COUNTY GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION DETERMINES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WERE NOT TRANSPARENT WITH MEASURE G INITIATIVE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND CONTINUE TO LACK TRANSPARENCY WITH EXPENDITURES

I was shocked to learn from the Secretary of State that voter initiatives do not have to be truthful or accurate. 

The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury just released “Words Matter: Did Measure G Mislead Voters?” examining the issues and does an excellent job of analyzing the deception the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Office built into Measure G in 2018, basing their ballot narrative on survey language, and adding other elements to promote likelihood of voter approval.  County Counsel’s “Impartial Analysis” likewise aided in the deception by failing to explain what “citizen oversight” actually meant…or not.

The Grand Jury did an excellent job not only comparing Measure G’s half-cent sales tax increase with the 2016 Measure D half-cent sales tax increase, but also with similar ballot initiatives written by the cities of Sacramento and Milpitas that provided clearer information to their voters.

The Report further discusses that the 2022-2023 County Budget tool makes it even more difficult than before for the public to find information about how Measure G revenues are actually being spent.  It also raises the very real problem that Measure G was limited to 12 years in order to increase the odds of getting voter approval, yet over 50% of the money is being spent on employee salaries that will only increase, causing impending County budget deficits unless yet another sales tax measure is approved.

Recently the Board of Supervisors put Measure B on the June 7 ballot to increase Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) to supplement County staff costs, although that narrative, like Measure G, included a laundry list of things the County might fund with the tax increase.  However, as the Grand Jury report explains, the County does not have to do what it said it would do, because of a catch phrase “…and other essential services”.  That is the vague signal of a general purpose tax that requires a much lower voter approval threshold, while letting the County off the hook for spending the money on any of the laundry list items that people like and need…fire, road repairs, etc.

Below are a few gems from the Report, but I urge you to read this well-researched and well-written report

The Board of Supervisor, County Administrative Office and County Counsel are all required to respond by September 19, 2022 regarding the Grand Jury’s findings.  Let’s hope that they will take the opportunity to improve transparency and accountability to the people.

Many thanks to the Grand Jury.  Watch for more reports due out soon.

2021-2022 Grand Jury Reports and Responses

2021-2022 Grand Jury Reports and Responses

“The County’s ballot consultant recommended including a fixed time limit on the collection of Measure G revenue to make the tax measure more likely to pass. There are significant ramifications to this decision. The first section of the Measure G Financial Summary, called Measure G funded programs (Figure 2), indicates that over 50 percent of Measure G funds ($4,534,818) are projected to be spent on salaries for “essential county services” staff. Salaries are an ongoing expense. Unless voters permanently extend the sales tax increase, a financial risk looms for Santa Cruz County residents.”

“There is no guarantee that future voters will be inclined to renew the tax. Political winds often blow in unexpected directions. Based on our analysis, Santa Cruz County’s structural deficit will persist, and is currently the justification of yet another general revenue measure that was put before the voters in the unincorporated Santa Cruz County in June 2022, Measure B—the TOT Ballot Measure.[43] The TOT Ballot Measure does not include an audit, citizens oversight, or an expiration date. “

“As the Grand Jury was processing this report, County Government introduced its proposed FY 2022–23 Budget[44] through an online budget tool that the County claimed will provide greater transparency. The Grand Jury examined the tool in light of the issues raised in this report. We found that the tool offers less transparency for citizens oversight as to how the County Government proposes to spend Measure G revenues. The Measure G Financial Summary shown in Figure 2 is absent. All general fund revenues are grouped together for the purpose of showing expenditures. The tool misstates Measure G as a “one-quarter cent” sales tax, but eventually you can navigate to see Measure G projected revenues. However, the navigation path was convoluted and difficult to repeat. Citizens will be less informed about proposed Measure G revenues and expenditures under this budget tool.”  

IS CAL FIRE ACTING TO ELIMINATE FIRE VOLUNTEERS WHO QUESTIONED WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CZU FIRE?

Correspondence #af on the June 28, 2022 Board of Supervisor agenda from a County Fire Dept. volunteer makes it known that CAL FIRE is dismissing the volunteers or causing them to resign over the odd and unreasonable orders issued during the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire.  Volunteers were ordered to stand down…to NOT protect their communities.  Some of those volunteers who ignored the unreasonable CAL FIRE order were terminated afterward.  Those volunteers, such as Mr. Mathew Kaufman who wrote the Board of Supervisors on June 9, 2022, who openly continue to question the CAL FIRE administrative policies and unfair practices are summarily dismissed at a time when fire season is a threat to public safety and all hands are needed.

[County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors
Regular Meeting 6/28/2022]

What is going on?  Why didn’t CAL FIRE ever conduct a meaningful After Action Review of the CZU Fire?  Why hasn’t the County of Santa Cruz conducted an operational After Action Review of the interactions and logistics, including questionable backfires that were used, that occurred between the County Fire Dept. volunteers, other local fire agencies and CAL FIRE?

The purpose of such reviews is to identify what changes need to be made in planning and logistics for future disasters.  Why isn’t the County or CAL FIRE doing this?  Why is CAL FIRE effectively removing the County Fire volunteers who simply question and have become more vocal about their questioning because they are ignored or treated poorly?  CAL FIRE/County Fire Chief Nate Armstrong continually wonders at County Fire Dept. Advisory Commission meetings how to retain or attract volunteer emergency and fire responders???

Please write the County Board of Supervisors, the decision-making body of County Fire Dept., and demand an investigation right away.  We saw that it was the volunteers who stayed behind, sometimes working with other residents who chose not to evacuate, that saved many homes in their communities when CAL FIRE “simply did not have the resources” and was nowhere to be seen.

Email Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors at boardofsupervisors@santacruzcounty.us>  

 or call 831-454-2200.  Hold them accountable for protecting public safety…their primary responsibility as our elected public servants.

WHAT WILL A 400′-WIDE FUEL BREAK ALONG WARRENELLA  ROAD ACCOMPLISH AT A COST OF $3 MILLION?

During the CZU Fire in 2020, CAL FIRE crews sat back and basically let the Warrenella Road fires burn.  Maybe they thought the 150′ wide shaded fuel reduction project the Bonny Doon Fire Safe Council had just done would stop the fire.  It didn’t.  

Now, Assemblyman Mark Stone has managed to get $3 million in State funds for expanding the fuel break to  200′ on both sides of the road (400′ wide total) and to improve Warrenella Road itself to be passable for year-round emergency use.  

Adopt resolution accepting unanticipated revenue in the amount of $3,000,000 and approve expenditure agreement with Peninsula Open Space Trust in the amount of $3,000,000 for installation of a shaded fuel break and emergency access project in the San 

Will this help?  What will the area look like and how will it handle future intense winter storms?

Learnings from the CZU Fire: Now Is the Time to Act  

Who knows?  And besides, there is no description of what “road improvements” entail, but anyone still living on Warrenella (and hopefully those who are rebuilding) will find out very soon.  The work will start this summer and be completed before winter rains return.  That’s a big project.

WHO CARES IF THE PAJARO VALLEY HEALTH TRUST BREAKS THE LAW, AS LONG AS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGREES?

The Pajaro Valley Health Care District wants to hire Ms. Beatriz Flores, the recently-retired Watsonville City Clerk, and is asking the County Board of Supervisors this Tuesday (6/28) to waive any legal requirements that would normally preclude them from doing so.  Wow.

See Regular Agenda item #12

The California Public Employees Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), effective January 1, 2013, requires that public employees who retire from a job with Cal PERS pension benefits must wait at least 180 days before returning to a job providing CalPERS benefits.  Also, under the “Anti-revolving Door Rules”, local government officials are banned for one year from taking a non-governmental job with duties similar to those they performed before retiring. (Government Code 87406.3)

[Public Officials and Employees Leaving Local Government Service]

CAO Carlos Palacios’ rush is feverish to shove through the County’s  purchase of the Watsonville Hospital, demanding the County go into $30 million additional debt to buy it, and now commanding the Board of Supervisors to approve a waiver of the law and hire Ms. Flores without regard to laws that would prevent her from accepting the job.

“…a management team must be in place to seamlessly assume ownership and operations. Given the tight timelines, with a transfer and assumption of ownership to occur within about 90 days, additional interim administrative staff are required to support the work of the administrative team. Beatriz Flores, recently retired as the City Clerk for the City of Watsonville, has special expertise and skills, and her knowledge of the hospital project’s participants and needs of the community make her especially qualified.

Financial Impact

There is no new financial impact. Appropriations to cover extra help costs are included in the County Administrative Office budget.”

Undoubtedly, Carlos Palacios worked with Ms. Flores when he was the Watsonville City Manager, so he is only too happy to add her to his budget payroll.

Here is the CalPERS Complaint Contact

THE CAO WANTS TO THROW THE BUDGET DEEP INTO THE RED 

CAO Carlos Palacios is intent on driving Santa Cruz County finances deeper into debt by asking the Board to approve $30 million in loans that will cost County taxpayers $111,000 to process and attach the following debt that the Hospital District may repay. 

Financial Impact

Based on current market conditions and the $20 million par amount of the Revenue Notes, the annualized interest rate on the taxable Revenue Notes and GAN is expected to be 4.25%. The interest rate will be based on the final maturity of June 30, 2023, even though it will be redeemed early when the Grant is received. A deposit of four months interest on the GAN with the Authority will require an estimated $285,000 (GL Key 369301/GL Object 74310), or $71,250 per month if the Grant is for $20 million and $425,000 or $106,250 per month if the Grant is for $30 million. Any amount not needed to pay interest on the Revenue Notes due to an early redemption will be refunded the County. If the Grant is not received until June 30, 2023, the maximum interest would be estimated at $780,000 for a $20 million Grant and $1,170,000 for a $30 million Grant.

Interest (which could be as high as 5%) on the Notes will be taxable, not tax-exempt, due to the various ownership layers involved in the purchase and operation of the hospital.

Take a look at Item #11 on the June 28 Board agenda

Contact the Board and urge them to slow down and think rationally about the debt that CAO Palacios is feverishly pursuing without any real business plan intact.

Email Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors boardofsupervisors@santacruzcounty.us or call 831-454-2200.  

SHOULD COUNTY SUPERVISOR ANALYSTS BE ALLOWED TO SERVE ON CITIZEN COMMISSIONS ADVISING THE BOARD?

Second District Supervisor Zach Friend has chosen one of his analysts, Allyson Violante, to serve as the Planning Commissioner for his District.  Does it make sense to you that Supervisors rob the abilities of having their constituents advise them instead of someone who works under them as a paid employee of the County, potentially just extending the opinion and strengthening the vote in favor of the Supervisor?

• Supervisor Ryan Coonerty’s analyst, Ms. Rachel Dann, also serves on the County Planning Commission.
• Supervisor Greg Caput’s analyst, Tony Gregorio, serves as an alternate on the Commission for the Environment.
• Supervisor Ryan Coonerty’s analyst, Andy Schiffrin, serves on the Housing Authority Commission
• Supervisor Bruce McPherson’s analyst, J.M Brown, served on the Housing Advisory Commission until recently.

[Commissions, Committees, Advisory Bodies]

I see this happening more and more, and I think it is wrong.  The Planning Commission By-Laws are silent on this (pdf), however, the Commissions are supposed to reflect the broad diversity of those in the Districts.

I do not think appointing District Supervisor analysts to Commissions serves the public interest or necessarily meets the intent of Santa Cruz County Code 2.38.080(D):

3. D)    Department Advisory Group Representation. The agency or department head selecting the members of a department advisory group shall ensure that a broad range of qualified members of the public are provided an opportunity to request selection to the group. Persons meeting the minimum qualifications for service on the department advisory group shall, as much as possible, also be generally representative of the diverse skills, backgrounds, interests, and demography of persons residing in the County. [Ord. 4573 § 1, 1999; Ord. 3305 § 1, 1982; Ord. 2971, 1980; Ord. 2390, 1977; Ord. 2218, 1975; Ord. 2173, 1975; Ord. 2130, 1975; Ord. 2078, 1974; prior code § 3.01.060].

See Item #37 on the June 28 Board Consent Agenda:

Approve appointment of Allyson Violante as the Second District Regular Member of the Planning Commission, for a term to expire January 4, 2025, as recommended by Supervisor Friend – Santa Cruz County, CA

NEW APTOS LIBRARY DUE BY NEXT SUMMER

The recent groundbreaking ceremony at the site of the new Aptos Library triggers a contract agreement that in one year, the project will be completed.  It will be interesting to watch this magic happen.  For now, massive excavation is occurring, removing 1,760 cubic yards of soil, and bringing back in 275 cubic yards of rock fill material. I do worry that I never see an archaeologist or Native American observer at the excavation site, which has now cut down into the native slope by about 8′.

Here are the plans for this new 12,490SF single-story library.

I am glad there will be solar panels on the roof, making the new facility a net-zero energy demand, according to Librarian Heather Periera when we spoke at the groundbreaking event on June 9.  The parking lot will now include four electric vehicle charging stations.

MELVIN WILDER’S HAM RADIO CALL SIGN BACK ON THE AIR FOR FIRST TIME SINCE 1941

In 1941, the US government ordered all Ham radio operators to become silent, due to fear of spy activity during WWII.  Melvin Wilder, a Ham radio operator with the unique identifier of “W6CEH”, at the Wilder Dairy Ranch in Santa Cruz was one of hundreds who stopped all radio communications.   Melvin (“Mel”) did not live to see the return of government authorization for amateur radio operation in 1945.   No one has used his W6CEH identifier on the radio air waves since.

However recently, on June 18, for the first time since 1941, Mel’s “W6CEH” call sign identifier was activated again at Wilder Ranch State Park by the charter members of the “Wilder Radio Club” during State Park Week, having conversations with other Ham radio operators in Nevada and Northern California.

If you have ever visited Wilder Ranch State Park, you know that the Wilder family was extremely innovative, using the Pelton Wheel and water sources to bring electricity to the farm. What you might not know is that Mel Wilder was one of the first Ham radio operators in Santa Cruz County and served as President of the nascent Santa Cruz County Amateur Radio Club at a time when the new technology was helping people speak with each other over the air hundreds and hundreds of miles away.  

Even though W6CEH has been silent all these years, Mel’s identifier is once again alive and active at Wilder Ranch State Park.  I am sure Mel would be pleased.

Many thanks to Mr. Richard Adams, seated here before a much smaller radio than what Mel Wilder would have used, for forming the Wilder Radio Club, and rekindling “W6CEH” activity on the air waves from Wilder Ranch State Park.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  READ THE CONSTITUTION AND CELEBRATE JULY 4 WITH THANKS TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES TO CREATE AND SUPPORT OUR GREAT COUNTRY.

MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK AND JUST DO SOMETHING.

Happy Independence Day,

Becky

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPES WANTS TO GO $20 MILLION IN DEBT TO FUND HOSPITAL BUY-OUT?

The Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal at a June 28 Special Board meeting to approve the County to go $20 million in debt to fund the gap needed to buy the Watsonville Hospital.  At a time when the economy is beginning to turn downward, the County Administrative Officer is ramping up County debt??

Here is the argument CAO Carlos Palacios is making to the Board:

 Setting a public hearing regarding the financing is requested for June 28, 2022 in accordance with Section 6586 of the California Government Code.

Background/Analysis

Time is of the essence for funding the purchase of the Hospital. The deadline for purchase has been set by the bankruptcy court as August 31, 2022. The County anticipates that the State Legislature may provide up to $20 million to fund a portion of the purchase price, as part of the 2022-2023 State Budget. However, if granted, this funding is not anticipated to be disbursed by the State in time to meet the court-mandated deadline for the purchase. The County is therefore proposing to provide interim funding to the Hospital by August 31, 2022, which will then be reimbursed when the grant is received from the State.

Schedule a public hearing for June 28, 2022, to consider the approval of the grant anticipation notes by the Santa Cruz County Capital Financing Authority (Authority) in order to provide interim financing for the Pajaro Valley Health Care District i

Can the County taxpayers afford this huge gambling debt?

Write the Board with your thoughts: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors boardofsupervisors@santacruzcounty.us

LAW MAKERS MAY BUY OUT FARMERS SENIOR WATER RIGHTS FOR CONSERVATION

What if the fertile Central Valley farmers sold the state government all water rights that enable them to grow food for the nation and export, effectively relinquishing their ability to farm?  That is a $1.5 billion- plan now under legislative discussion, brought about by the State budget’s $100 billion current budget surplus, and the strong desire to curtail expensive water law suits.

California Lawmakers Consider Buying Out Farmers To Save Water

Will California Buy Out Farmers to Save Water? Lawmakers Mull the Possibility

The legislature is discussing the option of either buying the farm land directly, thereby controlling the water rights, or simply purchasing the water rights from the farmers.  Water rights in California is an interesting issue that merits taking time to read and understand:

California Water Rights – A Breakdown Of The State’s Water Rights System

Wouldn’t it be better to spend the $1.5 billion taxpayer money to provide water-saving procedures and recycled irrigation water for farmers, especially small farmers, and to support groundwater recharge projects, especially in areas that are seeing subsidence?

I found it shocking that the average cost/acre for irrigation water is $7,500.  Why is it so expensive?  That is comparable to the costs of highly-energy-dependent recycled and desalination water supplies quoted at the City of Santa Cruz Water Commission recently.

Do you think the State government would support farming if it owned the farmland or senior water rights to the farmland?   Is this a good way to spend $1.5 billion in taxpayer money?    I don’t.

 What are your thoughts?  Please let your State elected representatives know:

  Senator John Laird

  Assemblyman Mark Stone   

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ IS EXEMPT FROM STATE WATER CONSERVATION MANDATES

It was refreshing to learn that the State Water Resources Control Board agreed that the City of Santa Cruz is not mandated to follow strict State water conservation mandates because customers are already using less water per-capita than is mandated.  

Finally, a State agency understood that “one size does not fit all”, and recognized the City of Santa Cruz water customers using 45 gallons/person is already lower than the newly-mandated 55 gallons/person, and that the Loch Lomond primary source is not in emergency status by being nearly 90% full.

California exempts Santa Cruz from emergency water use restrictions

I think, however, that it would have been wise for the announcement to continue to urge all Santa Cruz County residents to practice water conservation. Even though the State website claims Santa Cruz County per capita water use averages 54 gallons, the site also states: 

Factors that affect Per Capita Water Use

It is not appropriate to use Residential Gallons Per Capita Day (R-GPCD) water use data for comparisons across water suppliers, unless all relevant factors are accounted for.

Here is a link to those factors: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/docs/factors.pdf

Think about how much more water you and your family might use if you lived where the summer temperatures are over 100 degrees daily.

PAYING FOR WATER IN CALIFORNIA

As water becomes more expensive across the board in California, how will people on fixed incomes afford it?  How might the State invest in water infrastructure to help lessen the cost of water service?

Here is an interesting analysis of that issue.  Although a bit dated (2014), the information is worth reading.

“The overall funding gap …is on the order of $2 billion to $3 billion annually: $30 million to $160 million to provide safe drinking water in small, disadvantaged rural communities; $800 million to $1 billion for floods; $500 million to $800 million for stormwater management; $400 million to $700 million for http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp Paying for Water in California 3 ecosystem support for endangered species; and $200 million to $300 million for integrated water management. Although filling this gap may seem daunting—particularly to cash-strapped program managers—it is not large relative to the sums California is already spending on water services. In other words, this is a fixable problem. “

“Proposition 218’s rigid requirement that fees must be specifically linked to the services for each property jeopardizes the implementation of conservation-oriented programs and the development of nontraditional sources of water supply. This requirement also limits water utilities’ ability to provide “lifeline” discounts to low-income households, an important equity-oriented feature of most energy billing systems.”

[Paying for Water in California (pdf)]

RATES GOING UP FOR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION BUT WITH VIRTUALLY NO PUBLIC NOTICE

It really pays to read the Legal Ads in the Classified section of the newspapers.  That is how I learned about a public hearing on June 28 divulging that if you live in the rural areas of the County not served by municipal fire departments, you likely are paying into County Service Area (CSA) 48 for County Fire Department emergency response.  

CSA 48 property owners will see an increase from $83.81/fire flow unit to $86.49/fire flow unit, and each structure is somehow assessed TWO fire flow units. 

CSA 48 property owners will also see an increase in the additional Special Benefit Assessment tax (added on in 2020) to increase from $151.24 per single family residence to $156.08.

 The County Board of Supervisors will review the increases at a public hearing on June 28.

There is NO notice of this public hearing on the County Fire Dept. website.

None of this even acknowledges the potentially illegal Special Benefit Assessment that County Fire Dept. added, despite Government Code Section 50078.2(b):

A benefit assessment shall not be levied for wildland or watershed fire suppression on land located in a state responsibility area as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code.

All of CSA 48 is in the State Responsibility Area (see yellow areas on this map):

ArcGIS Web Application

It also ignores the fact that the Board of Supervisors lied to the voters in 2018 with Ballot Initiative Measure G, imposing a new half-cent sales tax to pay for “fire” response, among other “critical unmet needs”….yet the Board has allocated ZERO dollars from this money pot to fund “fire”.

AND, the Board of Supervisors continually starves fire funding of any State Prop. 172 monies, a statewide permanent half-cent sales tax earmarked for emergency response.  California Proposition 172, Sales Tax Increase (1993)

Last year, none of the $20+ million the County received went to fund fire protection.

You can verify this in the proposed 2022-2023 County Fire Budget…$0 from General Fund contributions

Please let the Board of Supervisors know your thoughts about this:

Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors  boardofsupervisors@santacruzcounty.us

WADE THROUGH THE PROPOSED COUNTY BUDGET DURING HEARINGS THIS WEEK

Follow the money.  Where is the County spending your tax dollars?

Take a moment to look

How come the CAO budget is increasing 13% at a time when other departments are seeing only a 3% CIP increase?  Carlos Palacios is the highest-paid County employee, with a salary + benefits of $427,308.64 in 2020 (when many lost their jobs due to COVID)

Here is the Budget summary

Expenditures

The Proposed Budget expenditure decrease of $19,870,980 results primarily from the one-time increase in 2021-22 of contributions and transfers of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding as well as financings to support the CZU Lightning Complex Fire response and debris removal. In addition, there is an increase in Intra-Fund Transfers In of $2,532,722 for increased County reimbursements and estimated budget to actual savings.

Revenues

The Proposed Budget revenue decrease of $11,467,729 is impacted by the reduction for 2022-23 from the one-time ARPA funding received in the 2021-22 budget ($26.5 million). The total tax growth in 2022-23 is projected to be $14,726,165 over the 2021-22 budget, led by the return to a pre-pandemic sales tax projection level.

For the 2021-22 sales tax projections, they were heavily influenced downward in the spring of 2021 by the ongoing negative economic impacts from the Pandemic. For 2022-23, sales tax is projected to return to its pre-pandemic base and exceed the 2021-22 budget by $5,527,878 or 27.8%, albeit with some modest reductions in growth due to concerns of an economic slowdown.

Property taxes are anticipated to increase by 5.6% or $3,822,370, as the 2021-22 projection was reduced from the risk of the CZU Lightning Complex Fires reducing assessed valuations.

Anticipated increases in Transient Occupancy Tax of $4,606,914 or 49.6% over the 2021-22 projection are due to the same pandemic influenced compressed prior year projections.

Although a smaller revenue stream, Cannabis Business Tax revenue is trending down due to market changes, resulting in a decrease of $1,526,380 or 28.4%. Deed Transfer Tax is expected to grow $1,030,157 or 36.2% over 2021-22 also due to compressed prior year projections.

Sales tax is one of the best early indicators of changes in economic spending, and the County Administrative Office will be closely monitored as there are considerable signs pointing to an economic slowdown, that could occur in the next 12 to 18 months.

Financial Impact

The General County Revenues Proposed Budget with supplemental requests includes ($3,945,761) in expenditures, $178,814,037 in revenues and provide $182,759,798 towards other departmental General Fund contributions, reflecting a total increase in available contributions of $8,403,251 from the 2021-22 Adopted Budget.

Take time to participate in the County Budget hearings this week, with the final budget hearing on Tuesday, June 28

NO MORE GAS-POWERED CAR SALES IN CALIFORNIA BY 2035?

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is expected to finalize a new rule by the end of this year that will require by 2035 that 100% of all new cars and light-duty trucks sold in the state to be electric.  Imagine that impact.  By 2026, it would require 35% of all new vehicle sales be electric.  Right now, 16% of all new car sales are voluntarily electric. 

The CARB held the first of two hearings on June 9 to receive public comment on the proposed Advanced Clean Cars II regulation. 

Unlike Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-79-20 that also sets a goal of 100% electric vehicle sale by 2035, the CARB regulations would be binding and have regulatory legal weight that would impose enforcement actions on auto sales businesses in the state.

According to the CARB analysis, a total transition to electric cars would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California by 50% by 2040, because transportation is the largest contributor.

Here is a link to an article published in the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) newsletter.

Here is a link to the CARB site, where you can find more information about the propose Rule.

Note that the second public hearing will be in August.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  SIT IN ON THE COUNTY HYBRID BUDGET HEARINGS AS MUCH AS YOU ARE ABLE.
MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK BY JUST DOING SOMETHING.

Cheers,

Becky