[Roll Call]
[00:00:05]
I CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE OF THE BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT FOR AUGUST 19, 2026. THE MEETING IS HEREBY CALLED TO ORDER AT 1:02PM. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES. THANK YOU.
[Approval of Minutes]
SO MOVED.SO THE MINUTES CAN BE APPROVED IN ONE MOTION.
SO ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? OKAY.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED BY DIRECTOR WAESPI.
HAS BEEN SECONDED BY DIRECTOR COFFEY.
CAN WE HAVE A VOTE? SO ARE ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ALL RIGHT. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
THIS IS A TIME WHEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE ON MATTERS THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC COMMENT ANNOUNCEMENT? THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
[Action Items]
4. OUR ACTION ITEMS. A. RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT FEDERAL LEGISLATION.HERE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM IS DIVISION LEAD OF GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND ERIC FUEHLER.
DIVISION LEAD FOR GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, ERIC FUEHLER. AND WE'LL GO THROUGH PROBABLY HAVE ABOUT 10, 8 OR 9 BILLS THAT WE'LL GO THROUGH SOMEWHAT QUICKLY.
FIRST BILL IS ENTITLED SUMMER FOR ALL. IT BASICALLY IS A GRANT PROGRAM FOR GETTING OUTDOOR KIDS OUTSIDE THROUGH PROGRAMMING, WHETHER THAT BE THROUGH PARK AGENCIES OR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. THIS ACTUALLY WOULD EXTEND THE FUNDING THAT WAS ORIGINALLY WITHIN THE AMERICAN RESCUE ACT THAT HAS EXPIRED, SO IT WOULD CONTINUE SOME OF THAT PROGRAMMING IF IT WERE ENACTED.
WILDFIRE SMOKE EMERGENCY DECLARATION WOULD ENABLE THE PRESIDENT TO DECLARE A WILDFIRE SMOKE EMERGENCY FOR ANY GIVEN STATE OR AREA THAT HAD EXTREME SMOKE. THIS COULD PROVIDE FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE PARK DISTRICT BOTH IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING WHEN SMOKE IS A HAZARD, BUT ALSO JUST OPERATIONALLY COULD PROVIDE SOME DIRECTION AS TO WHETHER TO KEEP PARKS OPEN OR NOT DURING A SMOKE EMERGENCY.
IT ALSO WOULD ENABLE FEMA TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO AREAS THAT ARE DECLARED WHERE THE DECLARATION OCCURS.
RESTORED THIRD SPACES IS ACTUALLY LEGISLATION THAT'S JUST ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF WORK OR HOME FOR COMMUNITIES TO GATHER.
THE LEGISLATION DOES INCLUDE PARKS AS AN EXAMPLE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE GRANT FUNDING, WHICH IS 200 MILLION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS. AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT IS A SORT OF A BROADER REAFFIRMATION OF THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF 900 MILLION ANNUALLY THAT ALSO REAUTHORIZES THE OUTDOOR LEGACY RECREATION PROGRAM AND IT PROVIDES 1.9 BILLION FOR DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON FEDERAL LANDS, 70% OF WHICH WOULD BE FOR NATIONAL UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. THIS IS ACTUALLY LEGISLATION THAT WE DO ANTICIPATE BEING ENACTED BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. ITS GOAL IS TO CELEBRATE THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE COUNTRY.
THE PUBLIC ACCESS PROTECTION ACT IS AN INTERESTING BILL REGARDING THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. SO WHENEVER THEY DEVELOP A PROJECT OR BEGIN
[00:05:02]
CONSTRUCTION, THEY NEED TO CONSIDER ACCESS TO THE SITE IF THERE WAS PREVIOUS ACCESS. AND THEY NEED TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT THEY HAVE TO THAT PUBLIC ACCESS.AND ONCE THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE, IF THERE WAS EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS, IT WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED OR RE ADDED.
AND THAT COULD BE OF IMPACT ALONG THE DELTA AND THE BAY SHORELINES. SHOULD THERE BE PROJECTS THAT THE CORPS UNDERTAKES. THEN, WE'VE GOT A SERIES OF BILLS ON BIKE SAFETY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT A FAIR BIT WITH REGARD TO CALIFORNIA, BUT OUR CONSULTANTS DID IDENTIFY SOME LEGISLATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL THAT WOULD ADDRESS SIMILAR ASPECTS OF E BIKE SAFETY. THE FIRST BILL BASICALLY TAKES EXISTING OR ALLOCATES EXISTING FEDERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY FUNDING AND DIRECTS IT TOWARDS BICYCLE SAFETY, INCLUDING E BIKES AND EMOTOS.
SO IT WOULD BE MORE OF AN EDUCATION PROGRAM.
THE AMERICAN BIKES ACT REALLY IS A BROADER ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM.
AND IT WOULD FUND TRAILS LIKE OUR TRAIL NETWORK, BUT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES TO PROVIDE MORE SAFETY FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIANS.
THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO US FROM BIKE EAST BAY AND SOME OTHER LOCAL ENTITIES THAT THE ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE E BIKES, SOME OF THE E BIKE SAFETY ISSUES ARE AROUND THE FACT THAT CITIES REALLY HAVEN'T STEPPED UP TO PROVIDE THE PROPER SAFETY FOR BIKING THROUGH THEIR COMMUNITIES.
SO THIS WOULD BE A BIG FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAM TO SUPPORT THAT.
THE SAFE SPEEDS ACT IS AN INTERESTING APPROACH TO ADDRESSING THE DEFINITION OF E BIKES AND EMOTOS. IT DIRECTS THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION TO DEVELOP STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS THAT WOULD ENABLE PARENTS AND CHILDREN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE PURCHASING, WHETHER IT'S AN E BIKE OR AN EMOTO. THIS REALLY ALIGNS WITH THE BILL MOVING THROUGH THE STATE LEGISLATURE SB 1167 THAT THE BOARD HAS TAKEN A POSITION OF SUPPORT ON AND I BELIEVE IS CONTINUING TO ADVANCE.
AND THEN I BELIEVE THE LAST BILL IN THIS CATEGORY, THE MOVE ACT BASICALLY UTILIZES THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION. THEY HAVE A RESEARCH ARM THAT WOULD ALSO LOOK INTO BEST WAYS TO AND BEST PRACTICES TO PREVENT INJURIES AND SECURE SAFETY MEASURES FOR E BIKE AND OTHER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION MODES. AND I BELIEVE THAT IS ALL. SO HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SUPPORT POSITION ON ALL NINE BILLS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION FROM BOARD MEMBERS? OKAY.
WE WILL NOW OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS OR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION? SECOND.
[Informational Items]
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO 5.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. HERE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM IS GRANTS MANAGER, KATIE HORNBECK.
KATIE HORNBECK, GRANTS MANAGER IN FINANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT ON THE GRANT APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO DATE IN 2026, AS WELL AS ANY GRANT AWARDS THAT WE'VE BEEN NOTICED OF IN 2026 AS WELL.
SO THE REPORTING WINDOW IS JANUARY 1ST THROUGH AUGUST 3RD. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ARE SO SMALL BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY, WHICH IS GREAT.
THE LIST OF APPLICATIONS. SO WE'VE SUBMITTED A TOTAL OF 25. ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS LINE FIVE AND SIX.
SO WE SUBMITTED TWO APPLICATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S SAN FRANCISCO BAY
[00:10:03]
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND PROGRAM. WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST WITH THIS PROGRAM. IT FUNDED THE COYOTE HILLS PROJECT, I BELIEVE THE.WHAT WAS THE BRUNO MARSH PROJECT SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
AND SO WHAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT HERE IS THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY THE HAYWARD MARSH PROJECT THAT WAS AWARDED 5 MILLION. SO IN THAT STATUS COLUMN, IT SHOULD BE SWAPPED.
JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THEY DID NOT SELECT THE KELLER BEACH PROJECT TO BE FUNDED.
SO WE HAVE 5 MILLION FOR THE RESTORE HAYWARD MARSH PROJECT, WHICH WAS REALLY EXCITING. AND THEN THE LAST THING I WANTED TO GO OVER IS SOMETHING I ADDED TO THIS REPORT THAT I HADN'T DONE IN THE PAST WAS THIS UPCOMING EXPECTED APPLICATION SECTION.
JUST TO SORT OF FORECAST TO THE COMMITTEE OF THINGS THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING, WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN FORMALLY ANNOUNCED WITH A DEADLINE OR WE JUST SORT OF KNOW, TYPICALLY AROUND THIS TIME OF YEAR, THIS IS WHEN WE SUBMIT TO THAT PROGRAM. AND THEN THE LIST OF GRANT AWARD NOTICES IN 2026 TODAY HAD BEEN 10.
AND THE ONE, THE FIRST ONE I WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS NUMBER ONE. THIS WAS ACTUALLY A GRANT AUGMENTATION FOR THE PROJECT AT DEER VALLEY. THE WCB HAD AWARDED US A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO FOR A GRANT.
IT WAS A LITTLE OVER 2 MILLION. AND WE REACHED OUT TO THEM LAST YEAR, LETTING THEM KNOW COSTS HAD GONE UP AND IF THEY HAD ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN PROP 68 THAT THEY COULD AUGMENT OUR GRANT. AND SO WE SUBMITTED SOME ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK AND THEY ENDED UP APPROVING THAT SO WANTED TO LOG THAT HERE AS A GRANT AUGMENTATION.
SO REALLY THANKFUL TO THE WCB FOR THAT. AND THEN THERE ARE SEVERAL LINES. 3, 04, 5.
I HAVE IN THE NOTES THERE THAT THOSE ARE RELATED TO THE CONGRESSIONAL OR CONGRESSMEMBER ASKS. SO THAT'S IN COORDINATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS OFFICE.
SO THEY SUBMIT SEVERAL OF THOSE AND THAT THESE SPECIFIC THREE CAME BACK AS BEING APPROVED IN THE BUDGET.
SO WHILE THEY ARE AWARDED, THERE IS STILL AN APPLICATION PROCESS THAT MY STAFF GOES THROUGH. SO WE WILL BE SUBMITTING CERTAIN PAPERWORK, JUMPING THROUGH DIFFERENT HOOPS TO ACTUALLY GET THOSE FUNDS, LIKE AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT.
SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON EITHER THE APPLIED OR THE AWARDS, BUT I THINK THAT IS.
YEAH, THAT IS IT FOR MY PRESENTATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CALLS FOR CLARIFICATION FROM BOARD MEMBERS? DIRECTOR COFFEE.
ON THE G ASK FOR THE BAY TRAIL GAP CLOSURE. THAT CAME IN A LOT LOWER THAN I REMEMBER. THE ASK MEAN WAS THAT IMPACT OF THE.
I JUST HAD A KIND OF A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESS AND SO SOMETHING LIKE IMPROVE KELLER BEACH, WHICH IS A PROJECT THAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR FUNDING FOR.
SO IN THIS KIND OF REQUEST WHERE THEY SAID NO TO IT, IS THIS SOMETHING WHERE WE'LL SUBMIT NEXT YEAR OR KIND OF WHERE DO WE MOVE TO FIND FUNDING FOR LIKE, THIS PROJECT? SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT UNTIL, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE REALLY READY TO BREAK GROUND OR REALLY. I MEAN, IT'S IDEAL TO HAVE ALL YOUR FUNDING SECURED BEFORE THE STAFF GOES OUT TO BID, BECAUSE THAT WAY, WHEN THEY'RE READY TO AWARD THE CONTRACT, THE FUNDS ARE THERE. AND TYPICALLY, ALMOST EVERY GRANT WILL NOT REIMBURSE YOU FOR FUNDS OR FOR COSTS INCURRED PRIOR TO THE AGREEMENT BEING SET.
SO THE KIND OF PERFECT WINDOW OF YOUR FUNDS BEING SECURED IS A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE GOING OUT TO BID. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M DOING, MY STRATEGY IN LOOKING FOR GRANTS AND APPLICATIONS.
SO FOR THE EPA, THAT PARTICULAR PROGRAM, THEY USUALLY DO A NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY ONCE A YEAR.
IT VARIES YEAR TO YEAR, BUT IT'S USUALLY IN THE SPRING. SO, YOU KNOW, IF THE PROJECT WAS READY TO GO OUT TO BID NEXT SUMMER, THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE MAYBE THE BEST PROJECT TO PUT FORWARD UNLESS WE WERE WILLING TO MAYBE HAVE THE RISK OF SOME OF SOME OF THE PROJECT NOT BEING REIMBURSED.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING FOR OTHER SOURCES.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PENDING APPLICATIONS FROM THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED LAST YEAR, AND WE'VE APPROACHED WCB AND
[00:15:01]
COASTAL CONSERVANCY AS WELL.SO THERE ARE SOME OTHER. AND AS OTHER THINGS COME UP, WE CAN TRY TO PIECEMEAL IT TOGETHER.
BUT UP UNTIL THEY'RE READY TO GO, THAT'S. WE'LL JUST KEEP LOOKING FOR MONEY.
GREAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, KATIE. IT'S ALWAYS GREAT.
CONGRATULATIONS YOUR TEAM FOR ALL THE GREAT WORK YOU GUYS.
YOU SEEM TO GET. YOU APPLY FOR A LOT OF GRANTS AND WE GET A LOT OF GRANTS, WHICH IS WONDERFUL.
I WAS WONDERING ON THE SFBA RESTORATION AUTHORITY. SO THE GRANTS AWARDED. SO WE GOT A GRANT FROM THE SF BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY, MEASURE AA FOR 2, 2 MILLION ON JANUARY 30TH.
SO WAS THAT FOR. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WORK ON A FISCAL YEAR OR IS IT A CALENDAR YEAR THAT, I MEAN THEY GET 25 MILLION A YEAR FOR 20 YEARS.
I CAN'T DO THAT MATH, BUT 8% OF THAT THIS YEAR. THAT SEEMS LIKE WE DO REALLY WELL WITH THOSE FOLKS. AND THEN UNDER UPCOMING EXPECTED APPLICATIONS, WE'RE GOING TO APPLY FOR WITH THOSE FOLKS AGAIN ON OCTOBER 5TH.
WHAT CYCLE WERE YOU INTO WAS THE OCTOBER 5TH CYCLE FOR AWARDING GRANTS IN 2027? YES, LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT.
BUT SO LAST YEAR, IN THE FALL OF 2025, THEY RELEASED THEIR NOTICE TO REQUEST PROPOSALS.
IT TAKES THEM THREE TO SIX MONTHS TO GET TO LET US KNOW IF WE'VE BEEN SELECTED FOR FUNDING. SO THIS YEAR WAS. THEY NOTICED US A LITTLE EARLIER THAN USUAL.
SOMETIMES IT'S NOT UNTIL LIKE MARCH OR APRIL, BUT IN JANUARY FOUND OUT THAT THEY WERE SELECTING THAT APPLICATION FOR FUNDING.
SO THEY SEND US THE NOTICE FIRST.
THIS IS PRETTY A PRETTY COMMON PRACTICE ACROSS THE BOARD. BUT THE GRANT AGENCY WILL SEND US NOTICE, USUALLY A LETTER THAT SAYS WE'VE SELECTED YOUR APPLICATION FOR FUNDING.
IN THIS CASE, WE HAD REQUESTED SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN 2 MILLION.
AND THIS IS THE AWARDED US THE TWO. AND SO NOW THE NEXT STEP IS WE SUBMIT SOME ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK AND THEN THEY GO TO THEIR BOARD FOR AUTHORIZATION TO OBLIGATE THE FUNDS. AND THAT'S HAPPENING I BELIEVE NEXT MONTH, IF NOT THIS MONTH, AND THEN WE GET AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT.
AND THAT FUNDING WILL BE OBLIGATED FOR 2026.
AND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF YEARS TO SPEND IT. THEY JUST RELEASED THE TIMELINE FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF FUNDING. I THINK THEY'RE IN THEIR NINTH CYCLE, EIGHTH OR NINTH CYCLE.
SO WE'LL PUT IN AN APPLICATION AGAIN FOR THE SAME PROJECT, RESTORE HAYWARD MARSH, BECAUSE IT IS QUITE. CARRIES QUITE THE PRICE TAG. AND SO WE'LL PROBABLY FIND OUT AGAIN IN THE SPRING FOR NEXT YEAR.
IF THEY APPROVE IT, THE FUNDS WILL GET OBLIGATED BY THE FALL. THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT, THAT THEY MAY JUST SAY, INSTEAD OF A BRAND NEW GRANT AGREEMENT, LET'S JUST AUGMENT THE ONE THAT'S GETTING APPROVED RIGHT NOW, AND WE'LL JUST INCREASE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT BY WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY WANT TO AWARD.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GET PHILOSOPHICAL, BUT, YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY WE JUST HAD AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WE PULLED OR WE REJECTED ALL BIDS FOR A HAYWARD MARSH PROJECT.
WE SORT OF SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OFFICIAL, THAT WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A BREATH AND REGROUP.
NOW, DOES THAT MEAN MORE AGGRESSIVELY GO FOR MORE GRANT FUNDING WHICH WOULD FUND THE PROJECT? OR SERIOUSLY. OR MAYBE THE QUESTION WOULD BE, DO THE FOLKS AT THE SFBA RESTORATION AUTHORITY, WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT MEASURE AA GRANTS, DO THEY SAY, HEY, THESE GUYS SHUT DOWN THEIR OPERATION FOR A WHILE.
DO WE PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE? DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW INSIDE BASEBALL ON THAT? YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE. PART OF THE REASON WHY WE PUT, IN ADDITION TO, YOU KNOW, THE COMING IN A BIT HIGHER THAN THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE IS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FUNDS SECURED TO AWARD A CONTRACT. SO CHRIS BARDENHEAD NOTED THAT WE HAVE.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE AWARDED THE 5 MILLION FROM EPA. WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT EXECUTED AGREEMENT YET, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS 2 MILLION RESTORATION AUTHORITY AGREEMENT YET. SO UNTIL WE HAVE AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT, WE CANNOT BUDGET THE FUNDS IN A PROJECT.
SO BECAUSE THOSE. WE KNEW THAT THE MONEY WAS COMING, BUT IT WASN'T AVAILABLE YET IN ORDER TO AWARD A CONTRACT. SO WE JUST.
THIS IS PRETTY COMMON. I NOTIFY THE GRANT AGENCY AND SAY, HEY, OUR TIMELINE HAS BEEN PUSHED BACK FOR XYZ REASON, AND THAT'S OKAY. SO FOR THE RESTORATION AUTHORITY, THEY KNEW WE'D BEEN IN GOOD, CLOSE COMMUNICATION WITH THEM ON THIS TIMELINE.
THEY ARE VERY INTERESTED AND INVESTED IN THIS PROJECT.
THEY'VE AWARDED PREVIOUS AA MONEY, LIKE BACK TO PRELIMINARY DESIGN. SO, LIKE, THEY.
THEY WANT TO SEE THIS GO THROUGH. SO, I DON'T THINK OUR TIMELINE GETTING DELAYED IS GOING TO MAKE THEM, LIKE, SORT OF TURN THEIR NOSE AT US NECESSARILY. SO IT'S JUST A MATTER FOR THEM.
THEY'LL LOOK AT THIS NEW APPLICATION AND, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE SCORING. YOU KNOW, IT'LL LOOK AGAINST EVERYBODY ELSE'S APPLICATION ON WHAT'S COMPETITIVE. I'M SURE THAT'LL BE A FACTOR.
[00:20:02]
LIKE, HEY, WE FUNDED THIS BEFORE AND NOW THEY'RE ASKING FOR MORE MONEY. YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE REASON WHY? WELL, COSTS GO UP AND IT'S PRETTY COMMON.AND CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE ESTUARIAN INSTITUTE? HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THAT? THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE? YEAH.
SO WHAT ABOUT IT SPECIFIC LIKE THIS WAS. I WAS WONDERING. I'M WITH HASPA AND I THINK EDDIE AND GROUP GOT US A REALLY NICE GRANT FOR THAT JUST FOR A BIT LITTLE HAFSA.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF WE TRY TO MINE THAT SEAL THERE.
YEAH. SO THEY IN COLLABORATION WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS ABAG SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO EPA'S SAN FRANCISCO BAY QUALITY WATER IMPROVEMENT FUND.
AND SO THEY WERE AWARDED THAT GRANT. PART OF THEIR APPLICATION HAD A CARVE OUT OF $550,000 FOR THE PARK DISTRICT TO DO WORK SUPPORTING HAFSA. SO THAT'S GONNA.
IT ACTS AS A PASS THROUGH AND SO THAT HAPPENS OCCASIONALLY TOO. ANYTHING THAT WAS AWARDED IN THE SAME ROUND AS OUR 5 MILLION FOR THE RESTORE HAYWARD MARSH PROJECT.
OKAY. AND FINALLY I KNOW YOU ANSWERED THIS QUESTION FOR ME. I OPENED THAT IN FRONT OF THESE PEOPLE A LONG TIME AGO.
BUT REMIND ME ONE MORE TIME WHY WE DON'T SEE PRIVATE GRANTS. I'M TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE THE DAVID AND LUCILLE PACKARD FOUNDATION WHICH SEEMS TO BE RIGHT UP OUR ALLEY.
THEY PROMOTE STREAMS AND WATERWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THE FREMONT BANK LOCALLY AROUND HERE.
AND THEN WHAT'S THAT FUND? THE GUY, THE FAMILY THAT USED TO OWN THE RAIDERS AND FRIEDEN'S BUSINESS MACHINES AND USED TO OWN THE RAIDERS.
IT'S CALLED THE FUND. AND THEY GIVE MONEY TO HARD USED TO JUST USE THEM AS A PIGGY BANK. BUT WE JUST DON'T GO THE PRIVATE ROUTE.
WE DO HAVE THE MOORE FOUNDATION.
YEAH, THERE'S THE MOORE FOUNDATION. WE'VE GOTTEN MONEY FROM THEM IN THE PAST.
I THINK IN PART THE PARK DISTRICT ISN'T ALWAYS ELIGIBLE AND SO WE. I THINK THIS IS A GOAL BETWEEN THE GRANTS DEPARTMENT AND THE FOUNDATION. WE'RE TRYING TO GET MORE LIKE ALIGNED AND COLLABORATIVE IN WHAT IT IS WE'RE EACH APPLYING FOR.
AND THINGS THAT ARE THAT WE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR, THEY GO FOR. AND THEN WE TRY TO GO FOR ALL THE OTHER STUFF.
SOMETIMES WITH THESE PRIVATE GRANTS THEY WILL BE SMALLER DOLLAR AND IT MAY NOT.
YOU KNOW GETTING A $2,000 GRANT FOR US IS. IT CARRIES A LOT OF WORK. BUT FOR THE FOUNDATION THAT'S GOOD FOR THEM TO BE BUILDING UP THAT GRANT BASE.
SO I THINK GOING FORWARD WE'LL SEE MORE OF IT. BUT FROM WHAT I JUST IN MY EXPERIENCE HAVE SEEN THAT WE'RE JUST NOT ALWAYS AN ELIGIBLE ENTITY.
BUT IT'S DEFINITELY WORTH JUST TO KEEP PURSUING.
KATIE, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, THE AIR QUALITY BOARD ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE TAKING APPLICATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS CREATED BY AIR QUALITY PENALTIES IMPOSED ON REFINERIES IN RICHMOND AND BENICIA. AND THEY CREATED A ELIGIBILITY BOTH BASED GEOGRAPHICALLY AND ON THE USE OF THE FUNDS. THE GEOGRAPHIC MAPS THEY GAVE.
A LOT OF OUR PROPERTIES IN THE RICHMOND AREA WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. AND CROCKETT RODEO IS WITHIN THE BENICIA REFINERY ELIGIBILITY AREA.
ARE WE GOING FOR ANY OF THESE FUNDS? YES.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY LINE 15 IN THE REPORT. SO WE TITLED THE PROJECT RICHMOND SHORELINE CONNECTIONS.
WE PARTNERED WITH THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS. SO ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS PROJECT IS TO HAVE PARTNERS. AND SO WE INITIALLY HAD REACHED OUT TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND BECAUSE THEY WERE PUTTING TOGETHER AN APPLICATION, AND THEY ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED THAT WE PARTNER WITH TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS INSTEAD.
AND SO OUR APPLICATION CONSISTED. SO WE HAD TWO PROJECTS IN THAT. IT WAS THE RICHMOND BAY TRAIL PROJECT, I THINK INTERNAL.
WE ALSO CALL IT THE POINT PINOLE TO WILSON POINT.
AND THEN I THINK THERE WAS SOME FUNDS SET ASIDE FOR POINT MELODY AND THEN THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS PROJECT WAS. I THINK IT WAS A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE BAY TRAIL THAT KIND OF GOES THROUGH THE CITY OF RICHMOND.
IT'S MIGHT BE CRYPTIC BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SPECIFY SOMETHING.
BUT WE WERE TRYING TO CONVEY, YOU KNOW, THAT
[00:25:01]
THIS WAS COVERING THIS AREA AND WE WERE CONNECTING ACROSS RICHMOND.SO THAT'S THAT PROJECT. THE LAST I PROBABLY HEARD, MAYBE ABOUT A MONTH AGO, THAT WE'VE MOVED. WE HAD MOVED FORWARD THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS, BUT HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING YET.
THAT'S GREAT. THAT'S GOOD TO PUT THOSE KIND OF PARTNERSHIPS TOGETHER.
I JUST WANT TO SAY AS A COMMENT THAT I'M REALLY PLEASED WITH HOW AGGRESSIVELY YOU FOLKS ARE GOING AFTER MONEY FOR THAT BAY TRAIL GAP CLOSURE. YOU KNOW, THAT'S BEEN A FAVORITE PROJECT OF MINE FOR MANY YEARS, JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO USE IT.
YEAH, I'M RIGHT THERE WITH YOU, DIRECTOR COFFEY.
THAT ASIDE, IT WILL SERVE AS A MAJOR GATEWAY INTO THAT DISTRIBUTION AREA, AMAZON AND OTHERS, SO PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO COMMUTE ONCE THAT GAP IS FILLED AND TAKEN OFF THE STREETS.
WE WILL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO B. UPDATE ON THE FEMA HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM.
HERE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEMS IS DIVISION LEAD OF GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, ERIC FUEHLER.
DIVISION LEAD, GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, ERIC FUEHLER. I'M HERE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM, BUT WE'LL BE JOINED BY OUR CONSULTANT IN WASHINGTON, D.C. LINDSEY GARCIA, WHO IS AFFILIATED WITH THE KDCR FIRM THAT WE HAVE BEEN PARTNERING WITH.
AND JUST BY CONTEXT, IN THE BEGINNING OF, WELL, TOWARD THE END OF JANUARY 2025, THERE WAS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHING A FEMA REVIEW COUNCIL. AND THAT COUNCIL MET FOR OVER A YEAR TO ESTABLISH A REPORT THAT WAS RELEASED IN MAY OF THIS YEAR. AND I THINK WHAT WE'D LIKE TO CONVEY AND HAVE LINDSEY SORT OF SHARE WITH YOU ALL IS WHAT CAN BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHAT NEEDS LEGISLATIVE ACTION, WHAT'S ALREADY POTENTIALLY BEEN DONE OR CONSIDERED, AND THEN IF THERE ARE IMPACTS DIRECTLY TO THE AGENCY, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE HAVE SEEN THEM YET, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO HAVE LINDSEY KIND OF GIVE US AN OVERVIEW ABOUT FOR AS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM.
SO LINDSEY, IF YOU ARE AVAILABLE TO START.
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN REAL QUICK TO PUT UP A PRESENTATION, HOPEFULLY.
DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY? YES.
LIKE ERIC SAID, I'M LINDSEY GARCIA. I'M WITH KDTR PARTNERS AND WOULD LOVE TO JUST GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE TODAY ABOUT FEMA. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ACTION HERE IN D.C. AND SO TRY TO GET THROUGH SOME OF THE NEWS REPORTS AND NOISE TO FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAS REALLY HAPPENED. SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT FEMA REFORM TRACKS THAT ARE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. ONE IS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION AND WAS TRIGGERED BY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT HE SIGNED IN HIS FIRST DAYS IN OFFICE.
AND THAT WAS TO CREATE THE FEMA REVIEW COUNCIL AND THAT WAS CO CHAIRED BY THE SECRETARIES OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND DEFENSE. AND WE PUT TOGETHER THIS COUNCIL TO LOOK AT FEMA, TO COME UP WITH A REPORT AND TO ISSUE SOME FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND SO THEY ISSUED THAT REPORT IN MAY.
AND AS WE'LL SEE AS WE GO THROUGH, THERE WERE SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WHICH IS WHERE FEMA IS CURRENTLY HOUSED, CAN IMPLEMENT ON THEIR OWN.
BUT A LOT OF THEM WILL REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO ACTUALLY BE PUT INTO PLACE. AND SO AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS LEGISLATION THAT IS MOVING THROUGH CONGRESS.
AS OF NOW, AUGUST, CONGRESS IS IN RECESS. SO THERE'S NO BREAKING NEWS UPDATES HERE.
JUST THE HOUSE HAS INTRODUCED A BILL, BUT THEY INTRODUCED THE FEMA ACT OF 2025. THIS WAS INTRODUCED BY CHAIRMAN GRAVES OF MISSOURI AND RANKING MEMBER LARSON OF
[00:30:02]
WASHINGTON. THAT JUST MEANS THAT THEY'RE THE TWO TOP MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE.THAT COMMITTEE HAS JURISDICTION OR OVERSIGHT OVER FEMA. SO ANY LEGISLATION SURROUNDING FEMA WOULD MOVE THROUGH THAT COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE. AND SO THEY INTRODUCED THIS BILL AT THE FALL OF LAST YEAR.
IT WAS APPROVED IN COMMITTEE WITH AN OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN VOTE.
BUT IT'S NOW BEEN ABOUT A YEAR. AND THAT BILL HAS NOT YET MOVED ON THE FLOOR, HAS NOT PASSED THE FULL HOUSE, OR HAS NOT GONE TO THE FULL HOUSE FOR CONSIDERATION, AND THE SENATE HAS NOT INTRODUCED ANYTHING IN THEIR CORRESPONDING CHAMBER.
SO TO LOOK QUICKLY AT WHAT WAS IN THE FEMA REVIEW COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION, IT WAS A LONGER REPORT AND, YOU KNOW, IT HAD A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION IN THERE.
BUT I TRACKED PRETTY CLOSELY WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S VIEW OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, CONSOLIDATE PROGRAMS AND GRANTS, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE, WHICH I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN, HAS BEEN A PRETTY ACROSS THE BOARD RESPONSE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES. THIS ONE'S FOCUSED HERE ON FEMA.
SO FROM DAY ONE, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS A DEEP BELIEF IN REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE. SO OF COURSE, ONE OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO REDUCE THE FEMA WORKFORCE.
AND RELOCATING WORKFORCE HAS ALSO BEEN A BIG PRIORITY FOR THEM.
THEY'VE TRIED THIS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AT THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, TO MOVE PEOPLE PHYSICALLY OUT OF D.C. AND INTO OTHER AREAS SO THAT THEY, THEY CAN DO UP TO, OF COURSE, CERTAIN THRESHOLDS ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL.
YOU KNOW, WE SAW REDUCTIONS IN WORKFORCE IN THE MONTHS RIGHT AFTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
OF COURSE, SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE PLAYING OUT IN LAWSUITS ACROSS DIFFERENT AGENCIES.
BUT GENERALLY A REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE AND MOVING STAFF IS ALLOWED AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE LAWS. ONE OF THE THINGS THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED WAS ADJUSTING THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE DECLARATION THRESHOLDS FOR INFLATION.
SOME OF THAT THEY CAN DO ON THEIR OWN, BUT BROAD ACROSS THE BASE. CHANGES TO PAYMENTS THAT ARE MADE, AMOUNTS THAT ARE MADE, AND THINGS TO INFLATION WOULD HAVE TO BE ENACTED BY CONGRESS.
THEY MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHANGING HOW THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, FORMULA GRANTS ARE A BIG PRIORITY, REPLACING, LIKE I SAID, CONSOLIDATION.
SO REPLACING THE MULTIPLE PROGRAMS AND PUTTING THEM INTO ONE. BUT THOSE THINGS, CONGRESS CONTROLS THE POWER OF THE PURSE.
SO ANY CHANGES TO GRANT PROGRAM, HOW THEY OPERATE, HOW THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE, THAT ACTION HAS TO GO THROUGH CONGRESS. ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION, WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS LATER, WAS THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM. SO THIS IS REPLACING THE CURRENT PROGRAM INTO A NEW TWO PHASED APPROACH PROGRAM.
SOME OF THIS, THE SPEED WITH WHICH THEY GET THE PAYMENTS OUT COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY BUT THE LARGE SCALE CHANGES THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TO THIS PROGRAM WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE BY CONGRESS. AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS RISK RATING FOR THE NSIP THAT COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY. I THINK THE MAIN TAKEAWAY HERE IS THE MOST IMPACTFUL CHANGES TO THE BROAD PROGRAM AND TO THE WORK THAT YOU ALL WOULD DO RELATED TO FEMA.
THOSE HAVE TO BE CHANGED BY CONGRESS. AND SO IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TOMORROW COULD DECIDE THEY WANT TO IMPLEMENT AND CHANGE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH CONGRESS AND ENACT A NEW LAW TO MAKE A LOT OF THESE CHANGES.
SO THE SPEAKING OF CONGRESS, THE FEMA ACT OF 2025 DOES NOT MAKE ALL THE HOSTS OF CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THIS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
OF COURSE, THIS ADMINISTRATION REPORT CAME OUT AFTER THIS BILL WAS EVEN INTRODUCED. BUT THEY HAVEN'T INTRODUCED A NEW BILL AND THERE'S NO REAL EFFORT TO TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION REPORT AND IMPLEMENT EVERYTHING IN IT IN LEGISLATION.
SO THIS BILL IS OF COURSE IN RESPONSE TO, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO MAKE FEMA WORK MORE EFFICIENTLY.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S BIPARTISAN, SO PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE SUPPORT IT. YOU KNOW, IT'S A CONSENSUS PRODUCT, AT LEAST ON THE HOUSE SIDE.
SO IT WOULD REMOVE FEMA BACK FROM, FROM DHS AND MAKE IT A CABINET LEVEL AGENCY AS IT
[00:35:01]
WAS BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. IT REALLY FOCUSES ON EXPEDITING GRANTS, GETTING MONEY OUT. IT, YOU KNOW, TRIES TO CONSOLIDATE INTO BLOCK GRANTS.SO I THINK THE GOAL HERE, THE MAIN TAKEAWAY HERE IS THAT WHAT THIS BILL IS TRYING TO DO IS MAKE FEMA MORE EFFICIENT IN ORDER TO GET MONEY OUT AND TO GET EMERGENCY RESPONSE DONE MORE QUICKLY. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ADJUSTING TO THE INCREASE IN NATURAL DISASTERS THAT WE'VE HAD AND THE INCREASED COST OF NATURAL DISASTERS THAT WE'VE HAD.
AND SO THIS IS A BIPARTISAN EFFORT TO TRY TO MAKE THINGS WORK MORE EFFICIENTLY, TO GET MORE MONEY OUT AND TO GET THE MONEY OUT MORE QUICKLY.
SO QUICKLY WE'RE JUST GOING TO DIVE IN SPECIFICALLY ON THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM. SO THIS IS NOT A COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM LIKE SOME OF THE ONES YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S NOT ONE WHERE YOU NECESSARILY GO AND APPLY AND FILL OUT AN APPLICATION AND THEN THEY PICK FROM THE HUNDRED, THEY PICK A 10.
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT ACTIVATES WHEN THERE IS A MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATION.
IT'S AUTHORIZED BY THE STAFFORD ACT, WHICH IS WHAT HAS AUTHORIZED ALL OF THESE DISASTER PROGRAMS. AND SO AS SOON AS THERE'S A MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATION, THIS PROGRAM GOES INTO GEAR.
IT'S FUNDED THROUGH THE DISASTER RELIEF FUND WHICH CONGRESS PROVIDES FUNDING FOR EVERY YEAR. IT'S A FORMULA GRANT AND IT IS BASED ON THE ESTIMATED TOTAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR THAT EVENT. SO THEY CAN.
RIGHT NOW THE FEDERAL SHARES UP TO 75% OF THE ELIGIBLE COSTS AND THEN 90% FOR REPETITIVE LOSS OR YOU KNOW, PROJECTS THAT HAVE PROJECTS IN PLACES THAT HAVE SEEN CONSISTENT LOSS. AND THIS GOES TO THE STATE AND THEN THE MONEY GOES OUT FROM THERE. AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FEMA APPROVED HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN TO RECEIVE THIS FUNDING.
BUT THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT WHENEVER THERE'S A MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATION, THIS PROGRAM GETS ACTIVATED AND THAT MONEY IS AVAILABLE TO BE OUT THERE. AND SO THIS IS THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM THE REVIEW COUNCIL. SO AS YOU'LL SEE, THERE'S SOME SIGNIFICANT RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
BUT I WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THESE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH CONGRESS TO ACTUALLY BE ENACTED. SO THE COUNCIL WOULD DO AWAY WITH THE HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM AND REPLACE IT WITH THIS REFINED RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM. AND THAT WOULD ESTABLISH THIS TWO PHASE FUNDING MODEL WHERE UP TO 5% OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION FOR THE DISASTER WOULD BE RAPID MITIGATION.
SO IT WOULD GO OUT WITHIN 30 DAYS. SO YOU KNOW, AN EFFORT HERE TO GET THE MONEY OUT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND THEN THE REMAINING 10% OF THE CONTRIBUTION WOULD GO OUT WITHIN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS.
SO THAT WOULD JUST, IT'S JUST ABOUT GETTING MONEY OUT QUICKLY, BUT IT WOULD CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM.
THEY ALSO INCLUDE SOME PERFORMANCE METRICS IN THERE. THEY WOULD GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE MANAGEMENT TO THE STATES AND A LITTLE BIT LESS TO FEMA. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IMPACT, THEIR ARGUMENT FROM THE COUNCIL IS THAT IT WOULD REDUCE BACKLOG WITH PRIORITIZING HIRED PROJECTS.
AND THEN IT WOULD ALSO TAKE THESE SOME OLDER DISASTERS THAT ARE STILL WAITING FOR MONEY TO COME OUT AND CONVERT THEM INTO THIS NEW PROJECT, THIS NEW PROGRAM. THESE CHANGES ARE NOT CONSIDERED RIGHT NOW IN THE HOUSE LEGISLATION. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN A PART.
LIKE THERE'S NO SENATE BILL NOW, SO THERE'S DEFINITELY NOT ANYTHING IN THE SENATE.
AND LIKE I SAID, NO ONE HAS TAKEN THESE RECOMMENDATIONS OR ANY OF THE FEMA RECOMMENDATIONS AND PUT IT INTO A NEW BILL THAT IS OUT THERE. MY LAST QUICK SLIDE HERE AND THEN I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IS JUST, YOU KNOW, OVERALL ABOUT APPROPRIATIONS.
OBVIOUSLY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FACED SIGNIFICANT FUNDING DELAYS DUE TO TWO SUBSEQUENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS THIS PAST YEAR. SO THE FIRST ONE WAS WHEN THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN IN OCTOBER AND THEN THEY BRIEFLY REOPENED IN NOVEMBER. SO THEY SHUT DOWN FOR A MONTH AND A HALF, TWO MONTHS THEN, AND THEN THEY SHUT DOWN AGAIN IN FEBRUARY AND DID NOT REOPEN AGAIN UNTIL APRIL 30TH.
SO WHILE THESE CHANGES OR ANY CHANGES THAT COME FROM THIS PROPOSED FEMA REVIEW FROM THE REPORT FROM THE FEMA REVIEW HAVE NOT REALLY BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY THAT COULD IMPACT PROGRAMS AND CERTAINLY NOT
[00:40:02]
ONES THAT REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL WORK, THERE HAVE BEEN IMPACTS TO FEMA PROGRAMS BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.RIGHT. THEY COULDN'T PUT MONEY OUT.
THERE WASN'T MONEY THAT WAS THERE, PEOPLE WEREN'T WORKING. SO THERE ARE CERTAINLY BEEN DELAYS IN A LOT OF FEMA PROGRAM. AND SO SOME DELAYS THAT YOU MIGHT SEE OR THAT PEOPLE MAY SEE IN THEIR PROGRAM FUNDING WOULD NOT BE NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF THIS REFORM EFFORT, BUT JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE SHUT DOWN FOR SO LONG AND IT JUST TAKES TIME TO GET EVERYTHING BACK UP AND RUNNING.
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS FOR ENACTING FY27. THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR STARTS ON OCTOBER 1, SO FY26 ENDS ON SEPTEMBER 30. FOR THE 27 CRAFT ACT, THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED A RECORD 28.38 BILLION FOR THE DISASTER RELIEF FUND, AGAIN IN RECOGNITION OF THE INCREASED NATURAL DISASTERS AND THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT THEY'RE COSTING. BUT ON THE FLIP SIDE, THE NON DISASTER FEMA GRANTS OR THINGS NOT FUNDED OUT OF THE DISASTER RELIEF FUND SAW SIGNIFICANT PROPOSED CUTS SIMILAR TO THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REVIEW COUNCIL. THE BUDGET PROPOSED THE LOWEST NUMBER OF FEMA STAFFING LEVEL IN OVER A DECADE.
THIS TRACKS WITH HOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TREATED OTHER AGENCIES IN THEIR BUDGET REQUEST. AND SO NONE OF THAT IS SURPRISING. AND YOU'LL SEE THE HOUSE, WHICH IS OF COURSE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE TYPICALLY WRITE PRETTY PARTISAN BILLS.
THEIR APPROPRIATIONS BILL INCLUDED 1.5 BILLION MORE THAN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST. SO WHILE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, REPORTING ABOUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POSITIONS ON FEMA AND OF COURSE THIS REVIEW COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, THERE STILL IS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND EVEN IN A REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE HOUSE, YOU STILL SAW SUPPORT FOR FUNDING LEVELS, NOT AT ENACTED LEVELS NECESSARILY, BUT YOU KNOW, ABOVE WHAT THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED THAT SHOW, YOU KNOW, THE BIPARTISAN PRIORITY TO CONTINUE TO FUND THOSE PROGRAMS. SO I WILL STOP SHARING MY SCREEN, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I NEED.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? YEAH, I WOULD HAVE A REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT. I GUESS I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. I ALWAYS ASSUMED HAZARDOUS MITIGATION WAS AND I THOUGHT THAT FEMA HAD GOTTEN BECOME AWARE OR ENLIGHTENED IN MY OPINION BY SUGGESTING THAT IF YOU HAVE A HAZARD OTHER THAN WAITING FOR A STORM OR A FIRE OR SOMETHING TO DESTROY YOUR COMMUNITY AND THEN REBUILD IT BACK UP.
THE HAZARDOUS MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM WAS TO SUGGEST THAT LIKE WITH US HAVING A PLANTATION OF FORESTS IN OUR PARKLANDS RIGHT UP AGAINST HOMES AND CITIES AND THAT WE WOULD GET A GRANT FOR HAZARDOUS MITIGATION AND BEFORE THE FIRE OCCURRED WE WOULD CLEAR AND DO LIKE WE DID WITH OUR WAR UP, DO A FUEL BREAK, DO THINNING OF FORESTS AND MANAGING FORESTS AND REFORESTING WITH PROPER IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD BUT FIRE RESISTANT PLANTS AND TREES.
BUT I SURELY DIDN'T GET THAT OUT OF THIS. AM I OFF BASE BY A WHOLE LOT? RIGHT? SO THERE ARE CERTAINLY DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT CAN BE FUNDED BY THIS. THERE ARE ALSO PRE DISASTER MITIGATION GRANTS WHICH ARE DIFFERENT THAN THIS.
DO WE EVER GET ANY OF THOSE GRANTS A PDF? BUT WHAT I'M READING HERE IS THEY'RE REDUCING THAT FUNDING.
THE QUESTION WAS HAVE WE EVER RECEIVED THE PDM PRE DISASTER? YES, WE HAVE TWO CURRENT PDM GRANTS. THEY WERE ACTUALLY BOTH THE FUNDS WERE APPROVED THROUGH A CONGRESSIONAL MEMBER ASK AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHO THAT WAS, BUT I BELIEVE ONE GRANT WAS LIKE 1.5 MILLION AND THE OTHER WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT. AND THEN WE HAVE A THIRD GRANT THAT IS ACTUALLY HMGP, BUT IT WAS FROM AN APPLICATION WE SUBMITTED LIKE FIVE YEARS AGO AND THEY REACHED OUT TO US SAYING THAT THEY HAD SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS LEFT OVER IN THAT PARTICULAR BUCKET.
SO WE WERE STILL READY TO TAKE IT.
[00:45:06]
WE WILL NOW OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.WE WILL NOW BE MOVING ON TO SEAT STATE BUDGET UPDATE AND FALL BALLOT MEASURES. HERE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM IS DIVISION LEAD OF GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS ERIC FUEHLER.
DIVISION LEAD FOR GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, ERIC FUEHLER. INTRODUCING THE ITEM ON BEHALF OF OUR SACRAMENTO CONSULTANT REID ADDIS, WHO IS HERE. JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW IS THE STATE BUDGET WAS ENACTED AT THE END OF JUNE. IT WAS A $351 BILLION BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED.
HOWEVER, THERE WERE SOME ALLOCATIONS, INCLUDING PROPOSITION 4 AND THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED.
AND THEY WERE BASICALLY SET ASIDE FOR EITHER TRAILER BILL ACTION OR BUDGET JURISDICTION JUNIOR BILL. SO TO COMMENT ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, REED WILL INCLUDE THAT IN HIS PRESENTATION.
AND THEN SECONDARILY THERE ARE A SUITE OF BALLOT MEASURES THAT WILL STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES THAT WILL APPEAR THIS NOVEMBER, INCLUDING OBVIOUSLY SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE POTENTIALLY FOR THE STATE THROUGH VARIOUS MECHANISMS. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A MEASURE ON INCREASING THE BALLOT THRESHOLD OR THE VOTER APPROVAL THRESHOLD FOR INITIATIVE LED BALLOTS LOCALLY FROM 50 PLUS 1 TO 2 THIRDS. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A MEASURE ON CEQA CHANGES TO CEQA, THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
BUT WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK REID TO COME SHARE WITH SHARE SOME THOUGHTS WITH US.
THANK YOU, ERIC. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND DIRECTORS. REID ADDIS WITH EEC. THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALSO FOR INVITING ME DOWN HERE PERSONALLY.
IT'S NICE TO GET OUT OF SACRAMENTO AND SEE YOU IN PERSON VERSUS THE LITTLE SCREEN ON MY ZOOM MONITOR.
YES, IT IS CRUNCH TIME IN SACRAMENTO. WE'RE DOWN TO THE FINAL TWO AND A HALF-ISH WEEKS AND ALL LEGISLATION HAS TO GET THROUGH THEIR FINAL VOTES INTO THE GOVERNOR BY THE END OF THE MONTH.
AND AS ERIC MENTIONED, THAT INCLUDES ALL FINAL BUDGET ACTIONS. AND THERE WERE NOT SHOCKING I'M ASSUMING TO YOU SOME OF THE HOT TOPICS THAT ARE STILL SITTING OUT THERE THAT NEED TO BE NEGOTIATED UP TO THE LAST MINUTE. IT IS POSSIBLE SOME DECISIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE AND IF MAYBE NOT MADE PUBLIC YET, BUT WE MAY NOT KNOW WHAT SOME OF THOSE DECISIONS ARE LITERALLY UNTIL THREE DAYS BEFORE THE END OF SESSION.
THAT'S POSSIBLE, BUT WE'RE IN AN HOUR BY HOUR CHECKING OUR PHONES, SEEING WHAT WE LEARN AS WE GO ALONG. THERE'S FOUR ITEMS THAT I THINK MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO YOU RELATED TO THOSE FINAL WEEKS OF THE BUDGET NEGOTIATION.
AS ERIC MENTIONED, THE OVERALL FUNDING AMOUNT WAS IDENTIFIED EARLIER IN THE BUDGET, BUT HOW TO SPEND IT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BOTH HOUSES. SO THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING, DISCUSSING, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH MONEY EACH AGENCY SHOULD BE GETTING OUT OF PROP 4 THIS YEAR. AND OBVIOUSLY INCLUDED IN THAT IS A LOT OF LEGISLATORS WHO HAVE PARTICULAR PROJECTS.
OBVIOUSLY YOU GUYS HAVE A PRIORITY PROJECT THAT'S ALL WRAPPED UP IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THERE IS A MELTDOWN IN THE SENSE THAT NO PROP 4 MONEY WILL BE ADOPTED. WE EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE AMPLE FUNDS FROM PROP 4 THAT WILL BE IN A FINAL BUDGETARY MEASURE AT THE END OF THE END OF THE MONTH.
HOWEVER, AT THIS POINT I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE, EXACTLY HOW MUCH WILL GO TO THE VARIOUS AGENCIES.
THAT IS SOME SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE AN HOUR BY HOUR DISCUSSION. SECOND, OUTSIDE OF PROP 4, THE OTHER IMPORTANT MONEY THAT HAS BEEN PART OF A DEBATE, A RATHER HEATED DEBATE OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF MONTHS HAS BEEN THE CLIMATE FUNDS, YOU'LL HEAR ME CALL IT THE GGRF FUNDS THAT COME FROM OUR CAP AND INVEST PROGRAM.
THAT PROGRAM WAS REAUTHORIZED LAST YEAR AND AS PART OF THAT THERE WAS A ARCHITECTURE THAT THE LEGISLATURE AGREED TO TO SAY HOW THEY WANT TO SPEND THIS CLIMATE MONEY.
AND AT THAT TIME LAST YEAR THEY WERE THINKING FOUR TO FIVE BILLION DOLLARS WOULD BE AVAILABLE ANNUALLY AND HOW TO SPEND THAT. SINCE LAST YEAR THERE HAS BEEN DECISIONS MADE ON THE REGULATORY PACKAGE ABOUT HOW TO INVEST OR HOW TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM.
AND IN THAT REGULATORY PACKAGE, IT IS NOW ESTIMATED WE MIGHT BE DOWN TO $2-3 BILLION
[00:50:03]
AVAILABLE. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT RADICALLY CHANGES EVERYBODY'S VIEWPOINT ABOUT WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD TO SPEND AND IS CALLING INTO QUESTION THE AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND CLEARLY THERE ARE SOME REALLY TOUGH, INTENSE NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON BETWEEN THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY AND THE GOVERNOR ON IF WE HAVE THAT MUCH LESS MONEY, WHERE DO WE GET TO SPEND IT? I WILL SAY THAT IN GENERALLY YOUR SPACE, THERE WILL MOST LIKELY BE FUNDS STILL AVAILABLE FOR FIRE PROJECTS THROUGH CAL FIRE, SOME OF THEIR GRANT PROGRAMMING AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION'S SALK PROGRAM.HOWEVER, I KNOW WE HAD HOPED AND HAD A STRATEGY BUILT OUT LAST YEAR TO HAVE HAD MORE FUNDING COME OUT OF THIS PROGRAM FOR NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS AND OTHER CONSERVATION PROJECTS.
I'M SORRY TO REPORT THAT. I JUST, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY WITH THAT, WITH THE FEWER DOLLARS ON THE TABLE AND THE INTENSE INTEREST IN FUNDING LOTS OF DIFFERENT PROGRAMS OUTSIDE OF CONSERVATION, I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ANY ADDITIONAL DOLLARS BESIDES THAT SALK PROGRAM AND CAL FIRE PROGRAM DOLLARS.
THERE'S TWO OTHER TOPICS I JUST BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE ALREADY STARTED HEARING ABOUT, BUT YOU DEFINITELY WILL HEAR ABOUT AND WE'RE MONITORING AND WE'LL KEEP YOU APPRISED.
BOTH OF THESE ITEMS DO GET WRAPPED UP IN THE BUDGET AND SO WILL BE PART OF THE FINAL DISCUSSIONS.
ONE IS A ROBUST DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW AROUND HOW DO WE DEAL WITH WILDFIRE LIABILITIES, LIABILITY IN PARTICULAR RELATED TO THE INDEPENDENTLY OWNED UTILITIES IN CALIFORNIA.
AND THAT IS A DISCUSSION THAT IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE BUDGET. IT'S TAKING A LOT OF OXYGEN OUT OF THE ROOM BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, HOW DO WE DO THAT? WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS IF WE ARE SHIFTING LIABILITY AWAY FROM UTILITIES? AT LEAST THE COST OF HOW TO DEAL WITH THE IMPACTS OF FIRE. THAT WILL ALSO BE WRAPPED UP IN A NUMBER OF PROBABLY ENERGY MEASURES AT THE END OF SESSION.
THE DETAILS OF THAT NEGOTIATION REALLY AREN'T OUT THERE PUBLICLY YET. I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN SOME DOCUMENTS, WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS, BUT OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL BE PUSHING THROUGH SOME TYPE OF PACKAGE AND WE WILL KEEP YOU APPRISED OF THAT. BECAUSE THAT WILL BE PART OF ALL THE BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS.
BECAUSE ALL OF THESE THINGS START TO BE ON THE SAME TABLE OF EVERYBODY WHO'S NEGOTIATING AND THEY'RE GOING TO LEVERAGE ONE ANOTHER ON WITH THE FINAL COMPROMISE MAY LOOK LIKE. FINALLY, WHILE MAYBE THREE WEEKS AGO I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU DISCUSSIONS AROUND REGULATORY STREAMLINING OR PERMIT STREAMLINING FOR THE CALIFORNIA FOREVER PROJECT WERE OFF THE TABLE, MEANING THAT AT LEAST THE SENATE LEADER HAD EXPRESSED, IF THERE WAS ANY SENATORS WHO HAD ISSUES WITH THAT, SHE WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT TO MOVE FORWARD AND SENATOR CABALDON SAID, I HAVE ISSUES. I DON'T WANT ANY LEGISLATION TO MOVE FORWARD.
I NOW BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL BE AN EFFORT TO PROBABLY HAVE A TRAILER BILL PUT INTO THIS PACKAGE HERE AT THE END OF SESSION THAT MIGHT PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF PERMITTING OR REGULATORY RELIEF FOR THE DEVELOPERS BEHIND THAT PROJECT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO PASS. THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE YOU NEED TO LOOK INTO A CRYSTAL BALL. BUT I DO THINK THAT WILL BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION HERE AT THE VERY END OF SESSION ABOUT WHAT CAN BE IN A FINAL BUDGET PACKAGE OR NOT IN A FINAL BUDGET PACKAGE.
THERE'S LOTS MORE TO TALK ABOUT ON THE BUDGET, BUT I THINK THOSE WERE THE HIGHLIGHTS. BEFORE I SHIFT OVER TO NOVEMBER AND THE PROPOSITIONS, MAYBE I SHOULD PAUSE, SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION FROM BOARD MEMBERS? IT'S VERY HELPFUL.
I GUESS I SHOULD. MAYBE I'M SUPPOSED TO PAY ATTENTION HERE. SO THIS IS SOMETHING TO GO HERE.
SO THERE'S 14 PROPOSITIONS THAT WILL BE ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER. WE'RE HIGHLIGHTING SIX FOR YOU TODAY IN YOUR PACKET.
THERE'S A DESCRIPTION OF ALL OF THEM. SO YOU, YOU HAVE THAT MATERIAL IF YOU WANT TO READ THROUGH EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. THE REASON WE PICKED THESE SIX OR FIVE OF THEM DO HAVE SOME BUDGETARY OR REVENUE IMPLEMENTATIONS PROBABLY OF USE FOR YOU TO BE AWARE OF AND THEN ONE OF THEM, AS ERIC MENTIONED, DOES IMPACT CEQA. AND WE ALSO THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE USEFUL TO BRING FORWARD AND DESCRIBE TO YOU. PROPOSITION 2 RELATES TO WHAT CALIFORNIA CALLS THE RAINY DAY FUND.
IT IS NOT. IT HAS NOT BEEN IN YEARS PAST. THE STATE HAS NOT HAD THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY COLLECT DOLLARS AND PUT IT IN A TRUST FUND THAT CAN BE USED FOR, YOU KNOW, BUDGET CRISES.
[00:55:02]
IN THE LAST DECADE, THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME WE STARTED HAVING A TOOL THAT ALLOWED US TO DO THAT, BUT IT WAS CONTROLLED THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT EXACTLY HOW MUCH YOU CAN COLLECT AND HOLD IN OF FUND THAT CAN BE USED FOR FUTURE BUDGETARY EMERGENCIES.THIS EFFORT WOULD BE TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT. I THINK IT ALLOWS US TO COLLECT UP TO 20% FOR THIS RAINY DAY FUND.
AND THE IMPETUS BEHIND THIS EFFORT IS THAT.
AND YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ARE CLOSER TO THIS BECAUSE WHERE YOU ARE THAN I AM IN SACRAMENTO.
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS AROUND SOME IPOS RAISING A LOT OF FUNDS, ONE TIME FUNDS INTO THE STATE COFFERS.
AND I THINK THOSE BEHIND THIS MEASURE HAVE THOUGHT LET'S INCREASE OUR ABILITY TO COLLECT SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS. IF THEY DO COME THROUGH THE STATE BUDGET, PUT IT IN THE RAINY DAY FUND. SO THAT'S PROPOSITION TWO.
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT PROPOSITION 40, 41 AND 42. ALTOGETHER THEY ARE LOOSELY CONNECTED, AT LEAST CLOSE. POLITICALLY THEY'RE CONNECTED.
PROPOSITION 40 IS AN EFFORT TO RAISE FUNDS FROM THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS OF CALIFORNIANS. IT ALLOWS A ONE TIME ASSESSMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES TO BE RAISED BY THE STATE AND THEN PUT INTO THE STATE COFFERS. THAT ONE TIME IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE'S AN EFFORT AGAINST THIS MEASURE ON THE BALLOT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE SUPPORTING IN THOSE AGAINST, IT'S A REAL MIX OF BUSINESSES ON BOTH SIDES, LABOR, DIFFERENT LABOR GROUPS ON BOTH SIDES. IT'S GOING TO BE A TENSE BATTLE IS MY GUESS ON HOW THIS WILL PASS. THOSE IN PARTICULAR WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PROP 40, THEY HAVE PUT THEIR OWN MEASURES ON THE BALLOT, WHICH IS 41 AND 42.
I THINK THE SIMPLEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT IS IF ALL THREE PASS 42 AND 43, SAY YOU CAN NEVER HAVE A PROP 40 AGAIN.
RIGHT. SO PROP 40 COULD PASS, YOU COULD HAVE AN INFLUX OF FUNDS.
BUT IF 41 AND 42 PASS, IT'S SAYING IN THE FUTURE THAT CAN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. YOU CANNOT GO IDENTIFY PERSONAL PROPERTY AND TAX THAT, NOR CAN YOU COLLECT REVENUES OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S CALLED THE GAN LIMIT. AND IT'S A VERY DETAILED POLICY.
BUT I'LL JUST TRY TO EXPLAIN. THERE IS A RULE IN THE STATE THAT SAYS IF YOU COLLECT A LOT OF TAXES THAT ARE BEYOND YOUR EXPENDITURE PLAN, YOU HAVE TO RETURN THOSE TAXES IN THE FORM OF SOME KIND OF TAX CREDIT TO CALIFORNIANS. SO WHENEVER YOU'RE RAISING MONEY, WHAT YOU TRY TO DO IS RAISE THAT MONEY OUTSIDE OF THE GAN LIMIT SO YOU CAN USE IT FOR VARIOUS PROGRAMS. THAT'S WHAT PROP 40 DOES. SO ONE OF THESE MEASURES, 41 AND 42 ACTUALLY GO AND SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT EITHER. SO YOU CAN'T GO TAX PERSONAL PROPERTY, NOR CAN YOU RAISE THAT KIND OF TAX OUTSIDE OF THE GAN MEASURE.
SO, THOSE ARE ALL GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER AND ALL HAVE IMPLICATIONS ON TAXES RAISED BY THE STATE. 41 AND THEN 42. NEXT IS 43, WHICH HAS LESS TO DO ABOUT CALIFORNIA'S BUDGET AND TAX REVENUE.
BUT ABOUT LOCAL MEASURES, AS MANY OF YOU PROBABLY HAVE BEEN TRACKING. YEARS AGO THERE WAS A COURT DECISION REFERRED TO AS THE UPLAND DECISION, WHICH ALLOWED INITIATIVE GENERATED LOCAL MEASURES TO BE ABLE TO PASS WITH A 50 PLUS ONE VOTE. AND THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS IN CALIFORNIA.
THE HOWARD JARVIS ASSOCIATION WAS NOT VERY HAPPY WITH THAT AND HAS FOR SEVERAL YEARS TRIED TO PUT AN INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT THAT WOULD SAY NO, ANY LOCAL MEASURE FOR SPECIAL TAX HAS TO BE PASSED AT A 2/3 VOTE THRESHOLD.
THEY HOWARD JARVIS WAS ABLE TO QUALIFY A MEASURE THIS YEAR THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THAT 2/3 VOTE THRESHOLD AND IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US TO GO BACK AND GO AFTER SOME OF THOSE LOCAL MEASURES THAT HAD PASSED PREVIOUSLY. THERE WAS A REAL CONCERN THAT IT IS POSSIBLE WITH CHANGES IN VOTER SENTIMENT THAT A MEASURE LIKE THAT COULD PASS AND IF IT HAD THE ABILITY TO GO BACK, IT WOULD REALLY IMPACT A LOT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES WHO WERE RELYING ON THEIR LOCAL MEASURE.
CALIFORNIA LAW ALLOWS YOU TO ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE WITH PEOPLE WHO PUT THINGS ON THE BALLOT AND IF THEY AGREE, THEY CAN REMOVE THINGS FROM THE BALLOT. AND SO RECENTLY THAT NEGOTIATION OCCURRED. AND WHAT YOU END UP HAVING IS PROP 43 AS THIS COMPROMISE REPLACEMENT MEASURE.
HOWARD JARVIS DECIDED TO WITHDRAW ITS MEASURE.
PROP 43 IS AGREED TO THEN BE ON THE BALLOT. WHAT IT SAYS IS, YES, WE'RE GOING
[01:00:01]
TO HAVE A 2/3 VOTE THRESHOLD, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT GOING FORWARD.THAT WAS A COMPROMISE, I WILL SAY, FROM JUST INTERESTING INTRIGUE ON THE POLITICS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF YOUR DELEGATION MEMBERS, ASSEMBLYMEMBER WICKS WAS INVOLVED IN THE COMPROMISE.
IT'S ACTUALLY HER BILL THAT PUT PROP 43 ON THE BALLOT.
HOWEVER, SHE'S ABSOLUTELY AGAINST IT AND IS PART OF THE CAMPAIGN TO TRY TO MAKE SURE PROP 43 DOESN'T PASS.
FINALLY, THE LAST ITEM WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS A MEASURE THAT PROP 45 THAT WOULD STREAMLINE AND EASE CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A NUMBER OF PROJECTS ACROSS THE STATE. I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT SHOCKED TO HEAR THAT THERE'S A LOT OF FEELINGS ON BOTH SIDES, A LOT OF DIFFERENT PARTIES CONCERNED ABOUT THIS MEASURE. OTHERS WHO ARE VERY HAPPY AND EXCITED ABOUT THIS MEASURE.
WE DID AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT AND WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO IDENTIFY HOW IT WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT YOU IF IT PASSED, WOULD SOME OF THE PROJECTS YOU CARE ABOUT AND DO, WOULD IT ACTUALLY BENEFIT FROM THIS ORIGINALLY, I THINK I WAS OPTIMISTIC THAT, OH, THE WAY THE DEFINITIONS WERE DESCRIBED AND THE WAY IT WAS COVERED, IT MIGHT ALLOW YOU TO DEAL WITH SOME OF YOUR TRAIL PROGRAMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK IN FURTHER REVIEW AND LOOKING AT THE WAYS THINGS ARE DEFINED, THERE'S PROBABLY LESS OF A POSITIVE IMPACT FOR SOME OF THE PROJECTS YOU'RE DOING ON THE GROUND. IF THIS PASSES, BUT DID WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF IT, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THOSE HOT TOPIC PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT THAT YOU'LL HEAR A LOT ABOUT.
BUT DIDN'T WANT TO BORE YOU BY GOING THROUGH ALL OF THEM.
WE THOUGHT THESE, THESE WERE THE TOP SIX THAT WE WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? I GUESS ARE WE GOING TO BE ASKED TO RECOMMEND OR SUPPORT ANY OF THESE? PROBABLY CAN'T, RIGHT? PROPOSITIONS.
DO WE TRADITIONALLY DO THAT? WE CERTAINLY CAN. WE WERE PART OF THE COALITION ON PROP 4 AND PROP 68. WE WERE NOT PREPARED TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION ITEMS TODAY.
BUT IF THE BOARD WISHES TO MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD AT A FUTURE MEETING, WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA. CONSIDER IT.
OKAY, WE WILL NOW OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
DOES THAT MEAN I'M DISMISSED? YES.
[Announcements]
THANK YOU.OKAY, WE'RE NOW MOVING ON TO 06. ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? NO, IT'S OKAY. ERIC FUEHLER, DIVISION LEAD FOR GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS.
JUST WANTED TO ANNOUNCE, WELL, TWO THINGS.
IN CONSULTING WITH THE CHAIR AND ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, WE BELIEVE THAT WE WILL LIKELY CANCEL THE SEPTEMBER LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING AND HAVE A ROBUST CONVERSATION IN OCTOBER ABOUT ALL THE BILLS THAT WERE NOT SIGNED. AND THE OTHER ANNOUNCEMENT IS.
I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE EDDIE WILLIS WHO WILL BE ACTING ON THE GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS TEAM WHILE LISA IS OUT FOR A FEW MONTHS. SO JUST WANT TO WELCOME EDDIE.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU IN LISA'S ABSENCE.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL ANNOUNCEMENTS? JUST A QUESTION.
WHY ARE WE CANCELING THE SEPTEMBER MEETING? THERE WASN'T ENOUGH CONTENT.
JUST AS FAR AS FOR THE UPCOMING MEETING, THERE ARE SOME CONFERENCES AND THERE WAS ALSO THE LEGISLATIVE LUNCHEON.
ERIC, COULD YOU JUST ANNOUNCE THE DATE FOR EVERYONE FOR THE LEGISLATIVE LUNCHEON? YES.
SEPTEMBER 24TH ON THE WEST LAWN OF THE CAPITOL GROUNDS.
AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A CATER AND WE'VE INVITED LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF. SO, LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING BOARD MEMBERS AND EXECUTIVE STAFF FROM THE PARK DISTRICT ATTEND AS WELL.
ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO 7, ADJOURNMENT.
[01:05:02]
MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.