Interagency Governance Review Committee for Violence Prevention - Regular Meeting

Oh, shoot. I just wrote on my face. Let me know.

Can you promote Maria, please?

Who's chair? Eight? Oh, okay. Alright. Everyone, we're gonna convene our May 11 legislative committee meeting. So we'll call the meeting to order, and may the record reflect that both supervisor Daniels and I are present. Do we have any additions or corrections to the agenda today?

There are none.

Okay. How about any general public comments for items not on today's agenda?

No hands raised on Zoom.

Nobody in chambers either. So, we'll move on from that, and we'll go to our approval of the minutes. This is from April 13. Are you good with those, supervisor Daniels?

I am good. Thank you so much.

Alright. Any public comments on the minutes from our last meeting?

No hands raised on the Zoom.

Alright. Seeing none, we'll deem those approved by consensus. We'll go to our legislative office reports. We'll start with anybody, any staff members from our federal legislative offices, either sen senator Padilla Schiff or congress members Panetta or Lofgren. Okay. Let's go to any state offices, for senator Laird or speaker Rivas or assembly member Addis.

Hello. Good afternoon, supervisor Alejo and Daniels. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide legislative updates on behalf of senator Laird. Today, I am joined by Natalie Boston, who recently joined our team. And moving forward, we'll also be helping provide legislative updates on behalf of senator Laird.

As the legislative session progresses, I am very pleased to report that all of 16 of the senators bills have successfully moved through their respective policy committees and are advancing to the next stages of the legislative process. Today, I would like to briefly provide updates on two bills. One of them would be senate bill ten fifty five. This is the bill that provides the Pajaro Regional Flood Management age agency with additional tools to more effectively deliver levy and flood control improvements and better protect the Pajaro Valley community. Currently, this bill has passed the senate floor and is headed to the assembly.

Also, our senate bill nine seventeen, the fam family wineries bill, this is the bill that supports California wine businesses by expanding opportunities for winemakers to connect directly with consumers at Farmers Market. And this bill has also passed the senate floor and is now headed into the assembly. As chair of the senate budget committee, senator Laird helped lead the foundation for the future budget plan, which outlines a path forward by balancing the state budget over the next two years and also reforming the reserve process and maintaining key investments while navigating a challenging fiscal environment and also working towards a final budget agreement. Lastly, I would like to share that senator Lear commanded governor Newsom on the signing of the assembly built one zero eight, the emergency budget measure that provides urgent financial assistance to hospitals at risk of closure and also helps preserve access to critical health care sole services in vulnerable communities across the state. I know the senator has been a champion for our distressed hospitals throughout throughout the state.

I know we have Watsonville Hospital who he has been a great champion for. So this this, is very important for the senator. So unless there's any questions, this would be our report.

Great. Thank you for that, Marissa. Anyone else from our state or federal legislative offices?

Sure. I'll go ahead, supervisor Leo.

Yep. Go for it.

Just from just from the speaker's office, couple things. One, as Marisa said, really appreciate AB 108 moving out of the legislature quickly being signed by the governor to add on a little bit that measure will support hospitals and nonprofit healthcare districts with less than ten days cash on hand. The real impetus being this is there are discussions about a second iteration of the distressed hospital loan program. The challenge to that though is ensuring that any hospitals looking to get support from that program that'll certainly be discussed this summer, is certain hospitals may not make it to this summer. And so that temporary measure was really for those hospitals most in need of not even being able to keep the doors open this summer.

Just a reminder when the hospital closes, it's a significant financial hit to reopen the number of re permitting process, things of that nature. Glen County's most recent example, their hospital closed there when a critical care access designation was changed, and it's gonna cost close to 50,000,000 to see them reopened. Secondly, last week, the assembly through under speaker Rivas' leadership dropped their road map for how they see the budget. A couple things that often have been mentioned are are this. One, we know receipts are up this year.

Certainly, thanks to a lot of money coming in related to things like AI and other tech stocks. However, due to obligations like prop 98 and others, some of those increased revenues certainly are already gonna be spoken for because of constitutional obligations. And we still have to take a look at both next year and the following year. However, what does that mean for this year? As laid out in the roadmap, they they wanna be strategic.

And by that, I mean, many of the conversations that have taken place here and throughout our region is just taking a hard look at what programs are are gonna be most critically affected by cuts from HR one and and other actions the federal government has taken and figuring out ways we can lessen the impact if not delay them. And so that road map came out last week, and, of course, the May revise from governor Newsom will come out this Thursday, and then it's a race, so to speak, until the budget gets finalized in mid June. Lastly, just wanna thank supervisor Alejo's team, and we had folks from supervisor Lopez's team, people who lead the the ad hoc committee for immigration here in Monterey County. Last month, speaker Rivas brought forth a roundtable on immigration once again, continuing the discussion we had last year and bringing stakeholders from the parts of four counties that he represents here in Assembly District 29. And it was a good opportunity to present information that UCLA and Berkeley had put together on ICE actions.

It was an opportunity to give updates on legislation that is being put forth in the legislature this year as it relates to immigration. And more importantly, it was a good conversation to hear from local stakeholders about what they wanna see from the assembly and some of the needs they're seeing in our immigrant community as we're now in this second year of the Trump administration and the continuing effects that they have on folks here in California. And, that's that's our update, supervisor Leo.

Alright. Thank you for that, Dominic. We really appreciate it. And, thanks for holding that immigration forum brought all the stakeholders together. And, certainly, the work, by your office and senator Laird on that lifeline for Watsonville Community Hospital and other distressed hospitals throughout the state was very much appreciated as there was a serious cash flow issue going on at the hospital. So thank you for your leadership on those on those issues. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none then, we will close our comments from our legislative offices. We'll go to, federal report. Maria Tripler and Caitlin Cogle.

Thank you, sir. So starting with our congressional overview, as we anticipated at the last ledge committee meeting, knowing that this had passed at that stage one chamber, now happy to report that both chambers have passed and the president has signed, as of April 30 into law the appropriation on the Department of Homeland Security funding bill. That did officially end a seventy six day shutdown, the longest shutdown in history. So the house did take up the senate bill just hours before the emergency funding was set to run out, and that bill funds most of DHS through September. It did, however, exclude ICE and parts of CBP.

Republicans are planning to fund ICE and CBP through budget reconciliation. As we have learned in previous iterations of reconciliation, this, avoids the need for a supermajority in the senate, and it can pass on a simple majority vote. So that will, be an interesting exercise. It is coming at us very quickly. The president had has asked that reconciliation two point o, if you will, be completed by June.

And in fact, they have already commenced the process on that. We are expecting that it will fund ICE and CBP through the rest of the president's term. And you'll see in the written report details about that budget resolution process, some of the procedural steps that have already taken place, not without some arm twisting, if you will, where house speaker Mike Johnson did have to hold the vote open for over five hours to get the votes he needed within his conference and some of the concessions that were made there. But that being said, in the version of the DHS funding bill that passed, and I know, supervisor Daniels, this was of particular interest to you, that bill did deliver a meaningful boost to FEMA. There was a 5,700,000,000 increase in base funding as well as a plus up of $26,400,000,000 for the disaster relief fund and for several key grant programs.

I am hopeful that some of that funding will benefit the county, which as we all know has been very challenged when it comes to FEMA reimbursements for many of the recent natural disasters the county has faced. So we will be continuing to monitor very closely how that funding is allocated, as well as how it may impact the county in its, ongoing quest for reimbursements, if you will. I will note that the Save America Act, which we are we have reported on before, does remain stalled in the senate. So we are continuing to watch that as well. I will say that there are some ongoing challenges, though, as we do dive into reconciliation when it comes specifically to how ICE will be addressed.

Appreciate Dominic's comments about speaker Rivas' attention to the immigration ad hoc committee that, you are leading supervisor along with, supervisor Rivas, not Rivas. Excuse me. And and working on that and how that's actually going to, impact what county residents are facing when it comes to immigration enforcement. I'll also say that in conversations with many on the hill, I don't know that reconciliation two point o will be the last of the reconciliation attempts we see this year, there is an expectation that there could potentially be a reconciliation three point o, following the midterm elections, which would be geared towards expiring TCJA provisions. That is the, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from president Trump's first term, which could also potentially impact Medicaid reforms and other spending cuts.

But we don't entirely know what that's going to look like yet, but it is something that is percolating under the surface. But, again, I I just don't see the appetite there until after the midterms, and, of course, it would have to be after October 1. We are also following, generally speaking, what the provisions of the NDAA will look like, the future of the enhanced premium tax credits, the farm bill discretionary spending caps, all the the more sorts of normal things that we are looking at at this time of year. But that is you know, in those dynamics will very much be impacted, in my opinion, by the reconciliation two point o process. Another piece that comes into play, of course, is the ongoing discussion surrounding the military operations against Iran, the ceasefire, the Nazi spire, if, you know, operations have terminated or not terminated, the challenge over the Strait Of Hormuz.

That is all very much a a low not even a low level, but it is a behind the scenes simmer going on right now in Capitol Hill, as you can imagine. And so that is that is an interesting piece, although it doesn't directly impact the county. But, you know, it'd be remiss of us not to at least observe, what some of the other dynamics are that may impact the outcome of legislative action right now on the hill. I'm gonna pause there before I turn to Caitlyn for executive branch updates, if there are any questions about what's happening, within congress since we last met.

Here, I have a question.

Yes, ma'am.

So I my question would be then in regard in in regards to the DHS appropriation, what does it say about the FEMA hazard mitigation mitigation grant for Carmel River Free? We're still we're still waiting for a signature on the $27,000,000 grant that we, were awarded as well as the extension request. It's all of our efforts in Washington DC seem to have, sort of are still on hold even though even even though the funding has been received. What what recommendations do you have, or what thoughts do you have? We're still waiting on the stack of, contracts that were over a $100,000 that were originally sitting on Christy Noem's desk.

Yes, ma'am. And I think the biggest challenge there candidly is less to do with the funding itself in the appropriations bill and more to do with the change in leadership at DHS since that request was sitting squarely on the former secretary's desk, you know, awaiting her signature and hoping for her signature. I don't know that that's something that a current acting is looking to take up. And, of course, that confirmation process will you know, is will be lengthy. My recommendation is that we reengage with our federal delegation, or other federal equities as you might deem appropriate, and certainly support the county in that effort to see if there is an opportunity to shake that loose despite the fact that there isn't acting in that position and see what what advocacy we're able to work through there.

But, unfortunately, that is, in my opinion, is disengaged from the funding itself and more to do with the personnel in that role.

So help me understand. Secretary Mullen has not been confirmed yet. Is that what that what you're saying in terms of acting?

Well, I believe that his it has been delegated down to his deputy.

Okay. Oh, and that's who's still acting?

I believe that is the case, ma'am.

Okay. Well, what I will say is just, I think at this point, it's all hands on deck. So if if you have recommendations, even though we had requested that we, that we work we work on it, and that was the last iteration. And that has seems to have been currently not going over anywhere, though I we have gotten some good feedback. I think any any efforts and all efforts at this point would be requested.

Yes, ma'am. We will we will work with county staff, and and we will develop a strategy. We will we will get on that for you.

And we'll continue on our path as well. I don't think all hope is lost, but if you could do it as well, that would be great. Certainly.

Alright. Oh, yes, sir.

Maria, just on a a separate issue, just on the surface transportation bill, is something gonna be introduced later this month?

That's my understanding.

Okay. And that'd be filed in both houses? Or

I don't know that it's clear at this stage exactly what the introduction plan is, if it will be a joint introduction house and senate, if one will take the lead and the other to follow shortly thereafter, it will absolutely be a coordinated effort. But I don't know if that final determination has been made.

Alright. Thank you. We'll keep an eye on that. And for next meeting, you wanna go into the legislation then?

I will actually turn with your permission to Caitlin Cogle and have her take up a small Roman two on executive branch updates. Okay.

Great.

Thank you, Maria. Thank you, supervisors. I'll keep this brief. So first of all, the executive branch has president Trump signed an executive order directing the DOJ and DEA to reschedule marijuana, from schedule one to schedule three. This only applies to state medical marijuana.

The recreational cannabis and unlicensed activity isn't part of this change, and, the rescheduling paves the way for more FDA approved medicines for clinical trials, although it will not really impact larger recreational cultivation and retail at this time. Moving to other executive orders, president Trump signed an order entitled accelerating medical treatments for serious mental illness. And this executive order really aimed to facilitate the use of psychedelic drugs for treatments, and that would direct the FDA commissioner to expedite review of psychedelic drugs. It would allocate funding for research, and it would take a step towards faster faster rescheduling of these substances if they proved effective. And then the second executive order we'd like to highlight is one, about promoting efficiency, accountability, and performance in federal contracting.

And this would order executive agencies to use fixed price contracts as the default for federal procurement, which would replace the cost reimbursement model, which is currently in effect. And then any contractors would need to justify and obtain approval for any amount exceeding monetary thresholds. And with that, I'll turn it back to Maria.

Thank you. So the next section, of course, is our appropriations update that we like to highlight when it come you know, of course, with where the county's request stand. At this stage, we are continuing to monitor, the senate recommendations, that is senator Siff and senator Padilla, and which of those requests they might be forwarding to the committee for consideration at the house side. The only one that we are aware of currently moving forward is that for the San Lucas clean drinking water, but it is at the $4,000,000 amount, which is the fully requested amount. So that is very encouraging.

We will continue to update and monitor as this process moves forward. Of course, of the the four bills that have already moved out of the committee in the house side, That does not include our provision for San Lucas. We will continue to follow, that committee's progress and, of course, through the chamber and update, as we have hopefully good news to share. Item c legislation. I'd like to start with the farm bill formally entitled the Farm Food and National Security Act of 2026.

The recommendation at this time is opposed unless amended. Denise Bien brought to staff's attention that this particular version of the Farm Bill, you know, could be very challenging for the county if it is enacted as written because in combination with the budget cuts and the one big beautiful bill act, also referred to as h r one, the combined effects with the farm bill of 2026, would undermine the agricultural and food systems that the legislation, seeks to protect, whereas OBBA OBBBA significantly reduced funding for programs such as SNAP under CalFresh and including the expansion of three month limit and administrative cost shifts to local jurisdictions, the Farm Bill 2026 would then lock those in place. And, unfortunately, while the Farm Bill is intended to address food scarcity in Ms. Fian's opinion and we concur, that would unfortunately not be the case, as it come pertains to the county and county residents. And based on her recommendation and the direction policies within the legislative platform, we do regretfully recommend that the county oppose it in its current form at this time and have drafted a letter for your consideration has been submitted with this packet, to, in fact, oppose unless amended on the Farm Bill of 2026.

The only other piece of legislation I'd like to bring to your attention this month is HR eighty two ten, a stronger work for America act of 2026. Supervisor Alejo, you asked us to track this particular piece of legislation, which would reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, also referred to as WIOA. The bill was referred to the committee on education and workforce as well as the committee on ways and means. The and workforce did vote to advance the bill at the April. The bill proposes to transfer the functions of the adult education family literacy act from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor, which is a significant structural change.

It also proposes to incorporate the federal AI literacy framework and incorporate AI literacy into adult education, which does differ from the 2024 version of the bill. And, again, based on your direction as well as the direction and policies within the legislative platform, we do recommend that the county adopt a watch position on this bill. I'll only observe that the the last item on the bill, as always, is a federal bill and issues track, which accounts for much of what we've discussed today. And and I'll pause, sir and ma'am, for your determination on those two pieces of legislation.

Yes. Maria, thank you so much, for for flagging the the Iowa bill reauthorization. I don't think it's one that's been reauthorized, like, in the last five years. But since I sit on our workforce development board, I thought it was important for me to at least have our county flag flag this bill. Obviously, there's some, nonstarter, provisions in there such as taking adult ed out of the Department of Education and putting it in the Department of Labor.

It seemed like, many of our congress members were not in support of that, significant change. And, obviously, we have, adult education programs in our county, and they they seem to best be continue under the Department of Education. I also wanted to just, express I do support the oppose unless amended on, the farm bill. Obviously, we were just there two, three weeks ago asking for a delay in the implementation of HR one just because of the adverse impact it's gonna have on our, department of social services, our health department, our local hospital, for all the reasons already stated. So I think that's an a in a position so that we could clearly convey to our our congress members and our senators what what what where our county stands on the farm bill.

Supervisor Daniels?

So I would, also support the, position on the farm bill and just have one question. And thank you, supervisor Lejo, for for asking the Ledge team to track this. This idea of moving the, functions of adult education and family literacy from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor, is is this understood to be part of the process of disbanding the Department of Education? Yes. That's for our lynch for sec for our lobbyists to answer.

Yes, ma'am. I don't know that it's been outwardly touted as such, but I I would anticipate that your assessment is accurate, which is that is you know, is there is a desire to disband and really shut down or at least severely limit the functions of the Department of Education. This is quietly a part of that effort, but it certainly has not been expressed that way publicly. But

Got it.

I think we're all rational humans here.

Well, thank you for drawing our attention to it, chair, and, happy to support both positions.

Great. Let's just do any any public comment on these two pieces of federal legislation? Yes. We'll start, with Norm Group. Thank you.

Thank you, supervisor Alejo and supervisor Daniels. This is the the situation with the farm bill that the ag community continues to have aggravation over where we have a farm bill that is aimed at helping agriculture and and promoting agricultural conservation programs as well as specialty crop research, which is really needed here in the Salinas Valley versus the benefit programs. And tying it all together into one bill causes all this consternation that we have now gone eight years without a farm bill, and agriculture has accordingly suffered through many different discussions and versions of this. So I respect your opinion on the benefits program, but we need a farm bill, and we need it now because agriculture economy is not doing great this year.

Thank you. Thank you for those insights, Norm. Anyone else on these bills? Anybody online? No. Alright. Thank you, though. Julie noted the the the necessity on the ag side versus the critical programs that our county, provides to our communities.

From Iowa.

Those both of those, the position on the farm bill approved as recommended, and then just to watch on the Iowa federal bill. Alright. Anything else from your team, Maria?

All set here. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Let's go to state reports. We'll we'll go into number four, state reports, and then we'll include before we go to item number five, just jump to number six since we're talking about state legislation. Ashley.

Okay. That works for me. Thanks, supervisor Alejo, supervisor Daniels. Good afternoon. The legislature, it's going to be a busy week this week, as you know. We have the May revise anticipated to come out on Thursday, this Thursday, May 14. That is also going to be the same date that the assembly and senate appropriation committees take up their suspense files. So it's gonna be a busy Thursday. We have lots of positions on bills right now that are on suspense. We will be monitoring those as we move forward and let you know which bills of ours are gonna be moving to the floor and which aren't.

Once they reach the floor, of course, they will be heard for a vote there, and then those bills are going to be passed over to the second house, and we'll start the process of policy committee hearings over again. As I noted, we are monitoring several items that are going to be discussed in the May revision. The legislature, of course, the last couple of months has been discussing and debating all of the January budget proposals and anticipating what the May revision may look like with additional revenue coming into the state that was not necessarily anticipated in the January budget proposal. That is definitely going to be shaping what the May revision and the debate into the final budget will look like. As you know, the final budget needs to be passed by the legislature by June 15.

I will just note a couple of items here underneath the state budget that are items of priority for the county or new items for consideration. The first one is our HR one budget request that the county did support with regard to CSAC and others requesting state funding to help address the impacts of HR one. Both the senate and assembly budget subcommittees held hearings to discuss HR one impacts and how they may go about addressing that. The request was for $1,900,000,000 in the upcoming fiscal year and then $4,500,000,000 in the out year to help support those, impacts. Next, we are continuing to monitor, funding for the Fort Ords Doones State Park as supervisor Daniels flagged for us.

We have not heard much news on whether or not that will be included, but we will be monitoring the May revision for that and as well as any discussion in terms of the final inactive budget. Thank you. And we will move on to item three under the budget, which is an item that was requested by supervisor Alejo to be discussed regarding AB eighteen sixty nine implementation. You may know, of course, this was a budget trailer bill passed several years ago in the 2021 fiscal year. It did repeal various criminal administrative fees, which obviously has an impact to county budgets.

At the time, the legislature appropriated an additional an additional backfill of $65,000,000 in the general fund from fiscal years 2122 until the current fiscal year, but, obviously, that runs out. That was to help backfill those revenues lost from the repeal of these fees. So, supervisor Alejo, I know you wanted this to be discussed, and we're happy to help discuss advocacy efforts around this issue.

Yes. Actually, on this item, I just thought, you know, with the Probation Officers Association that they might they might have been doing more to try to have this addressed within the budget, but, I'm not hearing much on this. So I I thought from the time I requested it till now, whether you have seen any efforts from them to try to get additional funding. I think our probation office is having to cut one or two positions because that's how that's what funded this. And with that, they're looking at making those reductions. But I thought if if there's gonna be, any advocacy in Sacramento on this, I thought we'd be seeing it from our probation office departments from throughout the state. But maybe I'm I'm mistaken.

No. I I have not seen, a statewide effort at this point to, request funds for the backfill, but we can continue to monitor that as we move into May revision this week and the final enacted budget and see if there is a concerted effort to do so.

Okay.

Finally, we were requested to consider signing on to a Central Coast coalition letter. That letter is attached in your packet. It's a $3,000,000 budget allocation for the Central Coast Community Resilience Hub Accelerator. I just wanted to bring that forward to see if the legislative committee would like to sign on to that request, and that's in your packet for consideration.

Actually, can you repeat who who, who requested this from us?

Sure. It's the Central Coast Community Resilience Hub. They requested this for their accelerator project. The proposal as included in the packet, it provides technical assistance for resilience hub projects. Those projects are in community centers or schools or other community facilities to help get them into implementation. There's community based organizations, and there's local jurisdictions that are deploying these hubs, and they are asking for $3,000,000 in the state budget to get these hubs moving into implementation.

And have they they received any support letters from any other counties on the on the Central Coast?

I think they have. Let me double check because within their packet that they sent, I do think that they included another some other Central Coast support, but let me just double check. One moment.

And supervised dinosaurs, have you heard of them? I I'm not

No. It's first time I've heard of them.

Yeah. I'm looking at the, let me just see. I'm unmuted. Right? Yes. I'm looking at the letter, and all I see is the is the draft letter that has been included. Was it someone from Monterey County that was asking for this, or is it coming from from from Sacramento to Monterey County, this request?

It's coming from the organization that is requesting the funding. It is not coming from

Sacramento. So which organization is that? That's the question I have. I'm just missing the name on the letter of of who Central Coast Community Resilience Hub Accelerator is not an entity I'm familiar with. That's why I'm just trying to understand who the request is.

That's right. Me too.

Yeah. No problem, supervisor Daniels. I'm just pulling this up so I make sure I get their name accurate because their request had a couple of things attached to it. So they are okay. So the city of Santa Cruz did I just confirmed. City of Santa Cruz did submit a letter supporting this. The actual request came from Ecological Action, and it was forwarded over by Cora, your sustainability program manager.

The Central Coast Reset.

And the the person specifically was Kristen Liske. It says collective impact catalyst. She is, a senior director regional climate leadership.

And I assume we don't have anybody from that organization online. Otherwise, they'd be raising their hand at this point. Yeah.

I'm not sure.

I I I'd hate to, like, you know, support something that I've I've never heard of, and I don't know how it works either. Right? And I know that they're coming to us at the eleventh hour because there's a month left to try to get anything in in a bud main budget bill or perhaps more time if it's in a budget trailer bill, but I just never heard of them, and I don't know what this would actually do. What what jurisdiction, how what how many counties are included, what other counties be have are supporting something like this. And, usually, somebody from the organization would have reached out to some of the supervisors.

Is Cora available by any chance? And on

Cora is not on the call right now. What I can say is that they have listed some organizations that are supporting the effort, including UCSC k. Ecological Action, and I've mentioned City of Santa Cruz, San Benito Office of Emergency Services. It doesn't look like any any of the other Central Coast Counties have taken a position from the information that was sent to us. I will just note, I think it's also very reasonable that the county consider that we do have our own state budget requests that

we are

working on that we need that are prioritized. So although when we get these requests, we like to bring them forward, of course

Mhmm.

Out of respect and consideration to these organizations that are doing wonderful work in the community. And then we also need to consider our own, our own request that we're moving forward.

Exactly, Ashley. Because we we only have, like, so much political capital. And if we're if we we we provide a support letter for something like this, it's like they're they're getting, like, in front of the other things that we're asking for, which are already limited, strategically. Right? So I I I'd be hesitant to, at this point in time and without

Supervisor? Cora just joined the team.

Cora, you wanna add more info on this?

I'll need someone to repeat the question for me, supervise.

This was on this, proposed, request we received to regarding supporting a budget ask for the Central Coast Community Resilience Hub Accelerator, whether you had any additional information on the organization and what these hubs do or supposed to do.

And is this a proposal coming from Ambag?

We don't know where it's coming. Yeah.

This proposal came from Ecological Action, and I know it was sent over, to the county. And so we are considering that today,

but it was from Chris Ecology action or ecological action?

Right. Thanks, Ashley. So that's from Ecology Action. I'm I'm all caught up now. So this program, the Central Coast Community Residence Hubs Accelerator is also known as the charm project.

This has come up in a number of different meetings and conversations, including the regional climate project working group. So the idea behind the charm study is looking at implementation and also planning. So what they're hoping to do is look across the Tri County area and pick sites that are publicly trusted by community members and then upgrade them so that they're able to provide essential services during power outages, natural disaster, and also provide blue sky programming. And this is specifically related to transportation programming. That's where ecology action comes into play with this.

So this is in support of the last study that the sustainability program worked on, the zero emission shared mobility study. So it is generally in line with the priorities that the board has discussed so far this year.

And, do you have any background? Because we heard only Santa Cruz city of Santa Cruz supported. What other counties are, supporting this? It seems like they're making a budget request both that for the Central Coast, but without having their counties on board.

So I have talked to staff from the counties of, Santa Cruz, San Benito, the cities of Santa Cruz, Salinas, and, Watsonville so far on this. And generally staff are supportive. I don't know any formal actions from legislative committees or boards at this time, but I can check on that for you.

Alright. Superintendent Daniels, what do think on this?

Well okay. So so what the ask would accomplish is that it's if I'm reading this letter correctly, this would be a mechanism for ensuring that the Central Coast gets a more equitable share of CCI funding. Is that what happens here? Somehow, this bill would allow for, or this budget request, I'm sorry, would allow for us to have more access as a region to climate investment funding? Is that what would happen?

I mean, I I'd like Cora's feedback more

on the team. Cora. Sorry. No, Ash. Yeah. I'm so sorry. That's for Cora.

Yeah. So that that is the idea supervisor. So, historically, the Central Coast has not had its fair share of CCI investment is what this group is saying. So they are trying to position the Central Coast so that we can more easily access these dollars. There's a number of facilities that we have an interest in upgrading to serve as these resilience hubs and centers and getting that prework done and going through the capital improvement process is a really difficult task without receiving that funding. So this group is coming together to try and make that happen through this bookmark.

So, Cora, what we had talked about before you got on here is just a concern about spreading ourselves too thin in terms of all of the different budget asks that we have out there as a county. But I do think that if this is something that would strengthen our ability and our capacity to access funding that's already allocated, supervisor Alejo, I think I think we're safe on that front in terms of our concern of spreading ourselves too thin. So I think it's it's more of a mechanism to better position ourselves as a region. And so in that regard, I think the letter should be okay.

That's my understanding of the situation, supervisor Daniels.

I do wanna be clear, though, that this is still a state budget request. So even though we're positioning ourselves for funding that is available, we are we would still be asking for $3,000,000 in the 2026 fiscal year to do so. So it's just it's just a consideration for you all in terms of priorities.

Okay. That makes sense, Ashley. Let me ask you. This is a regional ask, though. It's $3,000,000 with Santa Cruz and what other regions?

Well, as far as I know, I think the city of Santa Cruz is the only other local government that has signed on to support this effort.

Is there time for this to come back next month?

No. I wouldn't say so because But we're in May.

Never mind. There is no time. I can't sorry. I can't believe it's May. Okay.

This request did just come in after the last LC meeting prior to this meeting. Otherwise, we, of course, would have brought it earlier for discussion. So, we we brought it to the next LC meeting that we had.

Well, chair, you're the chair. What do you think?

Yeah. I'm I'm I'm not inclined to to, support it. If they had come back with the fact sheet with the other counties, it would be a more serious ask. Right? And it just doesn't seem without the the official support of the counties, it's, claiming to wanna help. Doesn't seem like it's a serious serious ask. And, yeah, strategically, I'd rather focus on the the things that we have been working already on as a county.

That's fine with me, chair.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you for your input on that. I appreciate the discussion, and thank you, Cora, for hopping on to provide some additional context for the supervisors. Let's go to item c, legislation. There are six bills for consideration with positions. All of these have been brought forward by county departments or supervisors. I'm gonna walk through each of them to discuss what they do and the suggested position. And then if you'd like to pull any of them for discussion, we're happy to do that. Our first bill, a b 13 I'm sorry. Sixteen thirty eight by assembly member Taw.

This bill provides a statement to counties that have a US military base to

be

able to fund a county veteran services officer at each base. I will note that, obviously, there would be a cost implication to the state. This bill is on the suspense file right now. Your county department of military and veterans affairs did bring this forward for a support position. Item two under legislation, a b twenty ninety nine by assembly member Gonzales.

This bill, we were asked to oppose this bill by Humboldt County. Other counties do have similar concerns. The main concern about this bill is that it reclassifies structural billboard work, removing permit requirements, and eliminating some of the local oversight we have on those billboard work items. The main concern outlined in the opposed letter that you'll see is a loss of tax revenue, but there are other items including conflicts with CEQUA, the loss of local enforcement authority, etcetera. So we have been asked to oppose a b twenty ninety nine.

Item three is a b twenty two zero three by assembly member Tangeepa. This bill is interesting because there are lots of bills that have requested priority enrollment for students at CSU and community college districts and UCs. And this would give priority enrollment to students that are receiving fee waivers or using federal GI bill benefits starting with the twenty twenty eight, twenty nine academic year. So we have been asked by your military and veterans affairs department to take a support position on that bill. Item number four is s b

10 And

will we speak about correction on the name on the title of the author. Just needs a missing an n on the last name.

Oh, that's right.

Yep.

Thank you. Senator Laird's staff presented this bill when in their opening statements, so we do appreciate that. We have brought it forward this month for a support position to help support the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency. So we have a support position recommended on that bill, and item five s b thirteen twenty seven by senator Reyes. There are several counties opposed to this bill as well.

This was brought forward by your agricultural commissioner. And the main concerns here, are that they're they're moving the oversight of electric vehicles for agriculture purposes from the ag department to the California Energy Commission. And there are many concerns from the, agriculture community in doing so, but in particular, it's really that CDFA understands how ag works, and they have a very good partnership with counties working with local governments on these environmental impacts of EV infrastructure and deployment of EV infrastructure. So not only do the statewide organization for the county ag commissioners oppose this bill, but also several counties are opposing this bill. So we've been asked to take an opposed position by your ag commissioner.

And then finally, s b 14 o seven by senator Archuleta. Archuleta. We have supported bills that are similar in the past. Your military and veterans affairs department did request a support position on this that expands personal income tax exclusions for military retirement pay and for survivor pay plans by raising that eligible income cap from 20,000 to 80,000 for the taxable year through 2037. We have, again, supported similar personal income tax law exclusions and survivor benefit paid legislation in the past.

So we have a suggested support position on that piece of legislation. That concludes all of the six bills, but happy to discuss any of them that you may have questions about.

Supervisor Daniels, any questions on the bills?

No, chair. I'm in support of all the recommendations

and

recommended positions.

So am I, including the one on helping Pajaro to be able to use, procurement methods such as design build and other options procurement options that would speed up the construction process and, make perhaps use, methods that are more efficient and cost saving. So they just didn't have the authority to be able to as an agency to be able to do that. So let's let's hear from the public on any of these items, any of these bills, including, the Central Coast Community Resilience Hub and any legislation?

I've seen them online.

Nobody in chambers, nobody online. We'll deem those, those positions approved on the legislation, by consensus.

Great. Thank you so much. We then item d just have all of the governor's actions and executive orders that have taken place since we last met. There are several. If you have any questions about those, we're happy to, pull that and discuss any of those items. And then we finally have item e, our state bill and issues track attached. We've added all of the bills that we've taken positions on, but also other issues that we've taken positions on that don't fall into a piece of legislation. So we will add any additional items to that for our next meeting, and that concludes the state report.

Alright. Any comments from the public on four subsections d and e, government actions and executive orders, and state bill issues track? Seeing none? Okay. We're done with that item. We're gonna jump to item number six since we're talking about state legislation, and then we'll go into the proposed, or the pending assembly bill fifteen forty eight, which is the Monterey Bay Stewardship Authority Act.

And so just to be clear, sorry to be regular, we're Alejo, we're gonna go to item six. Right?

Yes.

Correct. Great.

Item six is going to be presented by Nicole Hollingsworth, so I'll hand that over to her, but I'm here to support the presentation and chime in when appropriate. Okay.

Alright.

Hi, everybody. Sorry I'm sorry I'm not there in person. I'm still a little under the weather. I'll try to be as quick as possible. So this is coming back to you. You saw this two legislative committees ago. This is the effort, by assembly member Gail Pelerin to carry legislation to create the Monterey Bay Area Stewardship Authority. So legislation has now been introduced. Last time we met, we hadn't seen the legislation as a committee. So now I'm bringing this back to you with the legislation to establish the the Monterey Bay Area Stewardship Authority.

And so just as a reminder, this authority is meant to create a durable regional framework for securing and allocating resources such as open space to protect natural and working lands, strengthen climate resilience, and support the well-being of local communities. So in the memo, you'll see I outlined we have been meeting with several, several stakeholders on this, many different groups. Pretty much your entire CEO staff has been involved in these meetings. But just to reiterate, this this is a big, local bill that would create basically a new local governance structure between our three tri counties. Let's see what else.

You could go through I outlined some of the issues that we're having, in terms of discussions with the author of the bill. There's been some pushback, particularly on governance. We do have some issues with debt issuance as well. And then I also wanna point out to you, I included in this in your packet, the assembly appropriations analysis, the assembly local government committee analysis. I think this was per your request, supervisor Alejo, that I include committee analysis in this.

And then we also had, KNN, who are our consultants, take a look at this very quickly, very draft, very high level. They do recommend that if this bill moves forward and we continue to move forward with this, that they they take a closer look at that it's interest especially in terms of bond issuance debt issuance and just a further analysis this is a very very brief analysis they wanted me to make that very clear So at this point, I do also wanna note Ashley and Jack have been very involved in this process, and they've been involved in all these meetings. Cora has been involved in these meetings as well, so I would welcome any comments from them as well. At this point, since we're not making much traction in terms of amendments to the bill, and we are the biggest county of this bill, we're we're recommending an oppose in a less amended position at this point. And I know that's a tough one, so I'll I'll just stop there and let let you guys talk.

Yeah. If you don't if

you don't mind, can I just chime in really quick?

Please. Okay.

Thank you. Here's what I I'd like to say about this bill is that this bill is highly technical if we're gonna do this. Right? And there's lots of pieces of of how this structure could work and potentially unintended consequences that we're really trying to dive deep on now so that later we're not having to fix unintended consequences. So we're trying to anticipate these debt issuance and finance issues, the governance structure issues, the eligible land definitions, and what we found and and, I'm sorry, in agricultural considerations as well.

What we found is that we have met countless times with the stakeholders and entities that would be impacted by the bill with assembly member Pelerin's office and her staff, with the sponsors to try to work out some of these detailed issues. And I don't believe that we're getting traction on solutions to some of these outstanding issues. And so what I'll just say is that the oppose unless amended recommendation is really coming out of an effort to start gaining traction on the outstanding issues, that are not being addressed without some sort of push to address them. So while we did not want to necessarily have to go this route because we have we we will acknowledge that assembly member Kellerman's office has been absolutely working hard to communicate with us, set multiple meetings, meet with us whenever we want, we're really not getting to the core issues of changing the language in ways that would alleviate some of our concerns, and we're getting later into session. And so I do think that there needs to be some traction, some way in actually addressing these issues so that there are not unintended consequences and so that we can utilize this as a tool that is beneficial beneficial for the county and all the counties involved.

So that's just what I'll say.

Great. And we'll we'll gonna open up for questions from Supervisor Daniels and myself first. And and if the the representative for the trust of public lands, the bill sponsor trust for public land, the bill sponsor, if they wanna comment, and then we could, take questions from the public comments and questions from the public. But, I the questions I have, for Nicole and Ashley were several. One, I and this bill oh, Moises, is here in person? Great. He's right. Alright. There's I I this has been talked about for the last three years. I think when Moises reached out initially on this, and I know some of the legislators were asking, hey.

You gotta circle in with more of the local government, get, and local stakeholders. But, so I had several still concerns ongoing concerns. One was, regarding this new agency, its goals, that wouldn't conflict with our housing element goals. Right? It's already a very difficult process.

I think we we're going back and forth with HCD, I think, our third or fourth time. I wanna make sure that the the goals of this entity wouldn't, down the road, conflict with local government's goal, to carry out the housing element, which is already very difficult to do. So that was one. Number two was the governance. Right?

Our as it was pointed out, our county geographically and by population is much bigger than the other two counties combined, Santa Cruz and San Benito. And I had just raised with the the staff of the trust for public land that that we thought it was important to when big decisions get made, that there at least be an option to have a weighted vote just like transportation agency in Monterey County does. It's rarely gets used. But if there is or ever is a necessity for it, on an issue, it would give that weighted vote to the county that actually has much more population and is much larger geographically. That was the second one.

The third was just on these these very technical issues upon around bond indebtedness, looking at that K and N memo, and also making sure that it's not gonna conflict with the county's ability or the or the county's credit ratings in, in in, in perhaps boning for its own needs down the road. And we know that the county's facing serious financial hardships in the years ahead. And so we just gotta always think through all those unintended consequences that may make the county's ability more difficult down the road. And I know that there's a lot of controversy around this. My initial take when the the team of the the Trust.

Trust for Public Lands, for Public Land reached out years ago, it seemed like a really worthy concept. Obviously, looking at what how one of these worked in the San Francisco Bay Area and being able to draw down, tens of millions of dollars from the some of the state bonds seem to make sense that it would be beneficial resource wise to have, an ability to draw down more state dollars. But at the same time, I think there are these serious concerns that have been out there, and this is a time where we're trying to get them addressed. And I it seems like we're not making, all the progress as the bill has already moved out of two policy committees. It's in the assembly appropriations committee at this point in time, and it will soon jump to the senate if it if it gets out of, assembly appropes.

So, Ashley, could you just talk addressing you those three points that I have, and then we'll jump to supervisor.

Yes. I can't speak to the housing element issue, supervisor Alejo, because that has not come up, in in our discussions that I recall. If there's someone on the Yeah. I could speak

to that. It it has come up. It's a very big, contention point for Sonia in particular. I believe they they tried to address that in the bill. They don't believe it's an issue in the bill, but we haven't seen really any explicit language that would make us feel comfortable with that.

Okay. Thanks, Nicole. On the governance issue, absolutely, we have been advocating for the option for a weighted vote. That is something that has been utilized by many other entities that are formed in a similar structure and way. So we don't think that it is unreasonable to ask that considering that's pretty standard practice for other entities that operate in similar, capacity.

And then on the debt issuance, yes, there that that is why we asked K and N to initially go through and look at the language of the bill and make suggestions, in terms of other financing options that could be considered to give that the JPA tools. But I do think that KNN needs to do a more deep dive, as Nicole noted, into the potential implications. But this is has been a main point of concern that we've discussed with, the sponsor and author's office and other counties.

Alright. We're we're gonna go to supervisor Daniels' questions, and then that way you can hear the questions, Moses, and you can answer them, when you could just speak on the bill. Supervisor Daniels.

Sure. Thank you so much. So a couple questions I'll just start with. Let's start with the KNN analysis. Is it possible that the analysis was done with a earlier version of the bill? Because from what I understand, the language in the bill, the most recent version, and I don't have the date. It was an April version, releases the county of the indebtedness that is identified in KNN's analysis. So can we confirm that it was the correct version of the bill that was analyzed?

I will confirm that, but I believe it was. But I will

Well, it doesn't make sense. And so when I when I look at what I under how I understand the bill's provisions as it relates to debt, and this is an agency that's not going to issue debt, and it's not gonna undertake capital projects. And so I think that it would be worth it when returning back to KNN is to try to understand whether or not we're reacting to assumptions about the authority rather than actual the actual structure as it is articulated in the bill. So if we could do that, that would be super helpful. In regards to the housing element goals, I'm not sure I'm understanding that conflict.

Extremely familiar with the housing element having worked for a very long time on it, both at the planning commission and at the board, and it is built around policies and sites that have been identified and programs for building housing, and I I don't understand how this authority would impact or conflict with the housing element. So what I'm hoping is we're gonna come back at some point to the whole board since supervisor Alejo and I might not be on the on the same. We might not agree on on on on the way forward in terms of what is being recommended as a staff position today. I would like to see this just go to the full board, but I'd really like to understand better the CAO office's concerns about the housing element, because I don't see how our programs and, our sites and our policies that are, surrounding housing development would be in conflict with this authority.

Supervisor Daniel's happy to take those questions and talk with you offline about that.

Okay. And if we can move this to the full board, I'd I'd like to make sure that's super clear. And then in regards to governance question well, ag. Let's start with ag too. I mean, I think that the request that came in from from from the AAC and their concerns re regarding agricultural representation makes perfect sense.

And then I'm sure all of the other and all of the other concerns that were addressed can be addressed. But, guess what my bigger concern is is that I see this authority as an opportunity. And, and I don't wanna lose that opportunity. Whether it's for our working lands or whether it's for, our natural resources, I think we all agree that the Monterey Bay Area is special. And what I see the creation of this authority as is it's the opportunity to send a message sorry.

That's my mother. I'm sorry. It's the opportunity to send a message to to the state that says, you know, you know this region matters. We know this region matters. It's of statewide importance, and it deserves investment.

And so where we get bogged down in questions about governance and and questions about well, I'm not concerned about the indebtedness questions. I think we'll see that when we analyze the most recent version of the bill. You know, this is, as I understand it, a a grant making authority to put grant dollars back into our community. And so, you know, as a region, if that's San Benito County, Monterey County, and Santa Cruz County, I think that, you know, this type of agency in its in its structure ensures that we, as Monterey County, get our fair share, not not not by concentrating power on the board, but by requiring we all work together. We take this money in.

The money then covers these administrative costs, and then it puts the dollars back into the community. And I think you see from from from the the agency that we formed this around, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, they have received, you know, millions of dollars from state and federal sources that we don't have access to. We never, at this point, are a line item in the budget without forming an agency like this. And so I'm a little concerned that last time this came up, we hadn't sent any amendments. And I'm not sure from what I just heard, have we I guess this is a question.

Have we ever, as a county, sent written amendments to the author?

Yes. We have, supervisor Daniels, and we've met with the author and the chief of staff several times, who I believe is on this call today too.

So the county itself has drafted amendments to the bill and submitted them much in the way that the other counties have.

Right. And we're also working on another letter now that we've seen some more committee analysis. This is all moving really fast in the last, like, couple weeks. So now that we've seen some further committee analysis, now that we have the report from K and N, we do plan on putting together another letter that's at the end of this report here.

Okay. So my request then would be, since this is a big decision by our county and it's an opportunity that I truly don't wanna see lost today in in sending an opposed letter unless amended, I'd like to see this go to the full board and and and for a decision. And, when we do, those items that I discussed, please have KNN make sure it's the most recent version. I really don't understand this agency to be one that would be issuing debt. I don't understand this agency to be one that would be taking on capital projects.

And so I I don't share the concern that the county will be responsible for carrying debt, and, therefore, I don't understand the the the the concerns that are highlighted in the staff report. I think that there is an opportunity to work with ag, and that should be part of the amendments. And then ag can be part of this and also receive the benefits upon the successful creation of MMBASA, and those could be, you know, all sorts of groundwater recharge projects in the future, water quality improvement projects in the future, whatever it is. I mean, we want everyone to be the beneficiary of what I believe will be a successful stand alone public agency. So, and then I would love to also have just more more more an up an understanding of the governance structure.

And if we have amendments, I'd obviously like to to get those sent right away. So I think, I think that this should come to the board as soon as possible. Thank you.

Great. And we always we always send a bill where there's not agreement among the this committee's members. We always send it to the advance it to the full board for a decision. So that's nothing strange. So we we if we don't, come to agreement, all we do is make a recommendation is on on these bills that that don't fit into our legislative platform. Platform. And so if there is not agreement, then it goes to the full board for decision. Excellent. But I'll I'll I'll let, Moises speak to these. But the but the housing element was something I brought up three years ago, and and the the there is potential for conflicts.

Right? If if if you're taking lands and putting them into con conservation, that that might be lands that are in our housing element for future housing, but then those lands are taken out and put into conservation, then it there's a easy I could easily see a conflict, down the road. And and that's why you have ag land trust because they wanna take certain prime agricultural lands out of potential any potential, future development. On the the governance, I think there's an easy way to get there because we have other models just to ensure that there's equity, and fairness for a county of our size. If we're not looking after our own governance ability, then then nobody else is gonna speak up for us.

And and when we're crafting up a a new agency, this is a time to be able to address it. And and it shouldn't be controversial because we we are familiar with models that that do this already. But bonded deadness, I hope that Moises could could, address that because there is a real possibility. Right? The San Francisco agency went to the voters, and the voters passed it.

So if you could just elaborate on the bonded deadness, it requires going to the voters. If you wanna take up millions or tens of millions of dollars, it have to and it's addressed in that KNN memo that, there's I think it's a two thirds threshold, so it's a high bar. And then the questions there were, does it require two thirds of all the people, or does each county in such a scenario would need to pass it by two thirds in San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Monterrey? And how likely would a new agency take an take an issue proposal to the voters? Because it's not all gonna be grant money.

Right? The San Francisco model worked because they did get a measure passed. They also got, bond money from the coastal conservancy and other, state agencies. So So if you could just explain how would that scenario work out under this proposed legislation.

So Supervisor, before I speak, however, the member's chief of staff is on.

That's that's that's a proper protocol. So

So I would

prefer Yeah. Gail Pelarend's chief of staff, if you could introduce yourself, and then we'll give you some minutes to, speak on the bill and maybe address these questions that we raised too.

Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Tomas Adoinas, chief of staff to semi member Pelarend and lead staff around AB 1548. I I think we're sorry. We really see this bill as supervisor Daniels mentioned, an opportunity to bring in dollars to this region.

We feel that when it comes to issues of land conservation and preservation, we are often overlooked and overshadowed by both the San Francisco Bay Area and by and by Los Angeles. And so having spent a year doing a number of different outreaches across all three counties, the assembly member had had shared if there was not interest on a local level to pursue something like this, she was not going to author the bill. And we, again, spent a whole a year talking to as many folks as we could, had a working group to chime in on language, and there was interest. And so we decided to move forward with with the bill. Our office has actively engaged with or has attempted to engage with all three counties.

We've asked for for feedback. We've asked for language. And if something was sent to me by the county where it was actual amendments and I I missed that, I would really love to get that email resend because I don't have anything so far in in my inbox. Most of my conversations with the county have been positive, but it's been we have to take it back to the board. We don't have an official position.

I was aware that there was going to be an outreach to an outside entity regarding bond indebtedness. We've since have added some language there, but, you know, I'm constantly just if if what we're working on isn't the right the right version or the right path, like, I'm I'm very much welcoming of amendments. And my understanding is that all three counties are meeting later later this month. And then from that meeting, I'm supposed to be getting some additional direction or amendments that all three counties may be in alignment with. But there's been conversations, again, that have been had among all three counties.

I just don't recall getting actual amendments from the county. But, again, if I missed it, that that is on me, and I would, you know, just ask if somebody can maybe just resend that over to me so that I can review. Because to, again, the to extent that we can be, you know, responsive to

the needs

of all the counties, we'd we'd love to be able to do that.

Absolutely. And, Tomasse, now that we've seen the committee analysis, you will have a draft letter. You should have that by the end of the week from us.

We're

we're almost done with our letter of amendments.

Right. But to the to to the point that was brought up earlier that amendments have been previously shared to the to with the author's office, I just wanna clarify that. I'll be I'll be receiving them. They just haven't been sent to to me yet.

Right. They've been expressed in meetings several times.

Yeah. And I know I expressed them to the sponsors several times, in writing and verbally over the last three years. Yes. Moises, you wanna speak? And then then we'll see if we'll have questions for both of you.

Of course. And thank you for the opportunity to be here in person and to be able to speak to you. I'm pleased to share, right, that the there's three recent developments since we last met, and I'll get to your your question, supervisor. Yeah. On April 14, San Juanita board of supervisors voted unanimously in support of a b fifteen forty eight. And on Friday, this California legislative Central Coast caucus submitted a letter of support to the appropriations committee. I'm happy to share a copy of that letter to, with the committee as well.

We passed Central Coast Caucus is the legislators? Yes. Okay.

All yes. That's correct.

Just for those that don't know.

Yeah. Oh oh, thank you. Yes.

And Don Addis is the chair, of it. Right?

Yes. That's correct. And we passed the local government and natural resources committee, and we'll we're awaiting the response from, appropriations on May 14. A few points of clarification from the analysis presented today. Intent language was introduced on January 7.

The legislation was amended on March 9. It was then amended again on April 6 and amended again on April 15. The language was out before we last, connected with you all. So the language had been out a month before we were here a month ago, just to clarify for that. AB fifteen forty eight establishes the Monterey Bay Area Stewardship Authority through enabling legislation.

The authority has the ability to enter a a JPA, but it itself is not a JPA. That distinction matters on how governance, liability, and facing, financing provisions are understood. I there was language on the analysis that, conflated both. Second, the analysis from KNN, includes recommendations on language that was never introduced in any version of a b fifteen forty eight, whether it was January 7, March 9, April 6, or April 15. We wanna make sure that's on the record.

I also wanted to clarify that on the analysis, it states that urban forestry is is prohibited. I wanna state that the definition that is in the in the legislation on natural lands is an umbrella term that is coded in government, and natural lands means lands consisting of forests, grasslands, deserts, freshwater and riparian systems, wetlands and coastal, estuarine areas, watersheds, wildlands, or wildlife habitat, lands used for recreation purposes such as parks, urban and community forests, trails, green belts, and other similar open space land. And for purposes of that paragraph, parks includes, but is not limited to areas to provide public green space. So, you know, for for clarity. The legislation was informed by broad regional process.

Right? There was a work group, as Tomasa mentioned, that included the three RCDs as well as science institutions like the Central Coast Wetlands Group working on water quality and other regulatory challenges facing agriculture. The that work was never meant to be the end of the conversation. Engagement with local governments and other interested parties is exactly where we are now. The amendment window is open through early August twenty twenty six, and we're here because we welcome your involvement.

Now on the questions on there's things that were raised to us that we've been able to address. So in the initial conversation provided by actually, the the language provided to us by Santa Cruz County based on conversations that we had with Monterrey and Sabanito, we were able to address some of the concerns. A concern that was brought up to us was making sure that each public seat, that each county always kept a public seat, and we were able to add, amendment language to ensure that each county, there was always regional representation and that each county kept a public seat. There was also, concerns to us that on the housing element. So, they provided language to us.

So if you'll you'll see the latest version of the bill, making it clear that there is it is the intent of the legislature that this will not compete with the housing element. Right. So there's language in there. And, actually, committee staff helped helped, with that language. Alright.

And then on the bonded indebtedness piece, supervisors, there is now language to reflect that any debts accrued by the authority are not a liability to a county or We heard that loud and clear, and that has been since amendment amended in the legislation. As you heard from Tomasa, the member's office welcomes language from local governments. If I too have been involved in many of those emails, I too have not received written language from the staff. However, I have engaged in conversations, and based on those conversations, we were able to make such amendments. Though, we do welcome, you know, additional amendments, and we do welcome for this to be a a continuous conversation.

Right? So the county staff have informed us that they're gonna meet on May 18, and there there's continue to be coordination, and we look forward to the written recommendations. We're also actively engaging with cities across the region, and we'll be following up with them directly. And we look for, forward to learning more from the appropriations process on May 14.

Great. And what about the governance about what potential for weighted vote?

Yeah. Of course. So that's the ongoing conversation. That's the only pending item, supervisor, from the major areas of concern that is still an ongoing process. That's part of why we still wanna continue engaging with the county. On the other elements, if we see what's on the legislation itself on the April 15 version, on CalEdge, you'll be able to see those amendments reflected, as I just stated today.

Yeah. And I and I'm reading the language on the housing element. It's clear now on the bill. It is intent of the legislature that the Monterey Bay Stewardship Authority activities complement and not conflict with local housing elements adopted pursuant to the the article and support a balanced approach that sustains working in natural lands while recognizing the importance of meeting state and local housing obligations. That's correct. So great. I appreciate that. Yeah. Of course. Okay. Any questions for Moises or Tomasa, supervisor Daniels? Then we'll go to public comment.

No public. But I do see that mister Chulos has had his hand up. Okay. Just wanna make sure you saw that. Mister Chulos. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you, supervisor. Thank you, mister chairman. I wanted to clarify one thing very briefly. We've had several different meetings with Tomasa and the the assembly member staff as well as Santa Cruz County and San Benito County staffs. And I believe we did send some specific language on sustainability to the assembly member's office.

However, we withheld any specific amendment language from our end because we felt that as the staff, there were too many issues at the time that needed to be vetted through the legislative committee and really through the full board of supervisors. So we we have told Tomas, I think, a couple of different times, I'm I'm sure she would remember this, that we felt that the elected officials really needed to weigh in on this bill before we offered any type of amendments at the staff level. I hope that's clear. And that's really where this is, you know, needs to head from a procedural standpoint. Your committee is going to review this today.

You may or may not not make recommendations to the full board. We will take this to the full board as soon as we can, but I think only then can we really put whatever the board's decision and direction is into into writing. I hope that's clear.

Okay. Yes. Superintendent Daniels?

So it's clear to me, and, I mean, I know we're gonna have public comment, but it would be helpful if then when the staff report goes to the full board, it includes the updates that we heard

Yes.

Today. That would be very helpful. Thank you.

Right. And where we still have outstanding issues from the staff's point of view, because they're they're they're at the point we're asking, well, what are those? Put them in writing, and then they could vet those with the committee staff as it moves, out of the Appropriations. Assembly appropriations, which I don't think usually, bills like this, district bills don't have Mhmm. They don't have a significant cost to the state, and their district bills, they usually end end up moving and jumping to their house.

It gets already out of probes.

Oh, even we have more so then then it's going to the senate. But this is a time to give the the assembly member Pellerin's staff what we're asking for so that, hopefully, all three counties could have their issues addressed. And so superbly Has Santa Cruz County yet taken a position?

They have not taken a position. However, we are still engaging with Santa Cruz.

They still have their issues that they're wanting to work out as well. Okay.

And is it bill is on the bill is on suspense, just to be clear where the bill is. It's still on suspense in the assembly.

May 14, we'll find out. It'll likely, be released perhaps with amendments, perhaps not out of committee.

I believe the chief of staff had her hand up. I don't know

if you want. Tomasa, do you wanna say something before

you go to post office? Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that, to what Ashley just said, the bill is currently on suspense. Appropriations committee, for whatever reason and their analysis, deemed that this would have some sort of state, impact. We have argued against it, as has, Chesapeake Public Land. So we shall see if committee agrees with us on Thursday.

Alright. Okay. We might come back to you, Moises. So let's go to comments from the public. We'll start with those in our chambers, and we have our executive director of our Monterey County Farm Bureau.

Thank you, supervisor Alejo, supervisor Daniels, and staff, Norm Groot from Farm Bureau Monterey. And I'm gonna start by saying that we've been involved in this process from the beginning prior to the language even being introduced. Our Farm Bureau and Santa Cruz Farm Bureau have been integrated involved in a number of of aspects of this and have made substantial comments to the author requesting either amendments or clarifications on the languages we've gone through. At this point, our Farm Bureau has not taken a formal position on this, and we are waiting to hear how this moves through the process before we determine that. But we do have, at this point, some concerns.

We've expressed those to the author's office and have gotten some answers back. I think what the ag advisory committee discussed in their lengthy discussion about this bill and the provisions of the bill warrant some answers that need to be forthcoming. But more importantly, I think if this bill intends to offer conservation to working lands, meaning agriculture, there needs to be better representation both on the governance board and the advisory committee. In fact, the advisory committee has five different categories of individuals who will serve, and not once does it mention a farmer. So I think it's critically important that if this is going to work on conservation of working lands, we need to have that representation and needs to be clear that agriculture can be included there.

We also have some concerns about how the balance of those different five interests will weigh on the advisory committee appointments and whether or not that will remain balanced over time given how advisory committees rotate individuals in and out of the process. We also expressed a lot of concern about not only the grant funding, but what that means for land ownership and how that would work with land trusts or others who would be granted funds to either conserve, but beyond that, own the lands outright. And so I think that needs to be clear. We did bring up the issue of eminent domain, and that I think has been cleared up at this point. So we don't have that problem there anymore, but I think we still have some concerns over how the terminology of land ownership is going to be, worked through that.

So overall, you know, there's a lot of good intentions here and a lot of good things could come out of this, and the devil is in the details. So we've gotta get it right, and we've gotta do it so that it balance everything, through not only agriculture, but housing and our the rest of our economy too. And we've gotta understand fully too that if there is some sort of provision that takes a a two eighteen vote out to the public, how that impacts agricultural lands will be critically important, especially in an economy right now where we are facing a lot of different things in agriculture, not only implementation of Sigma and projects that could cost us a billion dollars, but others too related to water quality, air quality, and other mandates that are coming down on agriculture this year. So I think we need to be very careful about how we're approaching a situation where we're continuously loading onto landowners and farm operations when the costs just don't come out in the bottom line all the time. So thank you for the time.

Appreciate your consideration, but I do think we all need to work through these these concerns and considerations together. Thank you. Great.

Thank you, Norm. And are your comments something that I know you sent them to the author's office, but are those something you could share with the county staff?

I can. Okay. I've already connected

with Nicole.

I've already connected with Nicole. I'll send her more.

Just just so we can know what those concerns are as well. So Sure. We're we're kinda understanding the the concerns coming from stakeholders within our county.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Anyone online? Okay. So, Michel, I'm gonna go back to you. On the ballot, a potential bond indebtedness Mhmm. What's the process for doing that? Is it a ballot measure, or is it a two eighteen vote to property owners? And what's what's the threshold for something like that passing? And, also, whether any measure would need to pass by two thirds in each respective county.

Yeah. So, currently, the analysis, again, it's based on a version that's not online. The what we currently have with the legislation has is a 50 plus one vote. So it could be voter initiated. That's one approach. Or the board itself could through polling and through engagement could also put in for a future measure. How it's it's two thirds. It's the 50 plus one for the entirety of the population of all three counties.

All three counties. Yes. That's correct. So it's not a two thirds. It's a simple majority. Simple majority. Potentially.

That's

correct. And it could be a ballot measure, but it's not doesn't require two eighteen vote, like, for property owners.

I would have to I don't know if Juan's on. I would have to or Tomasca could answer that.

Not familiar with what two eighteen is. I I don't wanna speak out of turn, so I will talk to people smarter than me and and get you an answer.

Happy to get you an answer, but I yeah. Great. Yeah.

Yeah. These are all very controversial because usually on water projects, the it it's a it's the landowners, right, that that end up pay that vote on a two eighteen. Yep. And and because they're the ones getting the the the the they're they're having to pay out of the pocket, obviously, guys, landowners. Right? So so we we

Yeah. Happy to get back to you on that Yeah. Supervisor. Yep.

We get back today or or another day? Part or part okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Let let's any other questions by supervisor Daniels?

Yeah. Let's so help me understand. And, Cherry, you might be able to answer this as well. Just the timeline. I you know, if we're gonna go back to the board, we obviously need some questions answered, and we need some feedback, and we need to get our amendments in.

Do we have time for all of that? I mean, what's the difference between us making a decision today to send a letter of support, if amended or or, you know, oppose unless amended, versus going to the whole board. Everything that's been stated today, you know, I think we can address. And it sounds like we have willing partners to make sure we collectively get all of the feedback and get it into the form of an amendment request and get it to the author. But what is it what is the timing here? Are we are we okay taking this to the board? Do we have time to do that in just in terms of the legislative cycle?

We'll we'll know by Thursday if the committee if the bill gets out and jumps to the senate on Thursday. Right? It gets out of which I assume it's likely to. But, you know, whether this gets, put on the agenda for next week, next tomorrow, but, eight days from now or the week after, it would, it would still give us, this will go to the full board, for discussion and a position. But at the same time, in those days, Ashley and Nicole and Nick Chulos could write that letter with all the different areas that we still need to work on with potentially with the author, what the concerns are from a staff point of view with the author.

And I think that by the time we get to the full board of supervisors, we'll be able to say, do we support it? But we also are asking for these additional amendments, or do we oppose unless the amendments are incorporated. That would allow us to, you know, have that opportunity to, analyze that from from now, you know, what kind of response we get from the author on the the outstanding issues still. And I obviously, from our agricultural point of view, I think the the governance only allowed, ag conservation representatives versus, ag associations or farmers themselves. And these seem to all be issues that are could be very workable.

Right? And get get all counties to a point where they could be in support. So I I just think it's it's it's a time to fine tune the bill and try to get these issues addressed, and there's doesn't seem at least in my point of view, there seems a a road a a path to get there.

Yeah. Thank you. I I agree. And, just, for the CAO's office, whatever whatever advance scheduling, just opportunities on the calendar to hear this as a full board where possible would be appreciated.

Yeah. Mister chairman, if I could just jump in there. So thank thank you both of you for your comments. Just to kinda reiterate, and Susan, I'm sure, would jump in here if I didn't. The legislative committee is a recommending body to the board of supervisors. So Correct. You know, that's really where this process needs to go from your committee to the full board. We are looking to see what and we've committed to the author's office that we would try to get this to the board as soon as we could. I know we're looking at what agendas are available. The one thing I would really like the opportunity to do since there was some question about the KNN financial analysis, I'd like to make sure they have the most current version of the bill.

I Alright. And I wanna make sure that the current version is actually available. I thought I heard a comment to the effect that it wasn't yet out, and we've got we've got to get that in our hands. We'd like to ask KNN to do a little bit deeper dive into this to make sure that when the board gets this matter, it's fully understood what the financial implications, if any, are of this bill, and and especially as it might affect the county's bonded indebtedness capacity going forward on a totally different track. You know, it might be some other unanticipated consequence. Yeah. So, anyway, just wanted to make those comments real quickly. Thank you.

I I I agree, and I and I agree with what Norm said. The devil's in the details, and this is a time to the concerns are get them addressed, get the language in there if that's possible feasible. The legislative session ends at the August, so we got another, three and a half months to work these things out. But I know the sooner we get the the issues out there and potential language fixes, then the author could consider those with her team and the consultants as they move forward to the to the senate committees, and then we could get hopefully get amendments, done. But but the the last version of bill was, was amended April 15.

That's been online for the last three weeks or whatever. So it is available to to review online along with the now all the analysis for the three committees. Anything else, Moises?

No. Not at this time. I just appreciate the time.

Alright. So because we our county still has issues, I I can't I wanna get there, but we're not there yet. So I'm just gonna hold off today on on saying taking a recommendation. It seems like supervisor Daniels is in support, but it'll it'll just go to the full board of supervisors, hopefully, a couple weeks, and then, then we'll hopefully have all the issues, fleshed better with the with your with your, as a sponsor and with the the author's staff as well. Anything else? Share. Anything else, Tomasa? Thank you for joining us and for providing, input on behalf of your boss. We appreciate her leadership and her work on this.

I appreciate you having, giving me an opportunity to be here and look forward to continued conversations.

Okay. Great. And, like I said, I'm I'm being optimistic here because it does seem like language could address some of these issues that are real, and they're coming from our community. That's what doctor asked for, your feedback and and trying to see where, hopefully, we could get those issues addressed in in the language. Alright? So next step, we'll we'll go to the full board, and and then Nicole will keep everyone informed when when it'll be on the agenda. Awesome. Hopefully soon.

Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank

you. We got another committee coming in here in about fifteen minutes. So we got one more item on this oh, let me ask I already asked for public comments, I don't need to go back for that. Let's go to grant reports.

Thank you, supervisor Elijio. I will get through this quickly. As you know, our entire legislative delegation is aware of our projects and budget requests for the twenty twenty six, twenty seven upcoming state budget that's being negotiated. But in addition to requesting state budget funds, we are always looking for grant funding, especially now that proposition four is going to be rolling out more quickly with the administrative procedures act exemption for the current fiscal year funds of prop in proposition four that were allocated in the twenty twenty five, twenty six state budget. So with that, with our San Lucas drinking water project, we are looking at proposition four grant solicitations as those roll out.

We haven't seen those quite yet. However, we have seen wildfire grant funds coming out through proposition four that we did send the county last week. That was not on this report because I wrote this before then. So, anyways, we're monitoring those proposition $4 that are rolling out. We are continuing to work item b on the Carmel River floodplain restoration environmental enhancement projects here are free, making sure that if we do need any extensions on grant funds that are expiring because of the delays with FEMA and the federal government approvals to move this project forward, that we can get assistance from our legislative delegation to extend those potential grant funds.

Finally, the Scenic Road protective structure, the county was just recently alerted that they did not receive funds through the hazard mitigation grant program that Public Works did apply for, but we raised that to the county's delegation in an effort to request budget funding for at least the initial permitting and design phase of that project. But also, we are gonna be looking at California Coastal Commission and other proposition for the actual implementation of that project. But we'd like to get the the ground, you know, started with the funding for design and permitting. We have a lot of interest from our legislative delegation on this project in figuring out a way to get it funded and moving. And so I just wanted to let you know.

In fact, thank you to senator Lear's office in particular that was already flagging proposition four potential dollars for us for that project as well. So it is all over their radar. And then finally, we have our grant track which is attached. You will see that we have been sending out lots of grant opportunities lately as they've been rolling out. That's all listed in the grant chart, including what departments we've sent those over to. And with that, that concludes our grant report.

Great. Any comments from the public on this? Any question? I forgot to ask. Any questions or comments from supervisor Daniels on this? And, seeing no one in chambers. No comments online. That would just those were just updates. So, I think we could conclude our meeting here today. So thank you everybody for joining us and for your comments, and we look forward to discussions on the the Monterey based stewardship authority when it comes to the full board of supervisors. So thank you.

Thank you all very much.