Interagency Governance Review Committee for Violence Prevention - Regular Meeting

Ron, all right. Everyone, it is just past 1.30. So we're gonna start our legislative committee meeting and let the record reflect that both Supervisor Kate Daniels and I are here along with our staff as well. And thank you for everybody for joining us. So we're calling this meeting to order. And do we have any additions or corrections? No? Okay, any general public comments for items on today's agenda? There's no one else here, nobody online. So let's move on and go to approval of the action minutes from our June 8th meeting. Are you good with those supervisor Daniels? Yes, sir. Are there any public comments on the minutes from our last meeting? Seeing none, we'll deem those approved by consensus. We're gonna go to a report by Nicole Hollingsworth, update on legislative committee roles and responsibilities policy.

Yes, just a quick update to the policies. I presented the red line and the clean version. We just go through these updates every year. And all I did was change a couple words from the committee directing Board of Supervisors to the committee recommending to the Board of Supervisors. So those are the only changes there. And you will see this if you approve today on the next consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors.

Okay, great. Thank you for those minor changes that were needed. Any comments or questions on those, Supervisor Daniels? Not from me. Any public on these? All right. You're good at those? I am. Okay, so we'll do the approved by consensus. Thank you, Nicole, for updating that for us. We're going to go to item number three, which is introductions or brief reports from our state or legislative, state or federal legislative offices. And we'll start with anybody from our federal offices first. Any staff from Senator Padilla or Schiff or Congress member Lofgren or Panetta? Okay, see none. Well, let's go to any of our state legislative offices. Senator Laird or assembly members Rivas or Addis? Oh, nobody. All right, great. They're on the interim, so there must be focus on other things right now. They got through legislative session. All right, if anybody jumps on, we'll go back to you. We're going to skip over our federal report because Maria Triplar, she's in traffic in DC and she wants to go at the end. So we're going to accommodate her. So we're going to go to Ashley Walker or Jack Worsten, either one to take us on item number five. There's quite a few items under there and we can just start from the top.

Thanks so much, Supervisor. Nice to see everybody this afternoon. I am on here and Jack is also, we're going to tag team your report today, but I'm going to get started. We wrapped up the legislative session on September 1st. It was a little bit hectic and different given that there were several budget bills that were introduced very last minute, making the legislature move into Tuesday, September 1st to finish out the legislative session. We Also, we're monitoring, and we'll get into some of this discussion, a bunch of wildfire reform discussions that were happening at the end of session that we were prepared to engage on if necessary, and we'll get into some of those details. So we are officially finished with the two-year session. Obviously, this is an election year, and the new legislative session will start back up In January, new members, though, will be sworn in, of course, sometime in December, and they can actually start introducing bills then. So we will be focused over the next couple of months updating our legislative program, meeting with department heads and supervisors to discuss what the priorities are for the upcoming year and what we accomplished in 2026 and how to move forward. I'll move on to my next item with regard to the state budget and discuss those final bills that were introduced allocating dollars and significant dollars to the County of Monterey that I want to review. This particular outline is AB 113, which was a budget trailer bill Um, so I want to review that, but the governor did also in the legislature did also come to an agreement on. Proposition for allocations. Again, we've been monitoring that very closely because we have a lot of projects that would be eligible for prop for dollars. And so we have been waiting to see what the allocations would be all year for proposition for, and they finally came out right at the end of session. And so we are going to be reviewing those allocations for The county and the county's projects over the fall. We've already alerted the county of several Prop 4 allocation opportunities. We'll get into that on our grant report. But specific to the county of Monterey, I want to start with a project that Nossaman did work directly on with the county and with county staff. And with Senator Leard and Assemblymember Addis, which is a $1.8 million allocation to the county for the scenic road protective structure. As you know, the county did apply for grant funding to try to get the ball rolling on scenic road protective structure in terms of the design and the permitting and all of the pre-construction work, as well as the construction. We did talk with Senator Leard's office and This is a project that he is very passionate about, of course, and has helped in other ways on. He was happy to help the county move forward with this $1.8 million allocation, which will cover the design, permitting, and pre-construction costs for scenic road protective structure, hopefully getting it into a place to be competitive for some other grant funds as in the future or other state budget allocations in the future for the actual construction of the project. So that was a big win. We're really happy about that. And thank you. If there's any staff here watching from Senator Laird's office or Assemblymember Addis's office, greatly appreciate all the work and attention on this project at the end of session. Another big, I think, allocation and The budget for Monterey County was $1.9 million to establish this new grant program, and it's across four different counties that are specifically having physician retention and access issues to help pay for medical school loan repayments. So $1.9 million and the counties that are eligible are us of course, San Luis Obispo and San Benito. So that will be great to help with that student loan repayment program for physician retention. In addition to that, there was $2 million allocated as one time funds to the Catholic charities and for local immigration support services that they're providing in Monterey county specifically so that was nice to see and then interestingly, there were two line items. for the Thelenas Regional Sports Authority. Yeah, which is great. This is a project the county has been supportive of for several years. We have requested funding for several years. We have put in countless letters of support, talked with the Speaker's Office about it, have talked with all of our members about the importance of this recreational opportunity for the region. And so it was wonderful to see not only a $1.5 million allocation, but then a secondary $1.265 million for the Salinas Regional Sports Authority. And then finally, I will just note that there was, and this was requested by Senator Laird, there was a kind of a small allocation of $150,000. This is actually going to go to the Department of Parks and Rec, but it's completely relevant to us because the reason Department of Parks and Rec is going to receive that funding is to prepare a report about the traffic congestion, unsafe parking conditions, that are at Point Lobos, the State Natural Reserve. So hopefully we'll get some information out of this study about what to do about the unsafe parking conditions there and moving forward and what might be some potential solutions there. So overall, I think we have some really wonderful wins for the county as a whole and one of our specific county projects. Any comments or questions about the state budget?

Okay. I'll just want to jump in to say thank you. I know this wasn't easy and it um you know we sit on other boards and there was lots of requests um from the from the different agencies that we have seats on those boards and i didn't see anything like what the county was able to accomplish so i just really appreciate uh the work that went into this and what was what was produced by you and by the legislature so i just want to say thank you Thanks, Supervisor Dan.

Yeah, I think these were all big budget wins for local projects. Obviously, the soccer complex is something that really surprised me that there was that much in there for it, and it really helps advance the work that's ready to go now at the park. So that's going to be exciting. I think the regional soccer complex wants to do something with Assemblymember Rivas and Senator Laird just to say thank you. That really helps advance the work. They're doing fundraising, but it's moving slow. But when you get a big... grant from the state like this, you're able to advance that work on an expedited way. And Ashley only mentioned the ones that were kind of the county was directly involved. The budget had some other wins like for Seaside. The city of Salinas got one for the Cesar Chavez Park drainage. I think King City, really smaller projects, but there was some smaller ones that are within our county. But those were more directed at the cities. So we're thankful for those other projects. Any resources coming down to local governments within our county, it's definitely a win for all our communities. And we want to say how thankful we are and acknowledge that leadership by our two assembly members and Senator Laird.

Yeah, absolutely. Thanks. Okay, we'll move on to legislation. You know, we're done with legislation, so we can take a break from talking about it soon here. But there's obviously still a lot of action that needs to happen at the governor's office. So we are waiting on action. One of our only sponsored bill this year is AB 2728 by Assemblymember Soria. Ara from the Water Resources Agency was able to come testify in the local government committee just that last week of session. So thank you to him and all of the county staff support on this piece of legislation. We were able to get it to the governor's desk. Again, the bill just allows us to exempt de minimis groundwater users from certain monitoring and management fees. And although that is somewhat clear within SGMA, we wanted to make it extra clear in anticipation of any potential lawsuits that it's very clear we are able to exempt these de minimis users. We had no problem really getting through the legislative process, but that did include lots of meetings with, of course, committee staff members, making sure that we were set up well for our committee hearings. We were on the consent calendar for several of those committee hearings, but we were not on consent for that final hearing in local government. So we were there to testify. It did pass out easily out of the legislature. We're really happy about that win, and we'll continue to keep you posted on the governor's action on that.

Actually, on this item, two things. One, when the governor, because I'm hopeful he will, when he signs this bill, if we could ask Nick Pasquale to do a press release on it, since it was a Monterey County-driven piece of legislation, and hopefully a quote by Supervisor Lopez, who led the effort talking to the Speaker on getting this bill accomplished. And also, if we could send a thank you letter to Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria saying, Her district is a Central Valley Fresno, but she was able to gut and amend her bill last minute in the last month of session that made this bill idea even possible. And I think when we have outside legislators willing to help solve problems for our county as well as other jurisdictions, I think it merits sending her a note of thanks for sure.

Yes, absolutely. We're happy to do that. I'll note both of these things. I just want you to know, too, we should absolutely submit that formal letter. We did get a chance to briefly talk with Assemblymember Soria after the committee hearing, and we did thank her also in person, just so you know. So we were able to chat with her, and Ara was able to meet her and chat with her, too. So very appreciative of her work. She's doing a lot of great things in the legislature. All right, we'll move on to, I want to talk a little bit about the wildfire liability reform. Since we were keeping you posted on all those discussions, I know that CSAP was highly involved in that as well. My colleague, Jack Worsten, was the lead on that. I'm going to hand it to him to provide a quick update.

Yeah, absolutely. I know the county, you know, was paying really close attention to this as it moved forward, but you know, we wanted to bring it to you and give you kind of just some background on it, where the legislature is currently and what we're really looking for over the falls, you know, as they move forward. So, you know, in mid-August, the governor released his kind of wildfire liability proposal. This was just like a couple weeks before the end of session. He started essentially briefing the legislature, briefing stakeholders without really releasing any language. What really became apparent in those discussions was, there were elements of his proposal that were going to really negatively impact local governments. And so, you know, we participated as NOSMN on behalf of the county in a handful of, you know, working groups, and we really monitored the negotiations as they move forward. Those really continued for the couple of weeks leading up to the end of session, right up until, you know, the Friday night before the Monday end of session. And what we saw is we saw legislation get introduced um, that Saturday morning. Um, so really pushing the legislature into like a Tuesday, um, finalizing session, um, just because of how last minute everything was, um, the proposal SB 492 that, uh, that did get introduced, um, was much more modest than really what the governor had been proposing. And it really eliminated all of the elements that were concerning for local governments. Um, the legislature did hold hearings. The assembly held a hearing on, um, on Sunday on the, on the proposal. And then Tuesday morning, as we were anticipating it to go up for vote, the assembly decided to hold off and not take a vote on the wildfire liability reform package. So instead what they promise is that they're gonna continue working on this issue. So really what we're looking for in the next few months is informational hearings to happen on wildfire liability reform. And then I think what we're anticipating is a new tranche of legislation in January or early session, really trying to tackle the issue. I think the legislature is really aware that this is an issue that's going to go away anytime soon. I want to add that the governor really hasn't taken a special session off the table, but at this point, I think we're more focused on looking for those informational sessions or those informational hearings. So we'll keep an eye on that, but really just wanted to give the county kind of an update on where those discussions are currently. and then happy to answer any questions.

Thanks, Jack.

Jack, maybe you just said this, but the press that we're asking the governor whether they would come back for a special session on the same topic, it didn't seem like it was logical after everything that happened on the last day of session or the last couple of days of session on this matter. What are you hearing? Are there any rumblings about that? Has that possibility gone away at this point?

So the governor won't say that the possibility has gone away. I don't think he wants to say he's not going to bring the legislature back. But I think the odds are unlikely that he will. I think the further we move along, the assembly really committed to holding these informational hearings and continuing the discussion. But again, the governor really is refusing to take it off the table. So I think he's trying to pressure the legislature into some action. I think he, you know, so what he does, he even submitted a letter to the CPUC asking them to look into the cost of inaction. You know, so they decided to hold off and they're going to put something together next year. And so he asked them to look and really try to quantify how much it's going to cost for them since they decided not to take action this year, what it's going to cost utilities this year. I think he's trying to pressure the legislature into taking action. But again, we're entering in, we're gonna have a new governor next year. I think it's right at the end of term. I think if they did end up doing a special session, we wouldn't see it likely till November after the elections. So we'll keep an eye out, but I mean, I think what we'll more likely see is an informational hearing or two on this issue.

All right. Well, thank you for your work on that, Jack. It was a party for our county, for CSEC and all counties across our state that were watching this closely as there was a lot moving really fast. And fortunately, we're thankful for the legislature for pushing back on some of this because it could have had really serious consequences for local governments and reimbursements for costs that we utilize or pay during these fire emergencies and also for fire victims. We're very concerned. And these were fires specifically that were found in court to be caused by a utility, right? So the blame in these cases were very clear. And we know that there's been numerous fires where that's been found to be true. And the fire victims, local communities and local governments should be able to get reimbursed for costs that they endure. So thank you for that.

Yeah, yeah. The discussions were really fluid right up until the end. I think it'll be really interesting to see kind of where they pick up from when they bring it back. But yeah, it's a big, big thing to tackle. And I think the legislature's being really thoughtful about it, which I think is important. Absolutely.

Great. All right. Thank you. We'll move on to an update on the county positions. We have included a chart here of all of the positions that we've taken on bills that actually made it to the governor's desk and what the status is. And, you know, we have to write our reports about a week or so before we meet. And so I did double check all of these bills this morning and nothing has been signed yet. So they are still all at the governor's desk. And we will continue to keep you posted on the outcomes as the governor starts taking action on these bills. And at our next meeting, I'm sure we will have the list filled out with all of the final action items. So with that, I will then move on to the county's request for an executive order to be issued by Governor Newsom for flood risk reduction. Our county, along with several other agencies, including the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency, the County of Santa Cruz, City of Watsonville, Water Resources Agency, the Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the Pajaro River Watershed Flood Protection Authority, all signed on making a formal request of Governor Newsom to take some immediate state action on preparing for the storms that we are anticipating in this upcoming winter storm season. It would be similar to an executive order that was introduced in 2023 that allowed some urgent expedited vegetation management, sediment management, and other activities that would help us get ready to reduce potential flood risks in the area. After that, because we're trendsetters in the state, CSAC and the counties, many counties signed onto a very similar request and have officially submitted that as well. We have been in touch with CSAC and the governor's office in Cal OES about potentially setting up a meeting to discuss this, but there is urgency around this, of course. to get this done quickly as we approach the storm season quickly. And so we're trying to work on getting that together, but CSAC does know that I'm working on this as well. So we're coordinating as much as possible. There's also been discussion about the potential need for the aftermath, what happens when there is flooding impacts and can we get an executive order to also expedite that work as well. So there's discussion about that being In talks also, however, this is the immediate need is that preparation for the flooding in advance of the storm season. I will just say that CalMatters obviously was reaching out to folks. We made all of our delegation aware of this request, asking them for their help in requesting this of Governor Newsom. Senator Lear did give a formal statement to CalMatters urging the governor to approve this request and put forward executive order, so we will continue to keep you posted on any discussions regarding this matter.

Chair, if I could ask a question?

Yes, please.

So, not to put anybody on the spot, but Ashley, I think it could be helpful to know what we would do in response to this, because I think time is of the essence, and with this Super El Nino, we're expecting potential wet weather, if we have it, to be as early as these fall months, before December, before winter. And so I guess my question would be, and I'm asking it because I think it might be helpful to you when you're advocating for this, to either Ara Ajderian or Randy Ishii, what does it look like for you once this is issued? Like how fast do we mobilize? How do we respond as a county? If this request is approved. So I just don't know if they could just jump in because I think it means immediately doing some of that flood control work and that debris removal and In particular, some of the management that's needed removing not just debris, but vegetation from these waterways.

Yeah, I see Randy and Ara on. I don't know if either of them are able to speak to the immediate actions that the county would take.

Yeah, and before they do, maybe I'll just say my comments very quickly so they can already answer it as well. I know on the Pajaro River, the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency, which is the lead agency now on the levees, they're able, without this, are able to do some vegetation removal more on the the banks of the river, the sides of the levees, but where you have more sensitive habitat going into the bed of the river, that's why I think this executive order would allow us to do more, but they are preparing to ask for the permits anyways, but this would help them expedite that work. So they're getting ready to do that, but they need this executive order to be able to do more work into the bank of the river itself. I know in 20... Here's where Randy could... clarify on the Salinas River last time, farmers wanted to move some dirt around to create some berms to try to protect some of the ag lands on the Salinas River. And I think that was helpful for them to do some of that work there. But on the Carmel River, not Carmel River, the Big Sur River, that's a big concern now because of the fires that are going on now when we had the Big Sur fire several years ago, a lot of the debris and logs and everything that ended up going into the river ended up taking out the Pfeiffer Bridge and that shut down Highway 1 for, I think it was like 10 months, right? So that's where I have more questions on what can be done on the Big Sur area in anticipation of the storms so that it doesn't result in taking out major infrastructure that will be very costly.

Randy has his hand raised.

Yes. Go ahead, Randy. Or anybody who wants to weigh in.

Thank you very much, Chair and Committee Member Daniels. Those are both excellent points which both of you raised. And so speaking to the County of Monterey road maintenance operations for the winter season, the center operating procedure during the fall season prior to winter for winter storm preparedness is we assess our culverts, we clean as many as we can, we repair as many as we can as part of that ongoing prep work, as well as making sand available at the sand stockpiles for private property owners to protect their property. That said, should an executive order be put into place that will accelerate efforts or provide waivers and exceptions for certain environmental requirements for the various creeks and waterways, we could potentially pair up our standard culvert activity where it aligns with the transportation infrastructure, such as clearing out underneath bridges or clearing out debris that might already be underneath bridges or at the approaches to bridges. We could clear those out. So things that are clearly in the county's ownership and responsibility area, that's something that we would pair up as part of our public works activities. To share Alejo's point, An order that would also apply to private property owners, such as along the Salinas River, would definitely help out their efforts as they try to protect their properties from potential high river flows from the Salinas River and the other rivers in the county. And then to that end, while there's not a representative from Caltrans on the line, it seems likely that with an exemption that applies for Caltrans as well, it would expedite Caltrans' efforts to clear and ensure that their bridges and their culverts along State Route 1 can wick away any of the fire debris, as noted, that could potentially come down from all the denuded areas, from the tens of thousands of acres of burned hillside and properties in and around the watersheds of Big Sur. And I see that general manager has his hand raised. So the staff member will stop here and is available for any further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Randy.

Yeah. Hey, good afternoon, everybody. You know, just thinking about this generally, we have been monitoring both the timber and plasket fires because Water Resources Agency owns and operates the storm monitoring facilities in the Ventana Wilderness. We've had three sites that are in the burn area and three that are in proximity. And we've been working with the Forest Service and with the California Geological Survey to discuss what their potential, not only the replacement of the existing equipment, but what their potential future needs might be later this fall for debris flow monitoring. So those conversations are in place. On the reservoirs, one new tool that we have that we didn't have in 2023 is a flood forecasting tool for the Salinas River. And so that will help inform where impacts could be occurring. And we're also wrapping up improvements to our what's called FERO Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations Model. And so those two new tools will be on hand prior to coming into this winter. On the Salinas River, it's complicated. Pajaro, of course, is The lands that are managed by PERFMA are also owned by PERFMA for the single purpose of providing flood protection on the Salinas. The lands are privately owned. And so working with private landowners requires a lot of coordination. The Salinas Maintenance Program is administered by the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County in partnership with the RMU Association and with Farm Bureau. And so we're more than happy to collaborate with all of them in terms of being able to leverage the abilities that the governor's executive order could provide. Similar challenges, of course, on the Carmel River, but we're happy to work with the Water Management District. And then in Big Sur, there really isn't another partnering entity. So I'm not quite sure how we could help there, but identifying their needs sooner rather than later would be great. And then of course, I think for all of us, you know, the issue always comes down to the, you know, what funding is available to be able to move quickly on this. And then while this does help with the state permitting requirements, oftentimes we can still get knotted up in the federal requirements. And so understanding how we can best navigate that and, you know, and considering the potential for something similar on the federal side, I think would be helpful. So. That's my off-the-cuff response.

Go ahead, Kate.

I was just going to say thank you to the both of you. So Ashley, I mean, as you can see, it's both the super El Nino, but also this potential debris flow from the fires that make this request so necessary. And I just hope that was helpful. Maybe just hearing from the entities who will execute. And I'm sorry to both of them for putting them on the spot. But I think that was incredibly helpful. So thank you both. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And this is follow up. I would ask our water resources and Mr. Ishii's office that if the executive order is issued, getting the word out to those private property owners is, about what can be done under that order just in preparation, right, that they know that it was issued and that there might be some space to be able to do work as we get closer to these storms. Also, the letter did contain making the request to Cal OES to deploy resources, right, So if we know that there may be greater dangers because of the burn scars in Big Sur, we also want to have the Cal OES engaged with us to see what resources and equipment they could deploy closer to us to help our county be able to carry out more work that it otherwise would be more difficult to do alone. But hopefully with some of their resources, we may be able to do more under this order with their collaboration on it. And I did want to just thank this County of Santa Cruz, Perth, Mother City of Watsonville, and other local agencies that signed onto that letter. The CSAC letter had 32 entities signed on from across the state. So that looked very strong as well. And CSAC legislative staff is following up with Cal OES and the governor's office on this request also. And then we're thankful that Cal Matters is writing an article. They were focused on CEQA, but I think they geared towards CEQA in anticipation or in the aftermath of major natural disasters like fires and storms. So hopefully that gives some more attention on this issue that might help persuade our governor and Cal OES that this is needed. It seems like a no-brainer since it was already done in 2023, but we always have to push until we actually see it realized.

Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate Ara and Randy your input, and thank you for the question, Supervisor Daniels, and that extra information, Supervisor Alejo, that you provided. So we'll continue to work with the governor's office, OES, and keep you posted as soon as we get any word on movement on this.

Thank you.

Sure. Okay, we're going to move on to positions on propositions, the 2026 November propositions. We have several positions that have been outlined. These are suggested positions. Jack is going to go through them all briefly, providing you an overview of each of the positions and our suggested position. And then the legislative committee is welcome to, of course, ask questions and take a vote on these positions we've suggested. I'll hand it to Jack.

Yeah, thanks, Ashley. So we have about six positions that we're recommending that the legislative committee take. I'll start with Proposition 1, which is the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026. So essentially, this would allow or authorize the state to issue $11.25 billion in general obligation funds for housing programs and veterans' home loans. So these are programs like affordable multifamily housing projects, infrastructure around building housing, farmworker housing, higher education, student housing, tribal housing, and then some set aside for veterans. Essentially, like the proposition really details where the money would go and how much would go to each one. So we're recommending a support position on Proposition 1. The second proposition is Proposition 2, which is the Save for California's Future Act. This would essentially require the state to build larger budget reserves and then continue the making extra debt payments through 2040. And then would also change the way that certain reserve deposits are counted under the state appropriations limit. So essentially paying, putting money into the reserves would now not count towards the appropriations limit is what they're looking at. Really, I think the aim of this one is to put more money aside on the good years so that There's less of a budgetary impact when the state, you know, with our volatile tax revenue, when we have down years, we don't have to make so many cuts. We think this is a prudent kind of fiscal proposition to support. So we're recommending the support position on this. Next, we have Proposition 3. So in 2012, voters approved Proposition 30, which temporarily increased tax rates on high-income taxpayers. In 2016, voters approved Prop 55 to extend those higher rates until 2030. Proposition 3, which is before you today, would remove the 2030 sunset and make the income tax rate permanent. The Legislative Analyst's Office expects that this would maintain roughly $5 billion to $15 billion in annual state income tax revenue. So we think this is an important one to support. Next, we have Proposition 34, which is middle-income buyers of qualified new homes. Essentially, this is going to put aside $25 billion in revenue bonds for a down payment assistance program for qualified first-time homeowners. For middle-income homeowners, this would be allowed to cover up to 17% of the cost of the home. So we're recommending a support position on that one as well. Next, we have Proposition 39. This proposition would require elected officials to verify voter citizenship status, require voters to provide government-issued identification support when voting, and create a free state voter ID card that people can opt into, and then also establish regular audits of election compliance. We are recommending an opposed position on this proposition. The Legislative Analyst's Office anticipated that, you know, depending on how the proposition gets interpreted, this could cost the state $10 billion to hundreds of millions of dollars. So, sorry, it would increase state and local government costs, either tens of millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars to implement this new voter identification program. Again, we're recommending an opposed position on this. And then finally, this Proposition 43, which is an important one, really would require any new increase or extended local special tax to be passed by two-thirds of voters instead of a simple majority beginning in 2027. So we're recommending an opposed position on this proposition as well. Happy to talk about any of these in more detail, but those are kind of our high-level overview.

Great. Thank you very much, Jack. Appreciate that. Any comments or questions on this, Supervisor Daniels?

I am in support of all of the recommendations on this list, and I will ask the very bold question of whether or not any counties have taken a support position on Prop 40.

I would need to look. I'm not sure off the top of my head if they have. I'm happy to report back at our next meeting if we're

Will we have a meeting before? Yeah. Yeah, that would be great.

Okay.

I know it's just I'm interested myself.

Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Happy to report back on positions taken on Proposition 40.

There's, you know, there's websites for both yes, vote yes and vote no. So we could easily just look that up. Supervisor Daniel. Thank you.

Yeah, there's a lot of division on that, even among labor, right? On that millionaire's tax.

I couldn't hold back, sir, chair. I couldn't hold back. We're talking about propositions.

I'm looking right now just to try to quickly answer your question, Supervisor Dennis. I see, I'm looking at the... the website right now. I don't see anyone, any counties on the no. And then, yeah. Well, that's helpful. It's kind of interesting because on the yes website, there's not really a clear area like on the no website where it lists out who's Who's yes on 40. Yeah. We'll look into this a little bit more. CSAC might have information too, or there might be.

Yeah. CSAC stayed out of this one, this fight.

Yeah. CSAC stayed out of it.

A lot of folks have.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate all the other work that went into all the propositions and I'm supportive.

Yeah, great. Since we're taking up these six propositions, I'm just going to ask if there's any comments from the public on this item on D, and then I'll ask for public comments on the rest at the end of the presentations under item number five. Are there any public comments on the 2026 November propositions? Nobody here, nobody online? Okay, we'll deem those positions approved that were recommended by consensus. Let's go to governor's actions and executive orders.

Great. Yes. Thank you. We have listed out any executive orders or actions that have happened since we last met. I'm not going to go through all of these, but if the committee has any questions, happy to answer those. And then we have our state bill and issues track attached. That state legislative tracker, it's very similar to the chart that I've included in your main report. However, Don't forget to note all of the budget and other issues on that track. That really reflects where we have submitted comments, requests, things that fall outside of legislation. That would include our request for that executive order, for example, that we just discussed. So all of that is captured in that state bills and issue track. And with that, that concludes our state report, unless there's other questions or comments from the committee.

Great. Are there any comments from the public on any of the items under number five that we haven't opened it up for public comment yet? No. See none? Okay. Thank you. Ashley, let's go to item number six, and then we'll go to Maria Triplar after that.

Okay, that sounds great. Item number six, we are here to chat about the grant opportunities and grant projects at the county right now. I wanted to start with, because we didn't get a chance to report on this last month on the San Lucas drinking water project, that we have been working on the allocation that was included in the 2025-26 state budget for $4 million for the San Lucas drinking water project. Those funds are being administered by the State Water Board. As you know, we've been working very close with the State Water Board and the Speaker's Office on what the scope of work looks like for that $4 million. There was an agreement that was officially executed on July 10th. Yay to Randy and his team. And so now the county is currently working to retain a design consultant. who will be moving forward and preparing construction documents, et cetera. So they're working with the US EPA community grant funds that they've received and this $4 million in state budget funding that we received. So project is moving and off the ground with those allocations of funds. As we get closer into construction, we will start looking into additional grant funds for that purpose. Not quite there yet because we do need some design to be underway, etc. So we actually know what we're applying for with regard to construction. So we are not quite there, but we've got a good chunk of change right now that we're working on and that project's moving forward. So thanks to Randy and his team. The next item is the Carmel River floodplain restoration and environmental enhancement project, otherwise known as the CR Free project. As you know, we have been working with the county on potential loss of funds due to FEMA funds being held up for this project. We do have another meeting scheduled with staff to discuss the details of that and potential next steps With regard to political requests, we'll keep the committee posted as we come up with some action items and strategy for that very critical project for the county.

Can I ask a question or make a statement, Chair?

Yes.

So I just wanted to make a pitch for anyone who may be listening. And if any of those attendees are our elected officials office, I mean, This project really came out of the last time we found ourselves with an actual super El Nino flood. And it really has the potential, as everybody knows, to not only restore a floodplain, but in doing so, move an entire region out of the flood zone. And here we are facing another disaster. Another potential super El Nino and that infrastructure is, you know, obviously stronger than it was. We lost a bridge the last time and it was completely wiped out by the waters. And now we have a new bridge that's higher and, you know, definitely more secure. But what I will say is that this FEMA holdup isn't the only thing this project has experienced. There's been several different steps along the way that were unfortunately largely bureaucratic and caused the project to experience lengthy delays. And now with the FEMA funding of 27 million, really at stake. The project may have to reinvent itself in some other way if it's ever going to actually happen. So my pitch would be that this is the time for that FEMA grant to, if anyone has any ideas, it's as creative as you can possibly be to get the Office of Management and Budget to move this grant forward. It's so critical. Obviously, nothing's going to happen before this year, but we have the potential to see ourselves this year in the exact same situation that we were in in the 1990s that was the genesis of this project. And so it's super sad and disappointing to see where we're at with this project. And I'm just, you know, praying for a miracle at this point. So if anyone has any ideas, I just really hope you'll, you'll execute them and see if we can, if we can we can get that extension and that funding allocated. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for your comments, Supervisor Daniels. I remember 2014 very vividly. It was my first year working with the county. And in addition to the San Lucas project, the CR free project was one of the very first projects I started working on. And so I share that sentiment and hopefully we can find a path forward on this project.

Thank you.

All right, we will move on to a few Proposition 4 funding opportunities I wanna highlight for you. One is the Proposition 4 Dam Safety and Climate Resilience Program. Our Water Resources Agency has been closely monitoring this and working to make sure they are in a position to submit a competitive application. There was, as you recall, a public comment period on draft guidelines, and then they opened a secondary public comment period for a very brief moment. So there is still not an official solicitation that has been released yet, but we do anticipate it to be released by the end of this year. And the grant awards are expected to be made by March of 2027. So we will be helping Water Resources Agency with anything they need regarding an application for these funds. The next proposition for a grant program I want to highlight is the stormwater grant program. We have sent that over to the Public Works Department. There were draft guidelines that were open for public comment. Those public comments closed on August 24th. The solicitation will include $110 million available statewide. The final solicitation has also not yet been released. As soon as it is, we will share that with Public Works and walk through our projects to figure out what the best path forward is on that grant program. Finally, and great news I have on this one is the Proposition 4 Statewide Parks Program is now actually open. So since I wrote this report, it has officially opened. The application deadline is the beginning of December. Don't quote me, I think it's December 5th off the top of my head. We have not yet shared this information with the county because we've just learned of it, but we will share this information with the county There are obviously several parks needs within the county that are likely good fits for this program. The applications are, like I said, due in December, and it will be probably about three to six months until awards are made in 2027. There's just over $188 million available statewide. So a good amount of funding, especially when you see in comparison to the stormwater grant program. And then finally, we have our grant tracker attached, which just tracks all of our efforts on projects and alerts you of the different grant programs that we have sent over to the county. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have, and that concludes this report.

Ashley, on the three grant programs, what do we need to do to put forward the strongest programs application when we're going to be competing with projects from all across the state. And then on the parks program, how will we narrow the list of applications, which application we will submit?

Yes. So on your first question, Supervisor Alejo, the big things in Prop 4 are the number one item is multi-benefit projects. So it's not just a stormwater project, right? It's identifying in the application, and we can use the draft guidelines because I don't think they'll change too much. But it's identifying projects that have multiple benefits. So that's a big one. Another one with all Proposition 4 projects are benefiting a disadvantaged community. There's an important distinction here though that I want to make because it's unlike previous propositions where the physical project had to be located in a disadvantaged community or severely disadvantaged community. What Prop 4 says is that we have to make the case that this project benefits a disadvantaged community or a severely disadvantaged community. I would say those in general are two big main items to watch out for on Prop 4. With regard to the Department of Parks, I have a lot of experience with the statewide parks program. What's going to be how we kind of weed out projects or decide what project is using the mapping tool. Mapping tool is going to tell us which projects are most competitive. Those are based on the median household income in that area. It's going to be based on the number of people living in poverty in that area. It's going to be based on the amount of per acreage per 1,000 residents. So what we need to do is identify within that mapping tool that we are using now, which projects are most competitive with regard to where they're located.

And Ashley, who can apply for the parks funding? Cities and counties seem obvious, perhaps special districts, but what about nonprofits?

Um, that's a good question. I don't know off the top of my head. I can quickly look cause I'm actually, you can just get back to me later. Yeah. Yeah. I'll let you know. Um, because I don't know off the top of my head.

Yeah. Cause I could assume like Big Sur built the last park in Salinas and sim park. Right. So there were a nonprofit, um, organization. So I just don't know if they're going to groups like that would also be eligible to submit their applications. Yeah.

Yeah, that's a good question. I will look into that for you.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

I don't have any other questions.

Any comments from the public on this? These are all reports. And thank you, Ashley, for the update on the parks program. I look forward to submitting on all three of those, right? Our job is to submit strong application and hopefully draw down funding for our local communities here in our county. So thank you for your help with that. And our agencies are taking lead on those as well. I mean, our departments. Okay, that's that. We'll go back to the federal report.

Is Maria on now?

Okay, Maria is on. Okay, great.

Yeah, I'm here. Thank you, Supervisor Alejo and, oh, I lose it? There we go. Supervisor Alejo and Supervisor Daniels for your understanding. I know that DC doesn't necessarily compare to California's traffic, but it's still not a delight over here. But I am actually, as Nicole indicated, I'm going to also be tag teaming this particular presentation with Trey Miller. And he is going to lead us off with the congressional overview. So I will turn it over to him.

All right. Thanks, everyone. So, like Maria mentioned, I'll start with the federal legislation. And since we last met, it's been a very busy stretch. First, Reconciliation 2.0, which is the party line package that funds ICE and the Customs and Border Patrol or Border Protection package. through the rest of the president's term. The Senate passed this on June 5th after stripping some of the more politically charged pieces out. And then the House also passed it on June 9th with President Trump signing it the next day. It's roughly $70 billion in funds to those two agencies through fiscal year 2029 and wrapped up the last of the 2026 appropriations work. In their final week before the break, the House rattled off four major bills and sent them all to the Senate. The first was government funding, which is a clean continuing resolution that passed on July 21st. And this keeps the government funded through December 4th, funding all the usual programs like SNAP, WIC, wildfire suppression, and disaster relief. funded at their usual levels. And this is mostly just to buy time, since none of the full year 2027 bills had passed both chambers. The second was the, on July 22nd, that House adopted a budget resolution launching Reconciliation 3.0, which is roughly framework across the four committees with $60 billion going to defense, $13 billion towards intelligence, $12 billion for farm relief, and $10 billion to help states run voter ID programs. Both chambers have to adopt these before a draft can start. And so on the Senate side, it's really up in the air. Next was defense, and the House passed the 2027 Defense Authorization Bill in July at $1.15 trillion, which had a pay increase for military members. It had a ban on foreign shipyards for battleships being able to be used to build ships. to build ships and a number of other things. The Senate now has its own version, which is 1.14 trillion, but Democrats have largely blocked this from going to the floor due to the Iran war and concerned about how fast the defense budget is growing. The final one was the Stop Insider Training Act, which is a effort to ban members of Congress, their spouses and kids from buying individual stocks. Republicans attached a voter ID provision to this, which made it a more controversial bill than it initially was. Democrats who supported this bill had called it too weak, and they also called the voter ID piece of poison pill. So now that it's in the Senate, it's not clear whether this will pass, and it really has no clear path to pass. Back to government funding. On August 2nd, the Senate appropriators rolled out their own bipartisan stopgap funding. And that goes until December 11th, which is a week later than the House. The Senate passed it on August 8th, and the House came in and adopted later at the beginning of September, which the president later signed into law. And this, like I mentioned before, funds through December 11th and will prevent a shutdown. Next, I guess the last thing I'll mention about Congress is the Farm Bill, where Chairman Boosman moved a compromise Farm Bill 2.0, giving states an extra year to cover a big share of the SNAP costs. It failed on a party line vote 10 to 11. Democrats wanted a two year delay, not a one. And Senator Bozeman recessed the committee rather than log the loss. And it is expected to pick back up later this month. for the executive branch.

Trey, just to jump in if I could, one piece I did want to highlight for the legislative committee regarding the CR that was signed into law and enacted is there was a particular provision in there that temporarily barred the Trump administration from finalizing the proposed rule. that would have placed political appointees in charge of approving federal grants. That effort is officially frozen through December 11th. As the board and the committee are well aware, the Board of Supervisors submitted a formal comment opposing that rule. So I do want to highlight that there is some additional time built in there to try to ensure that the county's interests are represented and that that rule is, it's unclear whether it will ultimately be finalized, but there is some breathing room. So back to you, Trey.

All right. Thanks, Maria. Going back, I guess I'll now switch to the executive branch. On July 9th, the GSA responded to our letter opposing the ICE detention facility in Gilroy. And that letter essentially said that the project is tied up in ongoing federal litigation. litigation. Sorry about that. And pointed us to the Department of Justice for anything further. So we will continue to monitor and let you know on any updates. Um, there was two executive orders that we wanted to, yes, sir.

Yeah. But the court, the court here in San Jose, the federal court gave the preliminary injunction to halt the construction as of last Friday. Uh, so that's good news. I attended the hearing because they, uh, she issued a tentative ruling the Friday before the, on Monday, there was the hearing to hear from the two attorneys for mice that were there. And then also the attorney representing the private contractor, uh, And then there was the County Council for County of Santa Clara made most of the arguments, but also there was a representative from the California Department of Justice as well. But Friday, I thought the judge was going to wait till today to issue the ruling, but she did that on Friday. So that's good news. But everyone expects this to get appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court and eventually to the Supreme Court. But we won the first battles. We'll keep watching this as we move forward.

Thank you for that. So I have two executive orders that we flagged. The first was a proclamation giving 25 chemical plants a two-year exemption from the EPA's 2024 home rule on hazardous air pollutants. It doesn't repeal the rule. It just delays compliance with the deadlines by two years. The president said that this is done because of national security implications. The second was for an executive order on regenerative agriculture. This directed the USDA to expand its pilot program, directed the EPA to prioritize alternative crop protection products, and the agencies to research cumulative chemical exposure in the food supply. This is part of that Make America Healthy Again program. But since it works within existing authority and available money, the real effect comes down to the implementation. So as these different agencies start to roll out their implementation strategies, we'll make sure to track them and bring them to your attention where necessary. And lastly for me will be on the county's appropriations. The Ballard team is staying on top of the community project funding requests. We've submitted a slate through Senator Padilla and Senator Schiff and Representative Logren and Panetta. So far, San Lucas Clean Drinking Water is the only one that's picked up a draft funding level. As a partial amount and the rest are in the mix, but have not landed draft dollars yet.

Yeah, thank you for that, Trey. And in fact, the House version is the one that does include the draft funding level for San Lucas, as Ashley so eloquently described, how much the county truly needs this effort to provide clean water for the San Lucas community. That draft funding level is about three quarters of a million dollars. which will certainly help the project move forward, although, you know, far shy of what is needed to complete the project. But we are continuing to monitor that. My anticipation is that within the lame duck session following the midterm elections is where we are more likely to see appropriations activity. I welcome any questions or comments on any of these sections that Trey covered before we move on to advocacy.

Lucienne, you can move forward.

All right. So again, you can see that the state team and the federal team is working hand in hand on a variety of issues. There's quite a bit of overlap within this advocacy section. And I do note that As a general theme, I do welcome Ara and Randy to feel free to jump in at any point on these issues that have been so close to the county. Supervisor Daniels in particular, I know we're following very closely on the CR free project and working with Representative Panetta on those FEMA reimbursements. both in relation to CR-Free as well as in general for the county. As you indicated, this is one that is very top of mind in trying to see what the options are available to try to preserve the federal funding that has been allocated by FEMA for the project. I will say I've spoken directly with Mr. Panetta on this project, on multiple occasions, as I'm sure you are aware, given your close contact with him. He is personally involved and engaged and working things from his side to advocate for the county. It is an unfortunately heavy lift, given where this currently stands. But, you know, we will continue to look under every rock and see what the options are available to try to move this forward so that that federal funding is not lost. Turning to the NSFLTP grant, the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects program that we are pursuing for the Palo, Colorado Road Storm Damage Repair Project. That is one that Mr. Panetta's staff has encouraged the county to pursue through the competitive grant opportunity. We have been working hand in hand with his office on this now for several years. There was a prior solicitation that was paused. And a new solicitation was recently released. It is an eight-mile stretch of road that is the only access road from the Big Sur coastline along Highway 1 into the Los Padres National Forest. It also serves many residents who live along that roadway with no other way to access their homes. We are continuing to work with the federal delegation and county staff on that grant. Public Works Facilities and Parks team has been particularly active in that space, as they frequently are. um and randy feel free here to jump in of course i do know that randy and his team met with mr panetta's staff when they were in district and at the county on august 26 to discuss any number of challenges facing county public works and that that was one conversation piece that was a particular um particularly prominent um Powell, Colorado, is actually a little bit of an example about the trend of FEMA de-obligating funds that were previously committed. So, for example, the entire project cost is $17 million, and the county had been relying on about $3.3 million and FEMA disaster assistance funds dating back to the 2017 winter storms. However, FEMA has since deobligated those funds. And so now this grant application is intended to fill a large portion of that gap. And of course, his office in particular, as I mentioned, Mr. Panetta's office has been very helpful in that space. And we do appreciate the partnership with the state team as the county is pursuing that grant opportunity to ensure that we do have the full slate of support from electeds outside the county on that particular grant opportunity. We'll also note that on July 10th, the Ballard SPAR team worked closely with county staff to draft and then submit on behalf of the county a comment letter to the Office of Management and Budget regarding the federal rule I mentioned earlier that would place. political appointees in charge of determining the award of grant funds. And as you know, all supervisors within the county as well as the county administrative officer is concerned by that proposed change because it would destabilize to the extent it would how the county forecasts and budgets for projects. We just touched on FEMA obligating funds and the impact that's had. This rule would potentially place a county in a position where it has been awarded funds and is counting on certain funds, and that could potentially not come to be without a lot of notice or potential due process. So that is of concern. So you'll see that that is described in greater detail in the written report. I know, of course, Supervisor Alejo and Supervisor Daniels, you're well aware of what those concerns are. But I did want to ensure that we touched on that as an update as well as for the purposes of the public. Um, and it is, you know, slightly back. It's been, you know, as I mentioned, unfortunately, the fire did take precedence last month. So there's more to cover than usual. Um, but at the end of June, um, we, we again worked with County staff to draft and submit a comment letter to the FCC, um, at the behest of the County's library director, who was particularly troubled by some downstream implications of this particular proposal, um, regarding E-rate, which is a universal service fund program that helps schools and libraries afford broadband and telecommunication services in a variety of other capacities. Again, for reference, that is more closely detailed in the federal report. And of course, there has been a great deal of engagement with the federal delegation as a whole, and particularly Mr. Panetta, given that it's in his district, regarding the timber and plasket fires. Of course, everyone on this call is unfortunately painfully familiar with the situation regarding both fires and the impact on the county. I will say this is also one where Monterey County Water Resources Agency has been coordinating as well the use of the San Antonio Reservoir for firefighting aircraft supporting the response. And as we do look to recovery, and as has been mentioned several times already in this meeting with NOAA's forecast of the Super El Nino for the coming winter, Post-fire readiness is something that is also top of mind. So we are working with MCWRA and Ara and his team, as well as the federal delegation, to ensure that under the circumstances, the county is as best positioned as possible for what we anticipate in the coming months. Aura, is there anything you wanted to add to that before I move to the next item?

No. Good job, Maria.

Thank you, Aura. And then finally, um, as, as, as mentioned, you know, Mr. Panetta did have staff in the county, um, a couple of weeks back, um, both Jacobson from his DC office and Kara Woodruff, his district director, uh, excuse me, the district director for Senator John Laird. was also participating. And I know Ara spent a great deal of time showing Representative Panetta's staff, as well as Senator Laird's staff, about the federal funding request the county has for dams projects. And particularly, I know that Liz appreciated getting eyes on the dams themselves and having a better understanding of what the county's needs are for those projects. And we're looking forward to continuing those conversations, particularly as we gear up for a new round of federal appropriations requests to ensure that we are best positioning the county for those projects, not just the dams, of course. but for potentially a WERDA designation as we started discussions last year for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration for the Carmel River and seeing what additional opportunities may exist for the county in that space. That concludes the advocacy section. And of course the federal bill and issues track is attached and Trey and I stand ready for any questions.

Thank you, Maria and Trey, for your work on behalf of our county and for those letters you submitted, being a voice for our residents on those very technical issues that could really have an impact on what kind of funds come to us. And shout out to Liz. She's in Panetta's office, right? Yeah, she's been coming down pretty regularly and really expert staff member, very experienced. And so her coming onto the ground really makes a big difference. So I want to give her thanks for being really attentive to our local governments. It's appreciated. Let's go to Ara and then Randy. Do you want to say some words on this?

I agree with everything you just said about Liz, and it was great that we were able to spend that time with her. The only thing I wanted to add to the report that Maria offered was following the tour of the dams, Water Resources Agency hosted a roundtable discussion with parks and our park rangers and with Slow County Public Works staff and to talk about our joint muscle prevention program and to talk about the state and federal legislation that is in play as a result of the golden muscle infestation. And I think the short message there is virtually all of the legislation that's been introduced so far has been introduced by representatives that are in areas that have already been infested. And so it focuses on mitigation, And that makes sense. But, you know, in addition to that, our message has been, you know, the old ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And so let's not turn our backs on prevention programs and research. So that was the only thing I wanted to add.

Yeah. Thank you, Ara, for having that meeting with other agencies to make the most of her time and other staff's time during that visit down to South Monterey County. Randy.

Thank you very much, Chair. And Public Works concurs with Water Resources Agency in that our federal representation has been very helpful, and Bel Air SPAR has been most instrumental and helpful for the department in pursuing the grants. It was a very thorough report, which Ms. Triplar had provided your committee. The only thing that we would add under the grants component is with regards to Palo Colorado Road. And we reiterate the unfortunate nature which FEMA had taken on this, where they deobligated the project after the department waited for months after submitting an appeal and a scope of work revision with the new information that was discovered with studies that were conducted after the funds were originally obligated, but before that point in time in which the grant had elapsed. And what's noteworthy in that is Beyond the initial damage assessment that was conducted, there was not a way for the county to know the extent of the damages until we conducted those study efforts that your board of supervisors gave funding for to start that initial design and permitting work. And so when the department submitted the scope of work change requests, in addition to the time extension request, FEMA waited for months before replying back to us, and we only heard back from them after the deadline had passed. So it's very woeful that FEMA chose to conduct its business in which it had, in this case, on the county and de-obligated the funds. We've exercised all the appeals, and there is not a pathway forward on there. And so after Liz and Panetta's staff had heard When it transpired, they expressed support for finding some type of replacement funding through various federal means where they might be able to find it. So should that become about, the department stands ready and looks forward to working with Ms. Triplar and her staff at Bel Air Spar to try to apply for and acquire those funds to replace the deobligated funds. And thank you very much, Chair.

Yeah, thank you for raising that, Randy, and looking out how else we could get the needed funding there. So thank you for raising that with us today. Anyone else?

If I could just get some clarification, though. But the nationally significant federal lands and tribal projects program is still alive. Is that accurate?

Affirmative.

Okay, good.

Yes. It was the FEMA funding that has been, unfortunately, de-allegated and taken from us. So we're a replacement for that, as well as the other funding gap, though, which exists.

Right. The program had gone dormant for quite some time, Supervisor, but just within the past few months, it has been revived, and there is a new NOFO out, and Randy's team is working on that packet.

Great. Thank you all. All right. Anyone else? That concludes your report, right, Maria?

Yes, sir.

I want to thank you, Trey. I see Caitlin Coble also on there. Thank you as well for helping us out on the federal side. So everybody, this will conclude our meeting. We are here at the Schilling place because we've had a sewage backup problem at our 168 West Allisaw, our main county building. And I know Randy's team has been working hard to get that building reopened. So it's going to be closed tomorrow still, but hopefully reopen on Wednesday. So some of our meetings are being moved to this county building in the meantime until that could reopen. Randy, do you got the latest? Will we be scheduled to open on Wednesday?

We have the sampler, the industrial hygienist who acquired the samples this morning, supervisor. So by tomorrow morning, we should know the answer on that one with certainty.

But thank you and your team for working hard. I thought it would only take a couple of days. It's taking way longer than it is. So it just shows how complex that issue is. But thank you for hopefully getting our government building open because some of our other services were impacted and like our county treasurers and assessors offices, our recorder, they're all trying to provide services and in other locations in the meantime. So thank you. All right. So we'll conclude this meeting and we'll see you at the next one. Thank you all. October. All right. See you next month. Thank you.