issue, which could potentially be the age that's covered there. The secondary piece that you're looking for, which we really would need direction from the board to address, is related to the potential fines. If you're looking for more of a tiered process, for example, you sold the dog for $6,000, the commensurate might be higher, then that would be more so a tiered approach, which is something that probably needs to be looked into by council, would be my guess, Mike.

yeah there are considerations on how high fines can go it gets into um you know what what's reasonable there's a reasonableness standard um but certainly we will we will go with whatever's the board's direction is on what you want to set fines and we'll certainly defend them uh but that's certainly at your discretion i just uh maybe we can come back with some options i just i i would like to see it discouraged i mean it's just the fines have to be enough to discourage and

As I say again, a warning for 60 days, a fine then for 500 isn't going to discourage somebody from selling a litter of puppies for $5,000. It's a cost to do in business. And for us to have to go back constantly on them and keep finding them is going to put an undue burden on our officers as well. So please give, you know, maybe you can do some research around, maybe we can do some research around and find out what some jurisdictions are charging, maybe some they're charging a lot more and have been a lot more effective. Thank you.

I think my only response is to the conversation as it's been playing out. I don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good. I'm ready to go. Let's get something on the books and iterate. I'm good at the next fee schedule updating, but I think this is good. It's not perfect, but it's good. Let's go.

One super quick question. On page six of the presentation, the unaltered animal certificate, I'm supportive of common sense exemptions, but what I'm trying to understand is that someone could get this exemption if they've had two violations of this chapter within the preceding 24 months. Are those violations the list we see on the same Like they potentially could not be providing sufficient water and food or the pet is sleeping in their feces. Are those the potential violations or is it a different list I'm not seeing right here?

what that's intended is is if there's been any violations of this chapter not the not the housing part that's in addition to so no violations of of perhaps you've been issued a citation for not complying with mandatory spay neuter so separate though but then it's also and then in addition there's the housing requirement in addition there's the house that's all i want i wanted to confirm thank you so much

All right. Just a couple comments. I think when in my reading of this ordinance, it's almost word for word exactly mirrors the seaside ordinance, which is I think what we had directed to ask for. So thank you for bringing that back. Few exceptions are where we specifically call out feral cats. I think the seaside ordinance just speaks to any cat or dog where someone is providing intentional sustenance. We add in the language feral cat to call that out. You did mention that there was a specific definition of feral cat that we use. Is that in this ordinance? Because I didn't see that in this ordinance.

in it's in the title eight definitions but cat is a domestic cat feral cat is called out as what a feral cat is not a trick definition right um because the board wanted to include feral cats we wanted to make sure that that feral that definition was included thank you for that um

And then I think we do need to be clear in the language of whether it's $750 or $1,000, and I'm hearing $750 is what the penalty would be for the third and subsequent violation during a 12-month period. will definitely need to have and I hope we don't wait until this goes into effect but I hope we start working now on the breeder the breeder permit fee so that that's ready to go at the point in time that this gets adopted or goes that this that this ordinance goes into effect so that people know what to do we can't have an ordinance that goes into effect and then start education that says we actually don't know how to tell you what to do or how to how to go about it so I'm hoping we can move on that pretty quickly and then going back to the question that Supervisor Alejo asked and I think this is maybe it's not specifically in this ordinance the seaside ordinance but the seaside ordinance references another chapter in regards to how second and subsequent violations would be penalized and so just so that I'm clear and I'm not seeing this our ordinance written or call it out in such a way that the the first the first sorry The first violation will receive a correction notice detailing the particular violation. Violators will have 60 days from the date when the owner was first notified of the violation to correct the violation. And I think what I was hearing the language that's referenced, not written, but referenced in the seaside ordinance is that unless that violation, the first time violation is cured, it automatically turns into the $500 fine. and so I think it was a really fair point that may have been missed in the the detailing because the seaside ordinance references penalties in a separate chapter but the would it be possible to both clarify that that does in fact happen identifying where in our code it calls that out and make that edit adding that language into this ordinance before we is that it would that be considered a technical uh amendment that doesn't require a new hearing I I think you'd have to come back for a new introduction if you're changing a substantive thing like that so so is that substantive or is it already referenced in our code which is what we were told a minute ago

you're actually writing new language in the ordinance so it's a substantive change of the ordinance versus what I was talking about at the beginning which was preamble language that had a typographical error okay um but but we had been told that there were a couple numbers that were referenced um that the

that that our that our code does speak to penalties and how penalties are handled did we do we have any clarification on that because if all we're doing is referencing in the ordinance how we do already handle penalties then I can't then that's just adding in a point of reference it it's still changing the language of the ordinance that so you would have to reintroduce it in my opinion okay so how I'm reading this unless there's more detailed language that can be pulled out of somewhere before we adopt it that the first time violation would receive a correction notice the individual would have 60 days to cure it but it would still require us to issue an additional secondary notice for a violation of the secondary notice within that 12 month period. It doesn't automatically turn into a $500 fee if there's not a cure and correct that occurs.

I mean, it's my understanding that if they don't correct it in the 60 days, then we can issue them, the administration.

You can, but it's not an automatically. It doesn't turn into a second violation if it's not cured and correct within 60 days. Cured and correct assumes that you have to correct it. Otherwise, it turns into a fine.

Well, we would require the proof. If there's not the proof that you've corrected it, then we would move to the second.

Violation, which would be issuing.

Okay.

So, um, okay. So thank you. I think, I think there's maybe a little more finessing in that section that would, um, actually have us matching up with what a seaside has, but I can see where it maybe wasn't as clear because the seaside ref ordinance reference is a different chapter. Um, Then my last question is in terms of the fees that we have, the 500, 750, or sorry, the penalties that we have. So in order to update those penalties five years, 10 years from now, we would need to update the ordinance. There's no way to have our penalties referenced in a penalty code or a penalty document somewhere else. so that we don't have to update the whole ordinance?

No, I believe you do have to update the ordinance if you want to change the fines and increase them.

Okay, or cost of living and I'll update them at some point. So, okay, that's fine. I think there's more work that we'll need to do over time. And I am of the opinion that we need to move forward with this. So it's not perfect, but getting it moved forward is I think where I'm at. And even if we look a year from now, check in, see where we're at, see what else needs to be added or finessed, I would be comfortable with that so that we can move it forward. I'm happy to entertain a motion.

I guess my question is, is it going to be the will of the board to move forward with this as it is? My concern is, again, I just think that I don't think the fines are going to deter those that are the worst violators. So we're not going to be addressing that?

Go ahead. You're going to want that to trail. This is similar to it. Supervisor Alejo had brought up as well. You can adopt this. The secondary piece will be looking at the fines. It's going to trail. You're thinking no.

Oh, I'm sorry. That was a breeder. That's right. Yeah.

Yeah, it's. Wrong word. I meant fine. Yeah, so the breeder fee, but that's something that the staff has to look at independently. So you'll still, if you adopt this today, there's still this review that needs to occur by staff as to what would be the appropriate fee for the breeder.

Okay, but that's the breeder permit. I'm looking at the fines. I'm not seeing anything that's going to deter someone who's making $5,000 for litter when they're getting a warning, and then they're paying $500, and then they're paying $750. I mean, they're going to run litter after litter after that, and that's what I think is really a larger problem here.

That's where we need the direction from the board to potentially look at a tiered fine.

So I'll just say... I hear what you're saying and you're saying let's continue working on the ordinance to get these additional questions answered, which is, I think, a fair point. I'm sitting here saying I think there is additional work needed on the ordinance and also I would like to see it go into effect and we can direct staff to spend the next year getting things up and running identifying where we have opportunities for improvements I want to I would like to see this get on the books so that we have it on the books and while we continue because we could spend another summer we're going to have

I mean, I'll support it if we give, I mean, I guess it's going to go back to Hitchcock Road at that point that, you know, they come back with a you know, I'm going to call it legitimate, it'll fine process because I just don't think this is going to deter. I mean, we get this on the books, but I don't think that, you know, we're going after people who are really primarily are breeding the dogs. It doesn't, you know, if you have an unaltered dog and it's not breeding, then it's not a problem. But, you know, they generally do want to breed. And especially with dogs, the people are involved usually in allowing that to happen and We, you know, you can look on social media, you can see these, you know, these lenders paying for sale for a lot of money. So I don't want to put something off for the next year. I think we can come back in a few months with something. So if we could come back in 90 days with, you know, with something that might address what are the low penalties on this, I would be supportive. But otherwise, I just don't think we're having anything that's going to be effective.

If I can throw a motion out to move forward with the ordinance as it's currently drafted with the editorial correction of the third penalty actually being $750 with additional direction to have the breeder fee item returned to the board as soon as possible and asking for a future amendment of the or a future update to the ordinance to begin to begin discussion that would include more information about a review of penalties and options for penalties and language that would address the provision that would automatically turn a first violation into a second violation if not cured and corrected as the seaside ordinance outlines with the reference. as well as information about the cost of running the program and have that those up those future amendments future information and future amendments of an ordinance return to the board with an annual update in a year so that would be a motion and set the hearing so that's staff recommendation that's staff recommendation with the additional items

Second, that I agree with Supervisor Church, the fines, the breeder's fees need to be significant. The fines need to be significant. And our staff said that if they don't comply with the six days, then they could issue the second violation. I mean, that's what it should be. It should be meaningful. that if they don't comply with six days, they could be facing the $500 fine. But I had asked Mr. Wilden to look up what our current statute says, and it says that the animal control officer, in the event of a violation of this chapter or any requirement imposed by this chapter, the county may, in its discretion, in addition to other remedies, take such enforcement action as authorized under the Monterey County code or any other action authorized by law so on and so forth but it just says it's discretionary right I want it to be clear in the statute that if they don't cure correct on the six days this board is saying they shall face the fine versus the animal control office has discretion to take action right it's not it's not clear And I agree with that.

Well, not just say that's included in my motion.

That's why I'm speaking to that, right? That the existing language just talks about discretion when you have this be clear as we want it.

I agree with that. I'm not so crazy about the higher breeder fees. I really want to go after the people who are violating, I think is really the key on. But everything else I agree with there.

All right. Any further discussion? We have a motion. Is staff clear on the additional items that we discussed? Adding to the motion, okay. All right, all in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed? Nope, and we'll just have the record note that Supervisor Lopez has stepped out briefly. Okay, thank you all. And this will be on the consent calendar for July 7th as a final approval. So it will be heard as part of all of our consent items, although it could be pulled if someone wanted to pull it, but it will be included in that as a consent item.

And some of our young people couldn't make because there are some summer event, but they're welcome to come to and then pull and comment if they would like to.

Thank you. Yes, of course. Okay. We do have our protest vote from the 218 item number 20, sorry, item number 21. So we will, we had tabled item 21. We're going to bring item 21 back to hear a readout.

Thank you, board. I'm going to introduce Adam Marston, our engineer consultant, to read the results of the Prop 218 election.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. As a summary of the Proposition 218 election, we opened the return ballots following the close of the public hearing. 130 ballots were returned, which is approximately 53% of the ballots sent. There were 91 ballots with no votes, 34 with yes votes, and five ballots that were invalidated due to either not being indicating a vote for or against or not having a valid signature. That results in a weighted vote of 73.1% voting no, and 26.9% voting yes. Under the statute of Proposition 218. The protest hearing fails and the district cannot move forward with the updated assessments.

All right, thank you for that report out and the CSA residents will be notified. I have questions.

okay we'll go to questions but how will the residents be notified of the outcome is there a process for that I will defer to county staff as to what the exact process is for notifying the residents thank you for the question we can do it on our the CSA 17 website okay yeah thank you and we'll go to Supervisor Daniels so I just have a couple questions and comments just to make

And I guess my question and comment would be to Mr. Ishii because As a woman, I will likely not be engaging in any future gentlemen's agreements. But if you were to sort of assess what happened in this case, would you say that the men you discussed doing the full renewal of all of the roads on Tierra Grande sort of held up their end of the agreement? And I'm sorry to put you on the spot. I'm just very frustrated right now.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the board, Randall Ishii, Director of Public Works, Celestin Parks. Thank you very much for the question, Supervisor Daniels. Given the proportionality of how these votes have gone, where there is nearly 75% of the votes being no that have been cast today, it appears that the lobbying efforts and advocacy that the individuals who had wanted the rosary surface and had wanted to do the 218 has fallen short.

That's very helpful, and I won't ask you to comment on my next comment, but I want to be clear to everybody who participated in the Prop 218 vote. Your votes are public, and so we know how you voted. That's really unfortunate and I am very appreciative of those on the HOA who did support the vote and I'm very clear about who advocated for this resurfacing and has credited themselves with being the architects of the resurfacing who also then did not support the Prop 218 vote. And so it's really unfortunate and And I just want to thank you at Public Works for doing this work. I want to thank you for the resurfacing project that is beautiful. And I'm so glad that the road got the attention that it did. And I want to publicly apologize to my colleagues because I know we put money in the last budget. We loaned this CSA. I don't have the exact figure. You could tell me how much we loaned them to do this election. I think we loaned them money to do the analysis that was required for this election, and I'm just incredibly disappointed to see the outcome.

Thank you. Yeah. Supervisor Jones, to your point, I think it doesn't bode well for our future or other communities that may have hoped to follow a similar process. And so it's a disappointment that that is the way that it played out, not just for this community, but for other communities that would have found themselves in a similar situation. So it's... And who may have been more genuine. Yeah. Okay. Just comment.

Can we get clarity on the amount? Can we get clarity on the amount, how much we invested here?

How much did we loan this CSA that's now outstanding?

If you don't mind, let me go and if I can confer with staff real quick, I will try to get this number to you before the end of this item.

And my comment was just going to be process is very important. Sometimes putting the vote first before you carry out the work might have had people look at this differently. Once the work is done, then it's easy to say no on how to pay for some of that cost.

Any other discussion?

If I may, Chair, while staff is looking at those exact dollar figures for Supervisor Lopez's question and to Supervisor Alejo's point, offhand, the loan to CSA 17 over the years has been to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, and the road resurfacing project that addressed the roads of Rancho Tierra Grande, Mercurio, and all the other roads within that community were to the tune, as the board knows, millions of dollars.

so again staff's going to look up that exact dollar figure but that is the order magnitude that has been reinvested into this community thank you all right we'll close this item uh thank you again to staff and the team um and move on to item number 24 which is um a request from the sheriff's office nope okay never mind we aren't moving on yet excuse me chair I was just going to say that there is a um

In terms of completing the process, there is a resolution that acknowledges the vote took place and the majority protests exists and that the county followed all the correct procedure for the Prop 218. So it would be a good practice to vote approving the resolution acknowledging that the assessment failed.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Daniels. I'll second the motion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. All right. Thank you. Thank you for keeping us on track, Michael. Yes. All right. We will now move on to item number 24, which is a request from the sheriff's office to increase our appropriations. By just under 3M dollars, 2.8M dollars to cover. Um, it looks like a budget overage. We have sheriff Neto and under sheriff Boyd.

Good afternoon. Uh, chair ask you members of the board under sheriff Boyd appearing on behalf of the sheriff's office. I also have chief deputy Tim Lanquist from the corrections operations bureau to answer some questions if specific to the jail expenditures. Today, I am here on behalf of the Sheriff's Office to request the Board to authorize the Auditor-Controller to amend the Sheriff's Office fiscal year 26 adopted budget, increasing our appropriations in the total amount of $3.266 million funded with an account SHE001 and approximately $2.8 million and an account SHE003 in the amount of $454,000. The funding would be offset by revenues from the non-program revenue in the county administrative office budget unit. We have worked with the county administrative office to identify the funding stream for this overage. Total expenditures are projected for the Sheriff's Office this year at approximately $174.4 million, which is approximately $3.266 million above our adopted budget. Our revenue projections are projected to remain on target at approximately $53.7 million. Throughout the fiscal year, we did exercise prudent fiscal management, and we were able to control services supplies expenditures to help offset our unbudgeted personnel costs, including overtime and wage increases. Unfortunately, despite our efforts, several significant unforeseen events created additional financial pressures that could not have been reasonably anticipated during our budget development. In July of 2015, the jail experienced a significant power outage that impacted facility operations for several days. The incident resulted in unbudgeted costs totaling $121,000. This dealt with diesel fuel, boiler repairs, replacement batteries, power cords, etc. within the jail due to a full total power loss in the jail. While County's Risk Management Division is currently pursuing reimbursement through an insurance claim, at this time, no reimbursement has been received. In January of 2026, while repairs were being performed on a leaking pipe within the jail, a pressurized water line was inadvertently compromised, resulting in flooding of approximately 3,000 square feet of the jail, which included office space and elevator systems. Due to water mitigation, facility repairs and elevator recertifications cost totaled nearly $200,000. These expenditures were also unbudgeted and necessary restore facility operations to ensure for the safety and functional critical infrastructure. County's risk manager is also pursuing an insurance claim, but at this time, no claim has data has been received. In addition, we have incurred $150,000 in unanticipated unbudgeted heating, ventilation, and air conditioning repairs during the fiscal year. Although we did successfully maintain our overall service supplies expenditures within the budget, these emergency and unplanned costs significantly reduced the available savings that would have otherwise been used to offset personnel-related deficits. The primary driver of the projected budget overrun is personnel costs. The Sheriff's Office budgeted just under $4.2 million for overtime expenditures in fiscal year 25-26. And as of May 29, 2026, our actual overtime expenditures totaled nearly $11.5 million, exceeding our budget by $7.376 million. Overtime expenditures are largely attributed to mandatory staffing requirements and operational demands. When positions are vacant, employees are unavailable due to scheduled leave, illness, injury, training, or retirement, or other anticipated, we have to backfill to maintain safe and effective operations. Staffing needs are difficult to predict and cannot be fully budgeted in advance. I do have some further explanation on this as I get to later in the report. Within the Corrections Operations Bureau, overtime is required to maintain minimum staffing levels and ensure compliance with our settlement agreement for her and her hand in this case. Failure to provide adequate staffing would jeopardize our compliance obligation and could expose us to significant legal and or operational risk. Within the enforcement operations, overtime is necessary to maintain minimal staffing levels, responding to emergency incidents, assist patrol coverage throughout the county, supporting our municipal law enforcement agencies when requested, and maintaining operational readiness of specialized units, including SWAT team, bomb team, search and rescue, and our dive team. In addition to overtime expenditures, we did incur just under $650,000 in unbudget retirement payouts obligations associated with the retirement of 15 employees during the year. These costs were not budgeted during the budget development and further contributed to personnel cost overrun. The requested budget increase of nearly $3.266 million reflects known expenditures as of May 29th, 2026. It does not include any additional unforeseen costs that may arise prior to the close of the fiscal year, such as emergency facility repairs or operational contingency. It should be noted just this weekend, we had pumps fail at the jail in our septic sewer system that are being repaired. Despite these challenges, the Sheriff's Office remains committed to prudent fiscal management, continues to closely monitor expenses, attempting to implement our cost control measures wherever possible. Sheriff's Office will continue to reduce the protected deficit prior to the fiscal year-end while maintaining essential public safety, law enforcement, and custodial operations for the residents of the county. What I would... Earlier, I received some inquiry from Supervisor Daniels just looking for a little explanation on what costs might be related to the Hernandez settlement and try to outline this a little bit more. So prior to presenting today, I was able to put together some data of some of the significant impacts, why our overtime becomes such a cost driver. Over the course, at the beginning, we suffer significantly from staff out on protected leaves, whether it be workers' compensation, leaves of absences, different types of leaves related to protected categories. I did an analysis looking from July of 2025 through May of 2026, and then did correlation. In July of 2025, we had 59 staff members out on some form of protected leave for the month. This month, for May of 2026, it's down to 35. And it's slowly dropped over the year. But what that correlates to is an average monthly impact for employees out on a protected leave of 43 employees, which is a significant amount. Over the course of the year, I estimate that due to protected leaves, we had staff out for 89,000 staff hours. Vacancies now on top of protected leaves also enhance and impact our pressures due to overtime. Looking at the same data, July of 2025 through May of 2026 and doing an average over the course of the year. In July of 2025, we opened the fiscal year with 26 vacancies. We currently sit at approximately, and this is professional staff and sworn across all bureaus, we currently sit at approximately 27 vacancies. Over the course of the year, that's ebbed down and then back up. It shows an average vacant ratio of about 22 employees out. Estimated hours of vacancies on the Sheriff's Office of Impact is approximately 45,000 hours of staff time lost due to the vacancies. Combining protected leave and our vacancies, that puts us at approximately 65 vacancies per month where we don't have staff available to work in the various assignments of the jail or patrol or administration. On top of this, the last piece that correlates to our impacts on overtime is our sworn training programs in the academy. As the board is aware, the time it takes to train a peace officer attending the academy is roughly six months, and then the related training for field services or the jail is an additional four months. The jail averaged monthly 18 staff members, deputy sheriff recruits, who were in the academy or training program for the year. Field services patrol averaged eight. So what that means is when those individuals who are employees are in training, they're not covering, they're not able to reduce our overtime or fill a shift individually until they complete training. That raises our training and academy monthly impact to approximately 26 staff members per month. When you add it all up, it's approximately for fiscal year 26, between protected leaves, vacancies, and staff in the academy or training, we were sitting on approximately 91 staff members per month who were impacting our available staffing. Annual hours estimate is approximately 188,000 hours of staff time. Cumulative monthly impact is estimated at 15,700 hours of staff time. Now, That leads to, we have to backfill for coverage, for safety, to meet Hernana's requirements. Now our jail, over time, we are approximately of that 7.3 million overage, 4.3 million of it is approximately related to the jail, and 3 million of it is approximately related to field services and or administration. Looking to the future, as we have said last year when we asked for funding, we acknowledge that, when we built this budget, We added some, not when we built this fiscal year 26, looking to the future in the fiscal year 27. I just want to tell the board this. When we built the fiscal year 27 budget, hearing what the board has asked of us and the requests we've made in the past, in our fiscal year 27 budget, we've never budgeted for retirement payouts and fees, but in this next budget coming up, we are budgeting nearly $550,000 for retirement payouts and associated fees. We have not budgeted in the past for temporary employees. We've just funded that from salary savings, but unfortunately that has been not enough to cover. So we have also budgeted nearly $300,000 in the fiscal 27 budget for temporary employees. In addition, we have raised our overtime nearly 800,000 in the next budget. Unfortunately, that's not enough. We did identify as we prepared for this request that unknowingly, not sure why it happened, but our prior fiscal manager, finance manager is no longer with us. Reduced our overtime budget in fiscal 24, moving from fiscal 23, dropping it by nearly $3 million. Not sure why, and it's remained low for fiscal 24, fiscal 25, and fiscal 26. We're pushing it back up in fiscal 27 and we'll continue to push it back up in fiscal 28 and beyond. But we do see that as an anomaly that we have identified that we were unaware of until it just didn't catch in looking at the budget review. In addition, one last thing, historically looking at actuals, we've underfunded our utility expenditures, so we increased our utility expenditures in our next budget of $300,000. What it means in fiscal year 2027 is for retirement payouts, temp employees, overtime, and utilities, we're increasing our budget by nearly $2 million. for these expenditures that we've seen as true actuals and trying to offset where we've recognized we have been unsuccessful due to under-budgeting in our reliance on planning the budget. With that, I will open it to questions, but I wanted to tell you a little bit about where we're at, what the impacts were, and what we're trying to do in the next budget to try to mitigate this from reappearing.

Thank you. I'm going to take it out to public comment. We did have a hand raised for a period of time, Joelle.

Hi there. Thank you. First off, yeah, I did email the board with my concerns. My name is Joel Ruiz. I'm a resident of Castroville. I'm just concerned here with the primary driver of this being overtime. It seems like we went three times over the budget. Next year, it looks like we're projecting with $5 million for overtime, but we're already at $11 million just as of May 29th. So I'm not sure how that math would necessarily add up for next year. Also, I'm curious about why we didn't anticipate retirement. It's a bit concerning. And with so many people on leave, I'm also questioning if this is a culture issue. But I think it would be pertinent for the board to request a review of overtime expenditures not recently a year ago or this year we saw in New Orleans there was an officer that worked 364 days so I'd love to individually see what where this money is going I think a public deserves to know as well but yeah that's all thank you thank you any other public comment seeing no one in chambers or no hands raised we'll bring it back to the board

Yes, if I could just follow up. Under Sheriff, thank you so much for elaborating on the question that I had asked. If I'm understanding correctly, then if you consider what you shared about the vacant the vacancies and the protective leave, am I to understand that the the situation operationally is Folks have to work overtime in order to provide the basic services that you described, like patrol and field services.

Yes, Supervisor Daniels. We, field services, I use, sometimes I interchange the field services and patrol as one and the same. Okay. But yes, whether it be in patrol or in the jail, we have to have staff work overtime when needed, not every day, but when needed to meet our minimum staffing requirements for either the Corrections Operations Bureau or the Enforcement Operations Bureau.

So with that in mind, I'm just curious if there is a more effective tool that we could use to forecast what what we should expect in this coming year, unless you foresee those vacancies and what was it called? Protective leave, substantially reducing

I agree with you that we need to forecast using a better model. I'm trying to find my chart here. With respect to protected leave, we have been working with human resources and risk management to refine the county process and try to see how we can be a pilot for the county. And try to do that better. We have seen through the year working with HR, we have seen a reduction of nearly 24 staff members falling off that protected leave area. And we're hopeful that we'll see that to continue to go on a downward trajectory. It's been on a downward trajectory for a whole year. It hasn't spiked up or down. It's been continually going down. That being said, we have had discussions with the County Administrator's Office and we will be having regular recurring meetings with the budget team as we move into the next fiscal year each month, looking and trying to assess every month our actuals to predict where we're at and project into the future. And the challenge right now is we just, I'll be honest, we didn't put enough into the next budget and we caught it late. And I foresee we're going to be really having to tighten the belt straps. And that's why we want to work with the CEO's team to really evaluate. I will add that as the board is aware, the board has requested an audit of the sheriff's budget for those four fiscal years. And we've had some very good conversations with the auditor as well about forecasting and methodology. So we're trying to look that through. We're hopeful that with the drop in protected leaves and being able to fill our vacancies over the past year, we were able to increase that where you notice I've said we had the eight deputies in patrol training prior to the prior fiscal year. We were running one or two. We really need to have those deputies in patrol training to build the actual vacancy to reduce the vacancy count on patrol. of actual deputies that can work in the patrol assignments. We really need to be able to get those deputies through the academy so we can get them in the jail so we can release staff from the jail to go into that patrol training program. So it's just a compounding effect. We're on pace right now looking for the August academy to try to put an additional 10 to 12 deputies in that academy once the new budget is opened. And we're going to keep the pressure up to get the staff through training. The challenge will be It takes us 10 months to get somebody trained. And we have to, in essence, during that 10 months, even though we're paying that employee, they can't work as a solo staffer in patrol or the jail until that's complete. And so we carry that in essence, vacancy per se for staffing purposes, minimum standards staffing. We carry that until they're able to work as a solo beat deputy. Yeah.

So last question then. I mean, in a perfect world, in terms of those 10-month segments that you're talking about in terms of training and getting somebody out in the field, I mean, do you see a future with the audit, with the investment in the academies, that we will get past this overtime conundrum?

Yeah, I will say resoundingly, I believe we will. I think we've had the dialogue with the CEO's office, the budget team, and even the auditor. And after identifying for this report where we noticed that $3 million drop, where it dropped and it should have been going up each year instead of the significant drop. bringing it back up partially this year. We will bring it back up significantly next year. And we're working to right the ship in a balanced manner with, and that's the key is we know now we have to bring that up next year. It clearly stood out writing this report. It clearly stood out in a conversation with COO's team and with the auditor. So we're going to right that ship by bringing that up. And I think As we fill vacancies and we've done a good job filling vacancies and I'm not faulting anyone for the soft hiring freeze we had to do, it was appropriate for the financial viability of the county. But it put us behind a little bit. We had made significant progress and we lost some progress, but we understand that what was done was done for the benefit of the entire county. And, you know, we wish this wouldn't have been where it's at right now.

That's understandable, and thank you so much for that response. I really appreciate it.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation there, Under Sheriff. I guess I understand you said $4 million on the budget for the overtime, and it went to $11 million, and I think you said that Adding an extra three million There's still a gap there between What we're budgeting this year and and what they'll be next year and I understand there's going to be efforts to try to address that but I If I recall correctly, this is Probably been it's been a long-term problem here on the overtime for many years and I seem to recall back before right before I took office looking into this scene that was around the previous sheriff had about a 10 million dollar overtime budget too so I guess what I'm bringing here is I'm I realize it's a systemic problem with the understaffing but I'm not sure that you're not going to be back next year around this time asking again because you more than likely will be exceeding that $7 million, which I think is what you said was going to be around the total there. But anyway, that's just my comment there. I don't know if there's a way for you to respond to it or, or whatever, but I feel.

Supervisor, I, I, you have a very valid point. And I'm the, yes, the potential exists that we could be back next, next spring. But we're hopeful by working with the CEOs team and, and some of the discussions we've had with them with the monthly reviews that we're going to be able to make Instead of trying to fix the budget in the last six months, we're going to try to fix the budget in the first six months. And that's the way the sheriff and I have discussed is we're not waiting until January to fix the budget and see where we're at. We're going to fix the budget starting in July and then thereafter. Now, one thing that also in the fiscal year 27 budget, we budgeted zero dollars for salary savings. Historically, in the past, we had been budgeting salary savings to balance the budget. Now, by budgeting zero dollars with salary savings, what that allows is when we have vacancies, we will we will receive a true savings of salary to be used against overages per se, such as overtime. Whereas in the past, when we were budgeting salary savings, we couldn't use those salary savings to offset overtime. We had to use them. because they were built in, baked in as part of the balancing the budget. So I'm hopeful that opening the year with, you know, we're going to be opening with roughly 22 vacancies. Well, that's in the month of July. Well, it's going to take probably the month of July to get staff hired. So we get a full month for each of those employees, a salary savings to go towards as an offset. So I think that's one factor that we've built into the budget as well to Help with those overtime excesses, but I am I am slightly concerned that for fiscal 27 that we have not budgeted enough for overtime. But as we've discussed with the CEOs team for fiscal 28 and our finance team, there is a plan to jump that overtime up. based on actuals, not pipe dreams. And I say that candidly. I mean, we have to take a hard look at the numbers. And I was disheartened when I located with my new finance manager when we identified that our overtime had been dropped. I mean, there's a lot of line items and it just... And to see that it was dropped for no significant reason other than to suspect it was used at a time to try to balance the budget for submission, here we are, and we're asking for funding, and that's unfortunate. But I hope that the steps ahead will put us in a better shape for next year. Not to tout it, we were over $7 million on overtime, but we're only – and I say this not – to make light of it, but we're only asking for three. So we were able to cover 4 million, in essence, is what I'm trying to say about that comment. And we're hopeful that by budgeting the additional 2 million for retirement payouts, temp employees, overtime increases, utilities, that we're bringing that down. And if we think about it, if we're 3.2 million over and we've increased 2 million for these other expenses, we're getting down in that million range. So that's how I'm trying to look at it and see if we can continue to shave.

I'll just quickly respond. As I do every time we talk about our county budget is that I think this is an ongoing issue. And I'm on my 10 years on this board to see these very significant overruns. But I just don't think it's fair to our other departments that really try to watch their budget throughout the year. Some come over, slightly over, but this is in the millions of dollars and it's just something that we've seen. every single year for the last 10 years almost that I can remember. And this comes out of the non-program revenue in the CAO's budget. Anyways, so it needs to be addressed in a better way. And so that just like every other expectation of every other department that the Sheriff's Department could, at the end of the fiscal year end up within its allocated budget. I just wonder, I've said it plenty of times before, but I think it needs to be said again when we're allocating over $3 million once again.

Thank you. I want to just first acknowledge that this must be a hard report to submit and a difficult request to make. And I appreciate the honesty that you've shared with us, Under Sheriff, about the realities that led us to this place again this year. You know, when I When I look at the funds that we're talking about, these are, you know, these are effectively general fund unrestricted dollars that could have been available to provide the gap funding that our mental health providers needed for this year there are funds that could have been provided to expand esperanza care to individuals who are losing their health care there are funds that um could have been used for a whole variety of leveraging matching dollars from state or federal programs and to find ourselves as a board in a situation where we're left without an option effectively but to say yes sheriff's office how much do you need in order to make payroll this month take more money we we can't say no to to this request and I just I think we've we've worked really hard to try to provide the sheriff's office with the resources that you need during budget season this board has continually approved additional augmentation requests And yet we continue to find ourselves where we sit today with a request for 3.2, 3 point, effectively 3 point, you know, $3 million of budget overages in the final weeks of the year. Just for the record, if we if we did say no to this request, what would that mean to the sheriff's office budget? What would the outcome of that be if we said no to this?

They wouldn't be able to cover their costs for the fiscal year, which means that they'll have an overrun for fiscal year 2025-26. But also their expenditures, and as it was explained, much of it is related to personnel costs, so we are talking about payroll.

So if we don't say yes, the sheriff's office can't make payroll. That's what that means. Again, a second year in a row. I have to say these things out loud because I think it's a reality that no other department has the ability to show up and say we're over budget at this level, nor would the repercussions end up being so serious and severe. So the questions that I have are related to the status of the audit that we asked for last year when we approved an additional allocation. Can I just ask when that audit will be coming back to us?

I would defer to the CAO to answer that.

Thank you, Under Sheriff. Our team will actually have an update to the board on the 7th. It is scheduled as part of four or five items that the board has requested to come back. We are. We actually just had a meeting with the sheriff yesterday at their office to talk about next steps, and we had the auditor with us. So there is movement in that regard. So we'll have an update for you preliminary, but our hope is to get it done before September.

Okay. And then the other question that I have is, and this I believe will also come back, is the issue of an inspector general who could have been monitoring things like a budget to see the trends as they relate to how much overtime is budgeted year over year, recognizing that we don't get to make those budget allocations, but having them daylighted I think could have been helpful. Things like seeing the year over year trends for retirement payouts could have been helpful. and watching for other budgetary issues, or even helping us as a board understand where did the money go? Because when I do the math of the staff report, we're being asked for $3.27 million, but the items that were referenced only totaled 1.1 million. $1.2 million in expenses and then personnel costs. So, I just, I'm not, I'm not feeling good about where we find ourselves being that it's a 2nd year and I can't imagine underserved that that feels good for you to be in this conversation either. But I don't know that we have any options other than to. Approve this, so I'll pass it back to my colleagues.

Sure, ask you if I might just with respect to the items I just wanted to. When we wrote the report, we chose not to call out this investigation or that. A lot of things tied to overtime. And we just tried to highlight those items. And you're right, they don't add up to the 3.2. But what we were trying to show is those were unplanned significant events that occurred in the jail or with infrastructure items that we funded those items with our service instance supply budget. And had we not had that same 1.1 million, it likely would have reduced our need to the 2.1, 2.2 million range. And yes, we're still over. And you're right, it is not pleasant to come here and ask for funding. It's not what we strive to do. And I appreciate your comments, and we will strive to continue to get this under wraps and right the ship.

Thank you. I'll take it back to my colleagues. see if they can uh I'm not seeing anyone move to make a motion I mean the only other option would be to uh send this back to the sheriff's office and tell them to take a closer look at this year's budget and their budget for next year and bring back some corrective action planning um that we can feel more confident about I'm not sure whatever what other options we have I um you know we have to make payroll for deputies uh I mean it's this is a

matter of debate. So I will move to on the recommendations.

You second it, Chris. I'll support this today, but I do express my displeasure, as I do every year, and do ask that our budget team work with the Sheriff's Office throughout the year, not just at the end when they're asking for a significant sum to make their budget. We have to work with them early in the year to cost control. Some of those things are out of the control, like the infrastructure things that were listed there, but the overruns on overtime, There seems we have that department hasn't been able to get a grasp and control of that huge sum.

Would there be an appetite to add a request that the sheriff's office return with a more detailed corrective action plan on managing their overtime via policy?

I do want to reiterate I know under sheriff mentioned this we're actually meeting with them I believe monthly if not more often going forward the meetings have already begun including our budget analysts to try to monitor this more real time And then obviously to course correct as necessary. So we're already implementing that internally.

And CEO De La Rosa, Michael Beaton and I have also discussed, I believe Michael plans to bring back a monthly report to the budget committee. And you'd have to confirm that with him, but that was a discussion we had had. I just can't answer that 100%.

And so that would be a report back to the Budget Committee showing what the status of overtime costs are on a monthly basis and any other over budget items?

It would be a status update of their budget overall to the Budget Committee.

With overtime called out?

it could be yes could we add that as a part of the direction yes to my colleagues who made the motion if you're agreeable we we already had planned um at as just normal operations to have continued meetings with them and then also to bring it to the budget committee that was already something we were planning on but we could certainly call out sort of specific things through the motion makers is there is that a yes and a yes yes and a no

I mean it feels like a redundancy and that's the point we just went through that whole reiteration of what the role of the budget committee is I think. Requesting an update on the overtime and the strategy is fine, I think the overall most pieces, it feels like a redundancy to me, because that is the function we already play if we're just naming it to name it like. I guess, but I just want to be clear that the piece i'm most concerned about is the overtime and if we're going to get a piece that should be what we hear about and spend our time focused.

Adam, Chair, I'm a member of the Budget Committee, so I'll make sure to ask for that info when the report is done. Great.

All right. So we have a motion. There's a slight addendum to ask for a monthly update of the Sheriff's Office budget, specifically calling out overtime status on a monthly basis to be presented, discussed with the Budget Committee. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, motion carries. Thank you, Under Sheriff. We look forward to getting this all under control moving forward. We'll move next to item number 25, which is a referral

Yes, this is a referral. The board referral matrix is actually included as part of the item. This is a new referral that was received from Supervisor Askew's office and it's being initially reported out. And specifically, this is the title of the referral is to strengthen county contract standards for data privacy, data sharing and protection against unauthorized secondary use of county information. The purpose is to ensure the Monterey County maintains clear standards, appropriate oversight and strong safeguards so that technological innovation remains consistent with the county's commitments to privacy, civil liberties, transparency, public trust, responsible stewardship and in in for public information Eric Chatham's team has been assigned to this referral as well as our office and county council initial review is scheduled or initial report as scheduled within the 21 days all right we'll move next to item 26 which is our response to a referral

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, supervisors and the public, if they're listening. My name is Craig Spencer with Housing and Community Development. I am providing a brief response and seeking direction on referral number 2026.07 from Supervisor Church. The referral requested that Housing and Community Development develop an ordinance to accelerate housing development by establishing objective design standards for housing projects like accessory dwelling units, lot splits, or second units under Senate Bill 9. Duplexes, triplexes and floorplexes in areas where they're appropriate and can be served by utilities and services within unincorporated county. We have done a preliminary analysis and. That analysis is very much overlapping with our housing element efforts. Our housing element is going to be in front of the board this year. And it contains a number of policies and programs that are aimed at removing constraints to housing development. We are required by housing element law to adopt objective standards for the ministerial approval of multifamily housing on housing opportunity sites. So we will be creating objective design standards that will make it. But check the box kind of scenario for housing development where everyone involved. Our side and the development side will know what the standards are that are more objective and less discretionary that helps. With process and removing some red tape in housing, and it can help spur housing development. So we are going to be doing that as part of the housing implementation. We have recently updated the accessory dwelling unit regulations in the coastal areas, and we're bringing forward companion document for the inland areas as well in the near future. And we have approved plans that are available through the county that you can anyone can use with some limitations, certain certain geographic and regional limitations might apply. But. They are available and can be used without the need to go consult a design professional. We are implementing SB 9, although we need, we recognize we need to implement that officially through some policies and programs that is also in our housing element. We will be looking at approving multifamily dwelling specifically on housing opportunity sites, but that would likely apply and we can make it apply to high density residential, which occurs in most of our community areas and rural centers priority growth areas within our general plan. So these things are all really on the horizon for us and we are looking at implementing an ordinance just very much along the lines of what Supervisor Church requested as referral. We have, in anticipation of that, asked for some funding through the Measure AA Committee to implement the housing element, knowing that there will be this kind of effort coming. And we have secured some funding through that, so we're not going to be asking for funding. to move forward with that at this point. And I think I will mention one last thing before I end, which is this is something that will help us if we do want to pursue a pro-housing designation through the state, which can help us be more competitive for grant funding applications and homeless service provider grant sources. I'll conclude there and I'm available for questions should you have them. Thank you.

Thank you for the brief report on this new referral. But I thought we requested, I had requested with your predecessor just before he left to seek out the pro-housing designation shortly after the city of Salinas acquired it. It was one of the first cities to do so. But I was told by staff that there was It was more complicated, but I thought we were still working on that versus, I don't know if I need to do a referral when the staff actually had looked into submitting an application. I think it got rejected even because we needed to finish our housing element and some other things that needed to be done to be able to qualify. Could you speak to that?

Yeah, so I mean... It's not a fun answer to give, but I was unaware of the efforts of my predecessor when I stepped into this role, so I apologize for dropping that ball. When we are not, we do not qualify as of December 2023, because we don't have a compliant housing element. So we would not want to submit. Until that is adopted, which it will be by the end of this year. And then I have looked at it. I have done in the back of the napkin kind of scoring, which is. Set up in the pro housing designation criteria. They will they give jurisdictions credits for certain programs. If you have something like an objective design standards and you promote to use and you have grant funding and inclusionary housing programs and various things give you points and you need at least 30 points in order to get the designation. We are. In my estimation, just short of that. So things like this ordinance will help us get over that line as well as having the housing element and then we will be ready. It's a very simple resolution we can bring to the board. We'll be ready to do that once we get our ducks in a row.

Yes. And I agree with all these other types of properties that are listed in the referral. But I did want to just speak to the ADUs because my first referral in 2017 was, as a new supervisor, was on expediting ADUs. And it took many years, I think from 17 to 2021, 22, because the laws were changing. There was a lot of bills and staff kept saying, well, we're holding off because there's a lot more legislation finally kind of settled. We did our ordinance to expedite ADUs and it seems to be working because the last report you gave, you had mentioned several hundred ADUs have gone into effect. And then the other piece of that was, in 2022-23, standardizing the three pre-approved one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom ADUs, that if they utilize those, those are already expedited for approval, right?

That's right, and we're updating them for the most recent 2025 building code standards.

great thank you I just wanted to acknowledge that that piece is we should have had more in this area in this area but these other areas duplexes and triplexes and four plexes I think if we could do more there I'd be very supportive of and seeing that happen thank you I just want to thank supervisor church for bringing this forward and you know it sounds like in your report what you're saying is a lot of what the supervisor was looking for

you are implementing as we execute the housing element less or maybe part of there being an SB 9 ordinance, which would be great. And then that would help us also get the points we need for that pro housing designation. So that's all sounds amazing. Since this is on the agenda, I'm just going to take the opportunity to share something I've been fantasizing. um because i really think it would be super op it would be awesome if we much in the same way we did with those three adus you know did something as a county whether it was say a competition for architects but where we could just narrow down one duplex one triplex one fourplex and and the the idea in my mind would be that um you know if we can if we can narrow it down like part of the charge for those architects would be is there a design that would fit in every single neighborhood in unincorporated monterey county and is there something in it for the architect that would be beneficial to them to be the winner it could be young architects but Anything we could do to spur the implementation, not just the ideas, but duplexes, fourplexes, and triplexes are affordable by design if done right. I know in District 5 you can create a $2 million townhouse. That's possible. But you can also design a unit that is going to be affordable just by the very design. And so there's so much opportunity in these housing categories that Supervisor Church has identified in. in his referral so it is something i'm going to keep thinking about as to how we might be able to also spur the implementation and development of these units in our communities and um the last thing i'll say about this fantasy is that i mean it makes me think of the sears and roebuck's house you know and there's like 75 000 sears and roebuck houses around the nation that you know was this opportunity for middle class america to receive a kit put it together and have a sturdy home that's still around today. So I know there's a lot of opportunity and I think it's the referral is the start, the housing element implementation is another step. But then I think we can almost take it even further and see how can we inspire the whole county to get behind this idea so we can actually maybe even be super proud of those duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes that may be in place for the next 100 years that we had something to do with that. And it could go a long way toward solving our housing crisis. So thank you for allowing me to just share my fantasy.

Yeah, I'm just glad to see it proceed ahead here. This is really an attempt to try to pack more housing units into a parcel. I think what we've got to do is we've got to put more into a parcel, more homes into a parcel, smaller homes. This is all attempts to do that. I think there's, Supervisor Daniels kind of alludes to there a little bit. It's, you know, it's a start. There's a lot of things that need to be done. We need to make them cheaper as well. I mean, there's just, homes have become too big, too expensive. And that's why we have a crisis on housing. So I, you know, Kind of looking forward to working with HCD in the next few years and tweaking things some more and probably tweaking is too mild of a phrase. I think we probably got to do more significant work onto there. But I think the board's generally pretty supportive of those kind of efforts. And I know you are too and trying to find creative approaches to making better housing.

One of the just if I could just for a moment, one of the interesting things is we are looking at those kinds of things with our community planning efforts. But we're hearing from in particular the community of there's a desire from that community for single family, residential home ownership. and less rental duplex, triplex in that community. So it's always a balancing act on what the community's desire is and how we can provide smaller and affordable lots and units and meet the needs where they're at.

And I'll just share, I had a listening session last night in Gonzales and it was the same. That was the major challenge was families were saying our kids have moved home. Love them. They've got great jobs, but they live with us. They can afford in most places to buy a home, but not here. We need homes for them to be able to buy. They're competing and they keep losing. And they, so obviously last night, that was the one thing everybody was on the same page about was wanting to see the Gonzalez project. Oh, asking when, when, when, and mostly mom saying, get my kids out of my house. They're 30. They're making good money. They've got enough money, but they keep getting outbid, build some darn housing. So. the same thing as true law. They want single family homes.

All right. Any other comments?

Do we need a motion on this or do we? No?

No. I think the direction was clear from the comments.

definitely supportive from where I sit and I think we may have some broader disagreements on the type of housing that we are building that is and remains unaffordable to many of our residents and many of the workforce based on median income or even high income earners who live here in Monterey County But when we come to establishing split lots, ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, I think that's exactly the type of housing that will be available and accessible to folks who live and work and earn in this community. So thank you. Okay, we will move right along to our CAO comments.

Very brief comments today highlighting the Assessor County Clerk Recorder and also the District Attorney's Office. For the Assessor County Clerk Recorder, despite an ongoing budget and staffing challenges, the Assessor County Clerk Recorder's Office continued delivering critical services to our residents. The assessor closed the assessment role with $96.2 billion in assessed valuation, supporting essential public services throughout the county. The Recorder's Office continued to implement AB 1466 by reviewing and redacting discriminatory language from thousands of historic records and has begun the next phase of that work. The Clerk's Office performed more than 600 civil ceremonies while the department collectively responded to over 29,000 public inquiries. The department is also actively preparing for implementation of the Recorder Notification Program, a new statewide mandate designed to help property owners detect and prevent real estate fraud. For the district attorney's office, they continued their commitment to public safety, victim support and community engagement through 2025. The office provided 35,000 services to nearly 4,000 crime victims and expanded services through the Family Justice Center, delivering coordinated support to survivors of violence and abuse. Prosecutors and investigators secured significant outcomes, including more than 600,000 in restitution for fraud victims and over 2.8 million in grant funding to support specialized enforcement efforts. The office also strengthened prevention and intervention programs, including youth tobacco enforcement and truancy abatement initiatives, while its Bureau of Investigation handled some of the county's most complex criminal cases. Additionally, the department implemented new technologies and legal compliance measures that proved efficiency and public access and transparency. And on a side note, we were able to reach agreement with the Salinas Union High School District with regard to the probation agreement for officers on campus and that is being finalized was to be before their board today. And we'll come to this board for review and approval for on the seventh. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, we'll move on to board comments. Start with Subresa Lopez.

Appreciation for my community who showed up last night in Gonzales at the Caprara Community Center to have a listening session. It was a great turnout. We had about 25 folks there. We talked about everything from road conditions to housing to Airbnbs. It was a robust conversation with folks from all different areas from Chular Canyon down to Gonzales proper. So just appreciative of community to continue to engage on really tough topics. I think the one that kind of sparked most interest was the south of Salinas improvements that are coming. Folks were not necessarily aware in that room of the change to the accurate crossings. And so that caught a lot of folks off guard and sparked about a 30 minute round of back and forths. But just appreciative of the partnership. And the continued engagement on that issue, because it is right around the corner, even though it's just a little under a year away. And the impacts will be real to all of us. And on that note, I want to also just thank Public Works. In the last week, I've been receiving a lot of thank yous via email and text. Folks taking pictures out of their windshields as they run down the section of Halone that was redone by our in-house crews as an overlay. They're extremely appreciative. of those changes and those improvements to the halone section of course good work begets more work folks say when's the rest coming let's do more let's do more let's do more but really just want to thank the crews as we did that in-house and it looks absolutely incredible and drives extremely beautifully and so a lot of appreciation being expressed in community for the projects we've been able to complete in the last few weeks and months but i think that's my update for this week thank you um yes i had the um

Town Hall last Thursday in Moss Landing and we discussed about a number of issues there. It's a small community, but it was a nice turnout as it has been the last few years. We do have a little road work. it's either started or about to start on Vieira Canyon and I know that's from the input I've received from several people in community that's been very very positive about that as well. Upcoming events are a middle school on June 30th between 6 and 7. We are facing an El Nino year but it's good to be prepared under all circumstances and even in June it is not too early to start talking about preparation. July 4th there's going to be open houses at Salinas Heritage Center and Railroad Historical Society next to the train station 10 to 4. So those, if you've never been to either one of those locations, there's a lot of great history there on trains and local history and a nice way to spend a July 4th as well, our nation's 250th anniversary. Happy birthday.

Thank you. First of all, I want to commend the Salinas Regional Soccer Complex. They've had a lot of good events, especially with the World Cup taking place so close by in Santa Clara. But this Saturday, they're having a community grow the game youth soccer camp. partnership with the San Jose earthquake so I'll be there to support our young people obviously the place to be for these FIFA World Cup watch parties here in Salinas is at the soccer complex they get hundreds of people obviously tomorrow's a big game with Mexico playing Chechya at 6 o'clock and the People to watch on that is the youngest player ever from Mexico at 17 years old will be playing in the World Cup. And also one of the legendary players, Memo Ochoa, he's on his sixth FIFA World Cup. He's the goalie, will be playing as well, I think, for his last time. And then obviously the United States is playing on Thursday at 7 o'clock against Turkey. And the community is also welcome there. to come watch the party, watch party there at the Salinas Regional Soccer Complex. I extended the deadline apply for young supervisors. It was last Friday. I extended till this Friday, but I got almost 30 applicants. So I might have to close it off because that's such a large number for the summer program. And lastly, I wanted to request for next week to put on uh an adjourned memory for next tuesday for the grandmother of my chief of staff linda gonzalez her grandmother i think she was 92 years old amparo gonzalez passed away a few days ago and we'd like to give her those honors next week thank you very much looking for information about the yes i've got it okay so um

I did get the opportunity to go to the Pacific Grove Chamber Annual Gala, and at that gala, numerous PG residents, or pogrovians, were awarded, and the citizen of the year was Moammar, and it was a really nice event that I got to go to last week. I also got to go last week to the Juneteenth celebration in the city of Seaside, and it was fantastic, incredible. incredible music, beautiful weather, and just an all-around awesome celebration. I too will be participating in a July 4th celebration, and that's in the city of Monterey. And there will be a parade starting at Colton Hall and I'll be in that parade with my team and then we will also be participating this Saturday in Monterey Pride and that's also in downtown Monterey. Looking forward to it. That's my report.

So much fun. Let's see here. I'll start by saying there's so much, the World Cup and all of the watch parties, so much fun. I was able to host my very own watch party from a campsite in Big Sur. We had managed to set up a streaming network with the two bars and we throttled that internet so the game would come in and come out and we'd check the score. Anyway, it was a lot of fun and I love seeing everyone out and about with excitement about soccer. It's really cool. My team attended the Dentistry for Vets event this past week. Dentistry for Vets is an incredible nonprofit organization right here in Monterey County that fills the gap between what the VA provides in terms of dentistry services for veterans in our community by providing dentistry for veterans. And my chief of staff, Yuri Anderson, presented with Adriana Malgoza from the Watsonville Law Center at an event last week about the work that the county is doing to protect our immigrant community here in Monterey County. um I wanted to uh announce that we have a um I'm co-hosting with the City of Marina and Mayor Bruce Delgado a community meeting to discuss the odour issue that is a an ongoing issue that we it's experience on and off in the community the larger community of marina will be at the marina library on monday july 6th from 6 to 8 pm we will also have a zoom link for anyone that wants to tune in and listen to our presenters we have a lot of information that we'll be providing we have experts who will be sharing some of the regulatory issues that are at play as well as what happens when you call in an odor complaint, who investigates that odor complaint, where does it go from there, and how do we use the data that's collected from those complaints to identify source odors. So that's July 6th from 6 to 8 p.m. with the City of Marina. And then I'm happy to share that I'll be also at Pride this Saturday. Look forward to seeing everyone. I think the parade starts gathering at about 10 a.m., and people will be out marching down Alvarado Street uh starting at about 11. it's a ton of fun so look forward to seeing you there and with that i think we will ask if there's any readouts from uh council no reportable action from either close

okay can i one more comment that i forgot to share was just that we launched the dolly parton imagination library for all of monterey county doesn't matter your income status sign up if you have a child that you love between zero and five it's an absolutely incredible free program they get books they're high quality books they're hardback books softback books every month they will get a piece of mail and the excitement that comes when they get a piece of mail in their own name and they get to open it up and see a book is exciting Again, it's 100% free to every child between zero and five in Monterey County. The record, as I understand it, and for the first year was 40% in Fresno County. By year two, they were at 70%. In the first week, we are at 6%. So we have a great start, but we can do better. Let's encourage everyone with a child from zero to five to sign up. Again, that's an effort through an incredible partnership of bright beginnings, bright futures, first five, and funded primarily in its first year by Bruce Taylor. So a great opportunity for everyone to get access to some free books and up our literacy rate. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Excellent. And Supervisor Alejo, you'll send the information over for the adjourned memory so we can get that added to the agenda next week. Okay, perfect. All right. Well, with that, we are adjourned. Thank you all for helping us work through a full agenda today.