Interagency Governance Review Committee for Violence Prevention - Regular Meeting

now, we could start and call to order our June 8th meeting of the legislative committee and let the record reflect that both Supervisor Daniels and I are present. Any additions or corrections to this agenda?

There are none.

All right. Any general public comments for items not on the agenda from the public? Nobody come forward in chambers, nobody online. We'll close that. We'll go to our first item of business, approval of the minutes of our last meeting of May 11th. Are you good with those, Supervisor Daniels? I am. Any public comments on these minutes? Seeing none, we'll deem those approved by consensus. Let's go to item number two. As we always do in our meetings, get some brief staff reports from our federal and state legislative offices. We'll start with our federal. Are there any staff from Senator Padilla, Schiff, Congress members Lofgren or Panetta that would like to make any brief reports? Hearing none, how about our state legislative offices from Senator Laird, Speaker Rivas or Assemblymember Addis? Quiet today.

Dominic Durstle has his hand raised.

All right, Dominic, go for it. I'll just be a brief supervisor. Since the last meeting, I know Ashley will have a very in-depth report later on. Just a couple things to mention. One was the House of Origin bill deadline that we got into end of May, early June. So many of the bills that you may have taken interest in and had discussions on throughout the spring, if it did not make it out of its house of origin, it most likely will not move through this year. As you know, it could be gun and amend type stuff, but that does not happen often. But most importantly, just want to convey from the speaker the thanks for the many communications that from the county as we continue to grapple with this budget that'll be signed. It'll move forward next week, June 15th, before needing to be signed by the end of the month. This has certainly been a very intensive budget process and really just appreciate the collaboration from local government, cities, counties, as well as community organizations and residents sharing a lot of concerns. We definitely are looking to continue those conversations throughout this week as we get into the budget that will be put forward next week. And we should have a number shortly on the resolution for Lance Corporal Gonzalez as well. That is it on my end, sir.

Thank you, Dominic. And I think Friday is the deadline for the budget bill, the main budget bill to be in print, right? And then it gets voted on by the 15th.

Yeah, 72-hour notice.

Yep. All right. Any other state or federal legislative offices? All right. See none. Let's go to item number three. This is to receive reports and prior direction, consider positions, recommendation of the board of supes on federal items. So we'll pass that to Maria Tripler and Caitlin Kugel.

Thank you, sir. So. I guess in a sign of the times, our first item, of course, under federal government update is the congressional overview. And I will say that even in the five days since we submitted the written report, there's been some congressional activity. And so apologies that events since we wrote this report have changed dramatically. unfortunately, a fair amount of this summary. But of course, as it was last week, it is this week. Reconciliation 2.0 does remain one of the primary topics of conversation here in D.C. However, at this stage, and in fact, late on June 5th, the Senate did pass the funding package Um, with some significant changes, the budget package, um, was 69.5 billion. Um, and it did fund immigration enforcement operations through 2029. It did pass on a vote of 52 to 47. Um, Ms. Murkowski was the only Republican who voted no on this package. Um, you know, with that now where we stand is the house is set to take up the package. It will need near-unanimous Republican support in the House, in large part because the Speaker can only afford to lose two Republican votes, assuming all members are present. As far as I'm aware, that vote has not yet been scheduled, but I assume that it would be in the very near term. Okay. Additionally, the budget total in the report was listed as nearly $72 billion. As I mentioned, that is not the current figure. The $72 billion is what was in the original committee tax, but it's closer to $70 at this point. I would also observe that the White House ballroom and Secret Service security was stripped from the package, which is one of the reasons that number came down. The other challenge that I would like to share with you is in the written report, we talked about some ongoing concerns with fiscal hawks. And that's more of a point of interest. I think there's some trends that we've seen in Congress in recent weeks that have really started to signify what I think are some different voting patterns. I was fully expecting that some of the fiscal hawks would... really challenge Senate Republicans and their ability to move reconciliation 2.0 forward. However, while these concerns materialize, it did not ultimately block Senate passage. Um, and those concerns were overcome and, um, in large part because I think some of the anti-weaponization language was taken out. But I just wanted to flag that for you. I think we are, it's an interesting time right now in D.C., particularly in light of some of the primaries and the outcomes of those primaries. Of course, California is at the epicenter of that in many ways. But with some of the incumbents losing their primary elections, I just wanted to raise that I don't know that historical voting patterns are going to continue to hold true over the summer. So we'll see what happens there with Reconciliation 2.0. At this stage, like I said, I think there's going to be some arm wrestling in the House. I think the Speaker will ultimately get it through, and it will land on the President's desk, but no one knows exactly what that timeline looks like. We also highlight in the written report the Farm Bill, and it In the report, we mentioned that while the Farm Bill has passed the House and it is awaiting markup by the Senate Agriculture Committee, that's not entirely how it looks, that this will ultimately shake out. The Ag Chairman, John Bozeman, has said that he plans to release the draft bill in early June and will hold a markup on it later this month, but that he is going to remove certain provisions. For example, he has said that he will not include the Prop 12 preemption. And that's in large part to because he's going to need 60 votes to get the bill through. But that's a pretty significant development in the world of contentious pesticides. So I did want to share that update. I will say that in as relates to the NDAA report. We have now had the House Armed Services schedule and complete their markup of the NDAA. The Senate has also completed its markup. So now what we're looking at for the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, is that there will be floor consideration. There will very much be a formal conference committee. And then we'll see where that takes us in the world of defense spending, potentially a supplemental coming down the pipeline once the NDAA is through, but we'll have to see how that ultimately looks as the months continue. And then the other piece I do want to highlight in the world of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that is H.R. 1, because this is a very consequential phase for states and counties. The Medicaid community engagement, that is the work requirement, is becoming mandatory for certain Medicaid populations no later than the last date of this calendar year. And CMS is required to issue the federal implementing rule to effectuate that. At this stage, on June 1st, CMS did issue that interim final rule implementing the statutory requirement for certain adults to meet the 80 hours per month work requirement for eligibility. So at one point, it looked like that date might slip. It has not slipped. And as we'll talk about later in the federal report, all things relating, of course, to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its intersection with SNAP and other healthcare-oriented spaces for the county are of paramount concern. So I will pause there before I turn it over to Caitlin to discuss the executive branch updates.

Any comments? Okay. I don't see any at this time.

None at this time.

Thank you, supervisors. Thank you, Maria. So the first update is an administration update. And as you are both well aware, there is a proposed ICE immigration detention facility in Gilroy, California. It is actively being developed with construction work underway, demolition having been initiated, and the Department of Homeland Security having confirmed that it secured a lease. The Board of Supervisors at its May meeting actually voted to formally oppose this facility. on the basis that it is going to significantly impact the county, and in particular, the county's two largest economic industries, agriculture and hospitality, as well as the community as a whole. The Ballard team worked with county staff to draft an opposition letter, which as of writing was being finalized and signed by the the chair of the board, and we have since distributed that letter. For executive order updates, at the end of May, President Trump signed an order titled Removing Unnecessary and Counterproductive Restrictions on Access to Federal Lands, which rescinded two longstanding orders that previously required federal land managers to designate off-road vehicle areas and that was an effort to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and wildlife. This new order says that those things are no longer necessary, that the criteria are vague, and that this administration's policy priorities of prioritizing recreation, energy development, logging, and mining warrants a reversal and a review of those criteria. The second order is, entitled Realigning United States Core Childhood Vaccine Recommendations with Best Practices from Peer-Developed Countries, which tells you most everything you need to know. This is built off of a December 2025 memorandum where the Health and Human Services was completing a scientific assessment comparing US childhood immunization recommendations with those of our peer countries. And this order really puts in place a policy that would continue this alignment. It directs the CDC and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to review the assessment and to update the schedule as necessary. At the end of the update, we'll have a better idea of the exact practical effects on the adopted schedule, but this will also be available to state governments and health officials who will then be able to make the assessment of whether state vaccine schedules will need to change. And I will pause there before I hand it back over to Maria.

Yeah, Caitlin, I just wanted to comment on the ICE Detention Center that I think Santa Cruz, after Monterey took a position against the detention center and also voted to join any litigation that Santa Clara is going to file, Santa Cruz County did the same. So there's at least two other counties joining in solidarity with Santa Clara County. I think on the legal side, we may be looking just joining in an amicus for the court brief because Santa Clara has a unique standing in that litigation just because that is their own zoning and land use laws that will be key in the lawsuit. And it's hard for our counties to as a plaintiff, take the same position because that is not our county zoning and land use laws. And so, but we are finding other ways potentially to join in and support the litigation that they are likely to file soon. So I just wanted to update on that. And that our county is also going to be just doing a review of our own land use laws so that in the future we're not blindsided by a similar effort that could potentially happen by this administration or any other after that. So, um, thank you for that. Um, on HR one, I did want to just, um, think our legislative offices, because I know there's negotiations that are continuing, uh, this week before the bill is finalized by Friday. But I know, um, I just wanted to acknowledge, and I know Dominic's on here, but some of the counties asked over the last several weeks on indigent care, the assembly came forward to provide some potential significant funding for emergency services for indigent care, where the Senate didn't have that. Also, the assembly came forward on assistance for public hospitals, support a significant amount And the Senate side didn't have that, so I'm hoping the Senate could come to agreement on both those items. Both houses, the Senate and the Assembly, put money forward for county eligibility workers for CalFresh above what the governor had in the May revise, so that's good news. So thank you to both houses. And then on county eligibility for Medi-Cal, also both houses had $197 million increase to assist with that as well. So that is, it's not everything we asked, but nonetheless, it's a significant amount that we appreciate the leadership of the speaker, Senator Laird and Assemblywoman Addis. I think the only one that we didn't get any movement on was the county behavioral health portion on both sides, but on those other areas, it is very much appreciated. And certainly the leadership of the speaker, I just wanted to acknowledge that in making progress there and hopefully agreement is reached on those items by the end of the week. Thank you.

I have one question, Chair.

Yes, go ahead.

If I could ask on the executive order update, this would be in regard to the removing unnecessary and counterproductive restrictions on federal lands. In the report, it says that it sets in motion a rulemaking process. How long does that? How long would that take? What are the next steps in post this executive order?

This would be for the- Yeah, I mean, I can speak more generally on rulemaking. I think in large part, it will depend on the number of comments that are received, given that the Administrative Procedures Act requires that every individual comment be addressed and responded to in the rulemaking process. So it could be, you know, sometimes you might, you know, rarely will you see a rule in three months, although it's been known to happen. Six to nine months is more standard, but it could be longer than that. It depends on both the number of comments and the need to respond to those, as well as any, you know, intent or efforts to incorporate the comments and feedback. It's one of those murkier areas. of rulemaking is the timeline, just because sometimes you see a proposed rule that is never finalized. It just kind of quietly falls away. So it's hard to put a specific timeline on that.

Well, I just want to just make sure everyone's very clear about the large amount of federal land I have in my district, both in the Big Sur region, but also we have the Fort Ord National Monument. That's all BLM managed. And so there's a lot of Monterey County acreage that is federal. And so I think it's something we should consider. A lengthy comment that would require a lot of response to extend that time.

Yes, ma'am. I hear you. And if the committee's direction is to work with county staff on a comment, we're happy to do so.

And if that ends up being some direction, I'm happy to help in any way I can. We meet regularly with our federal partners at the Forest Service and can help. Certainly. Thank you for that.

Great. I'm good with providing comments, too, if that is manageable under the staff's workload. Is there a deadline?

Caitlin, do you have that at your fingertips? The notice would have had a specific deadline, but we can certainly also follow up offline on that.

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

Thank you, Chair.

Yep. Okay, prior direction on that. Any public comments on this portion? Sinan, let's go to appropriation updates.

Yes, sir. So we are continuing to follow very closely on the San Lucas clean drinking water There has been a little bit of a slowdown in the chambers working through the individual appropriations bills. Of course, the bills that have been worked through don't necessarily impact the county's funding requests, which I'm happy for the rest of the country. I would like to see, of course, the bills that impact the county most moving forward. We will continue to monitor and provide updates as those become available. And we should see additional activity there through June and July. Turning to the last item on advocacy, as you know, Chair Louise Alejo worked very closely with you on updating the one pager relating to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. and HR1 in the impact on county residents, particularly as relates to children's Medi-Cal enrollment, as well as other demographics and their health insurance and outcomes, so that you were able to relay that over to CSAC at the legislative conference. And of course, appreciate the assistance from social services and the Monterey Health Department in ensuring that we had the most accurate information so that you were able to relay that and advocate as well at that conference. We also had a fair amount of engagement with Mr. Panetta's office. Mr. Panetta's team reached out relating some older federal community project funding requests or earmarks. You'll see they're listed here and they span primarily in FY23, although there is one in FY24. And of course, Mr. Panetta was looking to ensure that to the extent the county has been moving forward with those projects and requesting reimbursement that those funds have been dispersed in a timely manner. If there were any other project challenges offering his assistance, I will say that county staff is to be commended. We're certainly very much on top of each of these projects, including the one we liaised with the transportation agency from Monterey County. And we'll be continuing to work with Mr. Panetta's office as these move forward. Of course, 24 is Carmel River. Free appropriation is 1 that we do continue to follow very closely and we have talked about in previous legislative committee meetings. Understanding though, there are some elements outside of the earmark itself that are coming into play with that project's ability to move forward. And then the final item under advocacy that you'll see listed is engagement with Mr. Panetta's office specifically as pertains to the NSFL TP grant, which relates to the Palo, Colorado road storm damage. And we are working with Mr. Panetta's office specifically because we're trying to sort through what the outlook is for that program. You know, the county did submit an application in 2024. And unfortunately, after about a year and a half of delay, we were advised that that particular program had been discontinued and no grant Awards would be made, however, just within the past few days, we received notice of a new grant application period opening up and we are working very closely with the Department of public works facilities and parks. to support that particular application that the county staff is in the process of writing and putting together. And we also will be engaging specifically again with Mr. Panetta's office and with the Senate offices for both Mr. Schiff and for And looking to make sure we are ensuring that our federal advocates are there with us as however maybe so that we can appropriately position this particular grant application, knowing how important it is to repair that roadway and get everything back where it should be, particularly given that it is such a pivotal access point to the Los Padres National Forest. The only other item I have on the agenda is the federal bill and issues track, which you have in your packets.

All right.

Any comments from the public? Yes, Mark? Great. Mark Gonzalez, Water Resource Agency. Just real quick, is there any updates on FEMA reimbursement by any chance? No.

Without going too far, because I know that's not on the agenda today, and I don't want to, you know, county council to get upset with me, I will say that that is very much an area that is evolving. And we are in the process of working through some elements with the emergency management department. And we will be reporting on that at the next legislative committee meeting. It's slightly too soon right now, since there are still a number of items in the work. But there's been some movement there. We're not quite in a position yet to report on that.

But we can add, there was some recent news just a few days ago, I think on Friday, and that's probably what they're going to report on next meeting. But in some of the storm damage of 2023, our... Department of Parks Facilities and Public Works Facilities and Parks and our Office of Emergency Services were successful on some appeals on getting several million dollars from the storm damage. And I think it totaled something like five or six million dollars. So but we'll leave that for the next agenda. But but we had some success for sure on those.

Chair, I have a question regarding this report. So I'm really happy to see the engagement with Panetta on the NSFLTP grant and this potential for a new application period. We did just have a public meeting and I heard from a lot of residents, both folks who want to access the trails like you had mentioned, but we also have several families that live on the other side of the hoist, and it's been 10 years. And so the pressure is definitely mounting and heating up. And so I just wanted to put that out there that when you do advocate for this region, there are also families and individuals that live past this closure who've had access to their house fenced off for a decade now. They're able to get to and from their home. They are able to get through a gate and then um, manipulate their way home in a, in a safely, a, a manner as possible. But with all of those washouts, just, just to be clear, there are also residents that live on the other side. Um, and, um, and then I wanted to also just, um, let you know, in terms of the, the floodplain restoration and environmental enhancement project, Carmel river free, um, It is back to an all hands on deck. And so any type of outreach, pressure, working with Homeland Security to try working with FEMA to try and get that funding grant application signed and extended is welcome at this point. I know that Big Sur Land Trust had been working with an outfit to try to get some movement and it has not produced. So we really do want to express that any potential opportunity to reach the Director of Homeland Security to get that document signed would be welcome at this point.

Yes, ma'am. Of course, we are continuing to work on that. Unfortunately, I think as other entities have also had the same challenges, it's been slow going, if you will. But we are continuing to pursue that and advocate. It relates to the Palo Colorado Road. I work with the public works, I'm sure that's top of mind for them on the county residents who do live up that road. I will say in a brief silver lining that while the prior funding was rescinded, the current notice of funding opportunity is a larger total pool of funds. So that's encouraging because two years ago, The entire pool was just shy of $50 million. The current is $165 million. Now they have set a cap at $12 million per project, you know, so just to manage that. But I think this is a very, it's very encouraging that they have released this at all, candidly. So I think that that is something that we will be pursuing rigorously.

Well, it certainly fits the definition and the scope of this project. Yes, ma'am.

I believe 17 million is what we were at two years ago.

But in terms of just also nationally significant federal lands and tribal projects is right up this project's alley. So thank you so much. Thank you.

Great. And just for Mark, to Mark's question, I just wanted to let him know, there's a lot of pending FEMA claims still. These were just three where they had denied them and the county appealed them. And in that process, arbitration process, we were successful. Two of them were for Laguna Seca, about $4.7 million. And then a million dollars was for reimbursement for the shelter for Pajaro, the sheltering cost. And we were able to prevail and get a million dollars reimbursement or a total $5.7 million. But good question because we always wonder, we make these claims and it takes years to get any news back whether we were successful or not on those. Any other comments from the public online?

No.

All right. We can move on to the next items then.

All right. Good afternoon, Supervisors. We'll start with an update on the status of the legislature, although Dominic gave a pretty good overview as well. So thanks to him. We are working on policy committee hearings. We have many bills up in the next even couple of dates for Monterey County that we'll be testifying on in committees. So we'll let you know as they work closer to their summer recess, which starts in July, they'll be out for about a month. So they are diligently working on policy committee hearings. They'll go right into fiscal hearings, and all the while they're managing the state budget negotiations at the same time. So it's a very interesting time here in Sacramento. An update on the state budget. As you know, the May revise has been released. We've been updating you on a weekly basis about what's been happening with regard to negotiations in the budget. CSAC has been putting out some excellent information about side-by-sides related to both the Senate and the proposals, they have become detailed now. They came out, as you know, with their overviews in both the Senate and the Assembly of what their priorities are. But now we're down to actual numbers, dollars, cents, which is helpful to get an idea of where the Senate and the Assembly are in terms of negotiations. Obviously, as you know, they have to have their budget imprint and passed by June 15th. And the governor has until June 30th to sign that. Although we have been hearing there's going to be some ongoing discussions about some larger budget issues taken up in budget trailer bills all the way until the end of session potentially, one of those being GGRF, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and others. So we'll monitor those as we move forward. But this is, of course, the main budget bill that we are focused on. Let's get into some of our priorities as we have discussed throughout the year. The first one is HR1. As you know, we've been involved in the budget request among local governments for backfill and assistance with regard to impacts from HR1. I did include a chart on page two. We can scroll down to that page that is from CSAC that I thought was very helpful. It just outlines the request next to the May revision proposal, next to the Senate plan and next to that assembly plan. As you can see, what I'll say in general about the funding pieces here is that the assembly is really taking a larger leap in putting funding towards these efforts. One thing that stands out, as you can see as well, is that among all three proposals, there is no funding included for county behavioral health. So just something to note there. There were a lot of discussions in subcommittees, as you know, about HR1 impacts. So it is good to see that there is recognition, at least in some areas across all three, administration, Senate, and assembly, that we need to do something to assist our local governments with the impacts of HR1. So we will be closely monitoring this. But as you know, we did submit detailed information about our support for various proposals, including the HR1 backfill request from CSAC and others. Secondarily, on our state budget request, we've been talking about Fort Ord and the need for funding there. The May revise did include a budget change proposal for just over $3.5 million for the new Fort Ord campground. It actually is not just the current fiscal year, but it outlines a similar request for the next two out years as well. I've outlined how the Department of Parks and Recreation plans to utilize those funds with various positions, equipment, and vehicles to support that request. Of course, we will need to see if that actually comes to fruition in the final enacted budget, and we'll be monitoring that. And then finally on the budget, and then I'm happy to answer any questions you may have is just the scenic road protective structure. We've received information within just the last month or so that the county did not receive grant funding through the hazard mitigation program, which was an application the county did submit for funding for that project. That application was not only pre-construction cost, but it was actually the construction of the project itself. So it was a very large application. Because of that, we realized that we needed to pivot and see if we could request, as the board of supervisors did prioritize this project, request that our members submit a budget request for $1.8 million that would at least cover the pre-construction costs for this project to get the project designed, some of the permitting done, and move this project forward. I have been submitting information including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program application itself to our members to just ensure that they have the information needed if they decide to move that request forward. I can stop here on the budget, Supervisor Alejo, if you had any questions or comments.

I don't. Thank you for that overview. How about Supervisor Daniels?

Yes, I do. I'm curious. So if you go back just up on your screen just a bit to go back to the I've now lost the document. So I'll just look at yours. Yes. Is there I mean, if the county were to be advocating for the assembly plan or do anything we could to sort of support the assembly plan, who would you be advocating to at this point?

Yeah. I mean, it will be our member. I mean, it would be assembly member Addis, right? We'd want to make sure, and she's very well aware that we support the assembly plan and the full, I mean, we actually support our original request, right? So they, so I think that we've done a really good job of making sure that our delegation understands where we're at in terms of what our needs are, even as Dominic stated, but definitely with the speaker's office, of course, as well, letting them know, again, that we support the assembly plan. We need as much funding as possible included moving forward for HR1 impacts. The budget committees, of course, Supervisor Daniels, where we've submitted our letters and the subcommittees that oversee these particular areas, and they all have copies of these letters as well. So, you know, I really think it's coming down to just the nitty gritty of how much money do we have? Where do people want to spend it? I think that we could absolutely do another, and I'm happy to do this if this is a request of the legislative committee, is just ensure that the right folks know that we, of course, do support the assembly plan. But I want to note, too, that even the assembly plan doesn't fully support our request so you know i would say we support our request you know our that's what we support if we have to you know negotiate and and of course we're excited that the assembly wants to fund some of these areas higher than the senate and higher than the may revise but um ultimately i think it's been well conveyed where we stand i see dominic has his hand up as well

Go ahead, Dominic. Yeah, I just wanted to add, you know, I mean, we're definitely still here to listen. And there's been some other spaces, too, where progress has been made. You know, HAP has certainly been a program the county has really been able to utilize strongly. You know, it was set at $500 million, basically set aside under the governor's office. The speaker and the assembly are pushing for 800 million there. I know immigration services has been a topic, you know, last year it was 25 million for individual services. This year, the assembly's proposing a hundred. So it's, It's been a tough challenge this year just because not only is HR1 such a big impact, but there are so many different elements of the budget that's required a lot of conversation. But, you know, as Ashley said, you know, we'll be listening to the last minute. There'll be some stuff that will take place in June. trailer bill language that cap and invest discussion really was interesting last week uh and certainly with assembly member addis chairing sub one uh on the health budget that's also helpful senator lair chairing the the budget committee you know we really do have a a strong set of advocacy to to listen to the county uh on whatever needs uh may be so i guess my question remained it was just

If there was anything further we should be doing, and it sounds like our legislators, there's nothing further that we could do as a county at this point.

I wouldn't say so. I think we've covered it. I mean, you all have personal relationships, right, as well. So I would say utilize your personal relationships.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, I think everybody weighing in right now this week is really helpful. Obviously, your relationship with Senator Laird, Supervisor Daniels, and obviously Don Addis, as Dominic pointed out, is the chair of the subcommittee on health, a key position within the budget committee. And obviously, the chair of assembly is Jesse Gabriel as well. These are all folks we should be reaching out to. The more that they hear from different voices, the better, I think, during this week, this past few days of negotiation.

Okay, great. I have a couple more questions that I will do, that I can do. In regards to Fort Ord-Dune State Park and the budget change proposal, one, I just wanted to say thank you for really... Picking that up was something that was mentioned here at the ledge committee meeting and the outreach I think has been very successful. I wanted to just give some more context in case you need to discuss this any further as we go down this path. Just this weekend, I'll back up by saying the staff that's included in this budget change proposal, this is great for public access. It's great to have our first, you know, beach campground in the state park system, you know, in the Monterey County area in generations, right? Like that's all good. But the staffing for this that's included in the budget change proposal includes state park officers that are also lifeguards. And if they're at Fort Ord, they are very close and can be accessed when there are issues in other state parks properties along the coast. And just, excuse me, just this weekend, we did have Two people pulled out, two divers successfully. I think that was a cow fire rescue at Monastery Beach. And then at Point Lobos, I believe we lost two people and that was a state parks rescue. They both work together. I mean, it's not, I'm not, I'm not identifying anybody as doing, you know, this just in general. Four people pulled out of the water this weekend and two people didn't survive. So it's really a wonderful thing that this budget change proposal has gotten to where it's at. And if there's anything more we need to do, those positions are not just lifeguards, they're lifesavers.

Thank you, Supervisor Daniels.

And the last thing I wanted to say about the scenic road protective structure was one of the things that's needed in order to get to this is to get to the 60% design. Mr. Ishin would be able to articulate this better than me, but the hope is that we can go after some grant funding and also figure out ways to work with the CSA and others to try to ultimately fund this project. but getting to 60% design has proved necessary. And so this support would help us get to that 60% design so we can look up other funding opportunities to get this project across the finish line. So thank you.

That's right. And I will just note that I did meet, I know I mentioned our legislative delegation, but I just want to be very clear. I did meet with Senator Laird's office, Senate Assembly Member Addis's office and the Speaker's office and have briefed all of their staff, and I know Senator Laird knows this project in detail. So everybody is well aware of the need, and I think the $1.8 million request is very reasonable.

All right, any public comments on this first portion? Seeing none, let's go to legislation for success and see.

Okay, wonderful. There are six bills on the list. However, today I am bringing you four positions on bills in print, one report only on the status of a bill in our discussions, and then discussion about sponsoring a piece of legislation. So what I'd like to do is take up the first four bills that I have recommended positions on. I'm going to go through all of them. And then I'm happy to answer questions. And then I'll get to the last two bills that are more discussion points, if that's okay with you, Supervisor Alejo. Okay, wonderful. So we'll start with AB 1821 by Assemblymember Pacheco. This bill, many departments support this bill that we've reached out to. And the league, or I'm sorry, the CSAC is also supporting in the league and many other local governments. It's a very simple bill. It's been amended quite a bit, but as it stands right now, this would change the opportunity for the County of Monterey and clarify that we and all public agencies would have 10 business days rather than calendar days as it currently stands for initial determinations. and allows for extensions in response to PRA requests. And so again, moving and shifting from calendar days to business days for those initial determinations for PRA requests. So we have a support position recommended on that piece of legislation. I'll move to our second bill, which is AB762, by Assemblymember Irwin. Supervisor Askew has asked for this bill to be taken up at the Legislative Committee meeting today. CSAC does have a support position on this bill. The bill is fairly simple in that it just simply bans the sale of single-use disposable vapes. Again, we have a support position recommended on that piece of legislation. The third bill that we have on the agenda is AB 2393 by Assemblymember Addis. Supervisor Alejo has asked us to place this bill on the agenda today. It authorizes plaintiffs in cases involving false imprisonment or false arrest to seek statutory damages. So we have a support position recommended on that bill. And then finally, we have AB 2705. This bill was requested to be placed on the legislative committee by the treasurer tax collector. The statewide association for treasurers and tax collectors is sponsoring this bill. There is, CSAC is also supporting this bill. That's important to note. It limits assessor locator finder fees to 10%. So the intent of the bill is really to establish that statewide consumer protection and ensure that parties of interest can recover excess proceeds from tax defaulted property sales without being charged excessively. So it's limiting that asset locator finder fee to 10%, which does also align with with the state controller unclaimed property claims. So we are recommending a support position on that piece of legislation as well. So with that, those are the four positions that are bills in print. Happy to answer any questions or to have you take a vote on those positions.

Yeah, I want to just say I'm good with all four. I just wanted to elaborate more on the Addis bill, because if you just hear false imprisonment, you're like, what does that have to do with the county priority? But this bill, it's for those cases, as we've seen in other states where private individuals are impersonating ICE officers and they detain people. They did taint people, and under California law, that is considered a false imprisonment. And this would provide additional remedies for those persons who were victims to be able to take action against the people who were liable or who were criminally responsible for taking such actions against them. So that's why it matters in terms of the question of immigration enforcement when some of these folks are taking the law into their own hands and doing things they shouldn't be doing.

I support all four. Thank you for that elaboration.

Yep.

Great.

Okay.

Wonderful. Well, that was easy. Okay. Now we'll move on to something not so easy. So AB 1584 by Assemblymember Pellerin. As you know, at the last legislative committee meeting, we were directed to At least put forward staff comments in a document related to at 1548 and that's largely in part because we have had many meetings with the sponsors and authors office, but we had not yet put anything in writing, because we do not have direction from. legislative committee or a vote from the full board of supervisors on a position on this bill therefore we can't take a position we can't necessarily put forward amendments you all as a board of supervisors are going to be taking action on the bill and actually coming up with a position this month, later this month in just a couple of weeks. After we submitted our staff comments to Assemblymember Pellerin's office, we did meet with the author's office to walk through and discuss what those county concerns or comments were. I want to note that the CAO's office participated, many other staff members from the county participated that have a role in these comments that were submitted. In addition, The League of California Cities did attend. They have an opposed position officially, but some of their concerns aligned with some of our outstanding comments, so they wanted to participate just as sort of a listening body, which they did. In addition, the City of Monterey, the City of Seaside, and the City of Salinas were interested in joining our discussion because they share the concerns outlined in our in our letter. What I'll note is since then, the city of Salinas has come out with an official opposed position. They did submit that letter. I just received that today. So I did want to note that we are working internally on a memo that outlines the outstanding comments from staff within the county, as well as options for positions and options for potential proposed amendments. So we are working on that memo. should be fairly detailed. I will be attending that board of supervisors meeting to help walk through any comments or questions with staff at the county. I just wanted you all to know that we have submitted this comment letter. We have had another meeting with the author's office and we are working regionally with other entities that are interested cities, the league in putting together any sort of final outstanding comments. as we move forward. Any questions on that?

Chair, I have a question.

Yeah, go ahead.

So how did the meeting come about that the county was having a meeting with Assemblymember Pellerin's office and the League of Cities became aware of it, as well as the City of Monterey, the City of Salinas, and the City of Seaside.

Yes. So, Supervisor Daniels, as a form of just protocol, if we submit a comment letter to the author's office about a bill, generally we'll meet with them and talk through it. I received a fairly lengthy email response from Tomasa in Assemblymember Pellerin's office, who you know joined our last legislative committee meeting, responding fairly detailed to a lot of these comments. So we did think it would be best to actually get together on a Zoom and talk through some of these. Our comments were not brief, you know, by any means, and her responses weren't brief, so it would have been difficult to do over email. The League of Cities has opposed this long before We submitted this comment letter. So, yes, they've been aware for quite some time. They've also been involved in other stakeholder meetings with Assemblymember Pellerin's office on this bill. The city of Seaside and the city of Salinas lobbyist reached out to me and asked for a copy of our letter. I did share that letter with them. So that's where we stand with engagement.

And I just want to be clear that, you know, I... I have been in touch with the Trust for Public Lands and the folks who are working on this bill. And they had a very hard time reaching the League of Cities. And the one time they had a meeting with the League of Cities, the League of Cities said they had no issue with the bill. And then They were not able to meet with the city managers since February. They'd been trying to meet with the city managers and never got that meeting until all of this happened. And at that point it was opposition. And so it just, I can't help shake the feeling that we are whipping opposition to this bill. I am not saying it's perfect. I'm just saying it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for us to figure out a way to get the state to recognize that the uniqueness of this region and recognize it to the point where we become, too, a line item in propositions like Prop 4, like other authorities, the other authority, the other example in the state, in the San Francisco Bay Area has become. I have a sense the ship has sailed. The train has left the station. I don't know that this is something that's recoverable at this point in time. So I don't know if there's a future for this bill, but, you know, the request has always been amendments. And I've never seen I mean, this is the first I've heard that we aren't able to provide amendments until the board takes action. So that that makes sense as to why we haven't. But it sounded to me like the author has been saying something. she'll take amendments and instead we've had Zoom meetings and phone calls and wrote letters, but not followed through with actual amendments. And I do take issue with the concerns that we've outlined and what I read in the latest version of the bill and do feel like some of it has been addressed. That said, it's certainly not a bill that has been carried. I'm not as familiar as Supervisor Alejo is with this process, but it certainly hasn't been carried very successfully by the author. And there sounds like there's a lot that could have been done better, including us as elected officials. It would have been great to actually hear directly from the author if we were going to be considering such legislation in our region. But I feel like we have focused so much on the negatives and in the process lost the opportunity to bring funding, critical funding to our region for all of the climate resilience projects that we are going to need to execute. And so when we lose the opportunity to make a bill better that could bring funding to our region, I think that's unfortunate. You know, you guys do know best when it comes to our elected officials and legislation and how this process works. But, you know, I know that I had gotten some outreach from TPL on just trying to get with the city manager's And it was punted from February to March to April. And then it was, we're not gonna meet with you. And at that point, you know, the story had been written and it was too late. So I just, I think it's unfortunate. I think, you know, I think that in the form of amendments, we could have addressed all of our concerns, but it does sound like the ship has sailed. And so, but I just do think it's really unfortunate.

Supervisor Daniels, I appreciate your comments. I just, I do want to be really clear, but in no way have we at all represented that the county opposes this bill in any way. So I just want to be very clear. We've stated that multiple times to the author's office, to the league, to the cities that have reached out, um, that we have, you know, not taken a position on this bill. So I just want to be really clear. I also would say that in my, in my opinion, I would state, I don't think the ship has sailed on amendments. In our last conversation and communication with the assembly members office, I thought it was a really good conversation. I'm supposed to circle back with Tomasa actually today or tomorrow to discuss kind of what the next steps are. Assembly member Pellerin on the floor of the assembly did discuss some potential amendments she was open to taking, including removing some of the fiscal language. So that's what I'm following up with Tomasa on right now is trying to figure out, is the assembly member going to remove that language? What language will be removed? And then how do we move forward with analyzing those amendments? So I think we're still in a good position to discuss this bill and potential amendments and ways to move forward. And I just did want to be clear that I hear you and we did not ever represent that we're opposing this legislation.

I agree with that statement, actually. Certainly, I haven't heard or seen Monterey County whip up any opposition. I think this came from the cities, right? I think they were approached kind of late in this process. And by late, I mean these discussions began over three years ago. And I think the bill when bill starts moving, that's when people actually start paying attention, looking at the language and formulating opinion on different aspects. I think our approach has always been we have concerns, but but but but there were there were. able to be addressed in the language versus just taking an outright opposition. I think the cities have unanimously taken a post position and even asking the author to hold on this bill to give it more time to make it a two year bill, which means the negotiations will continue until the next legislative year. And I don't think the ship has sailed on the bill. This happens frequently to a lot of bills. But I think Being serious about taking the time to work it out with the cities is important because if this is going to be successful to forming new agencies, you do want to have those local governments agreement and participation in it rather than oppose and just driving it through. I think. Assemblymember Pellin probably has the power to move a district bill through the process, but in terms of wanting to build consensus with local governments that are going to make any future new agency successful, taking the time I think is worth it at this point in time. And there's some areas that I really looked at the language too. For example, just the potential conflict with the housing element. I think the language says it is not the intent that this would conflict with the housing elements of counties or cities. I just don't think that's strong enough. It's not the intent, but what if it becomes the conflict? I think there's a way to even fine-tune that language. As I reread that language, I just didn't think maybe down the road when there is a conflict, just having – it's not the intent whether that's going to be strong enough to avoid conflicts with local governments' concerns. The other piece of that was just any tax – revenue, any future tax ballot measure, I think for the cities that are already at capacity at 9.25, whatever it may be now, now you have competing. If there's another eighth of a cent or quarter cent that the cities or counties could utilize to meet their future needs, will it now compete with this future potential ballot measure that would fund the operations of this new agency. I think that's a legitimate concern, right? Because you take that option away from them with the new ballot measure. But actually, have we heard whether Gail Pellerin is going to continue to move this in light of, she is going to continue then?

She is going to continue to move the bill. There was commitment and discussion on the floor to remove the fiscal language in the bill. That is what I'm working with and waiting to hear on what's the discussion in terms of next steps and what actual pieces are going to be removed or not so that we can reevaluate where we might stand on amendments. And again, I am working on potential amendment proposals with Nicole for you all to consider at the next Board of Supervisors meeting that does include some of the comments that you just brought up, Supervisor Alejo, in addition to potential weighted voting structure options and other items.

Ashley, if I may, what was just brought up, I don't, I mean, if you are mirroring this on the San Francisco authority, it's not a sales tax. It's a parcel tax. So what was just brought up is not relevant to what's in this bill. And I think what she threw out last week or whenever that was, was the ability for this agency or this authority to ever implement a parcel tax. which is, it's not what they were going out the gate with. It was not, but to eliminate any future potential for a parcel tax, which in San Francisco is a $35 parcel tax, which is critical. critical to the fundraising of this authority to do this work, um, is I think a killer for the bill, frankly. So when I say the ship has left the station at a certain point, you're having a conversation about something that's real. And at a certain point you're having a conversation that's not.

Yeah. And I would just recognize that I think those five parcel related taxes on the measure and I'll think all five failed in November. Um, Well, that's the report on this. That is a report out, right? This will be coming to the full board of supervisors later this month.

Yes. And again, the memo is only intended to outline what, you know, the feedback is from county staff on the bill and what the options are for the board as a whole, which there are many options. So we will outline all of those for you all to consider at that meeting.

All right. Okay. So we provide just so just to recap, we provided, we were had consensus on the four bills listed under subsection C. And then we just got a report from the Pellerin bill, but we still have the Victor Gonzalez Highway Memorial.

Yes. Yes, absolutely. And thank you for bringing that forward, Supervisor Lejos. So we We do have an ACR on here to be determined, but we've discussed this before and we've sponsored similar ACRs in the past, which have been wonderful, that designate a portion of a highway. In this case, it would be State Highway 152 in the County of Monterey to Victor A. Gonzalez Memorial Highway. And I'd love to have Supervisor Alejo talk a little bit about this and appreciate the speaker's office work on this. And with that, I'll turn it over to you.

Yes, the County of Monterey has been a sponsor of previous legislation. Going back to 2017, we sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution, SCR 57, authored by then Senator Cannella, who represented the Salinas Valley, co-authored by Senator Bill Monning, and that had five highway memorial stretches for Monterey County residents Veterans who were killed in action in Afghanistan. Since then, Speaker Rivas has authored a separate bill working jointly with the Salinas Veterans Day Parade Committee to, I think, honor another five or six veterans that included veterans not only of Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq. This request came specifically from former Watsonville Police Chief Manny Solano, who's a North County resident, but Victor Gonzalez was only 19, a U.S. Marine Lance Corporal who was killed in action in the war in Iraq in 2004. He was a police cadet, and that's why that was his relationship with the police chief. He was raised in Pajaro, also raised in Watsonville, and so we submitted language for the speaker to consider authoring an assembly concurrent resolution so we could dedicate a highway stretch for him in North Monterey County or in South Santa Cruz County since he lived in both communities. So we're just waiting. As Dominic reported earlier, they are very imminent to file the bill. But we just wanted to formally ask that we be the considered the sponsor of the bill. We also want to get the county of Santa Cruz to be a sponsor. Usually when when the highway stretches in other county, the committees want support. of the legislators that represent both those counties. And I think this case, I think Speaker Rivas represents both areas, but we would like to get Santa Cruz County to also be a co-sponsor with us since it's likely going to be a highway stretch on Highway 152 in Watts, the city of Watsonville. It would cover a stretch where he is buried by St. Francis Church on East Lake Avenue. And the language, the last updated language Received feedback from the police chief, Manny Solano, and also Victor Gonzalez's family, the mother and sister, who currently is a police officer herself for the Watsonville Police Department. So with that, maybe we could hear from Dominic. You got any more on this?

yeah just going to be introducing it soon that way we'll have a number for you and then uh Talking with staff Friday, I highlighted that request for sponsorship. So transportation committee staffers aware of that. Great. And we'll see about going and making that work. And yeah, certainly appreciative for providing the background information needed to draft this. We just submitted to ledge council to get the language. It's just a matter of crossing it, so to speak, to get a number assigned.

Great. And just for a way of background. So we would hope that we would write a letter supporting the bill, but also stating we are the sponsor of the bill that gets listed on the bill analysis, who the sponsors are, who's supporting it. And then we'll work with Santa Cruz County to hopefully get a similar letter. The Transportation Committee, Caltrans, requires somebody to raise the money. These are not paid by public dollars. In the past, we've done a fundraising campaign so that not even the families have to pay a single dollar for the... the installation, the manufacturing of the signs and the installation of the signs by a Caltrans approved contractor. But my commitment was to get letters of support from our veterans organizations, but also do the fundraising privately, working with the Salinas Veterans Day Parade Committee, hopefully the Watson Police Officers Association and other ideas that Chief Solano has so that we could fully fund the project and not have any cost to the family. and certainly not to any local governments. Anything else on this? Are you good with that, Supervisor Daniels? Absolutely. Great. Wonderful.

We'll prepare a sponsor support letter as soon as we have an ACR number.

I think we have a public comment on this one. Do we?

We have Gene Murphy with the Henry's.

Hi, Supervisor Jack Murphy. I just wanted to provide a brief update. I've been working with a couple of involved individuals in this project. And I believe we do have a Caltrans approved contractor in the wings who's willing to do the installation pro bono. And they meet the requirements that Caltrans is looking for as far as being able to close down traffic lanes. So I'm just standing by on additional details and a timeline.

Thank you for that, Lieutenant Colonel. I think the installation is probably the more expensive part of these signs installations. That would be great. Then that would only need us to manufacture the signs themselves, which are not as costly in comparison. We also had a contractor in When we installed the first set of signs in 2018, 2019, they had some veterans within their contracting business, and they also voted as employees to donate all the labor and the cost, no cost to the overall project. All we did then was pay to manufacture the signs themselves. So that would be great. Thank you for that.

Supervisor Alejo, can I just ask you a question in case we we get asked this down the road? So 152 goes through Santa Cruz and Santa Clara. Will it matter that it doesn't pass through Monterey County or is there a connection that we can make to to the community? the gentleman Victor A. Gonzalez to the county, or do we even need that? I am 100% supportive. I'm just wanting to understand the connection or if it comes up, how we're going to respond.

Yes. The reason why the limitations that we had were that many of the highway stretches in North Monterey County nearest Pajaro were already named by two other people. And that's why we worked with the family and Chief Solano and Speaker Rivas' office to look at an alternative site and that highway stretch kind of where the Santa Cruz County fairgrounds are towards the city limits. That seemed to be a stretch that everyone seemed would work.

But Mr. Gonzalez, Lance Corporal Gonzalez, was a Pajaro resident in the County of Monterey.

Yes. Okay, got it. He was raised in both communities, both on the Santa Cruz and Monterey County side. He graduated from Watsonville High School and worked before going to the Marine Corps. He was there participating on the cadet program for the Watsonville Police Department on the Santa Cruz County side.

Okay, got it. Thank you so much.

All right. It seems like we're both in agreement. Any other comments from the public on this item?

No, not mine.

All right. We seem to have consensus on that. Thank you.

Great. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll move on to item D is our list of governor's actions and executive orders. If there's any questions about that, please let me know. I'll just... We'll leave it at that. And then our final item is the state bill and issues track, which is attached. It lists all the updates with regard to our positions, when letters have been submitted, when we've testified, and any other letters outside of our bill positions that we've done, including our most recent letter, which is our CARB letter that we submitted just a couple of weeks ago. related to the proposed amendments on California cap and investment program, the greenhouse gas emissions and market-based compliance mechanisms. We did submit a letter there. We have outlined that in the track as well. And that concludes my state report.

Chair, I do have one question.

Yes, go ahead.

So Ashley, I'm not sure if this is anything we need to do. I think it's just for awareness, but I see on the list of the governor's actions and executive orders that the governor signed a new law to strengthen California's election protections ahead of the June 2nd state primary. That was obviously the one we just had. But looking toward November, I mean, if you haven't seen the interview with the president over the weekend from on Meet the Press, it just seems like California's in his crosshairs in terms of this narrative that our elections weren't free or fair and that somehow the L.A. mayor's race and the governor's race is exemplifying fraud. And so I just put that out there in terms of in advance, if Not that you would or the county would do anything, but I feel like the message about how our election system actually runs and why it takes the time it does needs to be something that is so clear and marketed in advance of an election, not after the fact. So just leaving that there. Not that anyone in this room is capable of doing anything on that front, but that just triggered that for me. Thank you.

No, thank you for your comment.

Great. And just by way of information on subsection D, letter D, the CARB cap and invest letter, that was something requested from Monterey Salinas Transit. MST opposed it. Obviously, it was something that was driven by the governor's office, 12 of the 14 CARB members are governor's appointees, but that... That approval basically means about 800M dollars are shifted away from transit and other programs that were would have been funded. But otherwise that is shifting to other priorities to. I think it was concerns out of ensuring that the oil industry that was threatening to close down refineries, it was trying to mitigate some of that impact, but it did have a cost to some of our transit agencies that are trying to reduce carbon emissions and implement some of these programs that are aligned with state goals in terms of moving to more electrified transit programs. transportation, I should say. But anyways, that's why that was important. But it was not favorable to MST position or the counties.

Yeah, thank you, Supervisor Alejo.

Okay, I think we're all done with that. If there's any public comments on these last few remaining items on number four. So you know, let's go to number five, just the grant report.

Great. We can pull that up. And we can get started. I'll try to be brief here. I know we only have a few more minutes, but just want to let you know that we are continuing to work on drawing down that $4 million for the San Lucas drinking water project and chugging along there. We are also now seeing Proposition 4 solicitations come out. So we are taking a look at Prop 4 for the San Lucas drinking water project as well. We did touch on the CR free project during the federal report and how important that project is and anything we can be doing there to ensure that that project moves forward and is successful. I know that we have a federal piece to this with FEMA funds, but again, we're staying engaged, making sure that if there are any sort of requests that we need to make from our legislative delegation or with regard to grant fund extensions, we have done that before. and we can work on that moving forward. Item C is the scenic road protective structure. While I did provide an update on potential state budget funds, we are also looking at Proposition 4 for that opportunity. In fact, there was just a release of technical assistance grant program opportunities for applying for Proposition 4 that we're going to be sharing with Monterey County in the event that we do need some technical assistance in the application process. for some of those funds. So we'll be sharing that information as well. And then finally, our grant track is attached. You can see every couple of weeks we are sending charts over to the county that outline the various grant funds that are coming up in the next few months and the appropriate departments to send those to that align with projects that we're aware of. So we have our grant track attached there and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have about our grant report.

Great. Any comments from the public? Any online? Okay. Any questions? Supervisor Daniels?

I am good. Thank you very much.

I think that was just a report out. No questions from the public. So we could conclude our meeting for today. Thank you, everybody. We'll see you at our next one.

Thanks, everybody. Thank you.