Interagency Governance Review Committee for Violence Prevention - Regular Meeting

I'll ask you afterwards. Alright. Good afternoon. I'm gonna convene our or call to order our legislative committee meeting for March 9. Thank you for joining us. Any addition to correction on the agenda?

There are none.

Okay. Any public comment for any items not on today's agenda, but that are within the jurisdiction of this legislative committee? I don't see anybody's in things going forward. Anybody in line?

No hands on Zoom.

Alright. Seeing none, we're gonna go then to our first, action item. That's approval of the minutes on item number one. These are the minutes for February 9. Any comments from the public on it? Seeing none. Supervisor Daniels, are you good with it?

Don't move. Yes.

Okay. We'll move, approve those by consensus since we're both in agreement. Let's go to item number two, reports from our legislative office. So let's start with any of our federal offices, centers, or. And we just had our legislative meeting last Friday. So, but if you wanna add something that, you wanna address, today, we'll we'll love to hear it. Seeing none from our federal offices. Let's go to any of our state legislative offices. Okay. Alright? Don't see anybody raising their hand. Right?

No hands

on the hands. Alright. Well, thank you. That's probably why because we we just met last Friday on a legislative matter. So we'll just go to item number three now. This is a state report, Ashley Walker. We'll let you start with item three a, and then just go down to the other items, under that agenda, number.

Great. Thank you so much, supervisors. Good to see you this afternoon. Wanted to touch base on the status of the legislature and an update on the state budget. So as you know, we have now passed the legislative deadline to introduce bills. There are still hundreds of spot bills. However, those spot bills must be amended to have substantive language in the next couple of weeks. I believe March 16 is the legislative council deadline off the top of my head. Don't quote me, but it's right around there to get in substantive language. So we have some bills today that we'll present and talk about.

There are several bills we've been talking with CSAC and others about, but we will for sure have another wave of bills once we see all of the legislation and amendments coming through over the next couple of weeks. The legislature did take some early action on items, especially trying to figure out some of the impacts with federal actions. One of them was a budget action to backfill $90,000,000 in funding for Planned Parenthood. There have been some others that I will talk about as well. There's been several senate and assembly budget subcommittee meetings to start going through each and every one of the governor's January budget proposals and figure out what their respective policy priorities are with regard to how to address budget deliberations.

As of a couple of weeks ago, the they did pass AB one zero seven. I wanna note that because at our last legislative committee meeting, we took a support position on a b 35. A b 35 removes the requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act from proposition four funds. As you know, that's been holding up the allocation of prop $4. In a b one zero seven, there is language that removes APA requirements.

It provides an exemption for prop four funds only in the current fiscal year. So that's great, and that should help with the first wave of funding with proposition four. And I'll talk more about prop four in my grant report. But we are still moving forward with our support position on a b 35 because that bill addresses all of proposition four, not just the current fiscal year. So I did wanna alert you that that was passed.

In addition, we have a budget letter, a draft budget letter for your review regarding the governor's proposal to eliminate the Medi Cal mobile crisis benefit. The budget outlines this as an optional benefit. We have received feedback from the county that we do not want this to be an optional benefit, and we do want it to be and continue to be a mandatory Medi Cal benefit for the county. So we do have a draft letter in your packet that we would like your discussion regarding or questions and vote on moving forward with submitting that letter to the relevant budget committees.

Great. So with that, supervisor Daniels, I before, we we go to, supervisor Daniels' comment back, Ashley, is there somebody from behavioral health or the health department that could speak to this? Because I thought this was a fairly new law where all counties are setting up mobile crisis support units. They wanted to effect, I don't know, three or four years ago, so this seems to is this this what is this what this funding is addressing, or could you elaborate? Go ahead.

Yeah. Thank yeah. Sure. And and feel free. Elsa Jimenez has, helped take the lead on this letter, but I don't believe she's on right now.

If she is, she's welcome to hop on. But what I will say is that the governor's proposal shifts this from being a mandatory statewide program to a county optional benefit, and we have been using the mobile crisis benefit Right. In, you know, in locally. We do think that just the shift of full financial responsibility from the from the state to the county is going to have really negative impacts, especially because we are trying to implement the behavioral health services act as well. So we have the letter urges the legislature to reject the change as an optional benefit and to just maintain the statewide mandatory Medi Cal benefit for mobile crisis centers.

I don't know if anybody else from the county wants to chime in.

Supervisor, we have Melanie Rhodes.

Yes. Melanie Rhodes is on. So Oh, hi, Melanie. Raise.

Hi.

Behavioral health director behavioral health bureau director. Thank you.

Yes. Thanks for, having this on for conversation today. Yeah. The behavioral health is in support of, this letter of opposition. You know, this this shift would increase the cost to the counties.

I I believe that CBHDA is estimating the cost would be upwards of a $130,000,000 for current utilization levels, like, across the state. And our local assessment here, would be that would be, like, 2,700,000.0, here locally for Monterey County. That would be additional cost. Because if it were to be shifted from the current mandatory benefit, Medi Cal benefit, to an optional benefit, it would reduce it from that enhanced federal match back down to 50%. So we would have to pick up that additional cost in order to to maintain it.

And when we have spent so many years trying to expand and get to that twenty four seven man meet that twenty four seven mandate a couple of years ago, we've had upwards of in calendar year 2024 close to 1,800 mobile crisis in person responses throughout our county. And then just this last calendar year, we exceeded that, and that number of in person responses even went up higher. And so folks are utilizing this benefit. We are being very successful in diverting, you know, calls that come in through our crisis line through the utilization of this. And and we view this shift would be a huge step backwards in that, and mobile crisis services are an extremely expensive program, to to run.

And so we we really, are opposed to this change.

Miss Rhodes, could you say it again? How many, responses did you have? You said it it increased in its usage. You just highlight that again? Because it it really shows that this program that we implemented is being is an important service to our community for those in need, families who who need to call on this number. But if you could just, let us know once again what what those numbers were.

Yeah. Sure. Actually, let me just read this to you if I can quickly. In calendar year 2024, our crisis lines for Monterey County received a total of 8,541 calls to that line, of which mobile crisis teams provided 1,797 in person responses countywide. And then the following year in calendar year 2025, calls to the crisis lines actually decreased a little to 7,739, while the numbers of our in person responses provided by mobile crisis team rose to 1,839.

Right.

So those responses are going up, and the the resource is being utilized, which is great.

Great. Thank you for that. It just the numbers speak for themselves, and it it just allows us that when this issue comes up, we're able to speak of how this program has worked and has been utilized within our county. So thank you for that. Supervisor, I ask questions on this?

Yeah. I would just add, and I I I believe the letter addresses this. But looking at this within the context of already having to implement BHSA and just the additional burden that or hit, I guess, you could call it, that the county's facing, you know, how important it would be to ensure that, this proposed change does not move forward. That's just a comment. I don't have any questions.

They were all answered. Let's go to the opposition under b two, the governor's proposed oh, no. That's it. So let's it's a support position for for no. That was a report on Prop4AB107. So if supervisor, you're good with it. I'm good with it. Let's ask the public for comment on opposition to the governor's general budget proposal to eliminate the statewide medical mobile crisis benefit, if there is any? No. No.

I see none online.

Okay. Supervisor Daniels, you're good? I'm good. Thank you. Okay. We'll leave that approved by consensus. So you can go to the next, subsection c on legislation, Ashley.

Thank you. I have four bills to present to you today. I'm gonna go through all four of them, and then we can discuss questions or comments or concerns, after I present all four. The first one, s b nine seven three by senator Becker, was a support recommendation by the Department of Emergency Management. CSOC is supporting this bill as well.

It requires Cal Fire to establish a wildfire risk modeling standard, but also to develop county level risk assessment tools and resilience plans. So we do have a recommendation to support this effort. Obviously, wildfires have been a very high priority for the county and how to address them. This allows some additional tools and resilience plans for the county through working with Cal Fire, also with Cal Safe as well. I then wanna go on to a bill I just wanted to flag for you for now, unless the legislative committee would like to do otherwise, but AB eighteen eighty one by assembly member Ramos.

This bill is the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026. This bill does restrict and prohibit government agencies from developing projects where a California tribe's religious practices or sacred sites may be located. And so there are significant concerns from the local government perspective. There are many local government statewide associations taking an opposed position on this, including CSAC, the League of Cities, Aqua, and others. I do just have a recommendation of a watch position for this for us, but it is raising to the level of, you know, discussion and debate that I thought the legislative committee should be aware of as we move forward because this could have significant impacts on the development of future future projects within the county.

And then we do have a recommendation on a b 1,900 by assembly member, COLRA, the Guaranteed Healthcare for All bill. This is a bill we have taken a support position on several times. It does create a single payer health care coverage system in the state of California. As far as I am aware, CSAC has not taken a position on this bill quite yet, but, again, it is something we have always supported and taken a support position on, so we have a recommendation on that. And then finally, we have s b nine two two by senator Laird.

This was brought forward by public works. CSAC is also sponsoring this bill. There are some, litigation matters that are, causing some confusion about local government's rights to, apply road charges, to weight based vehicles and to impose fees and surcharges for the recovery of street maintenance. This bill clarifies what rights local governments have in those situations so that we can kind of get rid of that litigation confusion. So we do have a support position recommended on that bill as well by senator Laird.

I'm happy to answer any questions. I know we also have folks from departments that can discuss potential impacts if you needed some additional information. But, again, these these positions have been vetted with your departments, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions, supervisor Daniels?

I would like to just go back to number two, a b eighteen eighteen eighty one, the Ramos bill. And if you could just, walk me through one more time what the bill would prohibit in terms of, the work that we do as a county government.

Yeah. So it gives tribal governments more veto power against projects that may be against a tribe's religious practice or located near or on sacred site access.

So it does say in the paragraph that is in the packet and informed consent before approving projects impacting sacred sites and mandates confidentiality of sacred site information from public records laws. And I think that currently exists in in terms of my experience, but I just was trying to understand how how this how this differs. And I I appreciate the the the watch position. I I would not feel comfortable opposing it at this point. I mean, I don't know enough about it, but I'm just trying to understand.

Yeah. Supervisor Daniels. So, actually and Jack from my office is on the line as well, and he's been highly involved in the advocacy group that's been discussing this. So I'll let him chime in if he'd like to as well. But there are several organizations that have put together working groups on this bill to work with assembly member Ramos on the details. But it is a highly extensive and to and it changes the process in many significant ways, and that's where the concerns come from. There are though the lead working groups. I know CSAC is talking about it. Aqua has talked about it. We will continue to provide you additional information as it's available. Jack, I don't know if you wanna chime in. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But

No. No. You're you're all good. Yeah. So I I think the concern that's coming from a lot of the different stakeholder groups is that because of the nature of the sacred sites for Native American tribes, it really could, impact, like, across the state.

You know, I think that the language is is actually based off of a federal law called called r lupa. The r lupa is really, like, more focused in on, like, a specific, like, a church or, like, a specific location. But due to kind of the, again, the nature of Native American sacred sites, I mean, there could be anything anywhere. And so I think the concern is that it would provide kind of, like, a veto power for tribes that they felt like you were gonna be building in in a place that they felt was a sacred site. The other thing that it does is it also places the burden on on the on you as the county to prove that it's not a sacred site as opposed to the the tribe to to prove that it was a sacred site.

So I think there's just kind of a lot of things that the industry groups are are working through on this. Mhmm. In regards to the the public records act portion in particular, they haven't really gotten into the differences between what currently exists and what's in the bill. I think that the author is maybe just being careful on that that point to make sure that kind of any discussion of of what is making these sites secret is is, except from the CPRA. But Mhmm. That's that's kind of, I think, where we're at with it.

Okay. Yeah. That's helpful. I guess I was more just also stuck on the I mean, we have many culturally sensitive sites in Monterey County, and and it is really important that those sites are protected and that we don't unintentionally, as governmental agencies, identify where those sites are because that would bring a crowd. But I'm just trying to understand how this would would would impact us and and why it's religious practices and sacred site access versus just culturally sensitive sites, like a burial ground or something like that.

But that's enough information for me now as long as it's, acceptable to my colleague that we don't oppose the bill at this point in time without more information.

Yeah. Agreed. On that bill, I think it's this is more of an issue in other counties that have multiple or at least one federally recognized tribe. We don't have any federally recognized tribes in Monterey County, so it's a little different how this bill would play out within our jurisdiction. But there there was previous law.

I was a coauthor of AB 52 back in 2014 or so that, protected and required tribal monitors for, Native American, burial and sacred sites. This is, I think, right, taking it another step further, but that is had is is of concern to local governments in counties where there is a more much more interaction with federally recognized tribes. So I I I'm comfortable with this as a watch position and supporting the other three bills. I know senator Laird raised his bill, SB nine twenty two, last Friday when he was with us. So I'd like to take a support position as it does, help local governments, and and CSAC is a sponsor of that bill.

So, I'm comfortable with the support position also.

Well, there's consensus then. I agree. Alright.

Any comments to the public on these four bills?

We do have hands raised. Yes. Adam?

Okay. We'll start with Adam, you said? Yes. Okay. Adam, we'll give you two minutes to speak on on any of these bills.

Hello, and thank you for your time. I don't actually have we don't have any formal positions on the bills as the realtors, but I thought I would just chime in briefly, as I have the benefit of being the husband of a Sequo archaeologist who routinely, works with the tribes, and may ensure his compliance with the existing laws, around this sort of issues, and they are quite extensive. So I will just chime in and say there's a lot of existing protections for this sort of thing. There's there's the the native American monitoring, which was already mentioned. So I I too will be interested to see exactly what the language of the spill is, and I'll be watching closely.

My concern is is that it could have significant impacts on, on the sorely needed development of housing throughout Monterey County, especially, if this on how this is written, if this gives the similar authority that the federally recognized tribes have to, nonfederally recognized tribes. Right? If if California is kind of playing at being its own, recognizing tribes itself, that that potentially opens up quite a can of worms that could have significant impacts on the development of of housing at scale. So just something to continue to watch, and I appreciate everyone's thoughtfulness.

Thank you. Anyone else?

No other has, please.

Thank you, Adam, for your comments. Okay. We'll, we'll we'll deem the those three bills, the first, third, and fourth, to have support support positions on them, and we'll have a wait position on the second bill, by consensus. Alright. Ashley, you wanna go to your, governor's actions and executive orders?

Yes. There wasn't too too much to report since we last met, so I've just listed there about Peace Corps Week. And then I have the attached state bill track, and bill issues track. You'll see that we have already, added some of the letters that we have drafted or sent outside of positions that we have on legislation. So including the mobile, crisis benefit changes that we have the letter drafted.

We haven't sent that yet, of course. The select committee on the ICE raids and then the HHAP round seven letter. And so we will update those on the actions column to reflect the date that that was sent out. That'll be updated at our next meeting. And if there's any questions about bills that we have positions on, again, the ones we took today will then be added to this tracker. So next meeting, you'll see that reflected.

Alright. Any comments from the public on the governor's actions and executive orders or the state bill issues track?

Supervisor, I have a comment a question, actually. So, Ashley, thank you for all of this, and this is very, very recent. And I just wanted to find out this is just a question that I have about the state budget. We had a another death, unfortunately, this weekend in Big Sur, one that had we had state parks lifeguards on hand, we might have been able to avoid it. We've lost several people in the last six months.

And I have a question regarding a budget change proposal because there is a budget change pro proposal request that's for the Fort Ordunes State Park. And if it were adopted or approved, it would include the, staffing that's needed that would, would bring more state parks officers that are also lifeguards into Monterey County. And I just don't know really honestly, I'll be honest with you. I don't even know what that means, budget change proposal, and where that's at. Is this a is this a, a train that's left the station, or is this something that, might still be being negotiated in the state budget?

Yeah. No. I I think I'd like to talk to you more about the details on that, supervisor Daniels. But the budget is still being debated, so there's still lots of time to debate and discuss what might be included or or not. But I would like to discuss some details with you about that.

Okay. I can do that. Just it's fresh on my mind, and I'm, as you know, very new to this whole part Yeah. Of serving.

And then we might be able to bring that at our next put it on our agenda for next meeting, Ashley. I think I a good a chance to talk to supervisor Daniels.

That would be great, chair. Thank you.

Alright. Alright. We'll we'll add that for as a on the agenda for next next meeting. Okay. Is there a little public comments? Let's go to item number four. Are we seeing reports for right direction? We consider positions and recommendations to the board of suits on some of our our grant or grant items?

Yes. So we have been making good progress as of late with the state water board in terms of drawing down or at least figuring out the scope of work to draw down the $4,000,000 in the state budget for the San Lucas drinking water project. There had been some points of discussion with the state water board that we did need some assistance with the speaker's office with. We held a meeting since I've last met with you as a legislative committee that included the speaker's office and public works to discuss some of our concerns with the potential limitations on the scope of work with regard to that $4,000,000. It does seem that there has been some progress on that front, though, and we do appreciate speaker Rivas' office and his staff for his focus and attention on this particular issue.

I will continue to be involved to ensure that we're able to draw those funds down in a timely manner and utilize those funds as we need to get that project moving along. Next, I just would like you to know that we continue to be engaged and monitor any actions or items needed for the CR free project with regard to extensions on potential grant funds, and we'll continue to engage on that matter as needed. And then finally, I did not include this quite yet in our our report because I think it may have happened right after I wrote this report. But proposition four, because AB one zero seven, as I mentioned in my state report, moved forward with an exemption for APA in the current fiscal year, there are now agencies and departments getting ready to put out proposition four solicitations. That includes the DAM Safety Grant program.

We have heard that that draft solicitation may be out within the next month. We will be working closely, you know, with the county to ensure that we are able to apply for those DAM Safety Grant funds as needed. But in general, now that that requirement has been exempt exempted from the current fiscal year, we do anticipate those solicitations will be rolling out. We'll be sending them over to departments to evaluate. We can, of course, help with the application process as well.

And then finally, we have our grant tracker attached, of course, where we just track all of the items and issues that we're working on related to grants. It also includes any support letters that the board of supervisors puts forward for other local, grant applications that have been submitted even by other agencies that we support for efforts within the county. And that concludes my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Yeah. Ashley, on on the prop four funding, we did put that language in just for San Lucas to be able to not be limited to the caps. We so you'll be looking out for opportunities to draw down prop four resources for project as well. Correct?

Absolutely. I think that where the status of the existing project is, supervisor Lejo, I don't think that we would be ready in the current fiscal fiscal year to apply for those dollars as we're trying to figure out some of

the

planning that needs to happen for that project first with this $4,000,000. However, we absolutely plan to apply for those drinking water dollars. I do know that the drinking water dollars through proposition four will be going through, the state water board, of course, and their annual process to allocate dollars in their intended use plan, their IUP. That is a process we will get started with public works on as soon as they feel they are ready to request, you know, construction or implementation dollars.

Alright. Well, I I just I know there's limited funding in each of those pots. Right? And I don't I don't want us to, we've been which we've been at this for, I don't know, fifteen years already. I just don't want the opportunity to leave us or other communities to draw that funding down, because of because of our position that we're not the project's not ready yet. I just hope that we could whatever scope that we need to do to be able to apply as soon as funding becomes available because it there's a there's a limited amount, and I I don't want that community to lose out.

Yeah. Understood. Yeah. I I will follow-up with

public works and and figure out the status of being able to apply under the IEP for the state water board.

Right. Supervisor Daniels, any just questions on any of those items?

I do. Thank you so much. So, Ashley, I had a conversation this morning with congressman Panetta regarding the, potential fund expirations from the state at, on in regards to Carmel River Free. And, he was requesting, as we try to work through the FEMA conundrum and getting that contract signed, what are the state funding, what state funding is at risk? And and if there was any effort we could put into trying to see if there I know they've been extended already, but is there a potential to extend those state funding?

That state funding, that would be something we would be interested in exploring. I I just certainly don't I don't know what is gonna happen with, with FEMA, but it's a full court press right now to get that $27,000,000 contract signed. But as you know, there isn't anyone sitting in the seat. So, just yet. And that timing could threaten the state funds. And so I just wanted to get, a list of those state grants and and see if we can begin to explore. I know I've been told that they cannot be extended any further, but I just was wanting to know from you if that was absolute certainty that they cannot be extended.

I think we will need to ask Shandy for a list of what grants, are still on the chopping block at the state level. I think our I would I would cautiously say that we have been in situations like this before, and we have leaned on our state delegation to assist us with, extensions when need be. So I wouldn't say that it's off the table that we request extensions, but I would I I would also like some additional information. So, yes, we should get some additional information about the state funding streams for CR free that that are at risk of expiring and come up with a strategy related to what we can do to ensure that that does not happen.

Great. That'd be wonderful. And we'll keep you posted on what's happening at the Department of Homeland Security level.

Great. Great. Thank you for flagging that, supervisor Daniels. Hopefully, that can be extended. But Yeah. We gotta make those requests to our legislators, to see if they could add those extensions in there if it's possible.

Exactly.

Alright. Any comments for the public on this?

There are none.

Alright. Let's go to item number five. Let's go to a federal report from Maria Triplar and Kate Lynn. Thank you.

So, yeah, diving right back in. It was great to see everyone at the legislative workshop. But, of course, we are well into 2026 at this point. And as was just discussed, there's a lot of uncertainty right now surrounding the Department of Homeland Security. So, of course, there is not currently a sec sec confirmed secretary in that position following Christy Noem's stepping down last week.

So we'll see how that shakes out. I think there was some initial hope that with her removing herself from that position or being removed from that position, that there might be some forward momentum on the only remaining FY twenty six appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. And so we are still in a shutdown for DHS. That funding, of course, affects agencies, including FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard.

And as I think everyone in the nation knows, that is very much relating to the unresolved debates on immigration enforcement and border policy. Of course, the recent military strikes in Iran put even more pressure on lawmakers to end the shutdown, especially given the role within counterterrorism and domestic security. I'll also briefly mention that since this particular memorandum was written, we do now have an outcome on the war powers resolution vote within Congress, and that was a movement to restrict the president's ability to continue the strikes in Iran. However, that was, voted down within the congress, and so there will not be a congressionally mandated restriction on those continued strikes, again, heightening the concern over this continued shutdown, on DHS. We are fully into midterm election season.

The first primaries will be, will have already taken place, of course, now on March 3, and we'll continue to see how these roll out. You know, a few weeks ago, we did hear from president Trump at the State of the Union address where he really spent quite a bit of time showcasing his domestic and foreign policy agenda, but also unabashedly somewhat highlighted the current partisan nature in congress. But it was almost immediately after that he launched the strikes in Iran. So there's just you know, it's an interesting time right now. So we'll we'll see how that plays out.

I'll pause and turn to Caitlin to present briefly on the executive order update section.

Thank you, Maria. Thank you, supervisors. Two quick executive orders to highlight the first signed on February 6, basically stated that DHS needs access to criminal history record information and authorized the attorney general to release any data at the Department of Justice. And then the the order went on to state that this CHRI could be shared with various partners in other nations that we have partnerships with to prevent individuals from coming into the country, which may have who may have criminal records. And then the second, order to highlight was one ending certain tariff actions, of course, after the supreme court's ruling that president Trump exceeded some of his vested authorities in initiating those tariffs.

Neither the order nor the court talks about a way forward for repayment of the tariffs, and, of course, both left open different tools and avenues that the president can take to impose more tariffs under different authorities. But those are the two orders we wanted to highlight. Back to you, Maria.

Thank you. So turning to subsection b, you'll I'd like to draw attention to the f y twenty seven appropriations projects, notwithstanding, of course, that we're still waiting on f y twenty six for DHS. But within f y twenty seven, you'll see, of course, the previously approved projects on the San Lucas Clean Drinking water, Nacimiento and San Antonio Dams And Safety reservoir safety project, Nacimiento Lake Drive repaving project, reclamation ditch restoration project, the Salinas Regional Soccer Complex project, and, of course, the, skate park and BMX pump track project. As as you know, supervisor Alejo from prior years and for your awareness, supervisor Daniels, this chart will become a regular fixture in our federal reports. And as this process moves forward, we will update it accordingly.

Right now, what you'll see is there's the name of each project, the county department that, we are coordinating with on that project, a short description, and then the offices that we either have submitted to or will be submitting to along with the requested level of funding by the county. And, of course, we will the empty columns will be filled in as that information becomes available. We have submitted two projects already to senator or excuse me, to representative Panetta. We did become aware that projects that were submitted last week would receive priority consideration, so we were certain to get those in for that purpose. I will say here, you'll see that senator Schiff's deadline is reflected as 03/06.

He did push that deadline out by a week, and so we are taking an additional day or two to fine tune those applications. But as you can see from the dates listed here, by the end of this week, we will have submitted all of the projects to all of the federal delegation offices. And so we'll update on any developments by you know, in our meeting next month, although we may not know at that stage which of the projects we'll be moving forward. So I'll pause there for any questions about f y '27 appropriations.

Hey, Maria. Yes. I just wanted to chime in that we did work closely, and thanks to Caitlin and Maria, we got draft letters from several of our legislative delegation members. So we worked as a team, and we're able to get that done as well.

Yes. Thank you, Ashley. And, of course, those letters are requirements of the larger packages. You know? And I'm certainly happy to provide copies of those packages on request. But, yes, the many of the offices do require, letters as a part of that. So we appreciate the work from Nassimon as well as Nicole and the county departments to ensure that we have letters, not just from the state electeds, but from all of the community partners for those projects. And, Ashley, if you would not Ashley. Excuse me. Caitlin, if you would, I will defer to you again momentarily on the federal advocacy section.

Of course. So we had the honor of having chair Askew and supervisor Alejo in Washington DC along with different members of county staff, two weeks ago now. And we worked to set up meetings with the federal congressional delegation for the supervisors and the county cohort. We were able to meet with representative Lofgren and representative Panetta face to face, and then senators Padilla and Schiff, hosted a, a meeting of California counties, which supervisor Alejo actually introduced the senators and ran the q and a. So that was a very special interaction.

In the meeting with representative Lofgren, we were able to thank her for the fiscal year '26 earmarks for both the soccer complex and San Lucas and make her aware of how that project has developed. And then in a meeting with representative Panetta, we were able to really talk about the anticipated impact of h r one, give him statistics and numeral impact for residents. And then in the meeting with senators Pideon Schiff, the senators discussed a lot of different topics of interest, including senator Schiff's home hardening legislation, which we are recommending a support position on, later in this report. Back to you,

Maria. Thank you. Thank you for that. And, I wanna thank Maria and Caitlin for meeting with us with not only the supervisors, but our county staff that were up at the the National Association of Counties, a legislative conference in Washington DC and then setting up those meetings. I think it's always just good what even though we we see them here regularly, when we're up in Washington, that they make time to meet with us in person, to hear us and, raise those issues once again.

So special thanks to, congress members, Lofgren, who who I was able to join in on that meeting. Panetta, I wasn't because of my flight, but, supervisor, Wendy would ask you attended. And then, obviously, all the county supervisors that were still in Washington were able to meet with senators Schiff and Padilla. They were gracious to give us their time and to answer questions from the county supervisors, and I was proud to facilitate that discussion at the capital. But I think the supervisor Daniels she's okay? She's on? Okay. Because I thought we were gonna have the enemy. We're we're not sure. Last three goes let me just ask for any questions from supervisor Daniels on these first items five a through c.

And then from the public. She's back? She is coming back. Okay. Any calls from the public on any of these items?

I'm on one.

Okay. Let's hear on the three bills, and and let's see if we we'll have supervisor Daniels with any questions and comments on these. So let's start going through the bills.

Yes, sir. So the first bill is, there it's in both the house and the senate. So it's HR thirteen forty as well as s thirty three thirty two. This is the More Homes on the Market Act, and we are recommending a support position. And this is specifically following direction from both supervisors, Alejo and Daniels, at the last legislative committee regarding the executive order entitled stopping Wall Street from competing with Main Street homebuyers.

We identified these two bills as the ones that are seeking the same goal as the executive order, which is as it states more homes on the market. It does promote the sale of highly appreciated homes by increasing the capital gains exclusion for the sale of a principal residence, and would double the minimum exclusion to $500,000 for single filers and $1,000,000 for married couples while accounting for annual inflation adjustments. I do note that representative Panetta introduced this in the house, and miss Lofgren is a cosponsor. And, of course, in the companion bill in the senate, it was introduced by senator Cornyn, and senator Schiff is an original cosponsor.

Yeah.

H r sixty nine sixty two is a similar piece of legislation that would also correspond with the executive order's goal of prioritizing family homebuyers over institutional investors. The Families First Housing Act of 2026 strengthens and standardizes the first look protections for covered properties to ensure that families and communities have priority access to foreclosed homes. We are, again, represent or excuse me, recommending a support position on this based on, the direction previously provided and the policies within the legislative platform. Representative Harrigan introduced legislation, and miss Lofgren is a cosponsor. There is not, however, a companion bill in the senate.

The third piece of legislation is is s thirteen twenty three, facilitating increased resilience, environmental weatherization, and lowered liability act. That is the firewall act. And this particular piece of legislation is one that was introduced by senator Schiff in the senate and representative Mullen in the house and was actually discussed by senator Schiff at length. During the meeting, he held with California counties recently during the visit to DC, Supervisor Lehos, specifically the one that you were moderating. And this seeks to amend the IRS code and establish a refundable federal tax credit for homeowners who invest in disaster mitigation measures for their primary residences, and it would provide credits for qualified disaster mitigation expenditure, including creating a secondary water barrier, improving the durability, impact resistance, or fire resistance of a roof covering, and implementing wall components for wall assemblies that seek to conform ignition resistant construction standards.

And that additional tax credit could be up to $25,000 again, for those home hardening measures. And once again, we repre we recommend a support position on this third bill as well.

Great. We might as well just do your last item, and then we could take, action and questions on your federal bill and issue track.

Yes, sir. And as as always, we have attached the federal bill and issues track for your reference. It does detail much of what's included in this report as well as a historical reference for other issues and pieces of legislation that this committee has addressed.

Great. Okay. That's our end of agenda. So I'm good with all the three bills. Thank you, Maria and Caitlin, for bringing these three bills forward, one on the housing and one on on the on the firewall act. That that's very much appreciated and and needed. Any I you go with those bills, supervisor Daniels?

Supervisor Daniels is listening but unable to answer, and so I'm just letting you know, she's supportive of those and, wanted to just acknowledge that they're very straightforward federal bills, so in support. Thank you.

Any comments from the public?

Any news? I have, Adam Fintres.

Yes. Adam, please. Thank you for for weighing in on these.

Yeah. I'll just be very brief. The realtors support both, Jimmy Panetta's More Homes on the Market Act and the efforts to focus, homeownership opportunities and prioritize actual homeowners, rather than corporations. So we're supporting legislation, in Sacramento to achieve a similar outcome. I believe it's this one that we're that you're discussing here. So, just wanted to to chime in and and express support, from the realtors for these efforts.

Thank you for that, Adam. Anyone else?

No one. That was fine.

Alright. I think we could deem deem the support on those approved. Supervisor Daniels is good with that. I'm good with them. And we could deem those approved by consensus. I think that's the end of our business here today. So I wanna thank everybody, our our team here in the room. And, Mark, we'll see you from both of you, Judy. Thank you for joining us. And our next meeting will be April 13, and we'll see you then. Thank you very much, everybody.

Thank you. Bye.