I'LL INVITE -- REPRESENTATIVES
FROM THE LEDGE ALICE OFFICE AND
FINANCE TO JOIN US AT THE TABLE.
OUR GOAL TODAY IS TO GET THROUGH.
COMPLETE OUR FIRST PASS OF THE
AGENDA.
THE TWO SECTIONS WE HAVE TO
COMPLETE OUR STATE
ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT.
PUBLIC SAFETY M. LABOR.
WE HAVE SEVERAL OF OUR
COLLEAGUES WHO ARE WRAPPING UP
PRESENTING BILLS OR ESTABLISHING
FORMS AND POLICY COMMITTEES AND
THEY'LL BE JOINING US VERY
SHORTLY.
BUT PRIVILEGE OF THE CHAIRMAN GO
AHEAD GET STARTED WITH THE OUR
OF TWO TWENTY HAVING ARRIVE.
LET'S BEGIN CALIFORNIA
COMMISSION ASIAN AND PACIFIC
ISLANDER AMERICAN AFFAIRS ISSUE
ONE FUNDING FR THE COMMISSION
LA ALL GOOD AFTERNOON.
AFTERNOON MY NAME IS CAROLYN TO
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE THE FIRST ISSUE BEFORE
YOU IS FUNDING FOR THE
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON ASIAN
PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN
AFFAIRS SPECIFICALLY THE
ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATED FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. FOR
STAFF AND OPERATIONS OF THE
COMMISSION THE COMMISSION IS
CURRENTLY ON FUNDED -- AND ON
STAFF THE COMMISSION WAS CREATED
IN TWO THOUSAND TWO AND HAS BEEN
OPERATING SINCE.
TWO THOUSAND FOUR THANK YOU GOOD
AFTERNOON FINANCE THANK YOU
MADAM CHAIR HAD THIS IS NOT AN
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL SO IT IS
NOT IN OUR BUDGET.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH QUESTIONS
FROM MEMBERS.
WILL HOLD THE ADAM OPEN ISSUE TO
INTERNATIONAL TRADE PROGRAM
SPECIALISTS ELIA.
WHEN YOU'RE READY [inaudible]
GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON BRIAN WITH A FORD
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED TO
INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE
UNIT IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF
BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT.
THE SENATE APPROVED THIS MAY
REVISION PROPOSAL AND THE
ASSEMBLY REJECTED IT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
THE CONFERENCE ISSUES FIVE
HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO THOUSAND
DOLLARS AND THREE INTERNATIONAL
TRADE PROGRAM SPECIALIST
POSITIONS.
WE HAVE REACHED CONCERNS WITH
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL BECAUSE
UNDER PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS
SIMILAR ACTIVITIES LIKE
TRANSPARENCY AND WE'RE NOT
ALWAYS EFFECTIVE -- IN ORDER TO
THESE PROGRAMS IN NINETEEN
NINETY SIX IN TWO THOUSAND AND
ONE THE STATE AUDITOR A NOTED
THAT THE STATE'S TREATING
CONVERSATION SEEM. TO NOT
ADEQUATELY MEASURE THE
PERFORMANCE OF ITS PROGRAMS --
SO WE SUGGEST AS A COMPROMISE
ADOPTING THE SENATE ACTION TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE
POSITIONS AND ALSO TO ADOPT SOME
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTING LANGUAGE.
IMAGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND
TREATING IT. TOO CLEARLY
ARTICULATE ITS GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES SET QUANTIFIABLE
TARGETS.
CLICK DATA AND PERFORMANCE
MEASURES. TO MEASURE PERFORMANCE
AND REGULARLY REPORT BACK TO THE
BACK THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS THE
LEGISLATURE.
AND WE THINK THIS IS A REAL
SHOULD BE ADOPTED REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL --
IS A DOCTOR.
THANK YOU AND FINANCE.
SO WE ON THIS ISSUE SUPPORT THE
SENATE PROPOSAL HOWEVER WE ARE
OPEN TO COMPROMISE ALONG SOME OF
THE LINES THAT LA -- SUGGESTED.
EXCELLENT ALRIGHT LOOK FOR TO
THOSE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS.
BELIEVE THE ITEM OPEN.
ISSUE THREE FILM AND TELEVISION
TAX CREDIT CARRY FORWARD DELEO.
THIS IN ITS BUDGET PACKAGE
INCLUDES BUDGET TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD EXTEND BY
THREE YEARS THE ALLOWED CARRY
FORWARD FOR THE SECOND ITERATION
OF THE FILM AND TELEVISION.
PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS.
A CRITIC CARRY FORWARD IS NEEDED
WHEN THE AMOUNT OF TAX CREDITS
AVAILABLE TO A FILER EXCEED THE
AMOUNT OF TAXES THEY THEY MAY
CARRY THE BALANCE FORWARD IT --
TO FOLLOWING YEAR -- SO THIS
LANGUAGE WILL EXTEND THE AMOUNT
OF TIME BEFORE THOSE CREDITS --
WILL EXPIRE AT THE GOVERNOR TO
SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE A PROPOSAL
RELATED TO THIS TAX PROVISION --
WE KNOW THAT EXTENDING THE KERRY
FOR IT WOULD HAVE A MINOR
REVENUE AFFECT BEGINNING IN
TWENTY TWENTY ONE OTHER PLEASE
NOTE THAT THIS WILL NOT.
THIS WILL REFLECTS THAT PRIOR
YOUR REVENUES WHO -- WERE
SOMEWHAT HIGHER THAN PREVIOUSLY
ESTIMATED BECAUSE THE CREDITS
WERE NOT USED WHEN ADDITIONAL
INTO SPEED.
THANK YOU FINANCE IN
MINISTRATION SUPPORTS ASSEMBLY
ON THIS PROPOSAL AND IS
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT ANY
ALLOCATION -- IN TERMS OF
CREDITS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
ALLOCATED IN WHICH CASE ANY
CHANGES WOOD AND SHAPE BEHAVIOR
BECAUSE THOSE CREDITS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN AWARDED.
SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE I
WASN'T TRACKING SUGAR SUNSHINE.
WE'RE LOOKING TO EXTEND THE TIME
FRAME TO ALLOW THE ALREADY
ALLOCATED CREDITS. TO HAVE TIME
TO BE UTILIZED YEAH SO SAY WHAT
YOU SAID ONE MORE TIME THE
ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION IS
THAT THESE CREDITS -- THE
PURPOSE OF THAT NEEDS TO
ENCOURAGE THE BEST PEOPLE TO
COME FORWARD IN TERMS OF THE
VALUE THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING GAS
SO IF HE CREDITS HAVE ALREADY
BEEN ALLOCATED.
THAN CHANGING THE TAX INCENTIVES
WOULDN'T CHANGE THAT ALLOCATION
AND ANYWAY SO YOU DON'T HAVE
THAT INCENTIVE AFFECT
[inaudible]
OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
SEEING NONE WILL HOLD THE ITEM
OPEN.
ISSUE FOR ECONOMIC OFFICE OF
ECONOMIC IMPACT TRAILER BILL
BELIAU.
THE GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED TO
CHANGE THE NAME OF GO THIS THE
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT THE
SENATE APPROVED THIS TRAILER
BILL AND THE ASSEMBLY REJECTED
THIS CHANGE.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON
THE DIFFERENCE [inaudible]
HI FINANCE.
WHEN OUR NAME CHIANG?
FINANCE ADMINISTRATION HE NEEDS
TO BELIEVE THAT THIS NAME CHANGE
IS IMPORTANT TO CONVEY TO
EVERYONE WHO INTERACTS WITH THIS
AGENCY THAT IT IS NOT A
LICENSING AGENCY IT IS NOT A
REGULATORY OUR OVERSIGHT AGENCY.
BUT RATHER IT IS HELPING TO MAKE
SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE
BENEFITS OF DOING BUSINESS AND
INTERACTING.
WITH PEOPLE AND COMMERCE IN
CALIFORNIA.
WE ALSO WANTED TO CONVEY HROUGH
THIS NAME CHANGE THAT THE OFFICE
WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT IS NOT SIMPLY DEAL
WITH BUSINESSES IT DEALS WITH
WORKERS AND A WHOLE RANGE OF
STAKEHOLDERS.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS WE BELIEVE
THAT THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
IMPACT IS THE RIGHT NAME TO
CONVEY -- TO EVERYONE INTERACS
WITH THIS AGENCY WHAT IT
ACTUALLY ONE START WITH THIS --
DEPARTMENT -- WHAT IT ACTUALLY
DOES?
OKAY I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING
[inaudible]
TO MR OBERNOLTE.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR SO A JUST
A COMMENT.
THAT ACRONYM -- III IS IN COMMON
USE IN THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY --
WE HAVE THE FOR AIRPLANES YOU
HAVE A SET OF PERFORMANCE TABLES
AND ANOTHER SET OF WE AYE TABLES
AND IT STANDS FOR ONE ENGINE AN
OPERATIVE.
NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE IMAGE
YOU'RE GOING FOR BUT WE ALL
SYSTEMS GO.
OKAY.
THANK YOU MISTER OBERNOLTE.
WILL HOLD THAT ITEM OPEN AND
CONTINUE THAT DIALOGUE.
ISSUE FIVE OFFICE OF DIGITAL
INNOVATION [inaudible]
HELLO.
GOOD AFTERNOON BRIAN METZGER
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE -- THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSED THE CREATION OF A NEW
OFFICE THE OFFICE OF DIGITAL
INNOVATION WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS AGENCY.
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THE
MISSION OF THE OFFICE WOULD BE
TO HELP DEPARTMENTS BETTER
OPERATE THEIR PROGRAMS AND
DELIVER SERVICES.
THE OFFICE WOULD ACCOMPLISH THIS
MISSION BY FOR EXAMPLE
DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTS OR
PROJECTS THAT IMPROVE A USER'S
EXPERIENCE OF A PARTICULAR
PROGRAM OR SERVICE.
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSED
THIRTY SIX POINT TWO MILLION
TOTAL FUNDS OF WHICH THIRTY
THREE POINT SEVEN MILLION IS
GENERAL FUND IN.
NINETEEN TWENTY AND LOWER
AMOUNTS OF FUNDING IN THE OUT
YEARS.
OF THE THIRTY THREE POINT SEVEN
MILLION GENERAL FUND IN NINETEEN
TWENTY TWENTY MILLION WAS
PROPOSED TO ESTABLISH AN
INNOVATION FUND THAT THE OFFICE
WOULD USE FOR EXAMPLE TO FUND
NEW PRODUCTS OR PROJECTS FOR
DEPARTMENTS.
THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDED FIFTY
POSITIONS AND PROPOSE TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE ESTABLISHING THE
OFFICE AND GIVING A PROCUREMENT
AUTHORITY.
WELL THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY
AGREED IN CONCEPT WITH
ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE THE
CONFERENCE ISSUE HERE IS IN THE
NUMBER OF POSITIONS AND
ASSOCIATED FUNDING FOR THE
OFFICE.
THE PRIMARY REASON THE APPROVED
AMOUNTS DIFFER FROM THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS BOTH THE
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY AGREED TO
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE
INNOVATION FUND TO TEN MILLION
GENERAL FUND FROM TWENTY MILLION
IN.
NINETEEN TWENTY BOTH HOUSES ALSO
AGREED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
POSITIONS FOR THE OFFICE BUT THE
SENATE APPROVED TWENTY POSITIONS
WHEREAS THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED.
TEN BOTH HOUSES APPROVED A PLACE
HOLDER TRAILER BILL LANGUAGETO
ESTABLISH THE OFFICE HOWEVER
NEITHER HOUSE APPROVED THE
REQUESTED PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY.
THE SENATE ALSO PROPOSE
INCLUSION OF REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS IN THE TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE.
WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE OF
THIS ISSUE COMES DOWN TO WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE AND WHAT THIS
OFFICE TO DO.
AND HOW BIG IT SHOULD BE -- WE
DO THINK THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED BY THE
SENATE WOULD GIVE THE
LEGISLATURE HOWEVER BETTER
OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE
[inaudible]
I AM.
THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO
BELIEVE THAT THIS ISSUE IS IN
THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT THAT THE
RESOURCES ARE NECESSARY TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THE
OBJECTIVES.
AND IN PARTICULAR THAT THE
PROCUREMENTAUTHORITY IS
NECESSARY BECAUSE WE DO SEE THIS
OFFICE TAKING A LEAD ROLE IN
TERMS OF THE INNOVATION
PROCUREMENT SPRINTS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION IS IMAGINING.
GREAT QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
ALL RIGHT SEEN NONE WILL HOLD
ITEM OPEN.
I'M GOING TO WAIT FOR A MISTER
KING TO GET HERE CALLING FROM
THE WALL -- CALL WORLD.
HE THOUGHT I FORGOT [inaudible]
ISSUE.
SIX INSIST TWENTY TWENTY OUT
REACH ALEJO THANK YOU THANK YOU
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED FIFTY
MILLION DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FOR THE TWENTY TWENTY
CENSUS RELATED OUR REACH WITH
PROVISIONAL LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATION. TO
INCREASE THIS AMOUNT BUT BOB BY
TWENTY TWO POINT FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS OUT WITH LEGISLATIVE
APPROVAL.
THE SENATE APPROVED THOSE
GOVERNOR'S THIRTY FIFTY MILLION
DOLLAR RESOURCES BUT ALSO
APPROVED AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF
THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS THE
ASSEMBLY ALSO APPROVED
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF THIRTY
MILLION DOLLARS IN RESOURCES BUT
HAD SPECIFIC PURPOSES FOR THOSE
RESOURCES.
AND ALSO REMOVED THE CAP ON THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AUGMENTATION BOTH
HOUSES APPROVED FUNDING FOR THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING POPULATION
SAMPLE ENUMERATION -- BUT THE
ASSEMBLY DELAYED TO THIS THIS
SURVEY FROM APRIL TO AUGUST.
THANK YOU FINANCE MAKE THREE
BRIEF POINTS FIRST IS THAT WHAT
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED
LEVEL FUNDINGTHE AMOUNT OF
FUNDING THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED
TO THE CENSUS BOTH IN THIS AND
PREVIOUS BUDGET AX PUT TOGETHER
WOULD BE OVER A HUNDRED FIFTY
SEVEN MILLION DOLLARSSO WE
BELIEVE -- AS OF RIGHT NOW THAT
IS OUR ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT'LL
TAKE TO CONTINUE TO MAKE
PROGRESS TOWARD A COMPLETE COUNT.
A SECOND -- HAS MISS
HOLLINGSHEAD NOTED -- UNDER OUR
PROPOSED LANGUAGE AT JAIL BC
AUGMENTATION WOULD BE UP TO
TWENTY TWO AND A HALF MILLION
DOLLARS SO WE DO NOT BELIEVE
THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES BEYOND THAT
AUGMENTATION ABILITY.
AT THIS TIME AND THEN FINALLY ON
THE THIRD POINT REGARDING THE
ENUMERATION SURVEY WE CONTINUE
TO BELIEVE THAT THE STARTED WE
HAVE PROPOSED IS PASSED TO
MAKING SURE THAT THAT
ENUMERATION SURVEY.
IS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE AND
WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT WILL
INTERFERE IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY
WITH THE COMPLETE COUNT FOR THE
CENSUS.
THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS MEMBERS
HAPPENS OBERNOLTE.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR SO I THINK
WE ALL WOULD LIKE THE COUNT TO
BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK THERE'S A FISCAL
ARGUMENT HERE ABOUT THE AMOUNT
OF MONEY THAT WE SPEND MAKING
THAT COUNTACCURATE BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY ONE OF OUR INCENTIVES
FOR MAKING SURE THAT EVERY
CALIFORNIA GETS COUNTED IS THAT
WE GET A DECADE WORTH OF FEDERAL
REVENUE THAT'S BASED ON THOSE
COUNTS SO.
A QUESTION FOR THE LA -- HAVE WE
DONE AN ANALYSIS ON HOW MUCH
FEDERAL FUNDING IS AT STAKE.
I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE
TRADE OFFS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT
EVEN UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL HERE WERE -- PROPOSING
TO SPEND SUBSTANTIALLY MORE
MONEY THAN ANY OTHER STATE HAS
DONE.
YEAH WE ACTUALLY HAVE DONE AN
ANALYSIS OF THE AMOUNT OF
FEDERAL FUNDING AT STAKE -- SO
IN CONTRAST TO PRIOR STUDIES
THAT HAVE FOUND THAT POTENTIALLY
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WOULD BE ON
THE LINE.
OUR ESTIMATE IS THAT WOULD BE IT
WOULD BE CLOSER TO TENS OF
MILLIONS POTENTIALLY UP.
TO POSSIBLY LE HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS.
THE IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
DELTA BETWEEN DOING NOTHING.
DOING NO WAY OUT REACH AND THE
DELL AND SPENDING YOU KNOW
WHAT'S CONSIDERED TO BE THE
MAXIMUM OUT OF OUR REACH.
NO -- SO.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT IT'S A LITTLE
BIT NUANCED IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE OUTRAGE RIGHT SO THIS IS
ACTUALLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN.
WHAT OUR ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE
STATE WOULD RECEIVE AND FEDERAL
FUNDING IF THERE WAS AN
UNDERCOUNT SIMILAR TO THE ONE IN
NINETEEN NINETY WHICH IS THE
LARGEST ON ACCOUNT THAT THE
STATE HAS EXPERIENCED IN -- A
FEW DECADES SO THE DELTA BETWEEN
WHAT WE WOULD EXPERIENCE IN
NINETEEN NINETY VERSES IF YOU
KNOW THE THE COW WERE.
IN OUR VIEW SORT OF REASONABLY
ACCURATE AND COMPLETE -- IS THAT
FEW HUNDRED MILLION OF COURSE
AND THERE'S THIS SORT OF
ADDITIONAL QUESTION OF WHAT IS
THE MARGINAL VALUE OF ADDITIONAL
OUT REACH -- AND SO YOU KNOW
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE NECESSARILY
THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS GOING
TO GET YOU A PERFECTLY COMPLETE
COUNT SO THAT WOULD BE.
A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS OKAY SO.
I'M I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING SO IF WHAT WHAT
LEVEL WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IS
BEING YOU KNOW -- SUPPORTED BY
THE FISCAL DATA AND LIKE -- YOU
KNOW OUR EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE
SPEND DEALS MORE THAN A DOLLAR
IN -- IN FUTURE FEDERAL BENEFITS
DISCOUNTED FOR THE CURRENT VALUE
BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THE CENSUS ISN'T ONLY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL.
LAND RIGHT REALIZE THE
REPRESENTATION ISSUE -- THERE'S
ALSO JUST HAVING ACCURATE AND
COMPLETE DATA FOR THE STATE TO
BE ABLE TO EVALUATE ITS POLICY
DECISIONS -- HAVING ACCURATE AND
COMPLETE DATA FOR STATE MONEY TO
TRAVEL TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
THAT'S A PIECEOF THE ANALYSIS
THAT WE NEVER COVERED.
SO THERE IS YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY
MULTIPLE FACETS OF THIS AND THAT
FEDERAL FUNDING IS REALLY ONLY
ONE SMALL PIECE -- I THINK.
OF THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION.
BUT IT ARE YOU ARE YOU ASKING
FOR LIKE A A DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS RETURN ON
GROW JUST JUST FOR THE FEDERAL
FUNDING JUST WONDERING AT WHAT
LEVEL DOES THIS EFFORT PAY FOR
ITSELF AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S
GOING TO BE A A LEVEL AT WHICH
IT.
IT STOPS PAYING FOR ITSELF AND
THE ONLY REASON TO SPEND MORE
THAN THAT WOULD BE THE OTHER
REPRESENTATIVE ARGUMENTS THAT
YOU MADE RIGHT RIGHT SO
ABSOLUTELY AND AND THE QUESTION
ACTUALLY COMES DOWN TO WHAT IS
THE MARGINAL AFFECT OF AN
ADDITIONAL DOLLAR ABOUT REACH
RIGHT.
HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE COUNT WITH
AN ADDITIONAL DOLLAR HOURS --
HONESTLY I THINK THAT THAT
QUESTION IS NOT ANSWERABLE FROM
OUR ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE AND
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WE
NECESSARILY WOULD BE ABLE TO
ANSWER WITH ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
REALLY.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD
ASK COMPLETE COUNT TO BE ABLE TO
RESPOND TO I'M SORRY YOUR ASKED.
TO COMPLETE COUNT.
THE ODD THE AGENCY THAT'S IN
CHARGE OF DOING OUTRAGE IS
MISSING OKAY THANK YOU
[inaudible]
MR ROTH.
HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE
MICROPHONE.
THE TENS OF MILLIONS TO HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS IS THAT A YEAR OR IS
OUT OF THE DECADE.
THAT IS A YEAR BUT IT OULD
DECLINE OVER THE DECADE BECAUSE
A LOT OF WHAT BUT OUR RESEARCH
SUGGESTED WAS THAT A LOT OF
PROGRAMS WHILE THEY'RE NOT BASED
ON THE DECENNIAL CENSUS.
IN THE YEAR THAT THE CENSUS
OCCURRED SO SAY IN TWENTY TWENTY
AND TWENTY TWENTY ONE A LOT OF
FEDERAL FUNDING FORMULAS WILL BE
BASED ON THAT TWENTY TWENTY
CENSUS
BUT THERE AFTER -- THEIR
FORMULAS WILL USUALLY RELY ON
THE ANNUAL POPULATION COUNTS
WHICH ARE BASED ON SURVEYS.
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT -- SO
THE ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY OR THE
COMMUNITY POPULATION SURVEY AND
THE AND THE AFFECTS OF THE
UNDERCOUNT WOULD SOLELY A ROAD
OVER TIME AS BIG AS THE ACTUAL
DECENNIAL CENSUS IS NO LONGER
USED AS PART OF THOSE FUNDING
FORMULAS.
SO TENS OF MILLIONS TO HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS.
A YEAR DECLINING OVER THE DECADE
THAT THE CENSUS COVERS THAT'S
RIGHT.
I'M SURE YOU SAID THIS AND I
MISSED IT BECAUSE I WAS IN AND
OUT BUT WHAT'S THE TOTAL AMOUNT
THAT'S PROJECTED TO BE SPENT BY
THE STATE ON THE CENSUS EFFORT.
A HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN
MILLION INCLUDING THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL IT WOULD BE CLOSER TO
TWO HUNDRED MILLION UNDER THE
HOUSES.
THANK YOU THINK YOU MANAGER
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SIR MORE
LIFE.
REDISTRICTING IS A SORT OF THIS
CAN BE A TOPIC FOR WANT SERVICES
ONLY COMES UP EVERY TEN YEARS
BUT SOME PEOPLE REALLY.
SPECIALIZE IN IT SO I'M JUST
WONDERING AT THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE IS DONE.
AN ANALYSIS OF SAY THE LAST FOUR
CYCLES.
HOW MUCH WAS SPENT?
WHAT COULD BE?
CALCULATED IS IS AS HAVING BEEN
MAYBE THE PERCEIVED BENEFIT.
IT JUST.
SEEMS LIKE SOMEONE WOULD WANT TO
BE INTERESTED IN THAT THAT IS IS
IS THAT AVAILABLE -- YES IT IS
AN AIRPORT I'M NOT GONNA HAVE
THE EXACT NUMBERS OFF THE TOP OF
MY HEAD BUT I WILL SAY THE
AMOUNT THAT WAS SPENT IN THE
LAST TWO SENTENCES CENSUSES WAS
SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE
AMOUNT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED
THIS YEAR -- I BELIEVE IT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN FIVE MILLION BY STATE
MONEY IN -- TWENTY TEN BUT THAT
WAS COUPLED WITH ACTUALLY A LOT
OF PRIVATE MONEY EYES THIS IS TO
ON A LOT OF THE PROPOSALS ARE.
FOR PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ALSO
HAVE -- MONEY INVOLVED AND THEN
IN.
TWO THOUSAND I BELIEVE CAROLINE
SHE RELIGIOUSLY MALES OFFICE I
BELIEVE IN TWO THOUSAND THERE IS
ABOUT TEN MILLION DOLLARS
APPROPRIATED FOR THE CENSUS BUT
I I THINK YOUR QUESTION I
SENATOR HAD TO DO WITH
REDISTRICTING WHICH IS A
SEPARATE PROCESS -- RIGHT.
THE CENSUS INFORMS THE STATE'S
REDISTRICTING PROCESS BUT THERE
IS A SEPARATE APPROPRIATION THAT
OCCURS TO PAY FOR THAT THAT
PROCESS THAT WAS.
ESTABLISHED THROUGH THROUGH A
PROPOSITION AND BUT I'M NOT SURE
MAYBE YOUR QUESTION IS ABOUT
BOTH WELL BEHIND OR EVERY SEE
THE CENSUS IS CRITICAL BECAUSE
YOU'RE DOING THE REDISTRICTING
AS WELL BUT YOU'RE YOU'RE ALSO
GETTING YOUR POPULATION NUMBERS
FOR YOUR FUNDING.
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S AROUND REAL
BOB SO THIS IS.
MY SECOND TIME THROUGH ONE OF
THESE -- WIT THE FIRST WAS AS A
SUPERVISOR BACK IN TWO THOUSAND
AND GETTING READY FOR ALL THE
FUN WORKING WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
THE SEWERS SO SINCE WE'VE BEEN
DOING THIS THERE ARE YOU KNOW I
FOUND AT THAT TIME THAT THERE
ARE SOME PEOPLE TO SPECIALIZE.
THE KIND OF COME OUT OF THE
WOODWORK EVERY TEN YEARS IN
KINDA.
YOU KNOW REALLY AREN'T THAT'S
LIKE A HOBBY AND AND SO I'M I'M
JUST SORT OF CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT
WHAT IF WE DID WHAT WE LEARNED
WHAT WE SPEND.
YOU GIVEN THAT YOU KNOW AND AND
WHY IF IT WOULD ONLY SPEND FIVE
MILLION TO TEN MILLION.
THE LAST TWO CYCLES WIRE TO
WHITE WHITE TWO HUNDRED MILLION.
SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THE
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PAST --
CENSUS OUT REACH EFFORTS BY THE
STATE AND THEN THERE IS A
SEPARATE APPROPRIATION PROCESS
THAT IS SPELL AND AND FUNDING
PROCESSES SPELLED OUT BY THE
PROPOSITION FOR THE PURPOSES OF
STATE REDISTRICTING AND HOW THAT
PROCESS UNFOLDS -- THE YOU KNOW
THERE ARE THERE ARE A LOT OF
CHANGES OCCURRING IN THE TWENTY
TWENTY CENSUS ARM THAT HAVE
PROMPTED A LOT OF THE EMPHASIS
ON OUTREACH -- INCLUDING RELYING
ON FOLKS TO RESPOND -- VIA THE
INTERNET PRIMARILY AND OTHER
CHANGES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO
THE SENSES AND I THINK THAT IT
HAS BEEN A LOT OF WHY THE STATE
HAS PUT SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON
INCREASING OUTRAGE THIS YEAR.
LET ME ALSO ADD THAT WALL AND
THE LAST TWO SENSES WERE
CONSIDERED VERY ACCURATE FROM A
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE THERE WAS
STILL AN UNDERCOUNT IN
CALIFORNIA.
AND ACTUALLY THAT HAS SORT OF
THIS DOUBLE WHAMMY AFFECT FOR
THE STATE WHERE IF YOUR
ACCOUNTING EVERYONE ELSE
ACCURATELY IN YOUR COUNTING
CALIFORNIA LESS THAN THE HOUSE
IMPLICATIONS FOR REDISTRICTING.
ALSO THIS YEAR -- CALIFORNIA IS
SORT OF FOR THE FIRST TIME AT
RISK OF POTENTIALLY LOSING A
SEAT AND SO THOSE MARGINAL
DIFFERENCES IN POPULATION CAN
MAKE A PRETTY BIG DIFFERENCE.
IN TERMS OF GETTING ACCURATELY
COUNTED.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE GONNA
SPEND TEN TO TWENTY TIMES MORE
THAN THE LAST CYCLE.
SO I SHOULD CLARIFY THAT
SPENDING IS NOT FOR THE
CONGRESSIONAL SEAT IN PARTICULAR
IT IS FOR THE WHOLE RANGE OF
MAKING SURE THAT WERE ELIGIBLE
FOR ALL THE FEDERAL FUNDING THAT
WE SHOULD E ENTITLED TO UNDER
OUR ACTUAL POPULATION.
AND THEN AS LA -- MENTION
BRIEFLY BUT A LOT BOTH IN TERMS
OF WHAT WE DO FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION AND EVEN JUST THE
GENERAL ALLOCATION OF THE
FEDERAL FUNDING.
IS OFTEN DEPENDENT ON THE CENSUS
COUNT NOT SIMPLY THE STATE
COMPARED TO OTHER STATES THAT
DOES MATTER FOR THE
CONGRESSIONAL SEAT AND
DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL FUNDING
ACROSS THE NATION BUT EVEN
WITHIN THE STATE WHEN -- WE ARE
DIRECTING RESOURCES OFTEN THOSE
FORMULAS ARE DEPENDENT ON CENSUS
COUNTS AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT THOSE BE AS ACCURATE AS
POSSIBLE NO NO I I FULLY
UNDERSTAND IS A FORMER
SUPERVISOR I FULLY GET IT.
BUT I'M JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT
THAT EXPERIENCE TO THIS.
ONE JUST TRYING.
TO YOU KNOW COMPARE THAT'S ALL
I'VE GOT IS THE EVERY TEN YEARS
WE LOOK AND SEE WHAT WE'VE DONE
BEFORE NOW WHAT ARE WE DOING
THIS TIME AND WHY.
RIGHT AND SO I THINK LA A
MENTION BUT WE DO BELIEVE IN
THIS CASE -- THERE ARE SOME
RISKS -- TO A PROPER COUNT THAT
WE HAVEN'T SEEN IN PREVIOUS
CENSUS CYCLES.
AND YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO QUANTIFY
IT AND IT'S PRETTY SERIOUS
AMOUNT.
WHAT IS AT STAKE IS A SERIOUS IS
A SERIOUS MATTER?
THANK YOU MANAGER THANK YOU CAN
IT IS MY SENSE ALSO GIVEN THE
EXTREME.
NATURE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN
TERMS OF OUR EXPERIENCE WITH
PAST ADMINISTRATIONS IN TERMS OF
WHAT'S IN THE NEW POSSIBLE PUT
FORWARD DOUBLE IMPACT THIS
CENSUS COLLECTION EXPERIENCE.
MISS SKINNER.
TIME THANK YOU I WANTED TO ADD
TO THAT THE THE REASONS --
DISCUSSED SO FAR HAVE BEEN --
THE LEGITIMATE IMPORTANT BUT I
THINK WHAT.
WAS AN ADDED IN THIS WERE COUPLE
THINGS IF WE TAKE. TWENTY TEN
COMPARE -- TO THIS YEAR -- WE'VE
HAD A GROWTH A SIGNIFICANT
GROWTH IN HOMELESSNESS IN
CALIFORNIA.
ON HOUSE TO PEOPLE.
AND OUR OWN HOUSE TO PEOPLE JUST
IN THE LAST TWO YEAR PERIOD NOT
COUNTING FOR NINETEEN BUT ROSE
BY 17%.
ACROSS THE STATE SO WE KNOW THAT
THAT FIGURE WAS EVEN HIGHER STE --
OVER THE TEN YEAR PERIOD THAT'S
A POPULATION THAT IS VERY HARD
TO COUNT.
NOW WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT IS
THE MONEY THAT WE LOSE IF WE
UNDERCOUNT.
IT IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF FUNDS
THAT SUPPORT OUR MOST LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS.
THE RESIDENTS THAT WERE MOST
LIKELY TO NOT BE COUNTED SO FROM
MY POINT OF VIEW.
INDEPENDENT OF IT THERE'S NO
COMPARISON WITH PAST CENSUS.
IN TERMS OF WHETHER THIS IS A
LEGITIMATE EXPENDITURE NOT
BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT
DEMOGRAPHIC.
WE HAVE MUCH MORE THE END DUE TO
THAT MANY MORE PEOPLE THAT COULD
BE UNDER COUNTY.
AND BE A ON THAT UNDER COUNTING
CAN RISK THE VERY FINDING THAT
THAT POPULATION NEEDS SO WE HAVE
ALL OF THAT AND THEN FINALLY.
WE HAVE THE FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION HAVING GREATLY
CUT BACK ON THE FEDERAL FUNDING
FOR OUT OF REACH FOR THE CENSUS
SO I THINK ALL OF THOSE REASONS
TO JUSTIFY.
INCREASED OF FULL VERY INCREASED
EXPENDITURE ON THE PART OF
CALIFORNIA.
Q. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS.
SEEING NONE WILL HOLD THAT ITEM
OFTEN.
THANK YOU [inaudible]
ISSUE.
SEVEN GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND RESEARCH
ADMINISTRATION RESOURCES.
THE THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED
PROVISIONAL LANGUAGE TO ALLOW
THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
RESEARCH TO SPEND UP 25% OF
PROGRAM FUNDING TO ADMINISTER A
CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH GRANT
PROGRAM.
THE SENATE REJECTED THE LANGUAGE
AND THE ASSEMBLY APPROVE THE
LANGUAGE -- WE RECOMMEND THE
ASSEMBLIES APPROACH OF APPROVING
THE LANGUAGE -- AS THIS -- THIS
POLICY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
THE WAY THAT ADMINISTRATION IS
FUNDED IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT
ADMINISTER CAP AND TRADE FUNDED
PROGRAMS.
THANKYOU FINANCE MINISTRATION
CONCURS WITH LA ON THE ASSEMBLY.
THANK YOU VERY QUESTIONS
[inaudible]
SEE NOT.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE A PRECISION
MEDICINE.
THIS ISSUES REGARDING THE
CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE TO ADVANCE
PRECISION MEDICINE WHICH
PROVIDES GRANT FUNDING SUPPORT
PRECISION MEDICINE.
A RESEARCH LAST YEAR'S BUDGET
PROVIDED THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS --
TO FUND GRANTS UNDER THE
PRECISION MEDICINE PROGRAM WITH
THE INTENT THESE AWARDS WOULD BE
MADE OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS THE
PROGRAM IS SET TO SUNSET.
AT THE END OF THIS YEAR THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE TO EXTEND THE SUNSET
DATE.
TO TWENTY TWENTY SIX THE SENATE
APPROVED THE TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE AND NOT TAKE ACTION ON
THE LANGUAGE -- BUT INSTEAD
ADOPTED SEPARATE BUDGET BILL
LANGUAGE TO REQUIRE THE PROGRAM --
TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN
FRANCISCO.
WE DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION
ON THIS ISSUE.
FINANCE IN MINISTRATION SUPPORT
SENATE O THIS ISSUE AND BUT
SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT WE ARE IN
TOUCH WITH LEGISLATIVE STUFF ON
THIS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SIGNAL ALL THE SUDDEN OPEN.
ISSUE NINE UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE FOR THE
STATE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.
LA -- WHEN YOU'RE READY
CONFERENCE ISSUE IS THAT THE
SENATE INCLUDE BUDGET INCLUDED
BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
REQUIRE TO REPORTS ONE FROM THE
STATE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE AND
ONE FROM THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD?
TO PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE ANALYZING DIFFERENT
OPTIONS TO IMPROVE BUSINESS
COMPLIANCE WITH UNCLAIMED
PROPERTY LOSS.
THIS BUDGET BILLING WHICH IS
CONSISTENT WITH -- A COUPLE OF
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE IN
OUR PORT EARLIER THIS YEAR AND
SO -- WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE
SENATE'S ACTION.
I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT FINANCE.
ON THIS ISSUE WE SUPPORT THE
ASSEMBLY ACTION.
SUPPORT SYSTEM REACTION ALRIGHT
ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS.
SEE.
WILL FALL THE SADDAM OPEN.
THIS WILL READ IT.
THE END OF AB.
NEVER MIND THEN [inaudible]
OKAY.
ISSUE TEN SMALL BUSINESS TAX
CODE STREAMLINING IN THE OFFICE
OF TAX APPEALS ELIA SAID
CHRISTINE WITH THE LA JOH THE
GOVERNOR PROPOSED TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE TO ALLOW CERTAIN TAX
APPEALS TO BE DECIDED BY ONE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE INSTEAD
OF A PANEL OF THREE THE PROPOSED
LANGUAGE IS IDENTICAL TO SB.
THREE FORTY FOUR A POLICY BILL
PASSED BY THE SENATE AND
CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION BY
THE ASSEMBLY.
THE SENATE APPROVED THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE WHILE THE ASSEMBLY
REJECTED IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PREFERRING TO HAVE THE PROPOSAL
MOVE THROUGH THE POLICY PROCESS.
WE RECOMMEND THE ASSEMBLY ACTION
GIVEN THAT THE SENATE HAS
ALREADY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
WEIGH IN ON SB THREE FORTY FOUR
IN THE POLICY PROCESS.
WE SEE NO COMPELLING REASON TO
DENY THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO THE
ASSEMBLY.
ELIA I MEAN IF YOU REFINANCE IN
MINISTRATION CONTINUES TO
SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL AND
SUPPORTS THE SENATE ACTION.
QUESTION FOR MEMBERS.
SEE NONE THE ITEM WILL BE HELD
OPEN ISSUE.
ELEVEN UNDER THE SECRETARY OF
STATE DELAYED IPLEMENTATION OF
CAL ACCESS.
THE ASSEMBLY ADOPTED PLACEHOLDER
TRAILER BILL TO DELAY THE
IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR THE CAL
ACCESS PROJECT WHICH IS AN
ONLINE DATABASE THAT PROVIDES
FINANCIAL INFORMATION ON STATE
CANDIDATES DONORS LOBBYISTS AND
OTHERS.
FROM DECEMBER TWENTY NINETEEN TO
FEBRUARY TWENTY TWENTY ONE THE
REASON FOR THIS MOVE -- WAS SO
THAT IT DID NOT COINCIDE WITH
THE NOW EARLIER MARCH PRIMARY IN.
TWENTY TWENTY FINANCE
ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN IN TOUCH
WITH LEGISLATIVE STAFF AND
SUPPORTS THE ASSEMBLY ACTION
[inaudible]
RIGHT.
WELL I WOULD.
I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL ROLL
CALL SOME CONCEPTUAL QUORUM AND
TAKE ACTION ON THE SIDE OF
THAT'S OKAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL CENTERS MITCHELL HERE
THERE'S MODOC [inaudible]
NIELSEN.
ROTH HERE SKINNER [inaudible]
ASSEMBLYMEMBER STING
[inaudible]
MAYES [inaudible]
MCCARTY [inaudible]
OBERNOLTE [inaudible]
WEBER HERE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH WILL ENTERTAIN
A MOTION -- TO ACCEPT THE
ASSEMBLY ACTION ON ISSUE.
ELEVEN THANKYOU WITH A AND A
VOTE FROM THE ASSEMBLY OF FOR
ONE AND A SENATE VOTE OF FIVE
ZERO FOUR ZERO ONE TWO THREE
THREE ZERO I MISSED HIM.
THE SIMPLY VOTE OF THREE ZERO A
SENATE VOTE OF FIVE ZERO THANK
YOU.
THAT ITEM ASSISTANCE WITH MOVING
ON TO ISSUE TWELVE ALEJO -- THE
ASSEMBLY TOOK ACTION TO ADOPT
PLACEHOLDER TRAILER BILL TO MAKE
A TECHNICAL CHANGED AB ONE EIGHT
OH ONE FROM TWO THOUSAND
SEVENTEEN THE CHANGE OR CHANGE
THE REDISTRICTING
RESPONSIBILITIES FROM THE
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS IN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY TO THE COUNTY CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THE GOVERNOR AND SENATE HAD NO
PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU FINANCE ADMINISTRATION
HAS NO CONCERNS WITH THE
PROPOSED TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS. THIRTY
WEBER THE RIGHT OF THIS ISSUE
HAS BEEN.
THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO IT IN
TERMS OF THE ACTUAL THAT TOOK
PLACE WE HAD A SIGN ONE
OBVIOUSLY THE CLERK TO DO IT BUT
DOES NOT.
LIVE REGISTER VOTERS THAT THE L.
LOCALS BELIEVE THAT THE CLERK IS
VAST AND THOSE WHO WERE.
PROPONENTS OF THE BILL -- AGREE
AND SO IS IS THAT THERE'S NO
OPPOSITION TO IT'S IT'S A
TECHNICAL CHANGE OF WITH ONE
FROM THE OTHER.
THEY FEEL OF THE MORE EFFICIENT
AND LESS POLITICAL IF IT'S WITH
THE CLERK VERSUS THE REGISTRAR
OF VOTERS.
SO -- SO I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO
KNOW THAT THOSE WHO WERE
INVOLVED IN THE BILL LAST YEAR
ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS OKAY.
A QUESTION FOR MEMBERS.
THANK YOU THE WHOLE THAT ITEM
OKAY.
MOVING TO ISSUE THIRTEEN VOTERS
CHOICE SACK FUNDING
UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE KALLIO.
THE ASSEMBLY PPROPRIATE THREE
POINT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS FOR
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR OUT
REACH AND EDUCATION EFFORTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE VOTE --
CENTER MODEL OUGHT ALSO KNOWN AS
THE SYSTEM ADOPTED UNDER SB --
FOUR FIFTY ALL COUNTIES CAN MOVE
TO THE VOTE CENTER MODEL IN
TWENTY TWENTY BMO THE AMOUNT
APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSEMBLY I
USE A FORMULA SIMILAR TO THE ONE
THAT WAS USED.
IN THE TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN
EIGHTEEN BUDGET TO PROVIDE OUR
REACH FUNDING TO COUNTIES THAT
COULD MOVE TO THAT NEW VOTING
SYSTEM -- VOTING MODEL IN.
TWENTY EIGHTEEN FINANCE
ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT SENATE ON
THIS WAS ALL AND WOULD LIKE TO
NOTE THAT THE GOVERNOR'S MAYOR
VISION DOES PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT
FUNDING FOR VOTING SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT -- OVER
TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS SO
WE DO BELIEVE THAT COUNTIES --
WITH THIS HELP FROM THE STATE
FOR THEIR VOTING SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT WILL HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO CONTINUE THEIR
TRADITIONAL ROLE OF CONDUCTING
THESE TYPES OF OUTREACH
CAMPAIGNS.
THANK YOU QUESTION FOR MEMBERS.
FOR THE ITEM OPEN.
ISSUE FOURTEEN CALVET REVIEWS
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA POLLUTION
CONTROL FINANCING AUTHORITY.
ALSO.
WE HAVE A HANDOUT THAT SHOULD BE
IN YOUR BINDERS A PROVIDES A
HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE
GOVERNOR AND HOUSES HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS PACKAGES -- I CAN
WALK THROUGH THAT BRIEFLY IF
THAT STILL AMENABLE TO THE
COMMITTEE PLEASE BECAUSE THIS IS
THE FIRST ISSUE.
IT WILL BE MOVING INTO THAT
PACKAGE THANK YOU OKAY SO THIS.
HANDOUT PROVIDES A HIGH LEVEL
SUMMARY OF THE ACTIONS AND ALSO
IS ASSOCIATED WITH ITEMS
FOURTEEN FIFTEEN AND SIXTEEN IN
YOUR AGENDA TO CALM -- SO -- AT
A HIGH LEVEL AS YOU CAN SEE FROM
THE TABLE GENERALLY SPEAKING THE
GOVERNOR SENATE AND ASSEMBLY ARE
PROBABLY ON THE SAME PAGE WHEN
IT COMES.
TO THEIR HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS PACKAGES BOTH THE
GOVERNOR AND THE ASSEMBLY
ADOPTED TWO POINT FOUR BILLION
DOLLARS FOR HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS AND THE SENATE
APPROPRIATED TWO POINT FIVE ONE
FIVE BILLION DOLLARS FOR HOUSING
AND HOMELESSNESS.
ALL QUICKLY WALK THROUGH ON THE
MAJOR ITEMS ON THE CHART THANK
YOU.
ON THE FIRST ITEM HOUSING
PLANNING GRANTS THE GOVERNOR
PROPOSED IN BOTH HOUSES APPROVED
TWO HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS -- IN GENERAL FUND FOR
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS BOTH HOUSES TOOK
THIS ACTION A STEP FURTHER TO
PRIORITIZE THE FUNDING FOR THE
SIXTH ROUND OF THE REGIONAL
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS
WHICH IS KICKING OFF.
THIS YEAR IN SOME SMALLER
JURISDICTIONS.
THE ASSEMBLY EXCLUDED COUNTY
OFFICES OF EDUCATION HOWEVER
UNDER THE SENATE PACKAGE THAT
THEY ARE INCLUDED AS ELIGIBLE
RECIPIENTS OF THESE FUNDS.
SECOND ITEM ON THE TABLE HOUSING
PRODUCTION GRANTS BY THE
GOVERNOR PROPOSED IN BOTH HOUSES
APPROVED FIVE HUNDRED MILLION
DOLLARS FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE
INFILL GRANT PROGRAM.
WHICH PROVIDES FUNDING FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND DEVELOPERS
CAN APPLY FOR THIS FUNDING ONE
DIFFERENCES BUT ONE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE HOUSES ON THIS
PARTICULAR ITEM IS THAT THE
SENATE -- MADE THE FIVE HUNDRED
MILLION DOLLARS ON GOING ON BUT
NOTS DID NOT SPECIFY THE USE OF
THOSE FUNDS IN FUTURE YEARS AND
THAT'S ONE OF THE UPCOMING ITEMS
ON YOUR AGENDA.
THE THIRD ITEM ON THE TABLE I
TAX CREDITS THE GOVERNOR
PROPOSED IN BOTH HOUSES ADOPTED
FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ONE
TIME GENERAL FUND TO EXPAND THE
LOW INCOME.
HOUSINGTAX CREDIT TECH TAX
CREDIT PROGRAM TWO HUNDRED
MILLION DOLLARS OF THIS AMOUNT
IS AVAILABLE FOR MIXED INCOME
DEVELOPMENTS.
ON THE FOURTH ITEM DOWN IT IS
WHERE THE EXCUSE ME WHAT IS A
LOAN PROGRAM AND THIS IS AN
EXPANSION OF THE LOAN PROGRAM
CREATED UNDER SB TWO OR TWO
THOUSAND SEVENTEEN WHICH IS FOR
THE MIXED INCOME LOAN PROGRAM
FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ONE
TIME.
ARE THE FIFTH ITEM DOWN ON YOUR
CHART IS WHERE THE SENATE AT
EXPANDED AT IN COMPARISON TO THE
ASSEMBLY WITH THREE DIFFERENT
LOAN PROGRAMS EACH OF WHICH ARE
GONNA COME UP LATER IN YOUR
AGENDA. FOR A TOTAL OF ONE
HUNDRED FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS.
AND LASTLY THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED
IN BOTH HOUSES APPROVED SIX
HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS
ONE TIME GENERAL FUND TO PROVIDE
HOMELESSNESS GRANTS TO CITIES
AND COUNTIES.
THANK YOU FINANCE.
SO WHILE WE ARE ON ISSUE.
FOURTEEN MUST KEEP CHARISMATIC
CHAIR IF WE SHOULD GO ISSUE BY
ISSUE WERE HAPPY TO TAKE IT ANY
WAY YOU WISH.
WHY DON'T WE GO ISSUE BY ISSUE
SO YOU TO SUGGEST FOURTEEN IN
ONE MOVE ON?
GREAT TO ON ISSUE NUMBER
FOURTEEN THAT THE ADMINISTRATION
DOES SUPPORT THE ASSEMBLY
PROPOSAL.
RIGHT ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
[inaudible]
ISSUE.
FIFTEEN ISSUE FIFTEEN IS ON THE
FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS
GENERAL FUND FOR THE
INFRASTRUCTURE INFILL EXCUSE ME
INFILL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT
PROGRAM IN TWENTY NINETEEN
TWENTY AS I MENTIONED EARLIER
THE SENATE MADE THE FIVE HUNDRED
MILLION DOLLARS.
ON GOING BUT DID NOT SPECIFY A
PURPOSE OF THE ISSUE AND
CONFERENCE IS THE ONGOING NATURE
OF THE MONEY AND THE USE OF THE
FUNDS MOVING FORWARD.
FINANCE MINISTRATION HERE
SUPPORTS -- ONE TIME FUNDING AND
WE BELIEVE WE CAN REASSESS --
ONCE THOSE FUNDS ARE EXPENDED ON
IN TERMS OF A PATH GOING FORWARD
[inaudible]
MEMBERS [inaudible]
WITH OBERNOLTE [inaudible]
SO I SUPPORTERS OF THIS FUNDING --
I CONTINUE TO HAVE A CONCERN
THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IN
THIS PROGRAM THAT WOULD
RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO SMALL AND
RURAL CITIES HAVE FOR THIS
FUNDING IN.
A QUITE OFTEN WHAT WE SEE IN
THESE KINDS OF PROGRAMS IS THAT
THE LARGER CITIES ARE BETTER
ABLE TO COMPETE NOT JUST BECAUSE
THEY HAVE A NEED BUT BECAUSE
THEY HAVE MORE SOPHISTICATED
PLANNING STAFF.
AND WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE
TWO HUNDRED MILLION OF THIS FIVE
HUNDRED MILLION SET ASIDE FOR
SMALL AND RURAL CITIES.
YOU SEE THE FUNDING YOU
SUPPORTIVE OF THE ONE TIME
FUNDING.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS COMMENTS.
THE WHOLE THAT ITEM OFTEN MOVING
ON TO ITEM SIXTEEN THE
INNOVATIVE FINANCING TOOLS.
I ISSUE SIXTEEN ADDRESSES THE
OTHER TWO ARE LOAN PROGRAMS THAT
WERE PART OF THE SENATE PACKAGE
THE FIRST IS FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS UP FOR UP FRONT
CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR OBSERVE
THE RETELLING UNITS -- AND THIS
WOULD GO TO AN EXISTING PILOT
PROGRAM -- AT CAL HFA IN
ADDITION THERE IS FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS FOR DOWN PAYMENT
ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE WHO ARE AT
WHO FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO BUY
CALTRANS PROPERTY GOING ON SALE
THIS YEAR [inaudible]
FINANCE MINISTRATION SUPPORTS
THE ASSEMBLY ON THIS ISSUE.
THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
[inaudible]
SEEING NONE.
MOVE ON TO ITEM.
SEVENTEEN WE DON'T HOUSING NEEDS
ALLOCATION PROCESS AB SEVENTEEN
SEVENTY ONE SB. EIGHT TO NINE LA
OUT.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED SIX
HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND
DOLLARS IN TWENTY NINETEEN
TWENTY AND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY
THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ON GOING
GENERAL FUND FOR THREE POSITIONS
TO IMPLEMENT -- A FEW BILLS ARE
PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE OVER
BY LAST YEAR.
ON IN THESE POSITIONS WOULD BE
AT EACH CD AND WOULD BE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHANGES MADE
TO THE ARENA PROCESS THE
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS --
ALLOCATION PROCESS.
THE SENATE -- APPROVED THE FUNDS
IN TWENTY NINETEEN AND APPROVED
A FIVE HUNDRED FORTY THREE
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN -- TWENTY
TWENTY TWENTY TWENTY ONE BUT NOT
MAKE BUT DID NOT MAKE THOSE
FUNDS ON GOING TO TO THE
DISCUSSIONS.
ABOUT CHANGES TO THE READER
PROCESS MOVING FORWARD THE
ASSEMBLY ADOPTED THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL.
FINANCE.
GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RAIN
A PROCESS AND THE FACT THAT IT
MAY TAKE YEARS TO IMPLEMENT THE
ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THAT
ONGOING FUNDING IS APPROPRIATE
AND SO WE SUPPORT THE ASSEMBLY
PROPOSAL.
EXCELLENT OUT WITH THAT I
BELIEVE WE'RE PREPARED -- TO
HERE MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THE
ASSEMBLY VERSION.
EXCELLENT WITH A ROLL CALL FROM
THE ASSEMBLY OF FIVE TWO ZERO
FOUR TO ZERO AND THE SENATE VOTE
OF
THREE TO TWO I'M SORRY DID I
NOT TO YOU.
LET'S GO BACK -- TO ISSUE
SIXTEEN MS SKINNER -- HAS A
COMMENT -- THE COMMON I WANT TO
MAKE WAS ON THE PILOT PROGRAM
THAT THE SENATE IS RECOMMENDING
FOR THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCY.
AND IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO
COMPLETELY TAKE CARE OF THIS
PROBLEM BUT WHAT WE ARE SEEING
NOW.
WHILE THE LEGISLATURE HOW I
THINK HAS DONE THE EXACTLY
APPROPRIATE THING WHICH IS -- TO
TO BASICALLY -- MAKE IT MORE
AVAILABLE UP AND DOWN THE STATE
FOR PEOPLE TO DO THE EIGHTY USE
THE EXCESS REDRAWING UNITS.
WHAT WE FIND HAPPENS OFTEN IN
THESE KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCES IS
THAT PREDATORY LENDERS THEN
START TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE
AND THERE IS NOW EVIDENCE THAT?
IN CLEARLY A LOW INCOME
HOMEOWNER AND EIGHTY YOU IS VERY
ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE IT CAN HELP
THEM STAY IN THE HOME BY
BRINGING IN SOME ADDITIONAL --
IN RENTAL INCOME BUT THEY MAY
NOT BE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE
THEY CAN GET A TYPICAL -- EITHER
REFI OR HOME EQUITY LOAN AND SO
THEIR NEW PRODUCTS NOW BEING
MARKETED TO LOW INCOME
HOMEOWNERS THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY TAKE ALL OF THE
HOMEOWNERS EQUITY.
AND YOU KNOW BEING MARKETED IN
WAYS THAT ARE NOT FULLY -- THAT
THE HOMEOWNER DOESN'T FULLY
UNDERSTAND SO AGAIN THIS
INNOVATIVE TOOL FOR THE
EXPANSION OF A PILOT UNDER THE
CAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ADDRESS.
THAT ENTIRE PROBLEM IT AT LEAST
WOULD GIVE.
A LEGITIMATE FINANCING OPTION
FOR LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS WHO
ARE INTERESTED IN EIGHTY USE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MOVING BACK
ON BACK TO ISSUE EIGHTEEN
SUCCESSOR AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT LA -- THE ASSEMBLY
ADOPTED TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
AUTHORIZING SUCCESSOR AGENCIES
WERE FUNDING REMAINING FROM TWO
THOUSAND A LOT ELEVEN BONDS
ISSUED BY THE FORMER
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO YOUR
REVIEWS THE REMAINING BOND
PROCEEDS FOR PURPOSES RELATED TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND TO DIEM REMAINING PROPERTY
RELATED TO ITS LONG RANGE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SURPLUS
PROPERTY AND SELL IT TO
NONPROFIT HOUSING DEVELOPER OR
HOUSING AUTHORITY TO BE USED FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE WOULD JUST NOTE ON THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT ALLOWING
SUCCESSOR AGENCIES USE THESE
BRAUN PROCEEDS -- WOULD INCREASE
STATE GENERAL FUND COSTS --
RELATIVE TO CURRENT LAW --
RELATED TO THE UNWINDING OF
REDEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE DO NOT
KNOW HOW MUCH FUN FUNDING WOULD
BECOME AVAILABLE FOR USE BY
SUCCESSOR AGENCIES THERE'S ALL
THE TRAILER BILL AT THIS TIME
THE GENERAL FUND COST.
IS UNKNOWN.
THE LEGISLATURE MAY WISH TO
CNSIDER WHAT LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT
IT DESIRES OVER THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND HOUSING RELATED
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THE
TRAILER BILL WOULD FIND.
THE PROPOSED TRAILER BILL WOULD
DEFER SOME KEY POLICY CHOICES
INCLUDING THE LOCATION
CHARACTERISTIC OF THE PROJECTS
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
VARIOUS STATE PROGRAMS INCLUDING
ONES WE DISCUSSED EARLIER
INCLUDE LIKE THE LOW INCOME
HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM MULTI
FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM.
AN INFILL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT
PROGRAM HELP FROM THE TYPES OF
PROJECTS THAT ARE ENVISIONED BY
THIS TRAILER BILL.
THESE PROGRAMS OF REGULATIONS
AND OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS THAT
PROVIDE THE LEGISLATURE WITH
MORE CERTAINTY ABOUT THE HOW THE
FUNDS WOULD BE USED.
THANK YOU FINANCE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION SHARE SOME OF THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE LA -- AND
THE ADMINISTRATION DOES SUPPORT
THE SENATE PROPOSAL [inaudible]
MEMBERS.
WILL HOLD ITEM OPEN.
MOVING ON NOW TO WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT.
RELATIONS BOARD IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS.
ISSUE NINETEEN INCLUDES VARIOUS
LABOR ADJUSTMENTS.
WE'LL START WITH THE LA -- THE
CAT'S OWNER WITH THE LA L. ITEM
NINETEEN INCLUDES FOR CONFERENCE
ITEMS AT DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE
LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY I'LL GO THROUGH EACH OF
THEM VERY BRIEFLY AND THEN --
TAKE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS IF
YOU HAVE THEM -- THE FIRST ISSUE
RELATES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND WORKERS
COMPENSATION CLAIMS -- FOR THE
SUBSEQUENT INJURY BENEFIT TRUST
FUND THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED
THIRTY POSITIONS AND FOUR POINT
EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS IN THE
BUDGET YEAR.
AND OF FOURTEEN POSITIONS AND
TWO MILLION DOLLARS ONGOING IN
THE OUT YEARS TO ADDRESS
WORKLOAD STE ISSUES -- FOR
RELATED TO WORKERS COMPENSATION
CLAIMS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT INJURY
BENEFIT TRUST FUND.
ON THE SENATE ADOPTED THIS
PROPOSAL AND THE ASSEMBLY
ADOPTED THE THE ADMINISTRATION'S
HOW YEAR OP FUNDING AND
POSITIONS REQUEST SPECIFICALLY
FOURTEEN POSITIONS AND TWO
MILLION DOLLARS. FOR THE BUDGET
YEAR.
THE SECOND ITEM RELATES THE
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND
SPECIFICALLY ITS IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE REMOVING BARRIERS TO
EMPLOYMENT ACT WHICH IS AB
ELEVEN ELEVEN OF TWENTY
SEVENTEEN AB ELEVEN ELEVEN IS A
FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLAR GRANT
PROGRAM FOR WORKFORCE PROGRAMS --
THAT WAS BUDGETED ORIGINALLY AS
PART OF LAST YEAR'S BUDGET ACT
THE THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSED SIX MILLION PER SIX
POSITIONS AND ONE MILLION
DOLLARS.
ARE FROM THAT FIFTEEN MILLION --
FOR ADMIN IN THE BUDGET YEAR.
THE SENATE APPROVED THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL AND
THE ASSEMBLY ADOPTED AN
ADDITIONAL ONE POINT EIGHT
MILLION DOLLARS GENERAL FUND FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COST TO IMPLEMENT
THE PROGRAM.
THE BY WAY OF BACKSTORY AB
ELEVEN ELEVEN THE LEGISLATION
SELF INCLUDED A 5% CAP ON
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THIS
PROGRAM.
IN ARE GOING ABOUT
IMPLEMENTATION THE THE
ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED THAT --
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ABOUT
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND
OVERSIGHT OF THE GRANT PROGRAM
WOULD ACTUALLY BE CLOSER TO FOUR
MILLION DOLLARS -- QUITE IN
EXCESS OF THE 5% CAP THAT WAS
INCLUDED AS PART OF THE
LEGISLATION AND SO THE REQUEST
THIS YEAR WAS TO REDIRECT SOME
OF THOSE LOCAL ASSISTANCE
DOLLARS -- TO STAY OPERATIONS TO
THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM.
THE THIRD ITEM ON THE AGENDA
HERE RELATES TO DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND
SPECIFICALLY -- TO UNPAID WAGE
CLAIMS FOR GARMENT WORKERS --
THE GOVERNOR HAS NO PROPOSAL AND
NOR DOES THE ASSEMBLY.
BUT THE THE SENATE ADOPTED.
A SEVEN POINT THREE MILLION
DOLLAR GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TO
THE GARMENT MANUFACTURERS
SPECIAL ACCOUNT AND THIS ACCOUNT
IS USED TO PAY ON PAID WEIGHTS
CLAIMS FOR GOVERNMENT WORKERS
WHEN THOSE.
CLAIMS CAN'T BE RECOVERED FROM
EMPLOYERS -- EACH YEAR GARMENT
MANUFACTURERS MUST REGISTER WITH
THE LABOR COMMISSIONER AND PART
OF THAT REGISTRATION FEES GOES
INTO THIS ACCOUNT IT'S USED TO
PAY ON PAID WAGE CLAIMS -- BUT
SINCE TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
FIFTEEN THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN
INSOLVENT BECAUSE OF AN
IMBALANCE BETWEEN THE FEES
COLLECTED EACH YEAR AND THE
NUMBER OF WAGE CLAIMS THAT ARE
COMING INTO THE ACCOUNT.
ON BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE FROM
LAST YEAR AUTHORIZED DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE TO TRANSFER FUNDS
FROM A DIFFERENT WAY TO COUNT TO
THIS SPECIFIC GARMENT ACCOUNT.
TO COVER SOME OF THESE UNPAID
WAGES -- BUT THE REMAINING
BALANCE OUTSTANDING -- AT THIS
TIME WAS SEVEN POINT THREE
MILLION DOLLARS AND THE SENATE
TOOK ACTION TO TRANSFER THAT
DIRECTLY FROM THE GENERAL FUND --
AT ONE UPDATE IS THAT JUST LAST
WEEK WE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS TRANSFERRED --
FIVE POINT ONE MILLION DOLLARS
FROM A DIFFERENT WAY TO CLAIM
ACCOUNT TO THE GARMENT
MANUFACTURERS ACCOUNT MEANING
THAT THE REMAINING UTSTANDING
BALANCES PROBABLY SOMEWHERE
CLOSER TO TWO POINT TWO MILLION
DOLLARS IN UNPAID WAGE CLAIMS.
AS OPPOSED TO THE SEVEN POINT
THREE IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SENATE -- CAN FINALLY.
THE SENATE ALSO ADOPTED
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTING LANGUAGE
THAT DIRECTS THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO REASSESS
THE FEE STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO
SERVE RE BALANCE THAT THE
SOLVENCY OF THIS FUND GOING
FORWARD -- WE THINK THAT'S THE
RIGHT DECISION AT PRESS TIME
SWEET SUPPORT THE SENATE SRL --
THE THE DETERMINATION ABOUT
WHETHER TO MAKE A GENERAL FUND
TRANSFER FOR THESE WAYS CLAIMS
HIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE OF OF
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY.
ABOUT WHAT I'M SORRY THE LAST
ITEM ON THIS ISSUE IS.
FOR THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD SPECIFICALLY THE
ASSEMBLY PROVIDED AN ADDITIONAL
TWO POINT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS
ON GOING TO PER -- AND THE
SENATE TOOK NO ACTION ON THIS
ITEM.
OUR COMPROMISE RECOMMENDATION
WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING ON A TWO YEAR
LIMITED TERM BASIS THERE HAVE
BEEN A NUMBER OF AUGMENTATION
SUPERB OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.
AND THE LIMITED TERM FUNDING
WOULD ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO
ASSESS WHAT THE LONG TERM NEEDS
ARE.
FOR THANK YOU FINANCE.
ON THAT VERY LAST ISSUE THAT
AWAY -- MENTIONED -- WE CONTINUE
TO SUPPORT THE SENATE ACTION
WITH THAT SIR -- INSTEAD RATHER
THAN THE COMPROMISE SUGGESTED BY
A OVERALL IN THESE PROPOSALS --
THE ADMINISTRATION HE NEEDS TO
HAVE SUPPORT IT'S MY REVISION
PROPOSALS AND HAPPY TO DISCUSS
ANY OF THEM.
THANK YOU QUESTIONS MEMBERS
[inaudible]
SENATOR ROBB.
THANK YOU MANAGER WITH RESPECT
TO THE GARMIN MANUFACTURE
SPECIAL CAT I I MISSED THE PART
WHERE YOU TELL ME.
HOW WE WERE GOING?
TO DEAL WITH THE STRUCTURAL
IMBALANCE ON THE GO FORWARD.
THE SENATE ACTION HAS ADOPTED IN
SUB COMMITTEE SEEKS.
TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO ANSWER
THAT VERY QUESTION -- DID THE
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTING LANGUAGE
WOULD REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO
REASSESS ITS FEE STRUCTURE -- IN
ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THAT FUND
IS SOLVING GOING FORWARD TO PAY
FOR BOB BENEFITS THAT THAT.
ARE FOR APPROVED CLAIMS THAT
COME IN EACH YEAR AS WE CLEARLY
HAVE A PROBLEM.
THE FUND HAS BEEN INSTALLED IN
FOR SEVERAL YEARS-- THE STATE
OPERATES SEVERAL UNPAID WAGE
FUNDS AND SO THERE'S BEEN SOME
FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THOSE SORT OF
CUMULATIVE FUND STRUCTURES TO
TRANSFER FUNDS ACROSS --
SPECIFICALLY FROM A ANOTHER FUND
THE UNPAID WAGE FUND TO THE
GARMENT FUND FOR THIS PURPOSE --
BUT IT APPEARS AT THIS POINT
THAT THOSE TRANSFERS ARE NOW
LIMITED -- GIVEN THE RESOURCES
REMAINING IN THE EXISTING OTHER
FUNDS ALL LOOK FORWARD TO THE
SOLUTION THANK YOU THANK YOU I'M
SURE THANK YOU MISTER OBERNOLTE.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR A QUESTION
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
AYE.
WE'LL CONFUSED ABOUT THE
SUBSEQUENT INJURY BENEFIT TRUST
FUND.
A PROPOSAL FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT
ORIGINALLY THE ADMINISTRATION
HAD PROPOSED SOME TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HAVE A LINE
SOME OF THE STATUTES.
FOR THE S. I. B. T. F. WITH
OTHER WORKERS COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS AND I WOULD HAVE THE
EFFECT OF REDUCING LONG TERM
LIABILITIES AND THAT PROGRAM IS
SET.
BY THOSE IS A TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE STILL PART OF THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL.
HI DANIEL BRANDON DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE NOW WE PULLED THE
TRAILER BILL AND AROUND EARLY
MAY -- LATE APRIL AND WE WANTED
TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT SOME
WORK ON IT A LITTLE BIT MORE WE
HAD SOME ISSUES.
OKAY SO THAT'S ACTUALLY PART OF
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL
THIS YEAR BUT DO ANTICIPATE
MAYBE AND NEXT YEAR THAT IT'LL
BE.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TO WHAT
WILL BE ABLE TO DO NEXT YEAR BUT
IT IS NOT PART OF THIS YEAR OKAY
PAUL I MEAN TALKING ABOUT THEIR
PROBLEMS THAT.
THE PROGRAM OBVIOUSLY NEEDS
ATTENTION I THOUGHT THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL AT
AREA MADE A LOT OF SENSE WAS
DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THAT
LANGUAGE WITHDRAWN.
WHAT'S MORE LOCK.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR -- I'M
JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE GARMENT
MANUFACTURER SPECIAL ACCOUNT
THANKS FOR THE HISTORY --
SOMETHING HAPPENED WAGE STAFFED.
SO WE DECIDED.
OUR PREDECESSORS DECIDED TO
ASSESS.
OTHER MEMBERS OF THAT INDUSTRY.
AND THOSE FUNDS WOULD GO INTO
THIS ACCOUNT IN THAT WE WOULD
PAY.
THOSE THAT LOST WAGES FROM THE
BAD ACTORS IN THAT INDUSTRY --
SO I'M JUST NOW THE BALLOTS
FALLING SHORT SO.
IS IT BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY IS
DWINDLING.
OR THE FEE IS TOO LOW.
BASED ON OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE DEPARTMENT AND BACK A
MATERIAL PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
PROPOSAL -- WE UNDERSTAND THAT
OF THE FEE STRUCTURE IS
STATUTORY SO IT'S NOT CHANGING
WITH INFLATION ODD TO ACCOUNT.
FOR THE STATE THE INCREASE IN
THE MINIMUM WAGE SO WE'VE SEEN
LAST EARLIER SO THAT'S ON THE
THE REVENUE SIDE THERE'S IT'S
STATIC.
N. ON THE ON THE CLAIM SIDE
CLAIMS ARE MORE VALUABLE FOR
THAT SAME REASON -- INCREASED
WAGES BUT ALSO WE UNDERSTAND
THAT THAT THE NUMBER OF CLAIMS
COMING IN EACH YEAR HAS
INCREASED IN RECENT YEARS SO THE
THE TOTAL SORT OF DRAW FOR LACK
OF A BETTER PHRASE ON THE
MANUFACTURE SPECIAL COUNT IS
LARGER -- IN THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS AS A HAS BEEN THAN IT HAS
BEEN HISTORICALLY.
AND IN THE CLAIMS ARE RESULT OF
BUSINESSES CLOSING AND LEAVING.
AND NOT MAKING THE FINAL
PAYCHECK.
THAT THAT'S CORRECT GENERALLY --
THERE ARE SEVERAL INDUSTRIES IN
CALIFORNIA FOR WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION AS HAVE DEVELOPED
SPECIAL ACCOUNTS FOR UNPAID
WAGES -- AND GARMENT WORKERS IN
GOVERNMENTAL FRACTURES IS ONE OF
THOSE BECAUSE OF THE LIKELY
HARDER OR RELATIVELY HIGH
PROBABILITY THAT A WAGE CLAIM IS
ON RECOVERABLE FROM THE EMPLOYER.
SO WE HAVE AN INDUSTRY THAT.
IS BARELY MAKING IT.
AND WE'RE CHARGING THEM MORE TO
TAKE CARE OF THOSE THAT.
DIDN'T MAKE IT -- I'M I'M
WONDERING WHAT THE OVERALL
PHILOSOPHY IS.
HOW MANY INDUSTRIES ARE WE DOING
THIS?
FOR BURKE REGARDING THE
PHILOSOPHY ADDING I WOULD DEFER
TO THE ADMINISTRATION -- I
RECALL THERE ARE THERE IS A
FARMWORKERS WHICH FUND A CAR
WASH WHICH FUND THIS WAY TO FUND
AND MAY BE FORGETTING A COUPLE
OF OTHERS -- BUT SPECIFIC TO
INDUSTRIES ARE THAT ARE
TYPICALLY LOW WAGE AND WHICH
WHICH OUR VIOLATIONS ARE
COMMONLY OCCURRING.
AND AGAIN ON ALL OF THOSE AS I
RECALL THE RICH FEE IS APPLIED
TO EVERY MANUFACTURER SO SPREAD
ACROSS.
THE BOARD RIGHT WELL THAT'S
THAT'S HELPFUL IT ISN'T JUST
THOSE IN THE GARMENT INDUSTRY.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T GIVE
A HOTEL ALL FOR THIS FUN IT'S
ALL.
GARMENT MANUFACTURERS IT IS IT
IS THE SPECIFIC IMMEDIATE
EVERYBODY INVOLVED GARMENT
MANUFACTURERS VOTE I GOT THE
IMPRESSION FROM YOUR QUESTION
THAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS JUST
APPLY EVEN TO A SUBGROUP OFF THE
BOARD YOU KNOW YOU'RE HELPING WE
ARE LOOKING AT JUST THE GARMENT
INDUSTRY BUT I'M.
MY READING OF THE BUSINESS PAGES
SHOWING ME THAT.
CARMEN.
RELATED BUSINESSES ARE FAR
LEAVING THE STATE SO YOUR YOUR
POOL OF POTENTIAL REGISTRATION
FEE.
INCOME PROVIDERS IS DWINDLING
AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE.
PEOPLE TO PAY WE MADE THAT
COMMITMENT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE
WAY THAT.
YOU KNOW THAT VIEWS YOU SUFFERED.
THEFT.
WE ARE WE DON'T WE DON'T
REIMBURSE EVERYBODY ELSE HAD A
THEFT RIGHT TO THIS KIND OF A
UNIQUE.
STORY SO I'M I'M I'M WORRIED
ABOUT.
THE THE THE REAP REVERBERATIONS
OF ONE IS OKAY WHO WHO ELSE IS
GOING TO COME AND AS FOR FUND
AND WHO DO WE CHARGE AND AN END
OUR WINNER I WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE DON'T GIVE A WHOLE NEW
MEANING TO THE TERM GLOBE IS.
RIGHT EITHER GOING.
YOU KNOW OF AND SO WE'VE GOT TO
BE CAREFUL HOW WE HOW WE DO THIS
SO I I I UNDERSTAND THE
COMPASSIONATE I UNDERSTAND.
PAYING SOME OF THESE PEOPLE BUT
I ALSO.
YOU KNOW JUST WANNA MAKE SURE
THAT WE HOLD EVERYTHING TOGETHER
SO THAT WE'RE NOT DISINCENTIVE
RISING GARMENT.
PRODUCERS FROM.
OPENING PLANTS OR WHATEVER HERE
IN THE STATE.
THANK YOU I'M GONNA GO -- TO SIR
TO ROCK AND THEN AND FINANCE ARE
ELLIE -- COULD CLARIFY THE POINT
YOU MADE IN TERMS OF THE ROLE OF
D. I. R. IN TERMS OF IN DEEP
PROVIDING PROTECTIONS TO ALL
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE VICTIM OF WAIT
STAFF SO THERE.
THERE IS A BROADER ANSWER ALL
AND WORKERS ARE COVERED BUT
SENATOR RON FIRST.
WELL I'D PROBABLY FORGOTTEN.
WHAT IT WHAT I KNEW IF I KNEW
ANYTHING ABOUT THIS BUT WHAT I
DO RECALL?
IS THAT HISTORICALLY THIS
PARTICULAR INDUSTRY HAS SO.
RECEIVED A SPECIAL AMOUNT OF
ATTENTION IN THE LABOR CODE DUE
TO PROBLEMS HISTORICALLY WITH
IDENTIFYING WHO THE EMPLOYERS
WERE -- AND PROVIDING THE PROPER
DOCUMENTATION SO EMPLOYEES KNEW
WHO TO CLAIM AGAINST. TO THE
POINT WHERE THEY'RE PICKING UP --
LABELS OFF THE FLOOR AND TAKING
THEM TO THE LABOR COMMISSIONER.
SO THERE THERE UNLIKE OTHER
EMPLOYMENT VENUES THIS
PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT VENUE HAS
RECEIVED.
A FOR AMOUNT OF ATTENTION WAS
SOME JUSTIFICATION BASED ON PAST
BEHAVIOR -- IN THE LABOR CODE TO
APPARENTLY TO INCLUDE THE
SPECIAL FUND KNOW WHY THE FUND
HAS A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT I DON'T
KNOW I LOOK FORWARD.
TO SOMEONE COMING UP WITH THE
SOLUTIONS OR NOT HAVING DEFEATED
FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
BUT THE INDUSTRY ITSELF I ASSUME
RECOGNIZED.
THE INDUSTRY HAD A PROBLEM AND
NEED TO CLEAN ITSELF UP -- HENCE
THE HAS THE THE GENESIS FOR THE
REGISTRATION FEE IN THE
ASSESSMENT [inaudible] THIRTY
NIELSEN.
WHAT IS IT THAT FORMER ISSUE OF
THE?
DOCUMENT THAT
OUR STAFF DID HAVE IN POSSESSION
BUT WAS FOUND ON YOUR WEBSITE.
THE ITEM WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
JUST BEFORE THIS LAST.
ONE THERE WAS TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE WAS POSTED ON YOUR
WEBSITE AND NOW IT'S GONE.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS AS HOW IT
GOT GONE [inaudible]
IN [inaudible]
THE SOMEBODY JUST LOSE IT.
YOU KNOW WHAT.
LET'S JUST SAY YOU ARE GOING TO
BE A LITTLE BIT SUSPICIOUS
AROUND HERE OVER THE YEARS AND
IF IT WAS PROPERLY BEFORE US.
THEN IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
REMOVED.
FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE
COMMITTEE WITHOUT AN ACTION OF
THE COMMITTEE.
IT COULD NOT BE BUSH MOVE REMOVE
UNILATERAL.
NOW CAN YOU TRACE SET BACK AND
PRODUCE THAT DOCUMENT.
ALL SPEAK BRIEFLY AND THEN
DANIELLE IF YOU WANT TO ADD
INCOMES AS WELL AS PART OF THE
DEVELOPER THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET --
WE PROPOSE TRAILER BILLS --
WHICH ARE POSTED ONLINE AND THEN
WHEN WE HAVE THIS TAYLOR BILLS
UP THERE ANYONE GLASSES THAT AND
DOES SO WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THIS IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL.
ONCE THE GOVERNOR IN THE
ADMINISTRATION DECIDED THAT WE
WANTED TO THINK ABOUT THIS A
LITTLE WENT MORE AND NOT PUT
THAT OUT THERE.
AS OUR PROPOSAL AND THEN WE
DECIDED TO TAKE IT DOWN FROM THE
WEBSITE SO THAT NO ONE WOULD
THINK OTHERWISE CERTAINLY
NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ABOUT IT WE
HOPE.
WELL LAW REVIEW THE DOCUMENT
THAT WE HAVE AND SHE IS AN ALL
RAISE THE ISSUE AGAIN I'D LIKE
TO LEAVE IT OPEN FOR TODAY THAT.
WITH THAT OUT WE WILL LEAVE THE
ITEM OFTEN IF THERE ARE ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS.
WITHOUT WHICH COULD BE SEEN NONE.
YES WE ARE [inaudible]
THE THAT'S RIGHT MOVING ON TO
ISSUE TWENTY PAID FAMILY LEAVE
UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT LA JOH.
WILL WE HAVE A BLUE HAND OUT I
HOPE THAT YOU HAVE IT BEFORE YOU
IF NOT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
COPIES FOR THIS ITEM -- IN
JANUARY THE GOVERNOR ANNOUNCED I
PLAN OR AN INTENTION TO X.
LENGTH AND THE DURATION OF PAID
FAMILY LEAVE IN THE STATE FROM
ITS CURRENT LEVEL OF SIX WEEKS.
TO TWELVE WEEKS PER PER PARENT
IN THIS CASE -- THE GOVERNOR
ALSO ANNOUNCE SOME OTHER OPTIONS
THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN
PURSUING OVER THE COURSE OF THE
NEXT YEAR I INCLUDING ADDING
SOME FLEXIBILITY TO THE STATE'S
PAID FAMILY LEAVE PROGRAM.
OUT REDUCING THE THE RESERVE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE FUND THAT
PAYS PAID FAMILY LEAVE BENEFITS --
AS WELL AS CONVENING A TASK
FORCE TO THINK ABOUT OTHER
CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM GOING
FORWARD AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR A FUTURE.
FUTURE SET OF CHANGES.
AROUND THE TIME IN A REVISION
THE GOVERNOR RELEASED TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE LAYING OUT FOR THE
FIRST STEP OF OF THIS PLAN --
OUR HAND OUT ACROSS THE TOP OUR
CHARACTERIZES THE THE GOVERNOR'S
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE IN THAT
TOP ROW -- BEGINNING FROM THE
LEFT THE GOVERNOR PROPOSES TO
LENGTHEN THE DURATION FOR THE
BUDGET YEAR FROM ITS CURRENT
LEVEL OF SIX WEEKS TO EIGHT
WEEKS.
AS WELL AS REDUCE THE RESERVE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE FUND THAT
PAYS BENEFITS.
THE GOVERNOR ALSO ANNOUNCED
LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN THE
TRAILER BILL TO CONVENE A TASK
FORCE TO STUDY FURTHER CHANGES.
AND INCLUDES OUR POSITIONS AND
SOME FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT THE
LENGTHENING OF THE DURATION AS
WELL AS TO UNDERTAKE SOME
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES TO INCREASE
AWARENESS.
ON IN THE NEXT COLUMN DOWN
YOU'LL SEE THE SENATE ADOPTED
THE GOVERNOR'S TRAILER BILL --
BUT IT ALSO ADOPTED A TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE SEPARATE FROM THE
GOVERNOR'S THAT WOULD ESTABLISH
THE SPECIFIC MEMBERSHIP.
AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE
TASK FORCE LOOKING INTO PAID
FAMILY LEAVE.
ON THE ASSEMBLY REJECTED THE
GOVERNOR'S TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
AND INSTEAD DEFERRED THESE
POLICY QUESTIONS TO THE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY PROCESS --
IT'S SIMILARLY REJECTED THE
POSITIONS RELATED TO
IMPLEMENTATION BUT DID APPROVE
THE OUT REACH FUNDING FOR THE
PAID FAMILY LEAVE PROGRAM.
ON A OF A FEW COMMENTS FROM OUR
OFFICE ONE THING WE WANTED TO
POINT OT WAS IT ALL THREE
ACTIONS ACKNOWLEDGED THE NEED
FOR FURTHER WORK AND PAID FAMILY
LEAVE -- THERE ARE MANY POLICY
OPTIONS QUESTIONS OUTSTANDING IN
EACH OF THE THREE ACTIONS
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY DO TAKE
DIFFERENT APPROACHES THOUGH.
ON IN BOTH THE ASSEMBLY AND THE
SENATE ACTIONS RELATED THIS ITEM
WE SEE THEM AS AMPLIFYING THE
LEGISLATURE'S ROLE IN
DETERMINING POLICY FOR PAID
FAMILY LEAVE GOING FORWARD BOTH
OPTIONS WOULD GIVE THE
LEGISLATURE.
A STRONGER.
POSITION TO DETERMINE THE
POLICIES GOING FORWARD FOR PAID
FAMILY LEAVE.
ON THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE HOUSES IS THAT THE SENATE
ACTION ADOPTS THE LENGTHENING OF
PAID FAMILY LEAVE IN THE BUDGET
YEAR.
AND THE ASSEMBLY ACTION DOES NOT --
THE ASSEMBLY ACTION IN DEFERRING
THESE QUESTIONS TO THE THE
POLICY COMMITTEE PROCESS WOULD
ALLOW SOME FURTHER TIME FOR
DELIBERATION ABOUT WHETHER TO
LENGTHEN THE DURATION OF PAID
FAMILY LEAVE.
AND WE BRING THAT UP BECAUSE IN
AN IN AN EARLIER REPORT THAT OUR
OFFICE PUT OUT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
ONE OF THE MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
WE HOPED -- TO RAISE FOR THE
LEGISLATURE WAS THIS NOTION THAT
THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD THINK
CLEARLY ABOUT WHAT IT HOPES TO
GET OUT OF FAMILY LEAVE.
BECAUSE IT'S GOALS FOR THE
PROGRAM REALLY DO DRIVE THE
POLICY OPTIONS IT MIGHT WANT TO
EXPLORE.
ON FOR INSTANCE THERE ARE MANY
WAYS TO CHANGE PAID FAMILY LEAVE
LENGTHENING THE DURATION IS BUT
ONE OF THOSE WAYS YOU COULD ALSO
LOOK AT THE WAGE REPLACEMENT
RATE SETS THE AMOUNT OF OF
BENEFIT.
THE WEEKLY BENEFIT THAT THAT --
PARENTS AND CAREGIVERS GET
DURING PAID FAMILY LEAVE YOU CAN
LOOK AT FINANCING --
CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROGRAMMER
OPTIONS TO MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE
THERE ARE A WHOLE HOST OF POLICY
OPTIONS -- AND NOT JUST
LENGTHENING [inaudible]
ON WE THINK WE AT THIS POINT
VOTE THE MAIN QUESTION BEFORE
THE LEGISLATURE IS WHETHER IT'S
CONFIDENT THAT LENGTHENING LEAVE
FROM SIX WEEKS TO EIGHT WEEKS
WILL BE PART OF ITS ULTIMATE
PACKAGE OF REFORMS FOR THIS
PROGRAM.
IF SO -- THE SENATE ACTION TO
ADOPT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO
GO TO EIGHT WEEKS AT THIS TIME
MAY BE THE RIGHT CHOICE.
IF ON THE OTHER HAND THE
LEGISLATURE BELIEVES FURTHER
DELIBERATION ABOUT WHETHER IT'S
WILL GO FROM SIX WEEKS EIGHT
WEEKS -- IT'S REQUIRED -- THE
ASSEMBLY ACTION MAY BE THE BEST
CHOICE AT THIS TIME [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
FINANCE.
THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO
SUPPORT ITS MAY REVISION
PROPOSAL AND BELIEVE STRONGLY
THAT THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS
[inaudible]
NIELSEN [inaudible]
HI.
THE MORE I HEAR [inaudible]
ELEVATED CONCERNS.
IN IT DOES APPEAR TO ME THIS IS
FAR BETTER DEALT WITH IN A
POLICY COMMITTEE.
IN A POLICY BILL.
RATHER THAN SLIPPED IN THE
BUDGET THAT HAS SOME SIGNIFICANT
CONSEQUENCES THERE'S SOME
LANGUAGE HERE THAT SEEMS TO
INDICATE.
NO BIG CONSEQUENCES BUT I CAN'T
QUITE ACCEPT THAT [inaudible]
AB SO.
MY OWN POSITION WOULD BE TO
OPPOSE THIS LANGUAGE.
LAST WEEK IT WOULD FOR A WEBER
PREFERRED THAT WE PUT IT OVER.
NOT TO CONSIDER IT IN THE BUDGET
BUT CONSIDERED AND A SEPARATE
BILL.
IN A FULL POLICY COMMITTEE
HEARING.
AND IF NOT THEN I'LL SIMPLY VOTE
NO.
THANK YOU SIR MR OBERNOLTE.
A QUESTION FOR THE LA -- SO.
THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO REDUCE
THE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THAT ACCOUNT AND I'M WONDERING
IF THE LA -- FEELS LIKE THAT
REDUCTION IS WARRANTED AND
WHETHER OR NOT.
THE ACCOUNT WOULD STILL BE
SUSTAINABLE WITH THE REDUCED
RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
OF COURSE SO -- AS PART OF
REVIEWING THE THE ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSAL WE DID LOOK INTO THIS
VERY QUESTION THE CURRENT
RESERVE REQUIREMENT --
STIPULATES THAT ABOUT 40% OF
EXPECTED FUTURE BENEFITS IN THE
COMING YEAR 45% EXCUSE ME SHOULD
BE KEPT ON HAND SUCH THAT
BENEFITS CAN BE PAID OUT OF THE
THE STATE'S DISABILITY INSURANCE
FUND.
THE ADMINISTRATION IS PART OF
THE THE MADE TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE PROPOSES TO REDUCE THAT
REQUIREMENT FROM 45% 230%.
I'M OUR OFFICE.
LOOKED BACK AT HISTORICAL DATA
SENSE THE STATE'S DISABILITY
INSURANCE FUND WAS ENACTED
DECADES AGO.
AND FOUND THAT.
IT WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY FOR
BENEFIT DISBURSEMENTS SO
PAYMENTS OUT IN ANY GIVEN YEAR
TO EXCEED WHAT WAS DISBURSING
THE PRIOR YEAR BY MORE THAN 30%.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF COPY ODDS --
ONE WOULD BE THAT A MAJOR POLICY
CHANGE FOR ENACTED THAT COULD
EXCEED Y MORE THAN 30% IF
BENEFITS WERE INCREASED -- THE
THE THE OTHER -- AS AT THE
OBVIOUSLY THE PAST DOESN'T
ALWAYS DICTATE OR TELL US
EXCLUSIVELY WILL HAPPEN IN THE
FUTURE -- BUT THE THE SORT OF IT
BOILS DOWN -- TO WE BELIEVE THAT
REDUCING THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT
FROM 45% 230% WASN'T -- PUTTING
THE FUND AT RISK OF BECOMING
INSOLVENT OR THE RESERVE AT RISK
OF BEING -- DEPLETED IN THE
FUTURE ALL RIGHT SO JUST SO I
UNDERSTAND THOUGH.
CHANGING THE RESERVE
REQUIREMENTS I JUST A SHORT
TERM ACTION.
ABOUT THE LONG TERM THE SOLVENCY
OF THE FUND DEPENDS ON THE FUND
BEING REPLENISHED BY.
CONTRIBUTIONS THAT EMPLOYEES
MAKE THROUGH THE STI.
PAYCHECK BOB DEDUCTION AND SO
THIS QUESTION NUMBER TWO IS WITH
THE PROVISION OF THIS ADDITIONAL
FAMILY LEAVE.
RESULT IN A HIGHER SD I
CONTRIBUTION RATE FOR CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYEES.
IT WOULD YES ON THE STATE'S
PAYROLL TAX THAT FUNDS THE STI
FUND -- IS CAPPED AT ONE POINT
5% OF PAY ROLL UP TO ABOUT OFF
THE FIRST HUNDRED AND TWENTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND CURRENTLY
THE RATE IS ABOUT 1% TO FUND
BENEFITS.
BUT BENEFITS.
FUNDED WITH THIS RAY ARE BOTH
FOR PAID FAMILY LEAVE AND THE
STATE'S SHORT TERM DISABILITY
INSURANCE PROGRAM AND THE SHORT
TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE IS
ACTUALLY ABOUT 85% OF BENEFITS
AGO OUT O IT'S A MUCH LARGER
PART OF THE FUND.
SUCH THAT A CHANGE.
AS THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED GOING
FROM SIX WEEKS EIGHT WEEKS
THOUGH IT WOULD INCREASE
BENEFITS -- WOULDN'T HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT AFFECT ON THE
PAYROLL TAX RATE WE THINK IT
WOULD PROBABLY RESULT IN THAT
THE AN INCREASE OF ABOUT. ONE
TENTH OF 1% CERTAIN GOING FROM
1% UNDER CURRENT LAW TO MAYBE
ONE POINT 1%.
IN ORDER TO FUND THE PROPOSED
BENEFITS GOING FORWARD.
OKAY BUT YOU PUT IT THAT WAY I
MEAN I I WOULD SAY THAT IS A
MATERIAL CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S
YOUR INCREASING THAT PAYROLL TAX
BY 10%.
AND AND FOR FORGIVE.
MY USE OF THE WORD NOT NOTABLE
OR HOW I CHARACTERIZED THAT OF
COURSE THAT'S NOTABLE.
THE VAST MAJORITY THE STATE'S
WORKFORCE PAYS THIS PAYROLL TAX --
IN THE CONTEXT OF SPUR MEANING
UNDER THE ONE POINT 5% CAP --
THERE THERE WILL BE IMMEDIATE
CONCERN THAT THAT THE PAYROLL
TAX WOULD INCREASE ABOVE THAT
AMOUNT -- BUT BUT YOU'RE RIGHT
TO THE FEDERAL TAX WOULD
INCREASE OKAY AND AND I CAN TRY
TO REMEMBER THE IS THERE A
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ANNUAL PAY
THAT THE STI IS ASSESSED HONORS
ITS EVERYTHING UNDER A HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS.
IT I BELIEVE IT'S THIS YEAR
EVERYTHING UNDER A HUNDRED AND
EIGHTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND
THAT AMOUNT INCREASES WITH THE
STATE'S AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE --
SO IT DOES INCREASE FROM ONE
YEAR TO THE NEXT OKAY SO FOR
SOMEONE MAKING SAY FIFTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS.
BUT TENTH OF 1% WOULD BE ANOTHER
FIFTY DOLLARS A YEAR THE EVERY
CALIFORNIAN WOULD PAY.
BUT THE AVERAGE CALIFORNIAN
WOULD PAY -- TO GET THIS BENEFIT.
THAT APPEARS TO BE ROUGHLY
ACCURATE.
SIR MORE LIVE.
THE MANAGER JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON
ON THAT DISCUSSION -- IN THE LA --
REPORT WE DON'T HAVE LIKE A
HISTORY OF HOW THE RESERVES BEEN
DOING THIS INSURANCE FIND OUT.
HOW MUCH IS GOING IN EVERY YEAR
HOW MUCH IS GOING OUT?
IT WAS FOR DISABILITIES SAID IT
WAS 1% OF ALL WAGES AT ONE POINT --
SO.
DO WE HAVE AN ANALYSIS BECAUSE
IF EVERYONE'S CHIPPING AND THEY
SHOULD GET A STOCKHOLDERS REPORT
OUT.
OF A THING.
THE ARE THE EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WHICH
OVERSEES THE FUND DOES ISSUE --
ANNUAL FUND FORECAST WHICH
INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF
DISBURSEMENTS GOING OUT AS WELL
AS THE AMOUNT OF COLLECTIONS
FROM THE PAYROLL TAX.
INCLUDING ALSO THE RESERVE AND
PRINT AMOUNT PROJECTED FOR THE
FORTHCOMING YEAR THAT THAT WOULD
KEEP THE FUND IN SORT OF ITS
RESERVE POSITION.
HAVE YOU DONE ACTUARIAL STUDY.
TO SEE HOW.
THIS THIS TWO WEEK EXTENSION
WOULD.
WHAT IMPACT THAT THE FUND
BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT A?
BIG SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION
IT'S GONNA TAKE PARENTAL LEAVE
RIGHT SO IT'S AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER THAT THE PAID FAMILY
LEAVE PORTION OF THE FUND IS
ABOUT 15% OF BENEFITS THAT ARE
DISPERSED SO IS THE MINORITY --
BUT THE THE FUND IS IS.
THROUGH THE I SHOULD SAY THE
PAYROLL TAX RATE EACH YEAR IS
DETERMINED BASED ON THE BALANCE
OF OP DISBURSEMENTS EXPECTED TO
BE PAID OUT AS WELL AS
COLLECTIONS FROM THE PAY THE THE
PAYROLL TAX SO.
IN ESSENCE A FORMULA SETS THE
THE PAYROLL TAX RATE EACH YEAR
IN ORDER TO KEEP THE RESERVE AND
THE ACCOUNT AND BALANCE.
SO IT ISN'T AS A STRAIGHT ONE
POINT 5% ANYMORE IT'S IT IT
FLUCTUATES EVERY YEAR THAT'S
RIGHT IT FLUCTUATES EVERY YEAR
IT'S CAPPED AT ONE POINT 5% IN
UNDER.
CURRENT LAW THIS YEAR IT IS 141%
BUT WE DON'T NEED TWENTY FIVE
EMPLOYEES TO DO THE ESTIMATES
RIGHT.
LITTLE JOKE CHAIR FROM
YESTERDAY'S DISCUSSION.
HA HA HA.
OKAY I I I THINK WE NEED TO DO A
MARKETING.
WE GET IT.
EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHAT THEY'RE
PAYING FOR THINGS WITH IN THE
SALON WHICH FELL THANK YOU
MANAGER.
WELCOME MISTER MCCARTY.
THANK YOU.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY IS TWO
FOLD.
TO ON FAMILY PAID FAMILY LEAVE
WHICH I THINK THERE'S GREAT
SUPPORT FOR IN THE LEGISLATURE
IN CALIFORNIA HELPING.
KNOWLEDGE IS FAMILIES AND
WORKING MOTHERS AND THEN THE OUT
THE OUTCOMES OF A YOUNG CHILDREN
IN CALIFORNIA SO WE'RE ALL ALL
FALL IN FOR THAT.
SO IT'S TO EXTEND THE PERIOD
TIME.
AT AND ALSO TO HELP PAY FOR THAT
ADDRESSING THE AMOUNT IN THE
RESERVE RIGHT SIMPLIFIED.
AND SO THEN YOU ALSO WANT TO SET
UP THIS.
TASK FORCE TO LOOK AT THESE
OTHER POLICY CHANGES.
AND AND THERE IS ONE OUT THERE
BECAUSE YOU KNOW SO MY QUESTION
TO THE ADMINISTRATION.
IS TO FOCUS ON THAT WORKERS WHO
MAKE LESS THAN A HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS 41100% WAGE.
REPLACEMENT AND WANTED TO ASK
FINANCE HAS THAT BEEN IN YOUR
CALCULATION SO FAR AND WHAT'S
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT AND WAS
THAT AT ALL PART OF THE
POTENTIAL PROPOSAL WHEN YOU
WROTE THIS OUT IN JANUARY.
SO RIGHT NOW OUR APPROACH IS --
DEFERRING A QUESTION LIKE THAT
TO THAT TO THE PROPOSED TASK
FORCE SAID THE ONE PROPOSAL AS
YOU NOTED THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION WAS READY TO GET
BEHIND THAT WE BELIEVE WE CAN
GET BEHIND.
GIVEN THE CURRENT RESERVES IN
THE FIND WAS EXTENDING FROM SIX
WEEKS TO EIGHT WEEKS.
IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS BEYOND
THAT WHETHER IT IS EXTENDING
THAT WE DON'T WANT BEYOND EIGHT
WEEKS WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION
HAS SAID IS A GOAL OR INCREASING
ANY PAY LEVELS WERE DEFERRING
THOSE QUESTIONS. TO THE TASK
FORCE AND WE KNOW -- TO THE
DISCUSSION THAT WAS GOING ON
THAT THOSE QUESTIONS ARE BOUND
UP WITH HOW WE CAN PAY FOR THOSE
OVER THE LONG TERM.
BY SUMA IT'S A TRADE OFF THEY
PROBABLY.
HAVE THE EQUAL VALUES THOMAS WAS
THINGS COST AND SO IN YOUR EYES
THAT THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT
ELEMENT IS IS TO EXTEND THE
PERIOD.
PEOPLE WOULD GET THE BENEFIT AS
OPPOSED.
TO INCREASE THE BENEFIT.
SO I WOULDN'T PUT IT THAT WAY
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION -- I
THINK WHAT WALL WITH THAT WE ARE
SAYING IS THAT THIS IS THE FIRST
STEP WE'RE TAKING JUST SIX WEEKS
TO EIGHT WEEKS WE KNOW THAT THIS
IS NOT FULLY SOLVE THE ISSUES
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND THAT
YOU CARE ABOUT AND ARE ALL
WORKING ON ALL THOSE QUESTIONS
REQUIRE.
A LOT OF THOUGHT AND WE'RE
DIFFERENT ALL THOSE TO THE TASK
FORCE.
OKAY THANK YOU.
WITH REGARD TO THE TASK FORCE
ARE I WOULD SUGGEST THAT GIVEN
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE'S
HISTORY WITH PAID FAMILY LEAVE
NATIONALLY AS A POLICY.
ISSUE ON THAT IT WOULD BEHOOVE
ALL OF US IF THE TASK FORCE HAD
REPRESENTATION OR PARTICIPATION
FROM THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
EITHER MEMBERS OR STAFF I NOTE I
NOTICED THAT THAT THAT WERE NOT
INCLUDED AT THIS POINT -- BUT
GIVEN THE PARTNERSHIP WITH WHICH
WE MUST FORAGE ON TO ADVANCE A
POLICY THIS CUTTING EDGE IN
CRITICAL I WOULD HOPE.
THAT WE WOULD BE FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE INCLUDED --
BECAUSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THIS
IS CERTAINLY A PERFECT EXAMPLE
OF THE PRO FAMILY POLICY ON THAT
I THINK OF THE LEGISLATURE'S
ENGAGEMENT IN -- WOULD -- BE
MEANINGFUL AND SIGNIFICANT.
SO I HOPE THAT AS WE CONTINUE TO
DELIBERATE THIS ISSUE WE CAN BE
INCLUDED WITH SKINNER.
ECHO THAT COMMENT BY I HAVE A
QUESTION ON JUST -- IF THIS WAS
AN ADDRESS AND I'M JUST CURIOUS
I DON'T HAVE THE HISTORY ON IT.
AT WHAT POINT.
THE WAS IT SAID THAT THE MAXIMUM
T. TAXABLE WAGE LIMIT WOULD BE
ABOUT A HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN
THOUSAND AND IF THAT -- WAGE
LIMITS WERE.
RAISED ABOVE THAT WOULD THAT
HELP OUR FUND BALANCE.
SINCE WE HAVE PEOPLE RBC THAT
HAVE WHICH IS HIGHER THAN A
HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND A YEAR.
SENATOR SKINNER I'M NOT CERTAIN
WHEN THAT CAP.
WAS INSTITUTED AS A AS A POLICY
COMPONENT I DO BELIEVE IT WAS
MANY YEARS AGO IF NOT DECADES
AGO IT HAS INCREASED WITH
INFLATION OVER TIME.
REGARDING YOUR SECOND POINT
ABOUT.
THAT BEING AN OPTION IT'S
ABSOLUTELY ONE OF THE OPTIONS
THAT THAT SORT OF WE RECOMMEND
THE LEGISLATURE CONTEND WITH AND
GRAPPLE WITH AS A DEVELOP ITS
ALTERNATE POLICY GOALS FOR PAID
FAMILY LEAVE.
INCREASING THAT AMOUNT -- OF THE
CAP WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL --
COLLECTIONS FOR THE FUND WHICH
COULD BE USED TO PAY FOR
BENEFITS THAT'S ONE OPTION THAT
THAT.
THE LEGISLATURE ABSOLUTELY
SHOULD BE TRUTH THINK THROUGH AS
PART OF ITS ULTIMATE POLICY
OPTIONS AND IS THAT K WAS
THAT DONE STATUTORY LAWYERS THAT
THE TYPE OF CAP THAT THE
DEPARTMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO
ADJUST.
THAT CAP IS IN STATUTE OKAY BUT
IT WAS POTENTIALLY DONE DECADES
AGO ALL RIGHT THANK YOU.
AB FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU FOR THE DISCUSSION
WILL BE THAT ITEM OPEN.
ISSUE TWENTY ONE SALES AND USE
TAX EXEMPTIONS. FOR MENSTRUAL
HYGIENE PRODUCTS AND DIAPERS.
AGAIN ON THE DEPARTMENT OF TAX
AND FEE ADMINISTRATION.
LA -- THANK YOU SIR CHRISTINE
WITH THE LA SO WE HAVE A A BRIEF
HANDOUT ON THIS ISSUE -- THE
GOVERNOR PROPOSED TO SALES TAX
EXEMPTIONS ONE FOR CHILDREN'S
DIAPERS AND ANOTHER ONE FOR
MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL WOULD
AUTHORIZE THESE EXEMPTIONS FOR
TWO YEARS BEGINNING JANUARY
FIRST.
TWENTY TWENTY THE SENATE
APPROVED THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
WHILE THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED THE
EXEMPTIONS FOR TEN YEARS INSTEAD
OF TWO THE LEGISLATURE FACES A
TRADE OFF AND SETTING SUNSET
DATES FOR TAX EXPENDITURES ON
ONE HAND.
A SHORTER SUNSET PROVIDES MORE
FLEXIBILITY AND MORE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OVERSIGHT ON
THE OTHER HAND A LONGER SUNSET
PROVIDES MORE CERTAINTY FOR
TAXPAYERS.
AND ALLOWS THE LEGISLATURE TO
SPEND MORE OF ITS TIME ON OTHER
ISSUES.
IN LIGHT OF THAT TRADE OFF WE'RE
RECOMMENDING A COMPROMISE THAT
REFLECTS THE DIFFERENT POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
THESE TWO EXEMPTIONS.
SO FIRST ON THE DIAPER EXEMPTION
WERE RECOMMENDING A SUNSET
PERIOD OF I IN THE RANGE OF
FORTY SIX YEARS WE VIEW THIS
EXEMPTION AS ONE TOOL WITHIN A
BROADER STRATEGY FOR PROVIDING
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARENTS.
AND THAT'S A STRATEGY THAT THE
LEGISLATURE ADJUSTS PRETTY
FREQUENTLY SO THE FLEXIBILITY
PROVIDED BY FORTY SIX YEAR
SUNSET COULD BE.
QUITE VALUABLE -- SECOND FOR THE
MINSTREL PRODUCTS EXEMPTION WE
RECOMMEND AT A SUNSET OF EIGHT
TO TEN YEARS -- THIS PROPOSAL IS
BASED PRIMARILY ON AN EQUITY
CONCERN AND SO THAT ADDITIONAL
FLEXIBILITY THAT WOULD BE GAINED
FROM A SHORTER SUNSET IS NOT AS
IMPORTANT.
THANK YOU FINANCE THE
ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO
SUPPORT A TWO YEAR SUNSET BOTH
FOR REASONS OF BUDGET RESILIENCY
AND ALSO TO ALLOW THE
ADMINISTRATION WORKING WITH THE
LEGISLATURE TO ASSESS THE
EFFICACY OF THESE PROPOSALS.
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS.
SENATOR MORLOCK MADAME CHAIR.
NINETEEN IS THIS A TOTAL SALES
TAX EXEMPTION.
THE ENTIRE EIGHT POINT 25%.
OR IS IT JUST THE STATE PORTION.
IT IS A TOTAL SALES TAX
EXEMPTION -- WITH -- ONE DETAIL
THAT -- TAKING GOING.
TO CHIU CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE -- SO WE DO WE DO
BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES US TO BACK FILL THE
LOCAL REVENUE FROM -- TWO
THOUSAND ELEVEN THE THE
REALIGNMENT FROM TWO THOUSAND
ELEVEN SO -- ARE TREATABLE Là
IT DOES INCLUDE A BACK FILL.
IN AT THAT WOULD GIVE THE CITY'S
BACK THERE 1%.
OF ITS ONE POINT.
WHAT ONE END AND LITTLE MORE?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THANK YOU
VENTURE.
INTO THE AIR FIVE DAYS SENATOR
MALEK IT WOULD BE THAT THIS
SHOULD BE THE TWENTY ELEVEN
REALIGNMENT AMOUNT OF OF ONE
POINT 0065% BECAUSE TO COUNTY
ASSOCIATE WOULD NOT IT WOULDN'T
AFFECT THE AMOUNT GOING CITIES.
WITHIN THIS THE CITIES ARE ARE
GOING TO BE LOSING THEIR REVENUE
FROM THE SALE OF DIAPERS AND SO
WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE KIND OF TAKING
A REVENUE SOURCE FROM THE CITY'S.
AT ITS I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT
CALCULATES TO BUT BUT OUR CITIES
AREN'T AREN'T.
pBILLION DOLLARS SURPLUS THERE
REALLY ENJOYING LAYOFFS AND CUTS
AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW.
TO PAY FOR HIGHER PENSION PLAN
CONTRIBUTIONS ARMS TRYING.
TO FIGURE OUT.
WHAT WE'RE DOING TO TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING THEIR
LIVES A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT?
THANK YOU MATT BARRINGER.
I DON'T KNOW THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM MEMBERS.
THE NUMBER THE WHOLE THAT ITEM
OPEN [inaudible]
WHICH ISSUE TWENTY TO FIFTY ITC
EXPANSION IN ADVANCE PAYMENTS.
BERMAN WHETHER FORD WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE.
SO THIS ISSUE INCLUDES SEVERAL
ITEMS RELATED TO THE STATE'S
EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.
OR EITC.
WHICH IS A REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT
FOR LOW INCOME WORKERS AND I'LL
BE REFERRING TO HAND OUT THAT
SHOULD BE IN YOUR BINDERS -- THE
SERGEANTS HAVE A COPY -- IF NOT --
SO FIRST I'M GONNA WALK THROUGH
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL THAN
TALK ABOUT TWO OF THE KEY
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HOUSES
BUT I KNOW THERE ARE THERE ARE
SEVERAL OTHER DIFFERENCES THAT
ALL ALL DRESSED.
TO SO FROM THE GOVERNOR PROPOSES
TO EXPAND THE STATE EITC IN
THREE WAYS FIRST -- THE GOVERNOR
PROPOSES TO INCREASE THE ATC BY
ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS.
PER FILER HER QUALIFIED WORK
WORKERS WHO HAS AT LEAST ONE
DEPENDENT CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF
SIX AND SECOND REFERRING TO THE
FIGURE ON PAGE -- ONE THE
GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED TO EXTEND
THE MAXIMUM INCOME FOR
ESTABLISHING A LEGIT ELIGIBILITY
FOR THE CREDIT. TO THIRTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR
ALL FILERS AND THIS COULD MAKE
THE CREDIT AVAILABLE.
I TALKED TO ONE MILLION NEW
WORKERS.
THIRD THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED TO
CHANGE THE WAY THE AMOUNT OF THE
CREDIT IS CALCULATED IN A WAY
THAT WOULD INCREASE THE CREDIT
AMOUNT. FOR INDIVIDUALS -- AND
FAMILIES WITH EARNINGS AT THE
HIGHER END OF THE ELIGIBILITY
RANGE SO LOOKING AT THE FIGURE
ON PAGE.
ONE IT'S MOVING THE THE PHASE
OUT SLIP BY SHIFTING THIS WILL
REFER TO AS THE KING POINT TO
THE LEFT -- THE IN THE IN THE
PACKAGE THE GOVERNOR ALSO
PROPOSED A PLAN FOR PROVIDING.
THE CREDIT IN ADVANCE MONTHLY
PAYMENTS FOR FILERS WITH AN
ESTIMATED CREDIT OF AT LEAST ONE
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS A
YEAR -- THE GOVERNOR ALSO
PROPOSED FIVE MILLION DOLLARS IN
FUNDING FOR OUTREACH AND ALSO
PROPOSED TO CHANGE THE NAME OF
THE CREDIT TO THE CALIFORNIA
EITC ACOSTA FLIPPING REFUND.
CERTAINLY NOT A PITCH TO THE
HAND OUT WE COMPARE THE
DIFFERENT ACTIONS TAKEN BY EACH
HOUSE TO EXPAND THE EITC
STRUCTURE SPECIFICALLY.
SO THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY BOTH
ADOPTED THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK
PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNOR.
TOM HOWEVER BOTH HOUSES ALSO
ACTED TO EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY
TO WORKING TAX FILERS WHO DO NOT
HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
BUT INSTEAD FILE THEIR TAX
RETURNS.
USING AN INDIVIDUAL TAX
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER WHICH WILL
REFER TO AS AN I..
TEN AND NOW THE KEY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE HOUSES WAS THAT THE
ASSEMBLY REDUCED THE ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT FOR FILERS WITH A CHILD
UNDER AGE.
SIX SO THAT THE TOTAL COST.
OF THERE IS A PROPOSED EXPANSION
WOULD BE -- LOWER PERSONAL
INCOME TAX REVENUES OF SIX
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.
AND THAT'S ONLINE TO OF THIS
TABLE ON PAGE.
TWO OF WHICH COMPARES TO SEVEN
HUNDRED AND NINETY MILLION
DOLLARS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL.
AND NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY EIGHT
MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE SENATE
ACTION.
SO TURNING NOW TO PAGE THROUGH
THE WINDOW.
OF MEMBERS OF BOTH HOUSES
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THE GOVERNOR'S
PLAN TO PROVIDE MMHM -- ADVANCE
MONTHLY PAYMENTS THE EIGHTY
EIGHTY SEE.
COULD -- POSSIBLY BE TREATED AS
INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF
FIGURING ELIGIBILITY AND BENEFIT
LEVELS FOR OTHER PUBLIC BENEFIT
PROGRAMS.
AND BOTH HOUSES ARE SEEKING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH THAT PLAN SO THE
SENATE ACTION WAS TO REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S ADVANCE MONTHLY.
PAYMENTS PROPOSAL AND THEY
ADOPTED BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE
ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE MORE
INFORMATION ON THAT ISSUE.
THE ASSEMBLY PROVIDED HALF OF
THE AMOUNT REQUESTED NINE POINT
THREE MILLION DOLLARS FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF AN ADVANCE
MONTHLY PAYMENTS PLAN BUT THAT
OUR MONEY IS CONTINGENT.
OR PROVISIONAL ON THE RECEIPT OF
A SIMILAR REPORT.
SO IN ADDITION TO THESE ITEMS
THERE SOME OTHER DIFFERENCES THE
ASSEMBLY PROVIDED TWO POINT TWO
MILLION DOLLARS TO THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD TO ADMINISTER THE
CHANGES NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE.
I TEN FILERS WHILE THE SENATE
AND TAKEN IT -- SPECIFIC ACTION
ON THAT I ISSUE.
AND LASTLY WE NOTE THAT BOTH
HOUSES AUGMENTED THE AMOUNT FOR
OUTREACH BY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS
BRINGING THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR
OUTREACH TO TEN MILLION DOLLARS --
BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THESE
ADOPTED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
BUDGET BILLING WHICH SO
SPECIFICALLY THE SENATE ADDED
LANGUAGE ABOUT FREE TAX
PREPARATION SERVICES.
WE DON'T HAVE A SET RECOMMEND
SAID RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
THESE DIFFERENCES -- AS THE SIZE
OF THE EXPANSION WILL NEED TO
DEPEND ON BALANCING YOUR
COMPETING PRIORITIES.
WE THINK THAT THE CAUTIOUS
APPROACH OF BOTH HOUSES TO THE
ADVANCE PAYMENTS PLAN IS
REASONABLE AND EACH APPROACH HAS
MERIT.
YEAH -- IF YOU TO EXPAND THE
CREDIT TIGHTENED FILERS THE
SIMPLEST ACTION TO PROVIDE TWO
POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS TO FTP.
OF FOR THE ADDITIONAL MINISTRY
OF COST IS REASONABLE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FINANCE.
THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO
SUPPORT ITS AY REVISION EITC
PROPOSAL -- INCLUDING THE
THOUSAND DOLLAR CREDIT FOR
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN UNDER THE
AGE OF SIX AS WELL AS THE
FUNDING FOR ADVANCE PAYMENTS
WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF
THE GOVERNOR'S PLAN.
AND WE CONTINUE TO PLAY THAT
TALKS CONFORMITY IS THE WAY TO
PAY FOR THIS PROPOSAL ON AN
ONGOING BASIS WHILE KEEPING THE
BUDGET AND STRUCTURAL BALANCE.
IN THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T
HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT BEING
ABLE TO RECEIVE -- FEDERAL
APPROVED MEANT APPROVAL FOR THE
ADVANCE PAYMENT OPTIONS SO WE DO
AND SO -- THE WAY THAT WE ARE
WORKING ON THIS PROPOSAL IS TO
ENSURE THAT ALL OF THOSE
CONCERNS ARE TAKEN CARE OF
BEFORE WE BEGIN ANY KIND OF
ADVANCE PAYMENT PROPOSE.
THANK YOU QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
[inaudible]
MR OBERNOLTE.
QUESTION FOR THE PARMA FINANCE.
HOW DOES THE ADMINISTRATION FEEL
ABOUT THE ACTION TAKEN BY BOTH
HOUSES TO EXTEND ELIGIBILITY TO
I TEN FILERS?
SO RIGHT NOW WE THAT -- PROPOSAL
IS NOT IN OUR BUDGET AND AS
WE'VE SEEN FROM THIS DISCUSSION
LIKE ALL OF US -- WE'RE KEEPING
A VERY CLOSE EYE ON THE OVERALL
BUDGET RESILIENCY AND SO WE WERE
NOT ABLE TO FIT THAT WITHIN OUR
PROPOSAL AT THIS TIME.
MISTER MOORE Là FOLLOWED BY
MISS SKINNER.
COULD YOU COULD YOU FURTHER
EXPLAIN TAX CONFORMITY IS AS A
SOURCE OF REVENUE TO OFFSET.
SO I DO A A COPY TO DO SO WANT
TO DEFER TO THE CHAIR AND AS I
KNOW THAT'S NOT A CONFERENCE
ITEM BUT HAPPY TO DESCRIBE
BRIEFLY IF THAT WORKS GO AHEAD
AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS YES A
BASICALLY UNDER THE IT EVERY
TIMETHAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PASSES -- SOME TYPE OF SWEEPING
TAX REFORM OFTEN STATES
INDIVIDUAL STATES TAKES ACTIONS
TO CONFORM WITH THOSE MEASURES
AND THOSE ARE DONE FOR A NUMBER
OF REASONS.
TO IMPROVE SIMPLICITY AND REDUCE
THE BURDEN ON TAXPAYERS SO THAT
THEY'RE NOT MAKING ONE
CALCULATION FOR FEDERAL TAX
PURPOSES AND ANOTHER FOR STATE
TAX PURPOSES.
AND ALSO REDUCES THE NUMBER OF
ERRORS WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO
DO -- THOSE TWO TWO DIFFERENT
SETS OF CALCULATIONS AND THOSE
ERRORS CAN WE TO PENALTIES THEY
WE TO A GREATER ADMINISTRATIVE
BURDEN BOTH ON THE STATE ON THE
FTV.
AS WELL AS THE TAXPAYER AND
FINALLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
CHANGES ARE COULD PUBLIC POLICY
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL THAN THE
STATE CAN TAKE ACTION TO CONFORM
WITH THOSE SO.
WHAT THE GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED
IN HIS BUDGET AND IN HIS NAY
REVISION ACE WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
PROPOSALS IN THE FEDERAL TAX
REFORM?
THAT THE GOVERNOR AND HIS
ADMINISTRATION DID NOT AGREE
WITH THERE WERE SOME THAT FOR
SOME THE AFFIRMATION REASONS
AROUND SIMPLICITY AROUND GOOD
PUBLIC POLICY MADE SENSE TO
CONFORM WATCHED.
SOME THOSE PROVISIONS RAISE
REVENUE -- SOME OF THOSE COSTS
REVENUE IN PARTICULAR ONE
RELATED -- TO IMPROVING THE
CLIMATE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND
HOW THEY ACCOUNT -- BUT OVERALL
THE PROVISIONS RAISE ENOUGH
REVENUE. TO EXPAND THE EARNED
INCOME TAX CREDIT AT THE STATE
LEVEL AND WE SHOULD POINT OUT
THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASO
HAS AN EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
WHICH IS MUCH MORE GENEROUS ON
THE WHOLE AND SO WE VIEW THIS AS
GOING IN THAT DIRECTION AS WELL.
AND WILL THAT TAX CONFORMITY
COME THROUGH A TRAILER BILL.
HAVE YET TO RECEIVE RESERVE
TRAILER BILLS YES THOSE ARE
POSTED.
YES SO WE'LL GO THROUGH
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE.
WE WE SEE ADDRESSING THIS FOR
THAT BUDGET PROCESS IS THE RIGHT
APPROACH THANK YOU THANK YOU
MADAM CHAIR YOU'RE WELCOME
SKINNER.
THANK YOU -- I THINK THERE'S
BEEN NOTED THE THE BIG
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOUSES IN
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS THE
ADVANCE PAYMENTS.
AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME OF A
LEGITIMATE ISSUES THAT OBVIOUSLY
SHOULD STILL BE TALKED ABOUT ON
THAT.
BUT I WANTED TO SPEAK -- TO I
SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF THE
EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT AND I
ALSO WAS -- THE BOTH HOUSES HAVE
BEEN HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT WE
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FINDING
THAT WE UTILIZE. TO DO OUTREACH
AND ACTUALLY TO ASSIST PEOPLE.
IN SUBMITTING PREPARING A TAX --
SUBMITTING TAX BECAUSE AS WE
KNOW.
A NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT.
WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR EARNED
INCOME TAX CREDIT AND THAT ARE
ELIGIBLE EVEN FOR THE FEDERAL.
ART REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR TAXES
SO.
AND SO DOESN'T OCCUR TO THEM TO
FILE.
AND WERE YOU CALIFORNIA ALREADY
INDEPENDENT OF OUR STATE EARNED
INCOME TAX CREDIT WE LEAVE A LOT
OF MONEY ON THE TABLE FOR THE
FEDERAL EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
BECAUSE WE HAVE.
A LARGE NUMBER COMPARED TO A
NUMBER OF OTHER STATES A LARGE
NUMBER.
OF RESIDENTS WHO DON'T TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF IT SO CLEARLY GIVEN
THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM.
IS TO ASSIST THOSE RESIDENTS AND
TO REDUCE THE BURDEN ON OTHER --
SOCIAL SERVICES THAT WE MAY BE
PROVIDING THE MORE WE CAN DO TO
ASSIST RESIDENTS APPLY FOR BOTH
THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITS
THE FEDERAL AND THE CALIFORNIA'S
THE BETTER.
IN I KNOW THAT I THINK IT'S I
HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE RESEARCH
RECENTLY BUT A FEW YEARS BACK
NEW YORK STATE AND OREGON.
HAD THE HIGHEST -- PARTICIPATION
IN THE FEDERAL EARNED INCOME TAX
CREDIT OF ANY OTHER STATE AND
THEY THEY WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY
IT WAS A STATE GOAL. TO ENSURE
THAT.
ALL RESIDENTS ELIGIBLE APPLIED
AND I THINK IT'S A A WORTHWHILE
THING FOR CALIFORNIA'S CONSIDER
CLEARLY THE FUNDING THAT WE HAVE.
INCLUDED HERE THE UP TO TEN
MILLION FOR OUR REGION SUCH
WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ACHIEVE
THAT IN UPSTATE IS POPULOUS IS
OURS.
BUT IT WOULD ASSIST US.
THANK YOU MISTER MAY EIGHTH.
I AM I USED TO PREPARE TAXES --
IN FACT THE FOR IT FOR YEARS AND
AFFECT REMEMBER MY FIRST YEAR
FOR PAYING TAXES WHEN THE THE
ITC CAME UP.
MEMBER A CLIENT THAT I I HAD --
THAT -- FIGURED OUT THE SYSTEM.
AND REALIZED THAT THERE'S A
SWEET SPOT I'M SHE WAS A
HAIRDRESSER LEASE SO SHE SAID --
AND SHE WORKED FROM HER HOME AND
SHE REALIZED THAT BECAUSE THE
EITC WAS REFUNDABLE.
I WHICH FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT
ARE WATCHING IT IS THAT YOU PAY
NO TAXES AND YOU ACTUALLY GET
THE CREDIT REGARDLESS SO TERE'S
A PAYMENT -- THAT'S THERE AND
WAS FASCINATING -- MEETING AND
WHEN FILING THAT TAX RETURN AND
SHE GOT IT UP -- PRETTY DECENT
DECENT REFUND.
I REMEMBER WHEN THIS CAME UP A
FEW YEARS AGO WITH I WAS GONNA
SUPPORT THE ATC BECAUSE I I DO
SUPPORT AND EGGMAN TAX CREDIT
BECAUSE THE IDEA WAS IN FACT
INTERESTING LEE YEAH YOU KNOW
MILTON FRIEDMAN WHO WE ALL KNOW
AND EVEN RONALD REAGAN I BELIEVE
IS.
ONE A SIGNED IT INTO A TO LAW --
BACK IN THE IN THE EIGHTIES IN
THE WHOLE CONCEPT BEHIND THE
EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT WAS TO
INCENTIVIZE WORK TO GET PEOPLE
TO THINK YOU KNOW I CAN DO WELL
IF -- IF I GO WORK THEN I'LL
ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING A BENEFIT
FROM THAT SO THAT MAYBE THERE
ISN'T OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
PROGRAMS -- THAT THEY RECEIVE
RECEIVE ASSISTANCE ON AS THE ONE
THING I STRUGGLED.
WITH THE WIND -- THE IDEA OF THE
I. T. A. N. CAME UP -- IN
REVENUE TAX.
ABOUT BECAUSE I THOUGHT TO
MYSELF YOU THESE ARE --
INDIVIDUALS THAT LIVE HERE IN
THE STATE IN THERE THE WORKING
WE WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO WORK
BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG.
THAT THAT THESE FOLKS ARE ARE
GOING TO BE HERE ON IN NOT IN
THE STATE WE DON'T KNOW IF I CAN
BE YOUR FOR A YEAR OR TWO YEARS
OR THREE YEARS IF THEY'RE GOING
TO TRY. TO GET CITIZENSHIP TO BE
ABLE TO A TO STAY HERE AND AND I
GUESS I'M WONDERING -- WHY THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T
SUPPORT -- AT THE THE EXPANSION --
TO TO I. T. I END OF FILERS IS
THAT THE REASON WHY -- WHAT
WHAT'S WHAT'S THE REASON WHY THE
ASSEMBLY IN THE SENATE HAVE
PROPOSED IT BUT THE?
BUT THE GOVERNOR BROWN HAS NOT
HAS NOT PROPOSED EXPANDING AT
THE ATC FILERS.
ARE I T TARIAN FILERS FOR
THE ADMINISTRATION IT'S SIMPLY A
MATTER OF COST PRESSURE ON THE
GENERAL FUND.
NOTHING BEYOND THAT IS THERE ANY
CONCERN AT ALL BY ANY EXPANSION
OF THE IN OF OF FRAUD OR OR
ABUSE AT ALL.
YEAH -- SO IT WOULD IT WOULD BE
A AN ADDITIONAL WORKLOAD FOR THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD BOTH BECAUSE
BE ADDITIONAL RETURNS AND
THERE'D BE SOME ADDITIONAL
HURDLES TO GO THROUGH TO TO
VERIFY THE THE AMOUNTS REPORTED --
BUT BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHY -- I
THINK THAT THAT'S WHY -- I THINK
IS THE ASSEMBLY THAT THAT ADDED
A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS TO HAVE
TO BE TO TO HANDLES RETURNS I
DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE AS
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.
IN.
OR OR SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN
TERMS OF IMPROPER PAYMENTS DO WE
KNOW WHAT THE COST THE TOTAL
COST WOULD BE -- FOR EXPANDING
THAT THE THE THE A. T. C. T. I.
TAN FOLLOW FILERS TO KNOW WHAT
THE EXACT NUMBER IS.
SURE SO -- WE DON'T -- WE DON'T
KNOW THE EXACT COST WOULD SPIN
ESTIMATED BY THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD AND SO FOR THE SENATE
PROPOSAL I BELIEVE IT'S ONE
HUNDRED AND SIXTY EIGHT MILLION
DOLLARS.
AND FOR THE ASSEMBLY IT'S IT'S
LESS THAN THAT BUT WHAT I DON'T
KNOW IT'S IT'S IT'S ABOUT A
HUNDRED MILLION AND IS THERE
BEEN ANY ANALYSIS AT ALL DONE ON
FOLKS IT WOULD BE RECEIVING THAT
EA T. C..
THAT THERE WOULD BE -- SOME A
CALL IT A RETURN ON INVESTMENT
IF YOU WILL FOR FOLKS THAT ARE
RECEIVING THAT AT THAT KNOWING
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE HERE
AND OVER TIME BEING THAT PAYING
TAXES TO BE ABLE TO RECOVER.
AT THAT AMOUNT IS THEIR BEEN ANY
ANALYSIS AT ALL THAT IN PAYING
THAT -- THAT GIVING THEM THAT D.
A. T. C. THAT THEY'LL BE WORKING
HERE AND PAYING A CERTAIN AMOUNT
OF TAXES -- AFTERWARDS OR IS IT
JUST -- IT IS IT JUST I DON'T
USE THE TERM HAND OUT BUT THE
AGAIN THE GOAL OF THIS IS A TO
INCENTIVIZE -- TO INCENTIVIZE
WORK THAT'S WHAT THE ATC WAS WAS
ALL ABOUT AND IT SEEMS LIKE
WOULD BE EXPANDING A LITTLE
FURTHER BEYOND BEYOND THAT.
THE THE STRUCTURE THE ATC IS
SUCH THAT AS YOU INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED THE THE
THE CREDIT GROWS UP TO A CERTAIN
POINT IN THAT PHASE IT PHASES
OUT SO THERE'S NOT A A CLIFF
AFFECT.
THE RIGHT NO BRIGHT BUT THAT
THAT'S ACTUALLY PART OF THE GOAL
IS TO TO GET THEM TO BE ABLE TO
TO WORK MORE SO THAT THE MORE
THAT THEY WORK THE MORE THAT
THEY MAKE.
A RIGHT THAT THAT ACTUALLY
STARTS TO TAKE YOUR TO YOUR DOWN
A LITTLE BIT BUT IT WOULD MAKE
SENSE OF OUR EXPANDING THIS THAT
WOULD WANT.
TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE
INDIVIDUALS ARE GOING TO BE
WORKING HERE IN CALIFORNIA FOR A
LONGER PERIOD OF TIME NOT JUST
TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS TO
MAYBE GO BACK TO THEIR COUNTRY
OF ORIGIN.
BUT THAT THEY WOULD -- THEY
WOULD BE HERE -- FOR FIVE YEARS
TEN YEARS FIFTEEN YEARS TWENTY
YEARS TO BE ABLE ULTIMATELY --
YOU KNOW BUT PAID FOR IT IF YOU
WILL HS THERE BEEN ANY ANALYSIS
OF OF THAT.
NOT MINE OKAY. TO TWO TWO
QUESTIONS OUT ONE QUESTION TWO
MINISTRATIONS THE REASON YOU
DIDN'T INCLUDE AYE TENS.
IN YOUR PROPOSAL.
SINCE OUR TARGETS ARE CLEARLY
FINANCIAL ISSUES.
START THANK YOU -- THE SECOND
QUESTION WAS IT WHAT WITH THE
BENEFIT OF DOING.
THE AYE TENS NOW VERSUS DOING IT
LATER AFTER AFTER THE EXPANSION.
IS IS IS THERE BENEFIT.
IS THERE A BENEFIT FOR DOING THE
AYE TENDS NOW AS OPPOSED TO
DOING ITS NECK NEXT YEAR RIGHT
AFTER AFTER THE EXPANSION UP AND
SAY I THINK ISN'T IT OBSERVE
COSTS SEEING YOUR PRIORITIES SO --
YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY IF YOU DELAY
IT YOU'LL HAVE MORE RESOURCES
THIS YEAR FOR THE PRIORITIES
CAST HAS NO THIS NO COST.
BENEFIT EITHER WAY.
I THERE'S NO COST I'M SORRY ON
THERE'S NO COST BENEFIT TO DOING
IT NOW VERSUS LOW THERE IS YES
THERE IS A COST BENEFIT TRICK
OFFICE.
IT WOULD COST LESS I GUESS.
THIS IS THE EXPAND THAT VIA FOR
THE SENATE PROPOSAL TO THE
DIFFERENCES I TURN SIXTY MILLION
FOR THE EXPANSION BUT IT'S ALSO
MY UNDERSTAND ITEMS IS NOT
NECESSARILY A CONFERENCE ITEM
BOTH HOUSES EXPENDED TIGHTENED.
THE TRUCK [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
IN ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THIS
ISSUE.
I WOULD TO SIGNAL ALLAH DECIDE
DID A MOMENT AGO WITH PAID
FAMILY LEAVE THAT I THINK I
WOULD CONSIDER IT YET ANOTHER
PRO FAMILY.
POLICY -- THAT IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF OF CALIFORNIA
FAMILIES AS WE TALK ABOUT WHAT A
PRO FAMILY POLICY LOOKS LIKE
THAT I THINK THIS.
WOULD BE ONE AND LOOK FORWARD TO
THE CONTINUING CONVERSATION
CLOSING OUT THE ITEM.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE TWENTY THREE
UNDER THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.
ADMINISTRATION OF INDIVIDUAL
HEALTH MANDATE AND EXPANDED
SUBSIDIES.
L. A. O..
SO THIS ISSUE IS CLOSELY RELATED
TO THE PROPOSED PREMIUM
AFFORDABILITY ASSISTANCE AND
MANDATE PENALTY ISSUE THAT WAS
HEARD IN CONFERENCE CMMITTEE
YESTERDAY.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED A POINT
TWO MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD TO
ADMINISTER THE PENALTY AND THE
SUBSIDIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE POLICY.
THE SENATE APPROVED THE PROPOSAL
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED THE
PROPOSAL BUT WITH BUDGET BILL
LANGUAGE REQUIRING THAT THE
FUNDING BE CONTINGENT ON THE
ENACTMENT OF A NEW LAW TO
ENFORCE MANDATE PENALTIES
INCREASE THE SUBSIDIES.
SO THE ACTION YOU TAKE ON THIS
ITEM SHOULD CONFORM TO HOW YOU
TREAT.
THE THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ITEM
GENERALLY.
THANK YOU FINANCE THE
ADMINISTRATION CONCURS WITH
SENATE ACTION ON THE SIDE OF THE
ROOM [inaudible]
MR OBERNOLTE.
A QUESTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE SO YOU'RE ASKING. FOR
FIFTY POSITIONS. TO ADMINISTER
THE PENALTY AND SUBSIDIES WHAT
WHAT THOSE PEOPLE DO BECAUSE IT
JUST SEEMS LIKE -- YOU'RE
COLLECTING THIS THE YOU KNOW
THIS THAT SELF REPORTED ON THE
BOND PEOPLE'S FIVE FORTIES RIGHT
AND YOU'RE JUST COLLECTING THE
MONEY THERE WHY IS IT NECESSARY
TO HAVE FIFTY MORE PEOPLE.
CHRIS STILL DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE ACTUALLY FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD HAS A GREAT DEAL OF WORK
TO DO THEY HAVE -- TO THEY HAVE
TO ACTUALLY DETERMINE.
WHO QUALIFIES TO RECEIVE
SUBSIDIES SO THEY HAVE TO WORK
FOR THE?
DEPARTMENT OF COVERAGE ON A
MANAGE HELP THE COVER CALIFORNIA
EXCUSE ME TO ACTUALLY DETERMINE
THE POOL OF PEOPLE ELIGIBLE TO
RECEIVE SUBSIDIES.
THAT HELP TO CHECK TO MAKE SURE
THAT PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE
SUBSIDIES ARE ACTUALLY QUALIFY
FOR THE SUBSIDIES THE DOING
VALIDATION.
CAUSING A LOT OF VALIDATION WORK
TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR
SUBSIDIES AND ALSO.
TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY -- FOR
IT ACTUALLY IDEA -- HADN'T UP
INCOME ACTUALLY QUALIFIED TO
HELP TO MEET THE INDIVIDUAL
HEALTH CARE MANDATE.
OKAY SO THIS IS ENGINEERING THE
WAY THAT THE PENALTY IS
PROCESSED RIGHT.
WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS
YOU'LL HAVE TO DO THE FIRST YEAR
BUT YOU'RE YOU'RE REQUESTING A
HUNDRED POSITIONS ONGOING FOR
THIS.
IT WILL BE AN ONGOING WORK LOW
BECAUSE THE WAY IT WORKS IS IF
YOU DON'T HAVE IF YOU DON'T MEET
A CERTAIN INCOME THRESHOLD ANY
ON THAT YOU'RE NOT YOU DON'T
HAVE TO HELP THE HEALTH COVERAGE.
SO THEY'RE GONNA BE CHECKING
PEOPLE'S INCOMES AND VALIDATING
THEY IN FACT DID OR DID NOT MEET
THE THRESHOLD TO HELP HEALTH
HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND IF THEY MEET THE THRESHOLD
HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE AND
FRANCHISE HAS TO MAKE SURE THEY
QUALIFY FOR SUBSIDIES TO HELP
PAY FOR THAT INSURANCE SO IT'S A
CONTINUAL ONGOING PROCESS SB
DONE YEAR AFTER YEAR.
OKAY BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE BY
PEOPLE YOU CAN'T DESIGN SOME
KIND OF AUTOMATED SYSTEM TO THE
WATER THIS INFORMATION FOR
AUTOMATION BUT THERE IS ALSO A
HUMAN FACTOR INVOLVED IN
ANYTHING.
OKAY WELL I'M I'M I'M SKEPTICAL
THAT THAT'S WHY.
THE THAT WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED
IS ENOUGH WORK FOR A HUNDRED
PEOPLE.
WE JUST KNOW THAT THERE'S THERE
ARE THERE'S ALSO EXPECTED TO BE
AN INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
CONTACTS BETWEEN TAXPAYERS AND
THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
REGARDING -- QUESTIONS THEY MAY
HAVE IN THEIR PREPARES THEM MAY
HAVE QUESTIONS THAT. TO THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD IS EXPECTING
INCREASE IN COMMUNICATION -- IN
CONTACT WITH TAXPAYERS AS WELL
WHY BUY THAT BUT BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THESE POSITIONS
ARE NOT.
THE END OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE
THERE ANNOUNCED THEIR ELSEWHERE
IN THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD IS
THAT CORRECT.
THEY ARE THEY ARE THROUGHOUT
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD AND AGAIN
THEM THEY HAVE SHOWN US THE
WORKLOAD DATA AND WE ARE
CONVINCED AS WE CAN BE A VERY
HEAVY -- HEAVY DUTY WORKLOAD FOR
THEM THE WHOLE LET'S NOT DO IT
ALL THAT [inaudible]
BUDGET.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MISTER MOORE
Là.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR OF THIS IS
JUST DISAPPOINTED THAT.
AFTER DISCUSSING STI IT'S
EVERYBODY CHIPPING IN.
LOOKING AT WHAT'S BEEN PAID OUT
AND THEN.
RE EVALUATE WHAT THE RATE SHOULD
BE THE NEXT YEAR SORT OF MASSIVE
CO OP ED.
THAT'S ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS
FROM THE PENALTY AND AND THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT IT IN ANOTHER AREA.
OF OF TO NOT GET EXEMPTING THIS
COOP APPROACH FROM A A MINISTRY
SECOND NUMBER THAT.
TITLE BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE
CONCEPT IS SIMILAR JUST BECAUSE
IT IS AN REGULATED AYE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE AS WE
PURSUE THIS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING
AFTER INDUSTRY THAT'S BEEN
WORKING [inaudible]
MANAGER.
YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MEMBERS.
SEEING NONE GOING TO HOLD THE
SADDAM ALTON.
ISSUE TWENTY FOUR DEBT
LIABILITIES A RESERVE UNDER HERS
AND STIRRERS SYSTEMS.
BUDGET RESERVES
.
THE LAYOUT THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
I'LL BE SPEAKING FROM A HANDOUT
THAT YOU SHOULDHAVE IN FRONT OF
YOU.
THESE ARE TWO FAIRLY BIG PICTURE
ISSUES AND ALSO BIG IN DOLLAR
TERMS -- I I'LL BE SPEAKING
ABOUT BUDGET RESERVES OVERALL
AND THEN THE THREE PACKAGES WITH
RESPECT TO DEBT AND LIABILITY
PAYMENTS.
SO STARTING WITH BUDGET RESERVES
ON THE FIRST PAGE.
THE TABLE OF THE TOP SHOWS THE
TOTAL RESERVES THAT WOULD BE
ENACTED UNDER EACH OF THE THREE
PACKAGES.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE TOTALS
THE ASSEMBLY WITH AN AXE THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF RESERVES AT
TWENTY ONE BILLION WHILE THE
GOVERNOR'S TOTAL RESERVE LEVEL
BE SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN THE
SILENCE -- WITHIN THIS TOTAL
THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT NOTABLE
RESERVE ACCOUNTS -- WHICH WOULD
EACH RECEIVE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS
INTO THE DIFFERENT PACKAGES
ALTHOUGH THE THREE PACKAGES
THERE ARE FAIRLY SIMILAR FOR THE
BSA THE STATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RESERVE.
THE ASSEMBLY WOULD ENACT A
HIGHER LEVEL OF THE SFU THE
STATE'S DISCRETIONARY RESERVE
AND THE SENATE PUTS AN
ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT OF SIX
HUNDRED MILLION INTO THE SAFETY
NET RESERVE WHICH IS FOR MEDI
CAL AND CAL WORKS.
JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE CONTEXT
AROUND THESE NUMBERS OUR OFFICE
IS ESTIMATED THAT ABOUT TWENTY
TO FORTY BILLION DOLLARS IN
RESERVES WOULD BE NEEDED. FOR
THE STATE TO COVER AT B. COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH A MILD TO
MODERATE RECESSION ASSUMING THAT
THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T WANT TO
CUT PROGRAMS OR OTHER SPENDING
RAISE REVENUES ARE SHIFT COSTS
OTHER ENTITIES.
NOTABLY THE ASSEMBLY ALSO
CREATED A DISASTER ACCOUNT IT
DOESN'T APPEAR IN THIS TABLE
BECAUSE THERE'S NO BALANCE IN IT
YET -- BUT WE WOULD ADD THAT
THERE ARE TWO POTENTIAL MERITS
ASSOCIATED WITH CREATING SUCH AN
ACCOUNT.
FIRST IT WOULD ALLOW THE STATE
TO SORT OF SEPARATELY MENTALLY
ACCOUNT FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE RECESSION VERSES A
DISASTER.
WHICH COULD BOTH BE SIZEABLE AND
COULD OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY AND
PERHAPS IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE
STATE TO SAY FOR BOTH AT THE
SAME TIME.
THE SECOND IS THAT IT COULD
POTENTIALLY CREATE MORE
TRANSPARENCY FOR THE STATE IF
IT'S A SINGLE ACCOUNT WHERE.
A REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT COULD BE DEPOSITED IN
ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A
DISASTER RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
COULD BE -- ALLOCATED FROM THAT
POTENTIALLY ALLOWS THE
LEGISLATURE A LEVERAGE POINT --
TO USE FOR MORE OVERSIGHT OVER
DISASTER COSTS.
ALL TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE WHICH
GIVES A AND BROAD OVERVIEW OF
THE DEBT MY ABILITY PACKAGES
ASSOCIATED WITH -- THE GOVERNOR
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY I WON'T GO
THROUGH ALL OF THESE NUMBERS IN
DETAIL JUST WANT TO GIVE SOME
HIGH LEVEL -- COMMENTS ABOUT
SOME TRADE OFFS ASSOCIATED WITH
THESE FIGURES.
SO THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY TWO TRADE
OFFS THAT ARE OUTLINED BY THIS
TABLE THE FIRST IS A QUESTION OF
PAYING OFF STATE LIABILITIES
VERSUS PAYING OFF LIABILITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER ENTITIES
LIKE SAY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND
UNIVERSITIES IN THIS CASE.
AND THE SECOND HEARD OFFICE
BETWEEN THE PAYING OFF
RETIREMENT LIABILITIES WITH
PAYING OFF BUDGETARY LIABILITIES.
WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE VERSUS
SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS TOWARDS
THE STATE LIABILITIES TO IMPROVE
THE STATE'S BUDGET BOTTOM LINE
OVER TIME SO SAY IN A FEW
BILLION DOLLARS OF STATE
PAYMENTS TODAY WOULD REDUCE
STATE COSTS BY HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER TIME
GIVING THE STATE ADDITIONAL
CAPACITY.
TO USE THOSE RESOURCES FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
STRICT LIABILITY IS BY CONTRAST
DON'T HAVE THIS POSITIVE EFFECT
FOR THE STATE BUDGET CLEARLY BUT
IT DOES HAVE THIS POSITIVE
AFFECT FOR DISTRICT BUDGETS.
AND SINCE THE STATE DOES HAVE A
INCENTIVE TO IN TO ENSURE THAT
THERE'S GOOD PHYSICAL HEALTH
AMONG DISTRICTS AND THIS ALSO
MAKES ON THE SECOND TURN
OPPOSITION RETIREMENT
LIABILITIES VERSES BUDGETARY
LIABILITIES.
IN GENERAL YOU KNOW THERE'S A
LOT OF DIFFERENCES HERE BUT JUST
TO BOIL IT DOWN TO ONE IMPORTANT
ONE IS YOUR CONSIDERING THESE
FINAL PACKAGES.
RETIREMENT LIABILITIES TEND TO
CARRY MUCH HIGHER INTEREST RATES
AND SO BY PAYING OFF RETIREMENT
LIABILITIES SOONER THE STATE CAN
SAVE MORE MONEY OVER TIME.
YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE GOVERNOR
AND THE SENATE MOSTLY FOCUS.
MOSTLY FOCUS ON STATE PAYMENTS
AND HAVE A SIMILAR MIX BETWEEN
RETIREMENT AND BUDGETARY
LIABILITIES THE ASSEMBLY PLACES
SOME ADDITIONAL MONEY TOWARD
DISTRICT UNFUNDED LIABILITIES
AND I'M NOT TALK ABOUT.
ODD STATE PAYMENTS FOR DISTRICT
COSTS ON THE NEXT PAGE.
SO THE THIRD PAGE TO SHOWS THE
PAYMENTS EACH EACH OF THESE
PLANS WOULD MAKE TOWARDS -- SEAT.
SARS TOWARD SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
COMMUNITY COLLEGES PENSION COSTS.
IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THERE'S
TWO TYPES OF PAYMENTS HERE AND
TWO TYPES OF PENSION PLANS HERE
US IS ALREADY BEEN GIVES COSTING
CONFERENCE.
THE TWO TYPES OF PAYMENTS ARE
RATE RELIEF WHICH IS MORE AKIN
TO PAYING SOMEONE'S MORTGAGE ON
THEIR BEHALF FOR A COUPLE MONTHS
SAY.
AND UNFUNDED LIABILITIES WHICH
IS MORE CAN TO PAYING DOWN THE
MORTGAGE PRINCIPLE ON SOMEONE'S
HOUSE.
THEN THERE'S ALSO TWO TYPES OF
PENSION SYSTEMS.
ARE THE GOVERNOR FOCUSES
PAYMENTS ON THE CAL STIRS SYSTEM
WHICH IS THE STATE PENSION
SYSTEM FOR CERTIFIED TO STATE
CERTIFIED EMPLOYEES LIKE
TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
BUT BOTH OF THE HOUSES ALSO
ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL FUNDING
TOWARD THE CALPERS SYSTEM WHICH
IS THE SYSTEM -- IN THIS CONTEXT
FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES
THAT ARE NOT STATE CERTIFIED
LIKE A CAFETERIA WORKERS ARE BUS
DRIVERS. ONE FINAL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES IS THAT
THE ASSEMBLY PROVIDES ADDITIONAL
AMOUNTS FOR PAYING DOWN THE
UNFUNDED LIABILITY ASSOCIATED
WITH YOU THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
CALPERS COST WHEREAS THE SENATE
JUST ARGUMENTS THE RATE RELIEF
ON BOTH SIDES.
BE YOU THE QUESTION OF OF RATE
RELIEF FORCES UNFUNDED LIABILITY
IS REALLY A QUESTION OF SHORT
TERM VERSUS LONG TERM IN THE
RIGHT RELIEF CASE ADDITIONAL
PAYMENTS CAN PROVIDE DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR SAVINGS FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TODAY AN ADDITIONAL
AND MORE SAVINGS ESSENTIALLY IN
THE SHORT TERM.
BUT UNFUNDED LIABILITY PAYMENTS
PROVIDE THE LOWER AMOUNTS OF
SAVINGS BUT OVER TIME IT ALSO
pDOLLAR SAVINGS SO.
SETTING ASIDE A COUPLE BILLION
OF DOLLARS WOULD SAVE SAY TWO TO
THREE DOLLARS FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICTS OVERTIME VERSES ONE
DOLLAR -- FOR RATE RELIEF
[inaudible]
THANKS.
FINANCE THE ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUES TO SUPPORT ITS MY
REVISION PROPOSAL INCLUDING
LIABILITIES AND WE ARE HAPPY TO
DISCUSS ANY OF THE DETAILS.
AND THANK YOU MEMBERS
[inaudible]
MR OBERNOLTE.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE FIRST.
HI GIVEN THAT THE LA -- SAYS
THAT -- IF WE INVESTED DOLLAR
RATE RELIEF WE'RE SAVING A
DOLLAR THIS YEAR WE INVEST A
DOLLAR IN PAYING DOWN UNFUNDED
LIABILITIES.
THEN WE'RE SAVING TWO TO THREE
DOLLARS LONG TERM.
SO WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S
JUSTIFICATION FOR INCLUDING THE
EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS THAT YOU DID FOR THE
STIRS.
OUR RATE RELIEF AND THAT'S WHY
NOT PUT THAT TOWARDS ONE UP AT
ALL TOWARDS THE UNFUNDED
LIABILITIES.
SO WHEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE
STORES REALLY SPECIFICALLY --
THE OUR JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT
IS TIED UP WITH THAT CAL STIRS
FUNDING PLAN -- WHICH IS A VERY
COMPLICATED PIECE OF LEGISLATION --
BUT LONG STORY SHORT THE RATES
FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS ARE SET
BY STATUTE AND SO THE WAY THAT
WE DECIDE TO STRUCTURE IT WHICH
I BELIEVE IS SIMILAR IN SOME
WAYS TO THE WAY THAT BOTH HOUSES.
STRUCTURE THEIR OWN PROPOSALS IS
TO SAY FOR THESE NEXT TWO YEARS
WHICH ARE GOVERNED IN VERY
SPECIFIC WAYS BY THAT PLANNED.
OUT WE WILL GIVE WHAT WAS
INITIALLY -- GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
THREE HUNDRED FIFTY NINE DOLLARS
PER YEAR NOW IN THE NAY REVISION
FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN
THE FIRST YEAR AND THREE HUNDRED
FIFTY MILLION.
IN THE SECOND YEAR AND THEN TAKE
THE BALANCE WHICH IS THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THE OVERALL NOW TWO
POINT THREE BILLION DOLLARS AND
USE THAT TO BUY DOWN THE RATE
OVER THE LONG TERM.
AND SO YOU ARE CORRECT THAT
WE'RE PROJECTING SAVINGS -- THAT
ARE MORE IN THESE FIRST TWO
YEARS COMPARED TO THAT BUY OUT
BUT THAT BY OUT OF THE LONG TERM
RATE SHOULD SAVE DISTRICTS
SIGNIFICANT MONEY OVER THE
COURSE OF THAT FORECAST PERIOD.
SURE BUT WOULDN'T YOU SAVE MORE
IF YOU PUT ALL THAT MONEY
INSTEAD OF DID TO OUR RATE
RELIEF PUT IT ALL TOWARDS PAYING
DOWN A LONG TERM LIABILITIES.
GENERALLY -- ON PRINCIPLE WOULD
SAY YES BUT GIVEN THE
COMPLEXITIES OF THE CAL STARS
FUNDING PLAN I WOULD WANT TO
CHECK BACK ON THAT BEFORE BEFORE
CONFIRMING.
OKAY SO.
THE YOU DID NOT PROPOSE OWEVER
PUTTING ANY OF THE MONEY.
ON PERS THE PER SIDE TOWARDS
RATE RELIEF BUT THE ASSEMBLY DID
SO WHAT WAS YOUR JUSTIFICATION
AND DOING T FOR STARTERS AND
NOT FOR PERS.
SERVICES SPECIFICALLY FOR
SCHOOLS BECAUSE YOU KNOW WE DID
HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL CALPERS
PAYMENT GENERALLY ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE WHEN IT COMES TO THE
SCHOOL PAYMENT -- THE
ADMINISTRATION SENSE WAS THAT
CAL STIRS HAS A LARGE --
UNFUNDED LIABILITY COMPARED TO
THE CALPERS SCHOOLS POOL AND IN
ADDITION -- HISTORICALLY FOR CAL
STAR IS THE STATE AND THE
SCHOOLS HAVE SHARED
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT
LIABILITY AND EACH STATE VERSUS
SCHOOL SHARE HAS CHANGED OVER
TIME MOST RECENTLY IN THE CAL
STARS FUNDING PLAN.
WERE AS FOR THAT CALPERS SCHOOLS
POOL THE STATE TRADITIONALLY HAS
NOT SHARED IN RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THAT MY ABILITY BUT THE MOST
IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY WAS TO
PROVIDE SOME RELIEF BOTH IN THE
NEAR TERM.
AND THE LONG TERM TO SCHOOLS AND
WE BELIEVE THAT OUR CAL STARS
PROPOSAL WAS ABLE TO DO THAT
GIVING SCHOOLS A LITTLE BIT MORE
FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE INVESTMENTS
THEY NEED TO MAKE.
YOU KNOW I'M I'M REALLY
SUPPORTIVE OF PAYING DOWN THE
LONG TERM LIABILITIES I'M TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT HOW I FEEL ABOUT
THE RATE RELIEF BECAUSE ON THE
ONE HAND I KNOW THE PRESSURE
THAT OUR SCHOOLS ARE UNDER.
BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT HELPING
THEM WITH RATES THIS YEAR AND
NEXT YEAR.
REALLY IS A IS NOT DOING THEM A
DISSERVICE LONG TERM BECAUSE
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET
THEIR ARMS AROUND.
THE FACT THAT THE RATES ARE
HIGHER -- I DON'T THINK THAT
THAT FROM AN ACTUARIAL STAND FOR
THAT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE.
ANYTIME SOON AND SO I WOULD
ALMOST PREFER.
THAT.
THEY GIVE THAT REALIZATION
SOONER MAKE IT WORK AND THEN WE
CAN SAY TWO TO THREE DOLLARS FOR
EVERY DOLLAR WE INVEST IF WE PUT
ALL TOWARDS THE LONG TERM.
BOB.
PORTION BUT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE
THAT OUT MY MAIL BUT IN GENERAL
I'M I'M VERY SUPPORT OF WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO -- SPEAKING
OF A QUESTION FOR THE LA --
TALKING ABOUT THE STEP THE ARE.
THE THE RELIEF PAYMENTS.
COULD WE PUT STRINGS ATTACHED TO
THOSE SINCE IT'S A DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR REDUCTION IN SPENDING ON
THE SCHOOLS IF WE WANTED TO SAY
FOR EXAMPLE.
WELCOME THIS IS GOING TO BE
EXTRA MONEY BUT SHOULD WE DON'T
WANT YOU TO SPEND ON SALARIES WE
WANT TO SPEND IT ON I DON'T KNOW
LONG TERM.
INFRASTRUCTURE SOMETHING COULD
WE DO THAT.
I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO MY
COLLEAGUE WHO IS THE EXPERT ON
SCHOOLS OKAY.
KENNETH COUPON WITH THE
ANALYST'S OFFICE UP LEGALLY YOU
COULD CERTAINLY COULD DO THAT
THE STATE IN THE PAST AND IT'S
GIVEN DISTRICTS DISCRETIONARY
MONEY HAS SOMETIMES -- ENCOURAGE
DISTRICTS SUSPENDED IN SPECIFIC
WAYS FOR EXAMPLE WE HAD ONE TIME
DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.
AND WE A FEW YEARS AGO AND WE
ASK DISTRICTS TO ALLOCATE THEM --
FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND SOME OTHER
SPECIFIC THINGS -- SO YES YOU
COULD CERTAINLY ADD SOME --
pTHAT KIND OF RELIEF IF YOU
WANTED.
TO THANK YOU THANK YOU MANAGER.
MR MCCARTY THANK YOU -- I KNOW
WE DISCUSSED THIS ON OUR FIRST
DAYWITH EDUCATION BUT IT'S
REALLY ABOUT.
TRADE OFFS.
AND SO IN THAT SUBCOMMITTEE
PROCESS SAID SENATOR ROTH AND I
WENT THROUGH WITH THAT SCHOOL
DISTRICTS AND WITH THAT.
THANK MATT COMING IN TALKING
ABOUT DISTRICTS ON THE BUBBLE.
IN THE IT'S A REAL RIGHT NOW SO
I I KNOW I KNOW IT PROBABLY IS
MORE PRUDENT TO BUY THEM OUT ON
A LONG TERM BUT THERE ARE
DISTRICTS LITERALLY THAT WE
COULD BE COMING.
RUNNING AT A CAST INCLUDING OUR
DISTRICT RIGHT HERE IN
SACRAMENTO IN LOS ANGELES AND UP
AND DOWN THE STATE.
AND THAT HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON US --
AS WELL IT'S THE ONE THING TO
CONSIDER IS THE IF YOU LOOK AT
THAT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS IS WHEN WE
DID THESE -- THESE REFORMS.
THAT IT HAD KEPT THAT THE
DISTRICTS INCREASED PERSON STIRS
CONJURED INCREASE CONTRIBUTION
PLATEAUS IN BY.
TWENTY TWENTY TWO TWENTY THREE
SO THIS KIND OF GOES HAND IN
HAND WITH THEIR SO SWIMMING WE
DON'T HAVE.
HUGE.
FINANCIAL MELTDOWN.
AND IF HE STILL GROW LC A PFAFF
AT A REASONABLE CLIP NEXT FEW
YEARS THERE WILL BE SOME
BREATHING ROOM IN A COUPLE YEARS
IS THAT CORRECT.
THERE IT RIGHT RIGHT NOW THE
RATE PROJECTIONS FOR CALLOUSED
OR IS ARE THAT THE RATES --
UNDER CURRENT LAW WOULD PEAK AT
AROUND NINETEEN POINT 1% AND
THEN YOU'RE RIGHT THEY WERE
SCHEDULED TO DROP ABOUT A
PERCENTAGE POINT THE YEAR AFTER
THAT.
SO THERE'S A CERTAIN MOVING OUT
PERIOD.
RIGHT THAT IS FOR CAN AT THAT IS
FAIRLY SENSITIVE TO HOW THE
ECONOMY IS DOING IF WE WERE TO
HAVE A RECESSION OR COASTERS
WERE TO EXPERIENCE SOME
SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT LOSSES
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE RATE.
AND STATE OF DROPPING COULD
ACTUALLY GO UP FROM NINETEEN
POINT 1% OF SORT OF PRETTY
SENSITIVE.
TO OUT HOW THE FUND PERFORMS AND
HOW THE ECONOMY DOES THE NEXT
COUPLE YEARS.
SURE SO ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL
WITH THIS MOVING IN THE NEXT
COUPLE YEARS AND IF YOU DID THIS --
ACTION HERE.
THAT WOULD HELP THE DISTRICTS
THE NEXT FEW YEARS THAT WOULD.
PRODUCE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
FINANCE RELIEF.
TODAY BUT ACTUALLY GET TO A
BRIDGE TO WHERE THEY'LL HAVE
[inaudible]
MORE SUSTAINABILITY.
YEAH LET ME THEY WERE THE PACKET
THE NUMBERS IN THE PACKAGES ARE
A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT RELIEF ME
ONE POINT. TWO BILLION IN IN ONE
HOUSE ONE POINT EIGHT TO ANOTHER
I MEAN THAT IN A IN THE SHORT
TERM IT'S IT'S PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT [inaudible]
THANK YOU. THREE MORE LOT.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR MISTER.
THIS ONE IS AN ARE YOU I WANT TO
AFFIRM THE GOVERNOR FOR SETTING
ASIDE SIX POINT SEVEN BILLION
DOLLARS FOR CALPERS CAL STIRS.
OUR FOR THE STATE FOR THE
UNIVERSITIES TO FOR THE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS ARE ALSO A NUMBER FOR
HIM FOR SETTING UP.
A PROP NINETY EIGHT RAINY DAY
FUND WHICH IS BEEN NONEXISTENT
SO I I THINK HE SHOULD BE
APPLAUDED. FOR BOTH.
I'M OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT -- AND
TROUBLE WE BRING DISCUSS THIS ON
THURSDAY NIGHT BUT TODAY LAUSD
IS VOTING.
ON A PARCEL TAX SO WE'RE SEEING
THE STRAINS AND STRESSES -- THE
FIX MATT THE FINANCIAL CRISIS
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TEAM.
HAS ALREADY BEEN IN PRETTY
HEATED DISCUSSIONS WITH
SACRAMENTO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
SO THERE'S SOME SIGNS AND
SIGNALS THAT WERE THAT THINGS
COULD BE.
COMING SO WITH THAT.
I THINK THEY BOTH SHOULD BE
FUNDED HIGHER.
BUT I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO THE
GOVERNOR AND APPRECIATE.
HIS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU
PROPOSED AND I JUST WANT TO
THANK YOU AND AND AND HIT DANTE --
FOR FOR THIS PART OF THE BUDGET
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER DOCTOR EVER.
YOU KNOW I WANT TO THANK YOU
ALSO FOR FOR THE WORK THAT'S
BEING DONE HERE AND BUT I I
STILL HAVE.
UGH SOME CONCERNS AS TO WHETHER
ADWARE SERIOUSLY PREPARING FOR
OF SOME.
LEVEL OF INDEPENDENCE WITH
REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR FUND --
EVER SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE WE'VE
ALWAYS HAD A PENSION PROBLEM.
IN OUR SCHOOLS AND SO I'M
WONDERING IF ANY OF YOU AS AN
ORGANIZATION WHETHER IT'S A WITH
THE SO DEPARTMENT FINANCER LA --
ANY OF YOU ARE YOU LOOKING AT A
PLAN.
THAT REALLY RESPONSE TO THE
ISSUES THAT WE FACE IN THIS AREA.
BECAUSE I GET THE SENSE THAT
EVEN IF WE GIVE A CONTRIBUTION
NOW.
WHATEVER WHETHER WE GIVE IT --
TO RATES ARE WE GIVE IT TO
PAYING DOWN THE DEBT.
THAT WILL ONE WILL STILL BE IN
DEBT.
AND IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WILL
BE.
TALKING ABOUT THIS AGAIN.
OKAY SO HAVE ANY VIEW ACTUALLY
SAT DOWN AND DECIDED WHAT WE
NEED TO DO SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE
THIS PROBLEM [inaudible] FOR
EVER.
I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I MEAN
I HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION
EVER SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE LONG
THAT BEEN ON THE BUDGET THERE'S
ALWAYS BEEN A REQUEST FOR US TO
HELP.
WITH THE PENSION PLANS
[inaudible]
DATA.
SO I'M AND I ALWAYS LIKE WE DO
IN SOME GOOD WE JUST REALLY
WAITING FOR THE PROBLEM.
TO THAT IT WON'T SOLVE ITSELF
BUT WE JUST SEEM TO PRETEND THAT
WE ARE AND AND AS A RESULT WE
HAVEN'T REALLY.
WELL DONE A WHOLE LOT.
IN TERMS OF REALLY SAYING YOU
KNOW IT'S IT'S LIKE OKAY WE'VE
GOT THIS PROBLEM THIS IS WHAT IT
IS NOW WE NEED TO MOVE AT THIS
DIRECTION WITH THIS KIND OF
ACCOUNTABILITY OF THIS KIND OF
RESOURCES.
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE
THIS EVERY DAY I WOULD HATE TO
HAVE THIS KIND OF FINANCIAL
PROBLEM MY HOUSEHOLD.
AND NOT THINK AT SOME POINT THAT
I'M GOING TO GET OUT OF THIS DID.
OR VOICE TO BASICALLY
RESTRUCTURE WHAT I'M DOING OR
WHATEVER I MEAN I YOU KNOW THIS
IS A SEEMS TO BE AN ONGOING
CONVERSATION.
AND OF THOSE OF US WHO REGULARLY
SIX SEVEN YEARS OR MORE HAVE HAD
THIS CONVERSATION OVER AND OVER.
ARE ANY OF YOU WORKING ON
SOMETHING.
YEAH YOU MAY BE AND YOU MAY NOT
WANT TELLS WHAT IT IS BUT I JUST
I JUST WHAT IT IS IF ANYONE IS
WORKING ON SOMETHING.
THAT BEGINS TO REALLY ADDRESS
THIS VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.
I'LL SPEAK TO IT WITH A TWO
POINT SEVEN FIRST.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND WE
DIDN'T GET INTO THE SITUATION
WITH THESE LARGE UNFUNDED
LIABILITIES OVERNIGHT AND SO
THERE'S NO WAY.
TO GET OUT OF THEM QUICKLY BUT
FIRST I THINK THE STATE HAS MADE
SOME PROGRESS IN THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS WE MENTION
MCALISTER'S FUNDING PLAN WHICH
PASSED FIVE YEARS AGO -- BOTH
THE CAL STIRS AND CALPERS BOARDS
HAVE REDUCED THE INVESTMENT
RETURN RATE ASSUMPTION -- WHICH
MAKES SURE THAT -- BOTH YOU KNOW
EVERYONE IS PAYING MORE INTO THE
SYSTEM SO THAT WE'RE NOT ON THE
HOOK LATER WHEN IT COMES TO
RETIREE HEALTH.
BENEFITS WE'RE NOW BEGINNING TO
PRE FUND THOSE AS A STATE AND
SLOWLY PAYING OFF THAT UNFUNDED
LIABILITY WITH THE GOAL AS WITH
CAL STAR IS A FULLY PAYING OFF
THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
TWENTY FORTY SIX BUT YOUR
BROADER POINT.
THAT IS THE GOAL YES.
BUT TO THE TO THE BROADER POINT
IT IS IT THIS IS A DISCUSSION
THAT WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO
CONTINUE.
BUT THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE
ISSUES ARE VERY COMPLICATED BUT
IN SOME WAYS THEY'RE ALSO VERY
pIN NOW TO PAY OFF THE UNFUNDED
LIABILITY.
THE LAST THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE
TO PUT IN A WAITER AND OVER TIME
AND THAT WILL RELIEVE PRESSURE
ON THE GENERAL FUND OVER THE
LONG TERM AND THAT'S WHY THE
GOVERNOR. THREE DAYS AFTER HE
CAME INTO OFFICE AND WHEN HE PUT
OUT THIS BUDGET REALLY WANTED TO
PUT FORWARD THAT THREE BILLION
DOLLARS FOR CAL STARS FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT. TWO POINT
NINE BILLION I'M SORRY THREE
GOING TO CALPERS TWO POINT NINE
GOING TO CAL SIRS AFTER
PROPOSITION TWO PAYMENTS BECAUSE
NO MATTER WHAT PLAN YOU
ULTIMATELY A DOCTOR HOW YOU
RESOLVE THIS OVER TIME.
STARTING NOW AND PUTTING MONEY
AND NOW WILL ALWAYS MAKE A
POSITIVE DIFFERENCE OVER THE
LONG TERM ASSUMING THE MARKET
OVER TIME CONTINUES TO GROW
[inaudible]
OKAY.
I SOME YOU'LL BE HEARING TWENTY
FORTY SIX SO OKAY.
I HAVE TO BELIEVE I'M NOT THE
ONLY PERSON I JUST DID THAT
MENTAL MATH TO FIGURE OUT HOW
OLD IT.
FEELS LIKE A WELL MADE MY
GRANDSON.
OF I'M JUST YOU KNOW I I THINK
AND AND THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW THAT
BUT I YOU KNOW -- SO ANYWAY JUST
BECAUSE WE SEE THIS EVERY YEAR
AND I'M WONDERING IF THIS IS A
WHOLE THAT EVEN GROHL'S IT NEVER
GETS FIELD OR WHATEVER THE DEAL
MAY BE THAT NEW THINGS COME
ALONG AND HEATED UP AGAIN AND SO
WE'RE FOR EVER SEEM LIKE DIGGING
DEEPER AND DEEPER AND I KNOW.
WE WERE WORKING TO MAKE PROGRESS
SO IT'S NOT ON ONE OTHER MAY NOT
MAKE VERY BRIEFLY IS THAT SOME
OF THESE CHANGES AND ASSUMPTIONS.
THE WHOLE THAT WERE AND IS A
FUNCTION OF WHAT ASSUMPTIONS YOU
MAKE ABOUT WHAT PAYMENTS YOU'RE
GONNA MAKE IN THE FUTURE.
SO WHEN CAL STIRS OUR CALPERS --
REVISES THEIR DISCOUNT OR
INVESTMENT RETURN RATE OR THEY
REALIZED THAT PEOPLE ARE MAY BE
LIVING LONGER THAN WE THOUGHT.
THE WHOLE GETS BIGGER BUT IT'S
NOT THAT WE'VE LOST MONEY IT'S
JUST A MORE ACCURATE REFLECTION
OF THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY SO
YOU'RE PUTTING WHATEVER THE SIZE
OF THAT WHOLE IS IN REALITY
PUTTING MONEY IN RIGHT NOW WILL
MAKE IT SMALL.
OKAY.
HELLO YOU HAVING ANY WISDOM ON
THIS MATTER.
I THINK WE MIGHT JUST EMPHASIZE
THAT THE CHARACTERS FUNDING PLAN
WAS A REALLY SIGNIFICANT
MILESTONE FOR THE STATE THE
SYSTEM HASN'T.
BEEN APPROPRIATELY FUNDED FOR
MOST OF ITS A HUNDRED PLUS YEAR
HISTORY.
AND TWENTY FOURTEEN THE STATE
WITH THAT PLAN WENT FROM --
TRAJECTORY WHERE THE SYSTEM IS.
ON TRACK TO RUN OUT OF MONEY IN
ABOUT THIRTY YEARS TO A
TRAJECTORY WERE IT'S SCHEDULED
TO REACH FULL FUNDING IN ABOUT
THIRTY YEAR IS AN OBVIOUSLY OVER
THE FIRST FIVE YEARS IT'S
SOMETIMES HARD TO SEE THAT
PROGRESS RIGHT AWAY BUT OVER THE
COURSE OF DECADES IF THE STATE.
A STICKS WITH THAT PLAN IT SEEMS
LIKE IT'S ON TRACK SO FAR AND
WILL EVENTUALLY REACH THAT
THRESHOLD.
I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY IN OUR SOME OF AYE
COMMENTS TO THE SUBCOMMITTEES.
WE'VE PLACED SUCH A HIGH
EMPHASIS ON STICKING WITH THE
COASTERS PLAN BECAUSE WE DO
THINK IT'S VIABLE IT WILL
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OVER TIME.
IT IT IS DIFFICULT FOR DISTRICTS
BUT IT'S KIND OF WE NEED
SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO REALLY
GET THE SYSTEMS ON TRACK OKAY
WELL THANK YOU. TWENTY FORTY SIX
OH COME LOOKING FOR YOU GUYS.
I'LL BE EIGHTY TWO ALL RIGHT
SHOT DOWN WITH THE DOCTOR WEBER.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS.
ON THE ISSUE.
WILL HOLD THAT ITEM OKAY.
WE CAN MOVE ON TO ISSUE.
TWENTY FIVE MUSEUM FUNDING UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ARTS COUNCIL.
HELLO THANK YOU FOR CALLING
CHRISTINE AT THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE AS AS MENTIONED
THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU AS YOU
TWENTY FIVE MUSEUM FINDING.
THE OVERNOR PROPOSED TEN
MILLION DOLLARS OF GENERAL FUND
TO THE ARTS COUNCIL TO SUPPORT
TO MUSEUMS SPECIFICALLY FIRST
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS IN GENERAL FUND
FOR THE ARMENIAN AMERICAN MUSEUM
AND CULTURAL CENTER.
THAT'S IN GLENDALE THIS INCLUDES
pFROM THE RESOURCES AGENCY AS
WELL AS AN AUGMENTATION TO THE
ARTS COUNCIL OF ABOUT FOUR
MILLION DOLLARS AS WELL.
SECOND THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS GENERAL
FUND FOR THE LOS ANGELES MUSEUM
OF THE HOLOCAUST THE SENATE
APPROVED THIS PROPOSAL AS
PROPOSED TO THE ASSEMBLY APPROVE
THE FUNDING FOR THE PROPOSAL.
BUT SHIFTED THE ADMINISTERING
AGENCY FROM THE ARTS COUNCIL TO
THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY OR
ANOTHER STATE ENTITY.
THE CONFERENCE ISSUE BEFORE YOU
IS WHICH STATE AN ENTITY SHOULD
ADMINISTER THESE FUNDS.
WE THINK THE ADMINISTERING
AGENCY IS REALLY AN ISSUE FOR
LEGISLATIVE PREFERENCE -- YOU
COULD GO EITHER DIRECTION THE
ARTS COUNCIL HAS EXPERIENCE
ADMINISTERING YOU KNOW GRANTS TO
NONPROFITS INCLUDING ARTS AND
AND CULTURAL RELATED.
ENTITIES ON RESOURCES AGENCY
ALSO HAS EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA
THEY'VE -- PROVIDED FUNDING TO
MUSEUMS IN THE PAST INCLUDING
THE ARMENIAN AND ARMENIAN
AMERICAN MUSEUM SO EITHER EITHER
APPROACH IS REASONABLE.
THANK YOU FINANCE WE SUPPORT THE
SENATE ACTION ON OUR ON THIS
PROPOSAL AND BELIEVE THAT THIS
FUNDING IS ALIGNED WITH THE
MISSION OF THE CALIFORNIA ARTS
COUNCIL.
QUESTION FOR MEMBERS
[inaudible]
CENTER NIELSEN.
THE ARTS COUNCIL I WOULD ARGUE
IS.
BETTER SERVE. FOR THIS
PARTICULAR.
PURPOSE -- RELATED TO EVEN THE
MUSEUM.
THE COUNCIL. FOR EXAMPLE A FEW
YEARS AGO.
WHAT INTO THE ARCHIVES THE STATE
IN WEST SACRAMENTO?
AND GOT A NUMBER OF INDIAN
BASKETS.
AND FORMULATED A TRAVELING
EXHIBIT OF INDIAN BASKET.
AND THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.
AND THEY HAVE THE EXPERTISE THEY
WORKED WITH THE INDIAN HERITAGE
COMMISSION. TO DO THIS
[inaudible]
IN FURTHER. FOR MANY YEARS.
THE CALIFORNIA ARTS COUNCILS
BUDGET WAS ONE MILLION DOLLARS
[inaudible]
NOW.
MARCH SUPPOSED TO BE A BIG PART
OF THE HISTORY OF THIS STATE.
IT'S CULTURE.
THE TO CON.
BUT THE BUDGET WAS ONLY ONE
MILLION DOLLARS [inaudible]
AND WE DID GET IT UP AND I DON'T
REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR
BUT I THINK WAS AROUND FIFTEEN
MILLION.
BUT WE GOT INTO A BIDDING WAR.
HERE ONE NIGHT.
CENTER LENT A ONE NINE AND I
MADE AN OFFER OF SEVEN AND HE
MADE AN OFFER A FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS AND I SAID.
SEVEN CENTER DILLON LAUGHED AND
SAID YOU KNOW THE CHILI TIME
THAT JIM NIELSEN IS EVER OUTBID
ME.
BUT MY POINT IS THE ARTS ARE
IMPORTANT AND I THINK THAT THEY
WOULD BE THE BETTER [inaudible]
REPOSITORY. FOR THIS.
WORK.
AND I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THE
BUDGET [inaudible]
REDUCED.
THANK YOU SIR OTHER MEMBERS.
KILLING ME SEE NONE.
ALL THE THIS ITEM OPEN.
THE MOVE ON TO ISSUE TWENTY SIX
PAY EQUITY PROGRAM UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS
[inaudible]
ELIA.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED IN THE
ASSEMBLY APPROVED TWO HUNDRED
SIXTY NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ON
GOING FOR THE COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS PAY
EQUITY PROGRAM.
THE SENATE APPROVED THE PROPOSAL
WITH AN ADDITIONAL AUGMENTATION
OF SIX HUNDRED AND TWENTY
THOUSAND IN -- NINETEEN TWENTY
WITH TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND
ON GOING.
FINANCE PLEASE MINISTRATION
SUPPORTS THE ASSEMBLY ACTION ON
THIS PROPOSAL ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS. THREE NINE WILL HOLD
THE ADAM OPEN IS THE TWENTY
SEVEN MINORITY IN UNDER
REPRESENTED VETERANS DIVISION
AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS.
CHECK TO PROCEED WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE THE
ASSEMBLY APPROVED THREE HUNDRED
TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND GENERAL
FUND IN TWENTY NINETEEN TWENTY
AND THREE HUNDRED ELEVEN
THOUSAND ONGOING GENERAL FUND.
FOR THREE POSITIONS IN THE
MINORITY AND UNDERREPRESENTED
VETERANS DIVISION WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
THE GOVERNOR AND THE SENATE HAD
NO PROPOSAL.
FINANCE PLEASE WE SUPPORT THE
SENATE ACTION ON THIS PROPOSAL.
THE COMMON FOR MEMBERS.
SEEING NONE WILL HOLD THIS ITEM
OPEN.
ISSUE TWENTY SEVEN UNDER LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FINANCING FUNDING FOR
DISASTER IMPACTED COUNTIES.
LA -- WHEN YOU'RE READY?
CAROLINE SHE FROM THE LA -- THE
GOVERNOR PROPOSE FIVE IRON AND
EIGHTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A BACK
FOR PROPERTY TAX LOSSES FOR
COUNTIES THIS IS IT IN ADDITION
TO THE ACTION THE LEGISLATURE
TOOK EARLY THAT EARLIER THIS
YEAR FOR PROPERTY TAX LOSSES.
AND AN ADDITIONAL TEN MILLION
DOLLARS TO SUPPORT COMMUNITIES
IMPACTED BY THE CAMPFIRE THE
SENATE APPROVED THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL THE ASSEMBLY ALSO PROVE
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSALS
PROPOSAL AND APPROPRIATE AN
ADDITIONAL TWENTY FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS FOR DISASTER RELIEF FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
IN ADDITION THE ASSEMBLY ADOPTED
PRETTY PLACE FULLER TRICK PLEASE
HOLD OUR TRAILER BILL TO ALLOW
SOME DESK DISASTER IMPACTED
COUNTIES TO RETAIN A PORTION OF
REIMBURSES.
REIMBURSEMENTS THEY COLLECT ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
FINANCE WE SUPPORT THE SENATE
ACTION ON THIS PROPOSAL.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
MEMBERS MISTER OBERNOLTE.
I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE
BRIEFLY HOW IMPORTANT THIS
FUNDING IS THE A LITTLE EARLIER
THIS YEAR A NUMBER OF OF THE
MEMBERS THE LEGISLATURE TOOK.
A TRIP TO PARADISE TO TOUR THE
COMMUNITY BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY.
TO TALK TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ABOUT THEIR RECOVERY EFFORTS AND
IT IS REALLY SOBERING TO THINK
ABOUT THE CHALLENGES THAT THOSE
GOVERNMENTS ARE FACING.
BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT A LARGE
PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION IS
NOW DISPLACED AND SO THE
QUESTION IS WHAT CAN THEY DO TO
YOU KNOW THERE IF IF YOU'RE A
WATER AGENCY AND YOU'VE GOT.
A THIRD OF THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE
CONNECTIONS AS YOU DID BEFORE
THE FIRE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE
YEARS AND YEARS TO RECTIFY SO --
IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE
APPROVE THIS FUNDING AND I I'M
VERY GRATIFIED THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION SEES IT THAT WAY
TOO BECAUSE THIS IS RE SOMETHING
THAT'S REALLY NEEDED.
MR MAYES FOLLOWED BY SEVENTY
NIELSEN.
YEAH I JUST WANTED TO ECHO --
THOSE THOSE COMMENTS IN JUST
SUGGESTING AS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT YOU KNOW WHAT WE DO ABOUT
THESE FIRES IN THE FUTURE WE
CAN'T FORGET ABOUT THE FACT THAT
THE THESE COMMUNITIES WERE
ACTUALLY DEVASTATED.
AND WHAT WHEN THEY ARE
DEVASTATED AT FAT CATASTROPHIC
TRULY THAT CATASTROPHIC LEVEL
THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE STATE TO BE ABLE TO COME IN
TO TRY TO GET THEM BACK ON THEIR
FEET AGAIN THIS IS WHAT THAT'S
WHY -- MY SUPPORT THIS AND THE
PROPOSAL [inaudible] THIRTY
NIELSEN.
WELL FOLKS I'VE LET THIS ONE FOR
MANY MONTHS.
BEING UP THERE PERSONALLY LONG
WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GALLAGHER
ALMOST EVERY WEEK.
AND INDEED.
IT'S AN APT DESCRIPTION THE
DEVASTATION WAS TOTAL.
THE NOT JUST TO THE TWENTY SEVEN
THOUSAND PEOPLE WHO RESIDED IN
PARADISE THERE A HUNDRED
THOUSAND PEOPLE THAT LIVE UP ON
THAT RICH IT'S A VERY LARGE
RIDGE.
BORDERED ON EITHER SIDE BY
CANYONS WHICH IS A PART OF WHY
THE FIRE.
BEING SUCH A VELOCITY.
BUT IT ALSO HAS AFFECTED OTHER
CITIES IN THAT COUNTY.
AND THAT'S PART OF WHY THIS
ASSEMBLY ACTION IS HELPFUL.
CHICO.
IN ORDER PARTICULARLY HAVE BEEN
[inaudible]
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED.
BY THE POPULATION THAT HAS.
COME TO THEM THE HOMELESS
POPULATION IT HAS INCREASED IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES.
AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS HAD
TO BEFORE ALTHOUGH CITIES
BECAUSE OF THE DISASTER THAT
HAPPENED RIGHT THERE TO THEIR
NEIGHBORS.
IN THIS PARTICULAR COMMUNITY THE
CONCENTRATION OF THE POPULATION
IN PARADISE IT'S GOING TO TAKE.
DECADES. TO COME BACK.
AND THEY'VE LOST ALL OF THEIR
INFRASTRUCTURE [inaudible]
THAT'S ASSEMBLYMAN MENTIONED THE
INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED. TO THE
FIRE WHICH IS.
WHAT'S HAPPENED UP THERE IS THE
WATER DISTRICTS.
HAVE NO WATER CELL.
THEY HAVE NO CUSTOMERS.
SO WE'RE HAVING TO AND WE'RE
WORKING IN THIS VERY BUDGET. TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT.
THE IMPACT ON OTHER COMMUNITIES
ARE ALSO SIGNIFICANT.
IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S PARADISE IT
DOESN'T MEAN THERE AREN'T OTHER
AIR AREAS THAT ARE AFFECTED.
AND OVER THE DECADES THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN VERY KIND
AND GENEROUS TO COMMUNITIES WHO
HAVE BEEN ACT INFECTED BY
VARIOUS AND SUNDRY.
DISASTER NATURAL DISASTERS
FORCES MAJEURE.
AS IT'S CALLED AND AND I THINK
IT IS PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
TO OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS.
AND ONE PERSONAL SIDE TO THIS.
I GET PRETTY DISGUSTED ABOUT.
HUMANKIND ON OCCASION.
BUT SOMETHING WAS VERY
HEARTENING DURING THE MEETING
THAT MATCH THE FIRE IS RAGING
THROUGH THE CITY.
THEN I'M UP THIRTY EVACUATION
CENTERS.
SO MANY INDIVIDUALS FROM ALL
OVER AMERICA CAME UP TO ME THEY
WERE RESPONDER.
FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
AND THEY ALL SAID YOU KNOW WE'VE
BEEN A DISASTER IS ALL OVER THIS
NATION [inaudible]
INCLUDING KATRINA.
WE HAVE NEVER SEEN THE
OUTPOURING OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
SENTIMENT FROM ALL OVER.
THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.
IN BUTTE COUNTY.
AND THAT'S MY WAY OF THANKING
THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA AND
OTHER BROTHER.
STATE -- POURED FORTH THEIR HELP.
THE HELP THAT LITTLE COMMUNITY.
COME BACK.
IN MY COLLEAGUES IN THE
LEGISLATURE.
AND PARTICULARLY GOVERNOR BROWN
AND GOVERNOR'S NOTION WHO HAVE
BEEN VERY SENSITIVE.
AND VERY HELPFUL.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR ABSOLUTELY
FINANCING NIELSEN AND WE ARE
CALIFORNIA STRONG AND I WOULD
SAY YOU KNOW THE WORK I'VE
WITNESS OF INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER RICARDO LARA WHO'S
BEEN -- THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
OCCASIONS FROM OPERATIONAL
PERSPECTIVE MAKING SURE THAT
THAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS IT KNOWS
RESIDENTS HAVE WHAT THEY NEED --
AS WE THINK ABOUT ON ALL OF THE
FIRST RESPONDERS INCLUDING THOSE --
WHO WERE IN CD C. R. WHO HAVE
PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE TO
FIGHT THOSE FIRES AS WELL I
THINK THEY ARE EVERYONE MUST BE
COMMENDED?
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS --
SPECIFICALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO
THIS BUDGET [inaudible]
ITEM.
WE WILL HOLD THE SADDAM OFTEN
THANK YOU ISSUE TWENTY NINE
COUNTY FUNDING RELATED TO GOLDEN
STATE KILLERS TRIAL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCING ALEJO.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATED TWENTY
MILLION DOLLARS TO ASSIST
COUNTIES WITH EXPENSES RELATED
TO THE GOLDEN STATE KILLER TRIAL
TRIAL THE GOVERNOR AND SENATE
HAD A PROPOSAL.
WE SUPPORT THE SENATE ACTION ON
THIS PROPOSAL.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
MEMBERS.
SEEN NONE WILL HOLD THAT -- I'M
SORRY CENTER NIELSEN.
HER TO BE DOMINATING BUT
UNFORTUNATELY HAVE.
ENDED UP HAVING A LOT OF
EXPERIENCE WITH THESE KINDS OF
DISASTERS SITUATIONS.
OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE HAD WHAT
WERE CALLED EXTRAORDINARY TRIALS
IN THE EIGHTIES WE ACTUALLY
CREATED A FUND FOR COUNTIES.
WHO EXPERIENCED THESE
EXTRAORDINARY [inaudible]
EXPENSIVE TRIALS.
AND WE'VE CONTINUED TO DO THAT.
OVER THE YEARS.
THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS ONE OF
THE MOST EGREGIOUS BECAUSE OF
THE SEVERITY OF THE BEHAVIOR AND
BECAUSE OF THE THE LONG LONG.
TIME THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS
AMONGST US.
NOT PAYING THE JUDGE JUST
DESSERTS.
BUT IT IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW
WE DO NEED TO HELP EACH OTHER
OUT.
AND MANY COMMUNITIES WERE
AFFECTED BY THIS PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUAL.
INCLUDING SACRAMENTO AND IT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
CONSISTENTLY DONE. TO HELP OUR
COUNTIES.
WITH THESE EXTRAORDINARY TRIALS.
THANK YOU SIR A AGAIN NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE
WHOLE THAT ITEM OPEN.
COLLEAGUES WE JUST COMPLETED --
STATE ADMINISTRATION GENERAL
GOVERNMENT I AM GOING TO SUGGEST.
THAT WE TAKE TEN MINUTES TO
STRETCH OUR BACKS AT LEAST
THAT'S WHAT I'LL BE DOING RIGHT
SENATOR SKINNER.
OFF HOME BEFORE WE THEN LAUNCH
INTO THE FINAL SECTION -- OF THE
GENDER WITH THIS PUBLIC SAFETY
LABOR.
OFF IT'S FOUR THIRTY FIVE AT
FOUR FIFTY WE WILL RETURN.
WE STAND IN RECESS
I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE.
ON BOTH SIDES [inaudible] THREE
YEP.
THREE THIS IS WILD RECESS IS SO
IMPORTANT IN SCHOOL EVERYBODY
NEEDS RECESS.
YES RIGHT WE NEED A LITTLE RIGHT.
NO WE DIDN'T GET TO HAVE
NUTRITION SNACKS BUT YOU KNOW HI
BUT RECESSES ALWAYS IMPORTANT.
RING THE BELL.
YOU CAN GET ME AT A SANDBOX
THAT'S WHERE I WAS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMAN -- IF YOU
WOULD PLEASE ALLOW ME TO TAKE AN
ITEM UP FIRST OUT OF ORDER.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ISSUE.
TWENTY PROP SIXTY FOUR TAX
REVENUE.
I HOPE THAT DOESN'T CAUSE A
PROBLEM FOR LA OR FINANCE.
NO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
INCREASING THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE SAID THE ISSUE
BEFORE YOU IS KIND OF X.
CANNABIS TAX REVENUE -- FROM
PROP SIXTY FOUR JUST AS A LITTLE
BRIEF BACKGROUND PROP SIXTY FOUR
ESTABLISHED AT THE CAMPUS TAX
FUNDS WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY SOME
NEW TAXES ON CULTIVATION IN
RETAIL SALES ON CANNABIS.
THE FINDING -- BUT IN THAT FINDS
IS DISTRIBUTED INTO THREE
BUCKETS THE FIRST BEING FOR
REGULATORY IN ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS -- BEEN THERE SINCE
SPECIFIED ALLOCATIONS AND THEN
THIRD THERE SOME PERCENTAGE
ALLOCATIONS.
THE PERCENTAGE ALLOCATIONS GO TO
THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OR
SUB ACCOUNTS 60% GOES TO A YOUTH
CCOUNT 20% TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ACCOUNT.
AND ABOUT 20% TO THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACCOUNT.
SO IN NINETEEN TWENTY THIS IS
THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE'RE
ANTICIPATING HAVING FUNDING THAT
WILL GO TO THESE PERCENTAGE
ALLOCATIONS.
ARE THE GOVERNOR PRESENTED A
PLAN TO ALLOCATE TO PROVIDE
SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS OF THOSE
REVENUES I'M CONSISTENT WITH --
THE PROPOSITION.
SO SPECIFICALLY 60% -- CONSIST
WITH THE MEASURE WOULD GO TO THE
ACCOUNT THAT'S ESTIMATED TO BE
ABOUT A HUNDRED AND TWENTY
MILLION DOLLARS I IN -- NINETEEN
TWENTY IN THIS WOULD BE PROVIDED --
FOR CHILDCARE SLOTS AND SOME
OTHER PURPOSES THIS WAS
DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY IN THE
EDUCATION -- GUYS DISCUSSIONS ON
I CAN GO OVER THAT IN ANY DETAIL
TWENTY FOR ABOUT 20% WOULD GO TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES AT
CONSISTENT WITH MEASURE.
OF FOURTEEN THAT'S ABOUT FORTY
MILLION I WOULD GO TO CLEAN UP
FOR MEDIATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CREATED BY
YOU LEGAL ILLEGAL CANNABIS
CULTIVATION.
AND ABOUT 20% AGAIN GOING TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACCOUNT THAT'S ABOUT
FORTY MILLION DOLLARS AGAIN FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED ACTIVITIES.
THAT'S THINGS LIKE GRANTS TO
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS
SPENDING ON DRIVING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE ACTIVITIES. TO THE
SENATE DID NOT TAKEN ACTION IT
RELATED TO THE ALLOCATION OF
THESE REVENUES THE ASSEMBLY
REALLOCATED THE REVENUES AND A
COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
AS WAS DISCUSSED IN THAT IN
EDUCATION PORTION OF THE
DISCUSSION OTHERS REALLOCATION
OF THE FUNDING FOR THE CHILD
CARE SPOTS TO YOU AFTER SCHOOL
EDUCATION SAFETY PROGRAM -- BUT
ALSO ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE
THE ASSEMBLY REJECTED THE
GOVERNOR'S USE OF TEN POINT ONE
MILLION.
OF FOR PREVENTION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND
INSTEAD PROVIDED TEN POINT ONE
MILLION FOR WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE
CAMPAIGN AGAINST MARIJUANA
PLANTING PROGRAM -- AND THEN ON
THE LINE FOR SPENT SIDE THE
ASSEMBLY REJECTED THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSED USE OF TWENTY SIX
MILLION DOLLARS FOR A LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
AND INSTEAD ALLOCATED FIFTEEN
POINT FIVE MILLION FOR LOCAL ONE
FORCE FORCE MAKE GRANTS TEN
MILLION FOR STATEWIDE
ENFORCEMENT AND FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT.
OF THE CALIFORNIA CANNABIS
INTERAGENCY TEAM THE
CONVERSATION BEFORE YOU IS THE
USE OF THE PROP SIXTY FOUR
REVENUES AS OUTLINED IN THE
ASSEMBLY IS ACTION.
OUR COMMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE NOTED --
IN THE EDUCATION PORTION OF OF
YOUR DISCUSSION I WE DO THINK
THERE SOME LEGAL UNCERTAINTY
RELATED TO LEGISLATE THE
LEGISLATURE'S ABILITY TO
REALLOCATE THESE REVENUES --
HOWEVER WE DEFINITELY THINK THAT
THERE'S A ROLE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION TO CONSULT WITH
THE LEGISLATURE ON THESE ON
THESE FUNDS AND WE ALSO THINK
THAT THERE'S A STRONG OVERSIGHT
ROLE FOR THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY.
AS WE THINK IT'S CERTAINLY
APPROPRIATE FOR THE LEGISLATURE
TO REQUIRE REPORTING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF OUTCOME
MEASURES.
HE VERY MUCH OF FINANCE WE
SUPPORT THE SENATE.
THANK YOU QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS.
OKAY SEE NONE WILL LEAVE THAT
ITEM OPEN THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR INDULGENCE WE WILL NOW
RETURN TO ISSUE.
ONE UNDER VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS.
TO FOCUS ON THE PRISON TO
COMMUNITY PIPELINE PACKAGE.
PUT FORWARD BY THE SENATE.
LA -- WHEN YOU'RE READY?
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR CAITLYN
O'NEILL AT THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE.
THE SENATE PACKAGE WOULD PROVIDE
A HUNDRED NINETEEN MILLION IN
NEW GENERAL FUND MONEY AND
FIFTEEN MILLION RE APPROPRIATED
FROM THE TWENTY EIGHTEEN BUDGET
ACT. FOR A TOTAL OF A HUNDRED
AND THIRTY FOUR MILLION GENERAL
FUND AND TWENTY NINETEEN TWENTY
IN ADDITION TO EIGHT MILLION IN
EACH OF THE SUBSEQUENT TWO
FISCAL YEARS.
THESE FUNDS WOULD SUPPORT A
VARIETY OF RE ENTRY SERVICES AS
WELL AS REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS
FOR INMATES AND PAROLEES.
THE HAND OUT THAT YOU SHOULD
HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU HAS SOME
ADDITIONAL DETAILS.
ON THE PACKAGE.
M. THE GOVERNOR AND ASSEMBLY HAD
NO PROPOSAL.
AND WE THINK THAT THIS ISSUE IS
A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY
SO I DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION
A SHARE WITH YOU TODAY -- BUT DO
YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS FROM OUR
OFFICE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THE FIRST IS THAT THE FUNDING IS
LIMITED TERM -- HOWEVER SOME OF
THE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT LIMITED
TERM IN NATURE.
IN ADDITION AT SOME OF THE
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES OUR PILOT
PROGRAM SO THE LEGISLATURE MAY
WANT TO REQUIRE AN INDEPENDENT
EVALUATION OF THOSE ACTIVITIES.
AND FINALLY IT'S UNCLEAR HOW THE
PROPOSED TWELVE MILLION FOR
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TREATMENT
FOR PRO LEASE WOULD INTERACT
INTERACT WITH -- CITY THIRDS
INTEGRATED SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER TREATMENT PROGRAM
PROPOSAL WHICH WILL BE TAKING UP
LATER IN THE AGENDA TODAY.
THANK YOU FINANCE WE SUPPORT THE
ASSEMBLY ACTION ON THIS PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU.
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ALL RIGHT THREE NINE WILL MOVE A
HOLD ITEM OPEN.
AND PROCEED ISSUE TO ACCESS TO
JUSTICE PACKAGE.
HELLO.
ANITA LEE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE THIS IS ANOTHER
ONE WHERE THERE'S A HAND OUT I
BELIEVE HAVING YOUR BINDERS IF.
HAVE A COPY OF IT -- IF YOU TURN
TO PAGE ONE OF YOUR HAND OUT
THERE IS A TABLE BEFORE YOU
SHOWING THAT THE SENATE PLAN
PROVIDES AN ON GOING ONE HUNDRED
AND SEVENTY POINT FIVE MILLION.
GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATION FOR
VARIOUS PURPOSES IF YOU LOOK AT
THE TAPE -- THE TABLE BEFORE YOU --
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ITEMS ARE
NINETY MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE
RESTORATION OF AN ANNUAL SOLID
US MEN FOR TRIAL COURT OPERATION
FINDING FOLLOWED BY COURT
REPORTERS IN FAMILY LAW.
AND CIVIL LAW CASES AT FIFTY
MILLION AND COURT INVESTIGATORS
AND CONSERVATORSHIP AND
GUARDIANSHIP CASES AT TEN
MILLION.
THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THIS
CANNOT PROVIDE SOME KEY
BACKGROUND THAT WE WON'T GET
INTO BUT IS THERE FOR YOUR
REFERENCE -- THIS IS YET ANOTHER
ONE WHICH IS A MATTER OF
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY COUPLE OF
COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO
THE RESTORATION OF THE ANNUAL --
SAL ADJUSTMENT [inaudible]
SPECIFICALLY.
OUR OFFICE HAS HAD CONCERNS THAT
WITH AUTOMATIC INCREASES AS IT
REALLY DOES LIMIT LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT.
THE SECOND COMMENT AS TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS
INTERESTED IN AUTOMATIC
INCREASES SAL DOES FLUCTUATE
PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY AND SO THE
LEGISLATURE MIGHT WANT TO
CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF ITS
DELIBERATIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FINANCE WE
SUPPORT THE ASSEMBLY ACTION ON
THIS PROPOSAL AND WOULD ALSO
NOTE THAT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
DOES INCLUDE A LARGE INCREASE IN
FUNDING FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS
[inaudible]
SENATOR SKINNER [inaudible]
I'M.
MENTOR IF YOU WOULD INDULGE ME
ALL MAKE COMMON ON THIS AND I'LL
MAKE A COMMENT ON THE PREVIOUS
ITEM SINCE BOTH WERE SAID IT
[inaudible]
ACTION ABSOLUTELY.
SO IN THE IN THIS -- ACCESS TO
JUSTICE.
A GOOD DEAL OF IT ARE
CONTINUATIONS OF ACTIVITIES THAT
WE APPROVED LAST YEAR.
THESE ARE ONE TIME MOST OF THEM --
I AND OF COURSE -- TO HELP
LESSEN GENERAL FUND TO PRESSURE
EVEN THOUGH WE'VE FIELD FOR
EXAMPLE THE OUR COURT REPORTER.
ISSUES AND THE AT SOME OF THE
OTHER THE COLLABORATIVE COURTS
AND ALL HAVE BEEN HAVE
[inaudible]
HAVE.
D..
M. GIVEN US THE RESULTS THAT WE
WERE HOPING.
AND IF WE HAVE A I NINE IMAGINE
THAT THE POLICE SOME OF THE
MEMBERS OF MY SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD
HAVE BEEN WILLING TO PROVE THESE
ON GOING.
BUT WE WERE ALSO CONSCIOUS OF
GENERAL FUND PRESSURE SO WE DID
THEM PRIMARILY AS ONE TIME.
THOUGH THESE ARE ACTIVITIES THAT
THE STATE HAS GOOD EXPERIENCE
WITH AND HAVE BEEN -- PRODUCTIVE
AND SUCCESSFUL IN A FIGHT GO
BACK TO AND THAT IS IN THE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE PACKAGE WITH A
FEW EXCEPTIONS IF YOUR NEW.
BUT IF I GO BACK TO THE PRISON
TO COMMUNITY PIPELINE PACKAGE --
I THINK WHAT WE HAVE A I DON'T
EVEN THINK WE ALL KNOW.
THAT -- EVEN BEFORE THE VARIOUS
REFORMS THAT BOTH THE VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE LEGISLATURE
OF PUT INTO PLACE THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT SERVE IN
OUR STATE PRISONS RETURN TO
THEIR COMMUNITIES AT SOME POINT.
WE NOW HAVE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER
NUMBERS RETURNING BECAUSE OF
SOME OF THE REFORMS THAT HAVE
BEEN PASSED AGAIN SOME BY THE
LEGISLATURE SOME BY THE VOTERS.
AND WITH PUBLIC SAFETY IN MIND
WHAT WE ARE VERY FOCUSED ON IS
TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WHEN FOLKS
RETURNED BACK HOME.
THAT THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL WITH
THEIR RE ENTRY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
IS -- PRESERVED SO WE HAVE.
OVER THE YEARS.
SINCE THE RECESSION BEEN BEEFING
UP THE REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS
WITHIN OUR STATE PRISONS AND
THERE'S A COUPLE OF OF THE ITEMS
IN THIS PRISON COMMITTEE
PIPELINE PACKAGE THAT DEAL WITH
THAT.
THEN WE'VE ADDITIONALLY BEN.
I TRAIN SURE UP THAT SUPPORT
THAT WE PROVIDE IN THE COMMUNITY
AND WE TALKED YOU'LL SEE IN THIS
LISTED INCLUDE SOME OF THE
HIGHER ED SUPPORT BOTH IN THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGES THE STATE ARE
CSU SYSTEM IN YOU SEE BUT WE
TALKED ABOUT THAT.
WHEN WE DON'T WHEN WE TALKED IN
EDUCATION SO I WON'T GO THROUGH
THAT AGAIN -- BUT ONE OF THE
ITEMS IS THE REENTRY GRANT
PROGRAM WHICHIS BEEN
ADMINISTERED BY THE SEC.
AND IT WAS FIRST STARTED BACK IN
TWENTY FOURTEEN BUT DUE TO LACK
OF CLARIFICATION THE TBL. ONE
VERY LITTLE OF THE MONEY THAT
THE FCC MADE AVAILABLE WAS
ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO THE
COMMUNITY BASED GROUPS ARE
SUBSEQUENTLY WE MADE SURE. TO
THAT THE OR IF P. THAT WAS PUT
OUT WAS DESIGNED SO THAT THE
COMMUNITY BASED GROUPS WOULD BE
ABLE.
TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES AND
PROVIDE THE TYPE OF EITHER
HOUSING OR REENTRY SUPPORT THAT
WAS THE FINDING WAS ELIGIBLE FOR
AND IN THIS LAST ROUND.
AND I BELIEVE -- DSCC HAD ABOUT --
ABOUT THIRTY FIVE MILLION
AVAILABLE TO BE -- TO
DISTRIBUTING GRANTS [inaudible]
THERE [inaudible]
THE APPLICATIONS THEY RECEIVED.
WORK QUADRUPLED WHAT WAS THE
MONEY THAT WAS AVAILABLE.
AND SO SOMETIMES WHEN WE CREATE
THESE ONE TIME ONLY THINGS WE
SEE EITHER A AT A THAT THE FUNDS
MAY BE.
UNDER UTILIZED STOREBUT IN THIS
CASE WE HAVE SAW THAT THERE IS --
NOT ONLY GREAT DEMAND BUT GREAT
NEED SO WE WANTED TO CONTINUE IT
AND AGAIN.
I'M JUST BEING CONSCIOUS OF
GENERAL FUND PRESSURES WE DIDN'T
PUT IT IN AS ON GOING WE DID IT
AS ONE TIME EVEN THOUGH IN
EFFECT THEY ARE CONTINUATIONS --
AND THE ISSUE AROUND THE
THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITIES WE IN
THE STATE YOU KNOW WE'LL TALK
ABOUT WHEN WE GET TO THAT
SECTION.
SO THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS ARE
ONE TODAY EXCELLENT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THIRTY NIELSEN NOT A
FAIR.
COULD WE BREAK THESE OUT FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTES ARE WE'RE GONNA
HAVE TO VOTE.
JUST ON THE WHOLE PACKAGE THIRTY
NIELSEN -- WHEN WE GET TO A
POINT WHERE WE'VE GOT WE ARE IN
A POSITION TO ACTUALLY TAKE
DEALT KNOWS ALL MAKE A NOTE AND?
WE'LL BE HAPPY TO BREAK THAT OUT
THERE THANK YOU ON IT IS THAT
YOUR REQUEST ON ISSUE ONE AND
TWO WE WILL MAKE THAT HAPPEN
WHEN THE TIME COMES.
NOT A PROBLEM ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
WE WILL BE HOLDING THAT ITEM
OPENED MOVING ON TO ISSUE THREE
PRE TRIAL SERVICES PILOT.
UNDER THE JUDICIAL BRANCH BELIAU.
THE GOVERNOR'S REVISED -- PLAN
PROVIDES A ONE TIME SEVENTY FIVE
MILLION GENERAL FUND
AUGMENTATION FOR JUDICIAL
COUNCIL TO ADMINISTRATE A TWO
YEAR GRANT PROGRAM -- RELATED TO
PRE TRIAL DECISION MAKING
PROGRAMS OR EFFORTS IN AT LEAST
TEN COURTS -- THE PILOT ALSO
WILL HAVE VARIOUS DEFINED GOALS
SUCH AS EXPANDING THE USE OF AND
VALIDATION OF PRE TRIAL RISK
ASSESSMENT TOOLS.
THAT MAKE THEIR METHODOLOGY
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FOR
EVALUATION AND CONSIDERATION --
IT ALSO DETAILS HOW FUNDS MAY BE
USED -- SPECIFICALLY IN TERMS OF
ACTIVITIES SUCH AS FOR EXCHANGES
OF DATA BETWEEN COURTS AND
COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENTS.
FINALLY THE REVISED LANGUAGE
ALSO INCLUDES REPORTING ON
CERTAIN KEY METRICS ON A REGULAR
BASIS.
THE SENATE APPROVED THIS
PROPOSAL AND ADOPTED PLACEHOLDER
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE.
ASSEMBLY APPROVED THE FUNDING
AND ADOPTED BOTH PLACEHOLDER
BUDGET BILL AND TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE.
THE ASSEMBLY PACKAGES DIFFERENT
IN TWO KEY WAYS.
THE FIRST IS IN RELATIONSHIP TO
THE SPECIFIED GOALS OF THE PILOT
THE ASSEMBLY'S PLAN IS TO LIMIT
THE PILOT TO THE USE AND
VALIDATION OF THOSE TOOLS.
THAT MAKE THEIR METHODOLOGY
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ONCE AGAIN
THAT'S LIMIT RATHER THAN EXPAND
THE IS.
THE SECOND DIFFERENCES IN TERMS
OF ACCEPTABLE USES OF THE
FUNDING THE ASSEMBLY'S PLAN
ALLOWS -- FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BE.
BETWEEN COURTS AND PRE TRIAL
SERVICES AGENCIES RATHER THAN
JUST COUNTY PROBATION AND SO
THAT WOULD ALLOW OTHER COUNTY
AGENCIES TO BE -- FUNDED USING
THOSE DOLLARS.
AND SO THIS REALLY IS AN ISSUE
OF LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY FOR HOW
THE LEGISLATURE WANTS THIS PILOT
TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
AS WELL AS WHO SHOULD BE ALLOWED
TO PARTICIPATE.
WE WOULD NOT THAT THERE IS
ACTUALLY A TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES
WHILE THE SENATE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN IS MAINLY
AND BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE VERSES
THE ASSEMBLY WHICH IS MAINLY AND
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE.
THIS IS A TWO YEAR PILOT SO IT
COULD BENEFIT FROM HAVING THE
LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FINANCE WE
SUPPORT THE SENATE ACTION ON THE
SIDE.
THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE WILL HOLD THIS ITEM
OPEN.
ISSUE FOR TRIAL COURT JUDGESHIPS
UNDER THE JUDICIAL BRANCH LA --
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSES THIRTY
POINT FOUR MILLION FROM THE
GENERAL FUND IN TWO THOUSAND
NINETEEN TWENTY AND THIRTY SIX
POINT FIVE MILLION ANNUALLY
BEGINNING IN. TWENTY TWENTY
TWENTY ONE TO SUPPORT TWENTY
FIVE NEW JUDGESHIPS AND THEIR
ASSOCIATED STAFF COMPLIMENTS.
THE JUDGESHPS WOULD BE
ALLOCATED BY JUDICIAL COUNCIL
UPON COMPLETION OF AN UPDATE OF
THE JUDICIAL NEEDS ASAP.
AND PURSUANT TO THAT ASSESSMENT
WHICH IS BASED ON WORKLOAD
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE WAS ALSO
ADOPTED SPECIFYING THAT THE NEW
JUDGESHIPS OFFSETS A PORTION OF
THE FORTY EIGHT REMAINING
AUTHORIZED BUT UNFUNDED
JUDGESHIPS.
BOTH HOUSES APPROVED THE
PROPOSAL BUT THE SENATE ALSO
ADOPTED PLACEHOLDER TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE SPECIFYING A
POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT ALLOCATION
OF THE METHODOLOGY BY WHICH
JUDGESHIPS WOULD BE ALLOCATED --
WE WOULD JUST NOTE THAT.
THE JUDGESHIPS HAVE
TRADITIONALLY OR HISTORICALLY
BEEN ALLOCATED USING THE
JUDICIAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
THANK YOU ANY -- QUESTIONS
[inaudible]
FINANCE.
THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO
HOLD TO ITS MAY REVISION
PROPOSAL AND DOES BELIEVE
STRONGLY THAT THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL IS THE PROPER FORUM TO
ALLOCATE THESE JUDGESHIPS BASED
ON NEED.
THANK YOU FOR THE ROTH THE
MANAGER IN -- IN I COMMEND YOU
FOR DOING THIS THANK YOU VERY
MUCH MUCH NEEDED ACROSS THE
STATE NOT JUST AN INLAND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BUT THE
CENTRAL VALLEY IN.
MANY OTHER PLACES.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN AS WE
CRAFT THE TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
WHEN I WOULD ASK.
IS THAT WE ENSURE THAT THE STAFF
COMPONENT.
STAYS WITH THE JUDGE POSITION.
AND THAT THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY
TO SPLIT.
THE STAFF FUNDING OFF FROM THE
JUDICIAL POSITION.
BECAUSE OF COURSE THAT WOULD
DEFEAT THE PURPOSE FOR CREATING
NEW JUDGESHIPS IF WE CAN'T OPEN
NEW COURT ROOMS.
AND I HAVE HEARD ANECDOTALLY
THAT THERE IS
SOME -- CONVERSATION NOT IN THIS
BUILDING NOT ON THE FIRST FLOOR
BUT OUTSIDE. TO DO JUST THAT AND
THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY
UNACCEPTABLE TO ME AND I'M SURE
IT WOULD BE TO MY COLLEAGUES TO
THE RIGHT [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
M. THANK YOU.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS MISTER
OBERNOLTE THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
I JUST WANT.
TO AMENDED THANK GOVERNOR
NEWSOME.
FOR PAYING SOME ATTENTION TO
THIS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ISSUE
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
BEEN ASKING -- FOR BAKING FOR
WOULDN'T BE OVERSTATING IT FOUR
OF THE FIVE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN
IN THE LEGISLATURE SOMETHING I'M
VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT.
GOVERNOR BROWN.
ALWAYS THE THE FISCAL
CONSERVATIVE -- WAS OF THE
OPINION THAT WE WERE OVER
RESOURCE IN JUDGES IN SOME
COUNTIES IN UNDER RESOURCE AND
OTHERS AND HE ALWAYS WOULD TELL
US THAT WE NEEDED TO TAKE JUDGES
AWAY FROM.
THE COURTS THEY WERE OVER
RESOURCE BUT IF YOU ASK THE
COURTS NONE OF THEM THINK THAT
THEIR OVER RESOURCE AND SO THAT
WAS JUST A POLITICAL
IMPOSSIBILITY AND SO THAT WE
WHICH IS PERPETUATED THIS
PROBLEM OF JUDGE SHORTAGES.
I WILL SAY THOUGH THAT THIS IS
IT'S A GOOD START -- BUT
ACCORDING TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL WE
NEED ABOUT A HUNDRED NINETY
JUDGES RIGHT NOW STATEWIDE TO
HANDLE THE WORKLOAD SO TWENTY
FIVE IS.
THE IS GREAT I'M HOPING THAT WE
CAN CONTINUE TO WHITTLE DOWN ON
THAT IN THE FUTURE.
AND I ALSO HAVE TO MAKE THE
POINT THAT.
IT IS EXTREMELY UNBALANCED.
THE THE JUDICIAL -- THAT THE
NEED FOR THESE JUDGES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA WE'VEHAD
HISTORICALLY A LOT OF GROWTH IN
SOME AREAS OF THE STATE NOT SO
MUCH IN OTHERS.
AND THAT'S LEFT US WITH.
SOME COURTS THAT ARE JUST
COMPLETELY.
OVER WORKED AND UNDER RESOURCE
LIKE THE ONES IN RIVERSIDE AND
SAN MARINO AND KERN.
ARE THE ARE THE THREE BIGGEST SO.
A I'M INTERESTED IN IS A
QUESTION FOR THE LA -- I'M
INTERESTED IN THE SENATE TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE BECAUSE I HAVE NOT
SEEN THAT LANGUAGE AND WONDERING
IF YOU HAVE SEEN THAT LANGUAGE
IF YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE
INTENT.
OF THE LANGUAGES.
WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE LANGUAGE
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
THEY'RE JUST DISCUSSIONS THAT
ARE TAKING PLACE -- FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE WE ARE THE THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PER PROPOSAL
INCLUDES USING THAT USUAL NEEDS
ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS BEEN THE
HISTORICAL.
METHOD FOR DOING AND THAT REALLY
FOCUSES ON USING WORKLOAD AS THE
BASIS FOR IT -- ACROSS THE STATE.
OKAY START MISSILE.
I'M COMFORTED THAT YOU HAVEN'T
SEEN IT EITHER BECAUSE I
COULDN'T GET IT.
I AM.
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT USING ABOUT
THE LEGISLATURE PUTTING THEIR
HANDS ON THIS ISSUE AND TURNING
THIS INTO A POLITICAL FOOTBALL I
THINK THAT ALLOWING THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL TO ALLOCATE.
THE JUDGES IS THE APPROPRIATE
WAY OF DOING IT I THINK THE
RELYING ON A JUDICIAL NEEDS
ASSESSMENT THAT NONE OF US HAVE
SEEN IS A FAIR WAY OF DOING IT
BECAUSE NO ONE SECOND SAY FOR
SURE.
WHO WOULD GET WHAT AND -- SO I
WOULD BE STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF
KEEPING IT THAT WAY INSTEAD OF
INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MAKE IT
MORE COMPLEX.
THANK YOU OTHER COMMENTS SENATOR
SKINNER ACTUALLY THE JUDICIAL
COUNCILS NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
HAS ALREADY NUMBERS SO IT IS NOT
SOMETHING NO ONE HAS SEEN.
AND THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF
DEBATE.
EVEN AMONGST.
SOME MEMBERS NOT ALL OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL AROUND.
THE IT'S LIKE ANY ANY -- ANY
TABLE ONE DEVELOPS OR ANY SET OF
CRITERIA ONE DEVELOPS TO
DETERMINE A WORKLOAD DEPENDS ON
WHAT.
OUR CRITERIA OR PUT IN THE MIX
RIGHT.
AND SO THERE IS SOME DEBATE AS
TO WHETHER -- IT YOU KNOW WHAT
TYPE OF WHETHER CERTAIN TYPE A
TRIAL NEEDS HAVE BEEN.
WAITED AS MUCH AS OTHERS AND
WHICH CAN OF COURSE INFLUENCE
THEN WHAT IS THE WORKLOAD IN
THAT PARTICULAR.
AREA -- NOW IF WE WERE OBVIOUSLY
FINDING THE NUMBER OF JUDGES
THAT.
WOULD APPEAR MOST COUNTIES AND
JUDGES -- JUDICIAL COUNCIL THINK
IS NEEDED WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE
LOOKING AT WHETHER THE WORKLOAD.
ASSESSMENT AS CURRENTLY
CONSTRUED IS THE IS THE ONE THAT
MOST REFLECTS THE NEED OR NOT
BUT WHEN WE'RE ONLY FINDING
TWENTY FIVE IT IS WORTH LOOKING
AT THAT.
YOU FOR THE COMMENT.
SEEING NONE WILL HOLD THE SIDE
OF OPEN THANK YOU. FIFTY FIVE
LEGAL AID FOR RENTERS IN
LANDLORD TENANT DISPUTE LA JOH.
GOVERNOR PROPOSED A ONE TIME
TWENTY MILLION DOLLAR GENERAL
FUND AUGMENTATION TO THE EQUAL
ACCESS FUND TO SUPPORT LEGAL AID
COSTS TO ASSIST WITH RENTAL
DISPUTES BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND
TENANTS.
THERE WAS ASSOCIATED BUDGET BILL
LANGUAGE THAT WAS PROPOSED AS
WELL.
BOTH HOUSES APPROVED THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL BUT THE
ASSEMBLY ALSO ADOPTED ADDITIONAL
PLACEHOLDER BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE --
FOR IT WITH THE INTENT TO
PROVIDE GREATER CLARITY ON THE
USE OF THE FUNDING -- WE WOULD
JUST NOTE TO THE EXTENT THAT IN
YOUR DELIBERATIONS YOU THINK
THAT GREATER FIND IT GREATER
CLARITY IS NEEDED IN TERMS OF
HOW THE FUNDING SHOULD BE IS OR
HOW IT SHOULD GO OUT THAT COULD
BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE VERY
HELPFUL.
FINANCE WE PERCEIVE THIS
LANGUAGE JUST RECENTLY SO WE'RE
CURRENTLY REVIEWING IT
[inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
WE THAT ITEM OPEN ISSUE SIX
PUBLIC SAFETY POWER SHUT DOWN
[inaudible]
IS SPEAKING.
LA -- WHEN YOU'RE READY?
I'M CURSING AT THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE THE ISSUE
BEFORE YOU IS PUBLIC SAFETY
POWER SHUT DOWN AND RESILIENCY
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED SEVENTY TO
SEVENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS FOR
STATE AND LOCAL COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH PREPARING FOR IN RESPONDING.
TO POWER SHUT OFF EVENTS -- AND
THESE COULD HAPPEN BECAUSE I USE
ARE EXPECTED TO DO MORE OF THESE
PUBLIC THESE POWER SHUT DOWNS AS
CONCERNS ABOUT WILD FIRES ARE
ARE ON INCREASING AND IF THEY'RE
TRYING TO REDUCE.
A WILDFIRE RISK. TO THE SENATE
APPROVED HALF OF THE FUNDING
THIRTY SEVEN POINT FIVE MILLION
FOR THIS PURPOSE AT FRIENDS AND
APPROVED THE REMAINING HALF A
PINE AND CONTINGENT.
UPON RECEIPT OF A REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE AND HOW THE FUNDS
HAVE BEEN AND ARE EXPECTED TO BE
USED.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED THE
PROPOSAL AND ADOPTED PROVISIONAL
BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE REQUIRING
SPECIFIED USES OF THE FUNDS AND
REPORTING ON THE USE OF THE
FUNDS AND THE OUTCOMES ACHIEVED.
THE CONFERENCE ISSUE IS THE
TIMING OF THE RELEASE OF THE
FUNDS AS WELL AS THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
US WE THINK BOTH HOUSES ACTIONS
WOULD INCREASE INCREASE
LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT WE THINK
THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THIS IS A NEW PROGRAM AND
THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF
INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON HOW
THIS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED -- WE
KNOW THAT THE TWO HOUSES
APPROACHES ARE JUST SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT IN IN TERMS OF HOW
THEY ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL.
SO ACCORDINGLY WE'RE
RECOMMENDING A COMPROMISE THAT
WOULD PROVIDE TWO KINDS OF
REPORTS THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE
REPORT EARLY ON IT COULD BE --
TRIGGERED BY SOME DATES -- OR
THE EXPENSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE
LEVEL FOR EXAMPLE THE
LEGISLATURE COULD REQUIRED TO
REPORT OUT FRONT -- AND THAT
WOULD PROVIDE THE GOVERNOR'S
PLAN FOR HOW -- HOW HE INTENDS
TO USE THE FUNDS AND THEN SECOND
WE WOULDRECOMMEND A REPORT
AFTER THE FACT THAT IDENTIFIES
HOW THE FUNDS WERE USED AND ALSO
THE OUTCOMES THAT WERE ACHIEVED?
ADDITIONALLY WE THINK OF THE
LEGISLATURE HAS A CLEAR IDEA OF
HOW IT ONCE THESE FUNDS TO GO
OUT FOR EXAMPLE HOW MUCH TO
LOCALS VERSUS STATE ENTITIES --
IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE REASONABLE
FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE
THAT DIRECTION -- AT THIS TIME
AS WELL.
THANK YOU FINANCE WE BELIEVE
THAT GIVEN THE NATUREOF THIS
PROPOSAL IN THE FACT THAT IT IS
A NEW PROPOSAL THAT FLEXIBILITY
IS IMPORTANT AND WE'RE CURRENTLY
WORKING WITH LEGISLATIVE STAFF
ON HOW TO BALANCE THAT NEED FOR
FLEXIBILITY WITH THE IMPORTANCE
OF LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT.
SOUNDS GOOD QUESTIONS COMMENTS
FROM MEMBERS [inaudible]
SEE NONE.
ALL THE ADAM OPEN ISSUE SEVEN
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND
RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES LA OUT.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED SEVEN
POINT THREE MILLION DOLLARS FROM
THE GENERAL FUND AND EIGHT
HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FOUR
THOUSAND FEDERAL FUNDS ON AN
ONGOING BASIS AS WELL AS NINETY
FOUR POSITIONS. TO SUPPORT A
VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
DISASTER PLANNING PREPAREDNESS
AND RESPONSE US THEIR THREE
ONGOING ACTIVITIES THREE MAIN
CATEGORIES OF ONGOING ACTIVITIES
OR HER MORE PROPOSED.
THE FIRST IS BASICALLY A
BASELINE STAFFING INCREASE FOR
THE DEPARTMENT -- AND SO THAT'S
FIVE POINT ONE MILLION DOLLARS
OF ON GOING GENERAL FUND EIGHT
HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND A
FEDERAL TEST FIND THE FORTY AND
SEVENTY SIX POSITIONS.
THE SECOND IS TO PROVIDE A
STATEWIDE DISASTER RESERVE CORPS
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED SEVEN
HUNDRED AND ELEVEN THOUSAND
DOLLARS A GENERAL FUND AND SIX
POSITIONS -- AND THEN THIRD --
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED CREATING A
MISSION TASKING FIND AND HAVING
STAFFING -- TO COORDINATE AND
TRACK THAT MISSION TASKING FINDS
A AND SO THAT FUNDING TERROR
COORDINATING TRACK THAT FIND WAS.
ONE POINT FIVE MILLION GENERAL
FUND AND TWELVE POSITIONS ON AN
ONGOING BASIS.
I SAID THE PROPOSAL ALSO
INCLUDED ONE TIME FUNDING TO
ESTABLISH THAT FUND OF TWENTY
MILLION DOLLARS -- IN MOST
RESPECTS THE TWO HOUSES ACTUALLY
TOOK VERY SIMILAR ACTIONS WITH
REGARD TO THIS PROPOSAL I
SPECIFICALLY BOTH HOUSES
APPROVED THE BASELINE FUNDING
INCREASES AND THEY ALSO BOTH
INCREASE.
APPROVED TO THAT TWENTY MILLION
DOLLARS TO ESTABLISH THAT
MISSION TASKING FRIENDS -- ALSO
BOTH HOUSES REJECTED THE
POSITIONS AND ASSOCIATED --
FINDING RELATED TO THIS
STATEWIDE DISASTER RESERVE CORPS
AND ADOPTED PLACEHOLDER BUDGET
BILL LANGUAGE REQUIREMARIE
REQUIRING REPORTING ON THE
MISSION TASKING FUNDS. TO REALLY
THEM THE DIFFERENCE -- BUT THE
TWO HOUSES HAD WAS RELATED TO
THE POSITIONS -- FOR
ADMINISTERING THAT MISSION
TASKING FUNDS TO THE SENATE
APPROVED ALL TWELVE POSITIONS
AND THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED HALF
THE POSITIONS OF SIX OUT OF
TWELVE POSITIONS.
THE CONFERENCE ISSUE BEFORE YOU
WITH THE STAFFING AND ASSOCIATED
FUNDING -- WITH THAT MISSION
TASKING UNIT.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE ASSEMBLY
APPROACH ON THIS WE THINK TWELVE
POSITIONS APPEARS TO BE A RICHER
STAFFING LEVEL THEN -- IS
MERITED FOR THAT -- THAT THOSE
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE
MISSION TASKING FIND WE WOULD
ALSO NOTE THAT THE LEGISLATURE
COULD CONSIDER PROVIDING SOME OR
ALL OF THE FUNDING FOR THIS --
THESE POSITIONS ON A LIMITED
TERM BASIS GIVEN THE LIMITED
TURNING TERM NATURE OF THE FUND
ITSELF.
THANK YOU FINANCE WE CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT THE MAY REVISION
PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS.
THIRTY NINE THE AUTOMOBILE LEFT
OPEN ISSUE EIGHT INTERNET CRIMES
AGAINST CHILDREN UNDER THE
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES.
SO THIS WAS AN AND A AN ADDITION
MADE BY THE ASSEMBLY THE
GOVERNOR AND SENATE DIDN'T HAVE
PROPOSALS IN THIS AREA.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATED TEN
MILLION DOLLARS OF ON GOING
GENERAL FUND FOR THE INTERNET
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK
FORCE.
THIS IS A THAT IS A TASK FORCE
THAT'S THAT INCLUDES FEDERAL
STATE AND LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES
THE INTENT IS REALLY TO ENSURE
THAT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
SPORTSMAN AGENCIES ARE EQUIPPED
TO INVESTIGATE CHILD'S CRIMES --
AND CONDUCT OTHER ASSOCIATED
ACTIVITIES AS A CONFERENCE ISSUE
BEFORE YOU IS THE FUNDING LEVEL
FOR THAT TASK FORCE -- WE WOULD
KNOW THIS IS REALLY AN ISSUE OF
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES THE
LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED AB
FUNDING FOR THIS -- THIS
ACTIVITY IN SOME PAST YEARS --
ALTHOUGH I TO SOME A LOWER
AMOUNT.
THANK YOU FINANCE WE SUPPORT THE
SENATE ACTION ON THIS PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU.
MEMBERS.
SEE NO COMMENT LEVY ADAM OPEN
ISSUE NINE JUSTICE HUMAN
RESOURCES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.
LA -- WHEN YOU'RE READY?
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSES.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSES TWO POINT
TWO MILLION DOLLARS -- FROM THE
GENERAL FUND IN VARIOUS SPECIAL
FUNDS IN -- TWO THOUSAND
NINETEEN TWENTY TWO POINT THREE
MILLION IN TWENTY TWENTY ONE AND
SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE
THOUSAND ANNUALLY BEGINNING IN.
TWENTY TWENTY ONE TWENTY TWO TO
DEVELOP IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN A
CENTRALIZED EMPLOYEE HUMAN
RESOURCES TRAFFIC KINGS THAT
TRACKING SYSTEM.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVE THE
PROPOSAL OF THE SENATE REJECTED
THIS IS REALLY AN ISSUE OF
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY WHICH IS
NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS WAS
A PRIORITY THIS WOULD ALLOW DOJ.
TO ADOPT A MORE FORMALIZED
SYSTEM TO MORE EFFICIENTLY TRACK
THEIR HUMAN RESOURCES MEANS.
FINANCE WE SUPPORT THE ASSEMBLY
ACTION.
THANK YOU [inaudible]
MEMBERS.
SEE NO COMMENT.
THE ITEM WILL BE LEFT OPEN.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE TEN ARMED
IMPROVE IT PERSISTS SYSTEM
[inaudible]
HELLO.
THIS IS ONE WHERE YOU HAVE A
HAND OUT IN YOUR BINDER AND WE
WILL GO THROUGH HIS HAND OUT
JUST TO MAKE CLEAR -- WHERE THE
DIFFERENCES ARE OKAY?
SO ON PAGE ONE OF YOUR HAND OUT
WE'RE FIRST GOING TO FOCUS ON
THE ARM THE APPS INVESTIGATION
TEAMS THEMSELVES.
THE GOVERNOR'S PLAN PROPOSED A
TOTAL OF SEVENTEEN POINT FIVE
MILLION AN ON GOING GENERAL FUND
TO FULLY SHIFT SUPPORT AND APPS
TO THE GENERAL FUND AND SO THIS
INCLUDES THEIR EXISTING SUPPORT.
ELEVEN POINT NINE MILLION AS
WELL AS A FIVE POINT SIX MILLION
DOLLAR AUGMENTATION TO SUPPORT
TWENTY SIX NEW POSITIONS.
BOTH OF THE HOUSES -- ADOPTED OR
APPROVED THE ONE ELEVEN POINT
NINE MILLION GENERAL FND
AUGMENTATION TO SHIFT IT FULLY
OVER TO THE GENERAL FUND -- BUT
THAT'S THAT'S ABOUT IT.
THE SENATE PLAN DOES PROVIDE THE
GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATION ON A
ONE TIME BASIS WHILE THE
ASSEMBLY PLANT US ON ON ON GOING
BASIS SO THAT'S THE FIRST
DIFFERENCE THERE.
IF YOU TURN TO PAGE TWO OF YOUR
HAND OUT -- THE ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSED AND BOTH HOUSES
APPROVED ESSENTIALLY SPLIT
FUNDING THAT DROVE THE SECTION
AT DOJ AND THIS IS REALLY TO
HELP MAINTAIN THE SOLVENCY OF
THE TRUST ACCOUNT.
MOVING DOWN THAT PAGE -- THE
GOVERNOR DID NOT INCLUDE ANY
FUNDING FOR LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT BUT BOTH HOUSES
APPROVED A THREE MILLION ONE
TIME GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATION
TO SUPPORT ONE FORSMAN AGENCY
ACTIVITIES AND FOR COUNTIES.
RELATED TO SIMILAR APPS TYPE
ACTIVITIES.
AND THEN THE FINAL PIECE ON THIS
PAGE IS RELATED TO REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS -- BOTH HOUSES
APPROVED LANGUAGE REQUIRING THAT
THE FUNDINGFOR THE LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT -- THE AGENCIES
REPORT ON HOW THE FUNDS WERE
USED IN ASSESSING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF
THOSE DOLLARS.
AND THEY ALSO REQUIRE JUST
ANNUAL REPORTING ON APPS
INVESTIGATION TEAM WORKLOAD WE
WOULDN'T OUT ON THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT DOJ HAS HAD TO DO
BUT THE REPORTING LANGUAGE
EXPIRED -- ADDITIONALLY THE
SENATE PLAN ALSO REQUIRES DOJ
ASSESS THE HEALTH OF THE DRUGS
THE SPECIAL ACCOUNT AND PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENTERING AT
RED REMAIN SOLVENT AND THAT'S
GONNA BE THE SECOND MAJOR
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
HOUSES.
SO IN THE FINAL PAGE OF YOUR
HAND OUT PAGE THREE WE DO HAVE A
COMPROMISE ON THIS ISSUE -- IT
WOULD BE TO APPROVE THIS
FAMILIES OVERALL PLAN WITH THE
ADDITIONAL REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS -- APPROVED BY THE
SENATE SO THIS WOULD PROVIDE
ONGOING GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR
THE APP'S INVESTIGATION TEAMS
JUST TO ENSURE THAT EXISTING
FUNDING LEVELS ARE MAINTAINED --
AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE
REPORTING LANGUAGE OF THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD GET A REPORT
ASSESSING THE HEALTH OF THE
DRESS ACCOUNT AND THIS WOULD
REALLY HELP INFORM THE
LEGISLATURE'S DECISIONS MOVING
FORWARD IN TERMS OF WHAT ACTIONS
IF ANY.
NEED TO BE TAKEN ON A RELATED TO
SOLVENCY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH -- FINANCE
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM A
REVISION PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU WE'LL START WITH
SENATOR ROSS.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR YOU KNOW --
EVERY YEAR WE SEEM TO DISCUSS
THIS ISSUE IN FUNDING AND
BACKLOGS IN HOW WE'RE GOING TO
CLEAR UP THE BACKLOG AND HOW
WE'RE GOING TO PICK UP THESE
FIREARMS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT
SUPPOSED TO HAVE THEM.
AND WE ARE COMMITTED THE DOJ
BUDGETS AND ALLOW THEM TO HIRE
MORE PEOPLE.
AND I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN TELL ME
I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE EVER BEEN
ABLE TO GET AHEAD OF THE BOW
WAVE.
AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION
OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT.
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
BUT WHY DO WE KEEP DOING IT THE
SAME WAY.
WILL BECOME PROHIBITED PERSONS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS.
BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN THE
COURT SYSTEM OR THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM AT SOME POINT.
AND SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THEM
THE PROHIBITS THEM FROM
POSSESSING A FIREARM.
WE WAIT UNTIL ALL THAT HAPPENS
AND THEY DISAPPEAR INTO THE
ETHER.
AND THEN WE THROW MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THE DOJ WHO SENDS OUT A
LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
OUT OVER THIS HUGE STATE WITH
FORTY MILLION PEOPLE TO TRY TO
FIND THESE FOLKS AND PICK UP
FIREARMS.
WHY IS IT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A
SYSTEM WHERE WHEN THEY CYCLE
THROUGH?
OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO JUSTICE SYSTEM AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL.
WE WE GRABBED THE FIREARMS FROM
THEM.
BEFORE THEY LEAVE OUR SITE.
AND WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT
THE BACKLOG EXCEPT TO TRY TO
WHITTLE IT DOWN.
BUT MAYBE IT'S IN HERE AND I
DON'T KNOW BUT MY PERCEPTION IS
THERE'S NOTHING THEY WERE DOING
AT THE FRONT END. TO TRY TO
PREVENT THE BACKLOG.
FROM OCCURRING.
CAN CAN CAN SOMEONE [inaudible]
ADDRESS THAT.
IS IT BEING STUDIED IS A PLAN
BEING DEVELOPED.
IN MY OFF THE MARK -- AMADOR
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE I THINK --
I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR
CONCERNS WITH THIS AND I THINK
THAT -- ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE AS HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY
AFTER THIS NEW REPORT THAT
THEY'VE AN ISSUE WHERE THEY
REFINED THEIR APPS REVIEW LOOKED
AT THE BACKLOG I THINK THEY HAVE
CONCERNS AS WELL ABOUT -- WHAT
YOU'VE EXPRESSED AND IT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE?
WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT ON
BUT LET ME BE MORE SPECIFIC.
IF YOU'RE IN THE COURTS OF I
DIDN'T DO CIVILIAN CRIMINAL LAW
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF
YOU'RE IN THE COURT SYSTEM.
AND YOU'RE IN A COURTROOM AND A
JUDGE AND YOU'VE GOT A PLEA DEAL
OR JUDGES ABOUT THE SENTENCE YOU.
YOU'RE GONNA KNOW WHEN THE U. S.
AS THE BECAUSE THE ACCUSED ARE
GOING TO KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE
ABLE TO POSSESS FIREARMS AND I
MAY EVEN BE SOME ORDER THAT THE
JUDGE SIGNS.
WHY IS IT WHEN THAT INDIVIDUAL
LEAVES THE COURTROOM?
HAVING ACCEPTED THE PLEA DEAL
EITHER BEFORE SENTENCING -- AT
THE TIME OF SENTENCING THAT
THERE'S NOT SOMEBODY COLLECTING
THOSE FIREARMS AT THAT POINT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE FOR
SOMEBODY TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE
I SUSPECT THAT THE COST OF DOING
THAT THE INCREMENTAL COST TO
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO THE
JUDICIARY.
IS GOING TO BE A HECK OF A LOT
LESS THAN IT IS.
DOING IT ON THE BACKEND WHERE
THEY FALL INTO THE BACKLOG WE
HIRE ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATORS
ONE FORCE FROM PEOPLE WATCHING
AND PLANES AND CARS. TO TO GO
HOUSE TO HOUSE TRYING TO FIND
FOLKS.
I'LL STOP GIVING A SPEECH BUT A
WE HEAR THE YOU KNOW AND NO.
I'M NOT CRITICIZING BUT THAT'S
THE SAME ISSUE EVERY YEAR.
AND WE HAVEN'T COME UP WITH A
NEW PLAN [inaudible] TO GRAB.
WE WILL LOOK INTO THAT THANK YOU
SIR THANK YOU MA'AM SURE SENATOR
SKINNER.
FOLLOWED BY CENTER NIELSEN
CENTER SKINNER [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
SO.
A COUPLE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE
ITEM THE FORCE FIRST ACTUALLY
DOJ HAS DONE A VERY DECENT JOB
ON GETTING -- MAKING PROGRESS ON
THAT BACKLOG.
AND CONSIDERING THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS -- APPROVED
ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION THAT IS
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
THAT ARE PUT ON THE ARM TO
IMPROVE IT A PERSON'S LAST --
THE IN TERMS OF THE BACKLOG
QUESTION.
IT'S WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS.
NOW BE WHAT.
THE ARE.
SUB FIVE IN THE SENATE DON'T
WITH AFTER.
DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE AND HAVE
BEING BOTH IN FOR INFORMATION
HEARINGS AND HEARINGS ON THE
PARTICULAR BCP'S.
IS THAT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS.
THE BUDGETS WE'VE APPROVED HAVE
INCREASED FUNDING AND POSITIONS
TO DOJ TO DEAL WITH APPS.
NOW THE POSITIONS AT DOJ HAVE
NOT THEY'VE GONE ON FILLED NOT
ALL.
BUT THERE CONTINUES TO BE
VACANCY AND WHAT WE HEAR FROM
THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT SOME OF
THAT IS DUE.
TO EITHER AT THE CLASSIFICATION
OF THOSE POSITIONS FOR SOME
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ISSUES I'M
NOT EXACTLY SURE.
BUT BASICALLY THEIR ABILITY TO
EITHER HIRE PEOPLE RETAIN PEOPLE
IT CHALLENGING NOW GIVEN ACT.
IT SEEMED TO US AND THAT WASN'T
SOMETHING THAT WE COULD FIX JUST
WITH A TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE.
THAT IF WE CONTINUED TO GIVE NEW
FUNDING FOR NEW POSITIONS JUST
HAPPEN VACANT I MEAN THE FUNDING
WE GAVE LAST YEAR THOSE
POSITIONS ARE VACANT.
SO WE LOOKED AT THE FACT THAT.
THIS IS SOMETHING THE THE WITH
RETRIEVAL OF WEAPONS FROM FOLKS
WHO ARE ON THIS PROHIBITED
PERSONS IST.
HAS BEEN IN CAN BE THERE'S
NOTHING IN OUR STATUTE THE
PREVENTS LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
FROM DOING THIS AND IN FACT.
MANY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES ARE HAPPY TO BECAUSE IT
ASSIST THEM ADDITIONALLY.
THAT.
IF IN GIVEN THAT WE HAVE LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
EVERYWHERE EVERYWHERE IN THE
STATE.
AND IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT
FOR US TO BRING DOJ UP TO THE
LEVEL OF STAFFING TO GIVE THEM I
MEAN THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN GIVE
THEM THE TYPE OF PHYSICAL OR
GEOGRAPHIC PRESENCE THAT OUR
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HOUSE.
SO WE FELT THAT.
KNOWING THAT WE'RE PUTTING MORE
PEOPLE IN THE ARMED -- IMPROVE
THE PERSON'S LIST.
AND THAT DOJ'S HAD DIFFICULTY.
FILLING POSITIONS THAT WE NEEDED
TO EXPAND ME BE MORE CREATIVE SO
WHILE WE DID NOT.
ENTERTAIN WHAT -- MY COLLEAGUE
SENATOR ROTH JUST RECOMMENDED
AND CERTAINLY THAT SOMETHING IS
WORTH US LOOKING AT NEXT YEAR.
WE DID LOOK AT WELL WHO ELSE CAN
HELP US WITH THIS WORK LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
AND WE KNOW IN THE PAST I MEAN
EVEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
PROVIDED MONEY TO OUR LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN MY OWN
DISTRICT -- FOR EXAMPLE THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GAVE THE
CITY OF OAKLAND A GREAT DEAL OF
MONEY A COUPLE YEARS AGO. TO TO
BASICALLY.
RETRIEVE WEAPONS FROM EVERYBODY
THAT WAS ON THE APPS LIST THAT
HAD AN ADDRESS ASSOCIATED WITH
OAKLAND THAT YOU KNOW HAVE.
THE THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THEY
STILL WERE.
HE HAD WEAPONS AND THAT GREAT
THAT ASSISTED DOJ GREATLY OUR
OWN DOJ ON TO WITHOUT BACK LIKE
SO.
KNOWING THAT WE HAVE BOTH THE
INTEREST LOCALLY AND THE ABILITY
LOCALLY IT SEEMS WE SHOULD.
JOIN TOGETHER AND SO THAT WAS
ONE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING THE
THIS PILOT AND CERTAINLY.
WE KNOW THAT LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT IT CAN WORK BUT WE
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS
DONE IN A WAY THAT ALSO
COORDINATES WITH DOJ BECAUSE DOJ --
HAS INDICATED IN HEARINGS THAT
THERE'S TIMES WHEN THEY DON'T
HEAR FROM LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
WHEN DAVE RETREAT WEAPONS BUT
CERTAINLY THOSE ARE THINGS WE
CAN PUT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
AND SUCH -- SO THAT'S WHAT WE
ARE TRYING TO CHEAT WE ARE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE HOW.
TO BE THE SMARTEST USE OF OUR
RESOURCES AND ACCOMPLISH THE
GOALS.
ON NOW FINALLY WHY DID WE NOT
CONTINUE GENERAL FUND ON GOING.
THE FRUSTRATION HERE IS THAT.
THE SPECIAL FUNDS SUCH AS THE
DROSS ACCOUNT THE OTHERS WERE
DESIGNED WE WE CREATED THESE
FEES. TO SUPPORT THIS ACTIVITY.
AND IF WE MOVE TO LONG TERM
GENERAL FUND THEN WE'RE
BASICALLY SET WHAT'S THE POINT
OF THE FEES.
SO WE WANTED. TO PUT IT BACK ON
DOJ TO COME BACK TO US.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
ADJUST THESE FEES AND WHAT WOULD
BE THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT MIGHT BE
NECESSARY IN ORDER. TO BRING IN
THE MONEY IS NEEDED TO
ACCOMPLISH WHAT IT TO TO
BASICALLY FULLY IMPLEMENT OUR
APPS PROGRAM.
SO WE DID NOT WANT.
TO ROOF A LONG TERM GENERAL FUND
AND GET EVERYBODY USED TO OR
DEPENDENT ON USING GENERAL FUND
FOR THIS PURPOSE WHEN WE HAVE
SPECIAL FUNDS.
SO I WAS A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED
WITH THE ALEJO'S COMPROMISE ONLY
BECAUSE USUALLY THE LA ALWAYS
REMINDING US OF THE FACT THAT
WHEN WE HAVE A GENERAL FUND.
WE SHOULD BE RELYING ON GENERAL
FUND AS MUCH I MEAN.
WHEN WE HAVE A SPECIAL FIND WE
SHOULD BE RELYING ON SPECIAL
FUND FOR THAT PURPOSE AND IF
THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE
SPECIAL FUNDS SHOULD BE?
MAKING THE APPROPRIATE JUST
MEANT TO CORRECT IT SO THAT'S
WHERE THE SENATE WAS COMING FROM.
AND CERTAINLY WE WANT OUR APPS
PROGRAM TO ABSOLUTELY WORK BUT
WE ARE TRYING.
TO BE SMART ABOUT HOW TO MAKE IT
WORK GIVEN THE GEOGRAPHIC SIZE
OF OUR STATE [inaudible]
WORKING [inaudible]
ON YEAH [inaudible]
YEAH.
DOES ANYONE OUT THERE KNOW WHAT
THE CURRENT BACKLOG IS.
THE NUMBERS OF NOW.
WHEN WESAY THE NUMBER OF
FIREARMS THAT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY RING TRUE WITH THE%
NUMBER BECAUSE MANY OF THESE?
INMATES HAVE MORE THAN ONE
WEAPON.
BUT IF SAFE.
THE LAST FIGURE I HEARD WENT
FROM TWENTY ONE THOUSAND AND
ABOUT TWO YEARS.
TO TEN THOUSAND WHERE ARE WE
TODAY.
NUMBERS HAVE BEEN INCREASING TO
SOME DEGREE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY I
DON'T THINK BUT WHAT WHAT'S THE
NUMBER OF ON ON THE CONFISCATED
FIREARMS TODAY.
MANY.
CURRENT BUT THE NUMBER.
I THINK THE LAST NUMBERS THAT WE
HAVE ARE FROM THE APPS REPORT
THAT THEY DID IN JANUARY AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR.
AND SO IN THAT REPORT -- I THINK
THAT THEY'RE A COUPLE NUMBERS
MENTION SO ALL KIND OF SPLIT
THAT APART -- THERE WERE NINE
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND FOUR
ACTIVE CASES AND THIRTEEN
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND
EIGHTEEN PENDING CASES -- THE
TEN THOUSAND NUMBER I THINK --
YOU'RE REFERENCING TEN THOUSAND
SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHTY ONE
INDIVIDUALS WERE REMOVED FROM
APPS -- AND THEN BUT ELEVEN
THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND
THIRTY THREE INDIVIDUALS WERE
ADDED TO ABSENT SO.
THERE'S KIND OF MOVEMENT BOTH IN
AND OUT.
BUT I DON'T I'M NOT GETTING A
HEAD WE'RE GETTING BEHIND. EIGHT
IN THAT LONG IN WORKING WITH DOJ
ON THIS ON THIS B. C. P. AND
ALSO RELATED TO THIS MOST RECENT
REPORTING I THINK THAT THERE ARE
QUESTIONS ABOUT.
HOW THE DATA WAS IDENTIFIED AND
HOW IT WAS BROKEN DOWN SO TO
GIVE AN EXAMPLE ON SOME OF THE
PENDING CASES?
THEY WERE ABLE TO KIND OF
FURTHER BREAK IT OUT INTO THINGS
LIKE -- WHERE THEY WERE UNABLE
TO LOCATE THE INDIVIDUAL THE
INDIVIDUALS OUT OF STATE OR IF
THE ONLY PROHIBITION WAS RELATED
TO A FEDERAL PROHIBITION WAS
SEWED?
STATE DOJ DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A
FORTY OVER THAT AND AND SO I
THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT
BOTH HOUSES TOOK ON IN ADOPTING
THE REPORTING LANGUAGE WAS TO
ENSURE THAT THAT INFORMATION
STILL CAME IN.
AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD
KEEP MONITORING IT AND COULD
DECIDE WHAT TO DO IN.
SUBSEQUENT YEARS WITH THAT DATA
THE TROUBLE IS MA'AM EVERY YEAR
WE'VE GOTTEN DIFFERENT
[inaudible]
VERSIONS OKAY.
LAST YEAR THE BIG REASON.
THAT THE BACKLOG WE PUT IN AT
LEAST UP WELL OVER FORTY MILLION
DOLLARS OVER TWO YEAR PERIOD AND
WE'RE IT WAS REPRESENTED BEFORE
OUR COMMITTEE.
BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT'LL
GET RID OF THE BACKLOG IT DIDN'T.
THAT WAS THREE YEARS AGO WE'RE
STILL DEALING WITH THE BACKLOG.
WHAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS?
WE DEPARTMENT JUSTICE CANNOT
COMPETE. FOR EMPLOYEES FOR SWORN
OFFICERS WITH PRIVATE.
EXCUSE ME WITH WITH THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
CHAU THOUGH WE HAVE THE MONEY.
WE CAN'T FIND ANYBODY TO HIGHER
SO THAT WAS A REASON.
THAT WAS OFFERED UP.
AND SO THEY DIDN'T GET HIRED.
WELL WE ACTUALLY TRIED THIS
PILOT. FIVE MILLION DOLLARS I
BELIEVE IT WAS LAST YEAR IT WAS
PUT IN THE BUDGET FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I
INSISTED ON IF YOU CAN'T DO IT
LET'S GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE
WHO CAN MAYBE DO IT.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
THAT MONEY DID NOT GET SPENT.
THAT WAS PRETTY OFFENSIVE LAST
YEAR TO FIND THAT OUT WE PUT
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR FIVE
MILLION. TO HELP GIVE IT TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENT YOU GO DO IT
THEN.
THAT DIDN'T GET SPENT.
PARDON THE TWENTY SIXTH.
AND TWENTY I'M SURE THAT WAS
TWENTY SIXTEEN NOT [inaudible]
SEVENTY OR EIGHTEEN SO WE HAVE
JUST POURED DOLLARS IN.
THAT MADE NO REAL HEADWAY.
AND THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR
YOU TO COME BACK AGAIN THIS YEAR
AND SAY JUST ABOUT THE SAME
THING THE BIG SAID JUST DIDN'T
KNOW ONCE IT'S DIFFERENT OKAY.
THE NEW WATCH IT.
THIS YEAR IT'S NOT BEEN BROUGHT
UP THAT THEY COULDN'T FIND
ANYBODY TO HIRE.
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PAY AS MUCH.
AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
THE BOTTOM LINE THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA ARE ILL SERVED.
BY THIS INCOMPETENCE.
AND I THINK THE FAILURE OF THE
LEGISLATURE NOT TO BE FIRM
ENOUGH TO ENSURE THAT THESE
THESE GUNS COULD CONFISCATE.
WE JUST SIT AROUND TALK ABOUT IT
EVERY YEAR THROUGH A BUNCH OF
WORDS UP IN THE AIR.
AND REPEAT THE SAME OLD THING.
THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
SO IN EUROPE ENTREATIES ARE
FALLING ON DEAF EARS HERE FOLKS.
AND I RATHER PREDICT THAT THIS
TIME NEXT YEAR.
THE SAME COMMITTED.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE SAME KIND-OF OBVIOUS CATIONS [inaudible]
AND REPRESENTATIONS.
AND VERY FEW IF ANY RESULT.
NOW AND MAYBE YOU NEED TO GET
SOME EXPERTS IN THAT KNOW HOW TO
DO THIS BECAUSE WE'RE OBVIOUSLY
NOT GETTING THERE BY THE CURRENT.
TECHNIQUES MONEY SPENT.
AND DEPLOYMENT OF RESOURCES.
THIRTY NIELSEN BEFORE I OPEN UP
TO CENTER MORE LIKE I JUST
WANTED TO READ A DOCUMENT THAT
BUDGET.
COMMITTEE STAFF HAS.
IN AN EFFORT TO ANSWER YOUR
ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT THE
NUMBER ON THE BACK LOG THEIR
QUOTES.
AND SO A TOTAL OF 230-002-0020
TWO IN THE APPS DATABASE AS OF
FEBRUARY.
TWENTY NINETEEN THERE BROKE DOWN
THE FOLLOWING WAY.
ACTIVE ONGOING CASES NINE
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND FOUR
SIXTEEN HUNDRED OF THOSE ARE
FEDERAL BRADY PROHIBITIONS
[inaudible]
ORIGINAL BACKLOG. FIVE HUNDRED
AND THIRTY EIGHT IN TWENTY
THIRTEEN IT WAS.
TWENTY THOUSAND AS OF MARCH
THIRTIETH OF TWENTY NINETEEN
BECAUSE THESE NUMBERS I GAVE YOU
WERE FEBRUARY.
ACCORDING TO THE DOJ THERE WAS
NO BACKLOG.
AS OF MARCH TWENTY NINETEEN
RELIEF TO GIVE ME GIVE ME GIVE
ME ONE MORE THAN YOU.
PENDING CASES.
WITHIN PENDING CASES THERE ARE
SUB CATEGORIES APPROXIMATELY.
THIRTEEN THOUSAND OF THIS
SEVENTY FIVE HUNDRED ARE COLD
UNABLE TO CLEAR.
THAT WAS THE DATA PROVIDED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
TO BUDGET COMMITTEE AS OF MARCH.
THIRTY THEY SAY THERE WAS NO
BACKLOG.
WELL I FIND THAT ABSOLUTELY
UNBELIEVABLE.
MADAM CHAIR.
BASED ON ALL THE DATA THAT I
HAVE REVIEWED I HAVE NOT SEEN
THIS AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT
INFORMATION.
IT'S STILL A FIRM JUST ABOUT TEN
THOUSAND OUT THERE THAT.
THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
AND THAT'S STILL UNACCEPTABLE
BUT THE POINT IS.
WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE A PLAN THIS
IS NOT A PLAN [inaudible]
COME BACK.
A COUPLE DAYS WITH THE PLAN.
WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK
ABOUT. FOR THIS ONE MORE
STATEMENT -- SINCE 201-353-0001
HUNDRED AND ONE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
REMOVED FROM APPS AT THE SAME
TIME 560-005-0050 SEVEN HAVE
BEEN ADDED.
IN 201-811-0003 HUNDRED FIFTY
NEW PEOPLE AT IT AND TEN
THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED WERE
TAKEN OFF.
SENATOR MOORE Là.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR -- WE PAID
A VISIT ON OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL.
YOU AND CENTER NIELSEN MYSELF
EARLIER THIS YEAR AND A NICE
RAINY DAY WE WENT OVER TO HIS
OFFICE AND GIVE US A PREVIEW OF
THE REPORT THAT HE WAS GOING TO
ISSUE.
A FEW HOURS OR DAYS LATER
[inaudible]
AND HE FOCUSED ON THREE SPECIFIC
AREAS IN OUR DISCUSSION. ONE WAS
THAT [inaudible]
HE HIRES.
INDIVIDUALS WITH COLLEGE DEGREES
AND THE PAY SCALE THAT'S
PROVIDED BY THE STATE.
DID NOT ALLOW HIM TO PAY
[inaudible]
THESE INDIVIDUALS.
COMPETITIVE SALARIES COMPARED TO
OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES.
THEY ALSO TOLD US THAT.
HE WAS WORKING ON RELATIONSHIPS
WITH THE LOCAL.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
AND HE ALSO TOLD US THAT THE
SOFTWARE THAT THEY WERE USING
WAS DEFICIENTAND NEEDED TO BE
IMPROVED.
IN THOSE WERE ALL PROVIDED IN
[inaudible]
HIS REPORT.
BUT WHAT KICK MECHANIC YOU KNOW
YOU AND I KIND OF TALKED ABOUT
IT AFTERWARDS BUT WHAT CAN IT
CAME OUT. TO ME IS SAID.
SEE THAT OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
NEW TO THE POSITION.
HE'S NOT MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH
THE HR PROCESS AT THE STATE.
BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ISSUES YOU
JUST NEED TO CHANGE THE PAY
SCALES TO PAY GRADES THE NEED TO
START DOING THAT INTERNALLY --
TO WORK WITH.
YOU KNOW THE SECRETARY THAT YOU
REPORT TO AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND TO SOME OF THESE
THINGS ARE.
NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED IN A
BUDGET BILL IT'S JUST HATE LET'S
HELP YOU BRING YOUR DEPARTMENT.
YOU KNOW IT'S HELP HELP BECAUSE
HE'S.
PRESIDENT I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S
EVER BEEN A DEPARTMENT HEAD
BEFORE IT'S PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL
IT A DEPARTMENT.
SO HOW HOW DO WE GET HIM.
TO MODIFY HIS PRIORITIES TO BE
ABLE TO COMPENSATE.
THESE.
OFFICERS WHO HAVE TO GET THESE.
FIREARMS HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW DO
WE GET COMPETITIVE SO HE DOESN'T
LOSE THEM TO OTHER AGENCIES --
AND SO SO HE NEEDS YOUR HELP
THEIR I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS TO
BE A BUDGET REQUEST.
I HOPE WE NEED MORE STAFFING WE
JUST NEED TO HELP HIM KEEP THE
STEPPING.
HE HE ALREADY HAS AND SO.
WITH THAT I THINK.
YOU KNOW WE WOULD DO EXAM I
DON'T YOU KNOW WE GET TO ASSIST.
A DEPARTMENT HEAD AND TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO ACCOMMODATE.
THE DEFICIENCIES THAT HE'S
INHERITED SO NOW.
IT'S IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MORE
THAN I THINK BUDGETARY SO I
THINK.
SENATOR.
MITCHELL AYE REAL FRUSTRATED
OUTSIDE GOING WELL WHY IS TO
BRING IN THIS IN FOR BUDGET
ISSUE OR CUT MAKING ITS A BUDGET
ISSUE AND IT'S REALLY TO ME
MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
AND SO ARE WE GOING TO HELP HIM
HELP HIMSELF IF THAT MAKES SENSE
IN IN GIVING HIM.
YOU KNOW JUST.
YOU KNOW BY MENTORING I DON'T
KNOW WHAT IT IS BECAUSE IT'S A
IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN YOU STEP
INTO A DEPARTMENT HEAD POSITION
I'VE BEEN THERE DONE THAT NURSES
LOOK THERE'S A LEARNING CURVE --
BUT THE NUMBERS AT THE CHAIR HAS.
CITED ARE ACCURATE.
AND THEY'RE WORKING HARD BUT
THEY'RE JUST NOT.
HAVING A KEEPING THEIR
MAINTAINING AT THE TEN THOUSAND
LEVEL BUT THEY NEED.
TO GO A LITTLE FURTHER.
BUT HE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BUILD.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AROUND
THE STATE TO GET IN FRONT AS
SENATOR ROBB IS REQUESTED AND WE
DISCUSSED THAT WITH HIM WHEN HE
CAME TO A SUB FIVE SENATOR WEEK
WEEK WE BROUGHT THESE ISSUES UP
WE HAD.
FUN BUT I I DON'T KNOW THIS
APPROACH IS THE RIGHT APPROACH
BUT I THINK WITH WITH WE HAVE A
SIMPLE FIX AND I THINK WE'RE
SPENDING.
MAYBE MAYBE NOT ATTACKING IT THE
WAY THAT THAT IT COULD BE DONE
IN A PROPER FASHION SO THANK YOU
MADAM CHAIR FOR LETTING ME. SIX
OF NICE. TO KNEEL TO THIS LITTLE
TOO LIKE GOING.
TO THE NICE.
WITH ALL MY FRUSTRATION.
I GIVES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CREDIT.
BECAUSE I ALSO HAD -- THEN
INDIVIDUAL BREAKFAST WITH HIM I
LIKE HIM I THINK HE'S VERY
SINCERE.
BUT AND WE'RE WILLING TO WORK
WITH HIM I MEAN THAT THIS IS
FRUSTRATED AS I AM.
I'D BE HAPPY. TO WORK WITH HIM.
TO AFFECT SOME OF CHANGE.
BUT IT WILL REQUIRE THAT WE
EVERY SINGLE DAY FROM NOW UNTIL
NEXT YEAR.
ARE WORKING IN SOME MANNER WITH
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND WITH
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. TO GET
THESE GUNS PICKED UP.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A PLAN.
PUT BENCHMARKS SOMEBODY
DIRECTING IT.
OVERSEEING AT AND THE
LEGISLATURE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN
MONITORING.
MR TING DESERVE A QUESTION WITH
THE FILES.
WE JUST THEM SERVER COMMITTEE
THE SOLUTION WAS YOUR PROPOSAL.
BUT PUT ON THE SPOT TO STARTED
TO REPEAT MYSTIFIES CARRIERS
WELL.
IF IF HIT IT BECAUSE THIS.
SEGMENT OF HIS DEPARTMENT IS THE
VISION WHICH IS.
YOU KNOW THAT THEY ACTUALLY
DRIVE OUT AND VISIT THESE HOMES
WHICH THAT'S A SCARY JOB. TO
SHOW UP AT AHOUSE THAT THING
CAN I HAVE YOUR GUN.
IT'S TO TALK ABOUT -- THEIR PAY
SCALE IS LOWER THAN THAT OF WHAT.
WOULD BE PAID BY SOMEONE AT A
POLICE DEPARTMENT OR SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT SO SO HE I CRIED I
BELIEVE HE NEEDS TO WORK WITH.
HR AND AND AND UPDATE THE PAY
SCALE CHART FOR THOSE POSITIONS
NOW THAT SHOULD BE DONE
INTERNALLY.
BETWEEN HIS DEPARTMENT AND
NEWMAN RELATION GIVEN RESOURCE.
MAKES SENSE.
ARMY JUST JUST TO FINISH WHAT.
SENATOR.
SENATOR MITCHELL RAT -- OF THE
THE TEN THOUSAND SO WHO WERE
TAKEN OFF.
ON THE WAS REALLY ONLY
400-010-0402 WHO WERE ACTUALLY --
DISARMED. SIX THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT WERE TAKEN
OUT BECAUSE THEIR MISSION
EXPIRED.
IN THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY
ONE DIED SO AGAINST 60% OF THE
TEN THOUSAND TAKEN OFF WERE
ACTUALLY REMOVED NOT BECAUSE OF
THEY WERE DISARMED BUT THEY NO
LONGER PROHIBITED.
ON IT THE DAY TO GIVE -- I I
WOULD I WOULD HOPE AT LEAST FOR
SENATOR NIELSEN COMES AYE AYE IS
MUCH THE SAME COMMON TERMS OF
THIS GETS DONE THIS GETS
DISCUSSED -- EVERY SINGLE YEAR
THIS IS MY FOURTH CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE I THINK WE DISCUSSED
EACH OF THOSE HE TO THOSE FOUR
YEARS -- THE ONE THING THAT DOES
GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF HOPE
AGAIN WAS.
HAVING THIS LOCAL PILOT.
HAVING COUNTIES AND AND THE WAY
THE COUNTIES WERE IDENTIFIED IS.
THE SHERIFF OF THOSE COUNTIES
WERE INTERESTED IN IN DOING SO
THIS IS AGAIN NOT SOMETHING THAT
WE ARE.
TELLING PEOPLE BUT THAT WE ARE
ASKING IF THERE ARE ANY
VOLUNTEERS AND YOU HAD SOME
COUNTIES WERE WILLING TO
VOLUNTEER.
AND I THINK THOSE COUNTIES FELT
VERY COMFORTABLE BECAUSE THEY
WERE ALREADY DOING THIS. TO
ACTIVELY PUTTING INFORMATION TO
THE DATABASE.
THEY ARE ALSO -- ALREADY -- DO
THIS AS PART OF THEIR DAILY WORK
WITH THEY ARE DISARMING
INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR OWN LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS -- MY HOPE MY NO
NO NO THIS THERE WAS A LITTLE
BIT OF CONTENTION OF THIS
PROPOSAL WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.
AND MY HOPE IS THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN THE DEPARTMENT WILL
REALLY.
KIND OF WORK WORK WITH US WORK
WITH THOSE COUNTIES TO TRY TO
FIGURE OUT HOW.
TO REALLY LEVERAGE OUR STRENGTH
AS A STATE AND REALLY LEVERAGE
THE RESOURCES THAT ARE ALREADY
THERE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL I THINK
IT'S THIS IS THE SHOULD REALLY
BE A STATE AND LOCAL PARTNERSHIP.
WE'RE ALL TRYING TO DO THE SAME
THING WE ALL HAVE THE SAME GOALS.
WE ALL WANT TO KEEP OUR
COMMUNITY SAFE AND DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE TO AGAIN HAVE THIS ONLY
CENTRALIZED IN.
SACRAMENTO MAKES SENSE TO REALLY
BE WORKING WITH LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
TO GET THE BEST RESULTS SO THAT
THE HOPE IS THAT AGAIN -- SPOKE
WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT REALLY
WOULD HOPE.
THAT AT SOME POINT HE KEY IN THE
DEPARTMENT COOPER THE COME
AROUND.
TO REALLY WORKING WITH -- LOCALS
IN A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY THANK
YOU.
DOCTOR WEBER.
YES I THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE
THAT COMES UP I HAS COME UP FOR
SEVERAL YEARS IN A ROW AND SO --
CLEARLY IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD
BE CONCERNED ABOUT -- I THINK
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT I
DISCOVERED IN MY CONVERSATION
WITH THE WITH THE AG WAS THAT.
YOU KNOW THIS IS THIS APPEARS TO
BE A SITUATION THAT CONTINUES TO
GROW AND IT CONTINUES TO GROW
BECAUSE WE KEEP ADDING PEOPLE TO
THE LIST SO I DOUBT IF WE'LL
EVER GET TO ZERO LIST.
OF IF YOU LOOK AT IT BECAUSE
WHAT FOR EVER IN TERMS OF THE
COURTS.
ISSUING THESE KINDS OF THINGS
AND SO AS A RESULT YOU KEEP
MOVING YOU DON'T WANT TO GET A
LARGER LIST WHICH IT BUT AS I
SAID SO MANY COMES OFF ANOTHER
GROUP GOES ON SO YOU'VE GOT THAT
GOING -- ADDITIONALLY THERE HAS
BEEN DISCUSSION AND I THINK --
AS I LISTEN -- TO SOME OF YOUR
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ACTUALLY
MAKING OR FIGURE OUT A BETTER
WAY TO TO CAPTURE OR TO GET THE
WEAPONS BEFORE WHILE YOU STILL
HAVE PEOPLE THERE.
WHAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THEM
WITH IT'S A CONDITION OF RELEASE
OR WHATEVER MAY BE -- THAT WE
HAVE A TENDENCY TO OF MAKE IT
THE JOB MUCH MORE DIFFICULT
BECAUSE WITH ACTIVE AFTER
THEY'RE GONE FROM THE CORNER
WHERE THEY ARE.
THEN WE GO LOOKING FOR THEM AND
THEIR WEAPONS AND WHAT HAVE YOU
AND IT MAKES IT FAR MORE
COMPLICATED.
THAN IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE SO
YOU KNOW WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT
SOMETHING OF THOSE OF YOU WHO
ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN AND WE
WANT TO LOOK AT SOME SOME PIECE
OF LEGISLATION.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT.
CAN FALLING ON THAT LIST IF
THERE'S SOME OTHER KIND OF
STIPULATIONS IN TERMS OF
COLLECTING THE WEAPONS BEFORE
THE PEOPLE ARE LEFT TO TO
LEAVING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND
ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW YOU'VE GOT A
MAJOR PROBLEM.
IS YOU HAVE TO GO FIND WHEN YOU
HAD ACCESS TO THEM AND THEY
COULD HAVE HAD THE FOLKS BRING
THEIR WEAPONS IN BEFORE THEY
EVEN GAVE HIM THE ABILITY TO BE
RELEASED.
OF FROM WHATEVER CAPACITY OR
WHEREVER THEY WERE IF THEY WERE
SO THOSE KIND OF THINGS I THINK
WE NEED TO LOOK AT CAREFULLY
BECAUSE IT IS MAKES A A
DIFFICULT JOB TO BE DONE -- BUT
DOES IN OUR COMPASS MY
CONVERSATION WITH -- THE AG
CLEARLY THEY'RE MOVING FOR BUT
IT'S IT'S A CONSTANT MOVING
TARGET BECAUSE THEY KEEP ADDING
TO THE LIST.
AND THAT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE --
AS YOU POINT OUT THIS IS A VERY
DANGEROUS JOB.
OF BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU GO AND
LOOK FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE GUNS
AND WEAPONS AND SO YOU HAVE TO
FIGURE HAS STRATEGICALLY YOU GET
IT WITHOUT GETTING SOMEBODY HURT.
AND THAT'S AND THAT'S A MAJOR
ISSUE THAT SEVERE AND I THINK
COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTIES
WOULD HAVE TO EXIST BECAUSE OF
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT.
JOB IF YOU ARE COUNTY YOU DON'T
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GO INTO
ANOTHER COUNTY SO THESE PEOPLE
TAKE THIS STUFF AND RUN ACROSS
COUNTY LINES.
IS THE IGGY THAT CAN GO GET THEM
L. BUT BUT YOU CAN'T GO GET THEM
A FEW FROM A DIFFERENT COUNTY SO
THAT'S ONE OF THINGS WERE
COORDINATION BECOMES A VERY
IMPORTANT THAT.
YOU KNOW BECAUSE THEN THE COUNTY
IS LIMITED IN ITS WHAT YOU CAN
COLLECTED.
BUT THE WORKING WITH DEAL JAY
THEY CAN THEN OBVIOUSLY STILL
MAKE THAT HAPPEN SO CLEARLY
THERE'S A LOT OF MEAT.
FOUR FOUR OF CORD NATION OF THIS
BUT IT'S A VERY MUCH MORE
COMPLICATED WE ALSO LOOKED AT
THE LIST AND TERMS OF A TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE ON THE
LIST AND HOW LONG THE STATE ON
HIS LIST.
AND THEN SOME OF THEM ARE STILL
ON THE LIST IN AN OPENING STATUS
OR WHATEVER SIMPLY BECAUSE
THEY'VE COLLECTED OF MOST OF THE
GUNS WE COULDN'T FIND THE OTHER
ONE IT'S SOMEBODY LOST SOMEWHERE
WHERE BUT WAS AND SO THE PROCESS.
FIVE AND SIX GUNS AND YOU CLICK
FIVE OF THEM BOB THAT ONE IS
THEIR KEEPS YOU ON THE LIST.
AND AND SO THAT'S WHAT SOME OF
THESE CASES ARE PENDING BECAUSE
THE THE THE GUN IS.
BEEN DESTROYED SOMETHING'S
HAPPENED PERSONS GUNS BY
STICKING ACOSTA A LINE WHATEVER
MAYBE AND SO YOU CAN'T FIND IT
EVEN THOUGH YOU PUT ENERGY AND
TIME IN TRYING TO COLLECTED WITH
THIS PERSON.
THE ONLY FILE FOUND FIVE OF THE
GUNS AND THEY WERE REALLY
ANOTHER ONE SOMEWHERE ELSE SOLD
IT'S IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING
WE START LOOKING AT THE LIST
THAT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THEY
HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING BUT
THERE'S A LOT OF MOVEMENT THAT'S
GOING ON WITHTHIS COLLECTION.
AND BUT I THINK AT THE SAME TIME
THEIR LOT THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF
ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT IN
COORDINATION WITH IT AND SO I I
LOOK AT THAT.
CONCERNING THE ISSUE OF SALARIES
AS AN ONGOING CHALLENGE IN THE
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO GET OF
FOLKS PARTICULARLY EVEN EVEN
JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE IN TERMS
OF THOSE WHO OF THE LEGAL SIDE
IT'S HARD TO GET.
OTHER PEOPLE TO COME AND TO STAY
BECAUSE WE LIMITED IN OUR PAY
SCALE IN AND WHAT WE HAVE AND
OBVIOUSLY IT'S MUCH OF THIS IF
YOU GET A LOT MORE LEAVE IN YOUR
WITH SOME LAW FIRM OR IF YOU GO
BECOME.
SOMEONE A DISTRICT ATTORNEY
WHATEVER MAY BE YOU THEN END UP
MAKING MORE MONEY SO IT'S THAT
HE'S HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME.
KEEPING THE STAFF THAT HE HAS
ATTRACTED GOOD STAFF AND KEEPING
IT BECAUSE OF WHAT OUR PAY SCALE
LOOKS LIKE AS THE STATE PAYS
GILBERT'S ANYTHING ELSE WE FIND
THAT TO BE TRUE WITH THIS IN IT
OR WHATEVER IT IS.
THAT IT'S HARD TO TRACK PEOPLE
TO WORK FOR THE STATE UNLESS YOU
JUST WANT TO WORK FOR THE STATE
BECAUSE THEY CAN GET THE SKILLS
THE TRAINING HERE AND THEN GO
OFF AND MAKE. TWO TO THREE TIMES
MORE MONEY DOING SOMETHING ELSE
AND OFF AND SOLD THE FLEXIBILITY
TO DO THAT -- IT LOOKS LIKE IT
HAVE THAT BUT THEY REALLY DON'T
IN TERMS OF THE PAY SCALE THAT
WE HAVE NOT ONLY THAT THE BUDGET
THAT WE GIVE TO THEM.
IT ALSO PUTS LIMITATIONS ON THEM
SO THEY DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET IN
AND WHAT IS WHAT TO COME FROM
COME FROM US SO IF WE DON'T
START INCREASING SALARIES WE
HAVE STUDIED CREASING BUDGETS.
AND SO.
YOU KNOW SO IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S
IT'S IT'S A DIFFICULT TASK TO TO
MANAGE AND SO IT'S NOT JUST
ABOUT EIGHT TO ARE GETTING
TOGETHER IN WRITING A
DESCRIPTION AND GIVING MORE
MONEY.
YOU HAD TO GET YET FIND WITH
MONIES CAN COME FROM ANY
OBVIOUSLY FROM US.
SO [inaudible]
BUT ANYWAY.
GOOD GOOD CONVERSATION THANK YOU
VERY MUCH OF THEIR ANY IF THERE
AREN'T ANY MORE COMMENTS
[inaudible]
WILL.
HOLD THIS ITEM OPEN. TO RETURN.
TO ISSUE ELEVEN IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER
PRIVACY ACT OF TWENTY EIGHTEEN
AGAIN WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE LA -- THE GOVERNOR
PROPOSES FOUR POINT SEVEN
MILLION DOLLARS ONE POINT EIGHT
MILLION FROM THE GENERAL FUND
AND TWO POINT NINE MILLION FROM
THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW FUND
AS WELL AS TWENTY POSITIONS IN.
TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN TWENTY IT
DECLINED SLIGHTLY TO A TOTAL OF
FOUR POINT SIX MILLION ANNUAL.
TWENTY TWENTY TWENTY ONE AND
THIS IS TO IMPLEMENT THE
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT
OF TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN THE
ASSEMBLY APPROVE THE PROPOSAL
WHILE THE SENATE REJECTED IT
THIS IS ONE WHERE WE DO HAVE A
COMPROMISE -- SPECIFICALLY THE
COMPROMISE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE
THE REQUESTED RESOURCES ON A TWO
YEAR LIMITED TERM BASIS.
THIS WILL PROVIDE DOJ WITH THE
RESOURCES TO BEGIN IMPLEMENTING
THE LAWS BUT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE
THAT DOJ COME BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE TO DEMONSTRATE AFTER
TWO YEARS.
THAT THEY ARE -- IN THE END IN
LINE WITH ACHIEVING SUFFICIENT
PENALTY REVENUES TO SUPPORT
THEIR COSTS WHICH WAS THE
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE
LEGISLATION.
FINANCE SUPPORT THE ASSEMBLY
ACTION ON THIS PROPOSAL
[inaudible]
ALRIGHT.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
[inaudible]
MR OBERNOLTE.
A QUESTION FOR THE OHIO.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE
DELAYED DOJ GAVE US AS AN
ESTIMATE WHEN.
HE BE THREE SEVENTY FIVE ONE
THREE APPROPRIATIONS LAST YEAR.
DO YOU RECALL WHAT THAT NUMBER
WAS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WAS
NEARLY THIS HIGH.
AT SOMETHING WE MIGHT NEED TO
GET BACK TO YOU FINE -- BECAUSE
IT WAS REALLY TWO BILLS AND
TOTAL IT WAS -- AB THREE SEVENTY
FIVE AND ELEVEN ELEVEN TWENTY
ONE AND SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT
BOTH OF THOSE IN COMBINATION AND
FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT AMOUNT WAS.
I WILL SAY THAT WHEN THIS
REQUEST CAME FORWARD WE AND WE
DID OUR ANALYSIS WE DID THINK
THAT IT WAS REASONABLE -- ARE
MAJOR CONCERNS WITH FEET WAS
WITH FUND SOURCE AND
SPECIFICALLY AND THAT WAS
RELATED TO A LOT OF THE THE
SPECIFIC.
LAWS THAT WERE ENACTED SPECIFIED
THAT THE PENALTY REVENUES WERE
SUPPOSED TO COVER THE COSTS.
OKAY GREAT THANK YOU VERY MUCH
[inaudible]
SECTION [inaudible]
ONE SO -- MR OBERNOLTE.
ACCORDING TO THE APPROACH
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS -- FOR AB.
THREE SEVENTY FIVE PRICE TAG WAS
SIX POINT SEVEN TWO MILLION
[inaudible]
I'M SORRY. FOR EIGHTEEN NINETEEN
FISCAL YEAR. TWO NE NINE THREE
FOUR FIVE IN THE NINETEEN TWENTY
FISCAL YEAR ELEVEN POINT FIVE
MILLION.
THAT WAS THAT RIGHT FIFTY SEVEN
POSITIONS.
MOST OF THE LOWER LEVEL.
DID YOU HEAR ME YES OKAY GREAT.
MADAM CHAIR IF I MIGHT ADD --
THEN ON SB ELEVEN TWENTY ONE
WHICH CAME AFTER I BELIEVE THE
FISCAL I THINK WAS NEGLIGIBLE
BECAUSE OF THAT OUR PURPOSE AND
OFFICE.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE TWELVE THE
BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL AND
THIRD PARTY WORKLOAD.
AGAIN WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE [inaudible]
HELLO.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED A THIS IS
ANOTHER ONE WHERE YOU DO HAVE A
HANDOUT WILL BE JUST A GOING
OVER THE FIRST PAGES THAT KIND
OF SUMMARIZES THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
THE SECOND PAGES KEY FINDINGS
FROM THE AUDITOR'S REPORT WHICH
I'LL BE REFERENCING BRIEFLY IN
MY COMMENTS.
SO THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
INCLUDED FOUR POINT FOUR MILLION
DOLLARS ON A GOING FROM THE
GAMBLING CONTROL FIND TO
PERMANENTLY RETAIN A THIRTY TWO
CARTER RELATED LICENSING
POSITIONS OF THE BUREAU OF
GAMBLING CONTROL.
THAT WERE DUE TO EXPIRE AT THE
END OF THIS YEAR -- IT ALSO
INCLUDED BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE
AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE TO
ADDRESS TO THE BUREAU GAMING FOR
THE CONTROL RESOURCES BASED ON
WORKLOAD CHANGES UPON THIRTY DAY
NOTIFICATION. TO THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET COMMITTEE.
BOTH HOUSES APPROVED LIMITED
TERM RESOURCES AND ADOPTED --
SOME REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND
THIS WAS REALLY IN RELATIONSHIP
TO THE FINDINGS OF THE AUDIT AND
SO FOR EXAMPLE IT FOUND THAT
DESPITE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
THAT WERE PROVIDED PRODUCTIVITY
ACTUALLY DECLINED -- THERE ARE
ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT --
INEFFICIENCIES AT THE BUREAU
LEADING TO THE MAINTENANCE AND
KIND OF GROWTH OF THE BACKLOG AS
WELL AS DOJ -- IN ACCURATELY
KIND OF BILLING THEIR TIME AND
THEN CHARGING FOLKS FOR THE WORK
THAT WAS DONE.
SO IN LIGHT OF THIS BOTH HOUSES
APPROVED -- THE REQUESTED
RESOURCE IS ON A TWO YEAR
LIMITED TERM BASIS IN ORDER FOR
THE BACKLOG TO BE CLEARED AND
FOR SOME OF THE AUDITOR'S
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE
IMPLEMENTED.
ON TOP OF THAT THE ADOPTED TWO
SETS OF LANGUAGE THE FIRST WAS
TO DIRECT -- THE BUREAU OF
GAMBLING CONTROL TO ESTABLISH A
FORMAL PLAN BY NOVEMBER OF TWO
THOUSAND AND NINETEEN FOR
COMPLETING REVIEW OF THE BACKLOG --
AND THEN THE SECOND WAS FOR THE
BUREAU TO ESTABLISH AND
IMPLEMENT POLICIES BY JULY OF
TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN FOR STAFF
TO PROPERLY AND EQUITABLY REPORT
THE TIME TO THAN ENSURE.
THAT APPLICANTS WERE FAIRLY
CHARGED -- THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
OF THE SENATE ALSO ADOPTED
PLACEHOLDER BILL LANGUAGE IS
GENERALLY -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO
CARD ROOMS [inaudible]
FINANCE.
WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT -- THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL WE DON'T
HAVE MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE
LEGISLATURE'S APPROACH IN TERMS
OF SOME THE ACTIONS THAT LA --
JUST DESCRIBED BUT WE DO BELIEVE
THAT HE CONTEMPLATED DEADLINES
MAY BE UNREALISTIC SO THERE MAY
BE SOME CHANGES THAT ARE
APPROPRIATE TO BETTER ALIGN
THOSE DEADLINES WITH WHAT'S
POSSIBLE AND WITH THE BUDGET
PROCESS.
AND REGARDING THE TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE -- RELATED TO CARD
ROOMS THAT WERE AWAITING
LANGUAGE FROM THE SENATE.
ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON
MR MCCARTY. FOR ME TO FINANCE
COULD -- A PINE ON THE ON THE
AUDIT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN
THE POLICY ISSUES AND ANY.
ANY -- DIRECTION GOING FORWARD
FOR THE MINISTRATION TO
IMPLEMENT THIS.
I THINK -- YOU KNOW THAT THE
AUDIT ACTUALLY CAME OUT MAY
SIXTEENTH SO IT WAS AFTER ME
REVISION PROPOSAL I THINK IF WE
WOULD OF VOTE COST CENTER
PROBABLY WOULD HAVE IMPACTED OUR
POSE A LITTLE BIT BUT IT DIDN'T
AND SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE
HAVEN'T.
FULLY REVIEWED IT I THINK THAT
WILL PROBABLY COME -- AS PART OF
OUR FALL PROCESS OF REVIEWING
WHAT THOUGHT IT SAID BUT AT THIS%
POINT TIME WE HAVEN'T FULLY --
COME UP WITH ANY PROPOSAL FOR
THAT [inaudible]
MR TING.
FOLLOW UP ON THE SAME QUESTION
SO WHAT THE ASSEMBLY DID WAS.
INCORPORATED AT LEAST THE
SPECIFIC BUDGET PROVISIONS THAT
THE AUDIT RECOMMENDED SO
HOPEFULLY.
THE MAYBE SOME OPENNESS UPON OUR
FINANCES PART TO INCORPORATE THE
SPECIFIC BUDGETARY
RECOMMENDATIONS.
WILL HOLD THE ITEM OPENED MOVING
ON TO ITEM FOURTEEN THE AUDIT ON
HATE CRIME.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IF ALONE
I APOLOGIZE [inaudible]
ISSUE.
THIRTEEN THE FIRST MISTAKE I
MADE ALL BUDGET CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE MISTER MOORE Là JUST
RELAX OVER THERE.
YOU WANT TO MAKE THEM YOU ARE
AWESOME I APPRECIATE YOU SIR
THANK YOU VERY ISSUE THIRTEEN
IMPLEMENTATION OF PRICE GOUGING
LEGISLATION.
LA JOH [inaudible] THREE THE
GOVERNOR PROPOSES THREE HUNDRED
AND SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND FROM THE
UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW OFTEN
INTO POSITIONS.
IN TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN TWENTY
DECLINING TO THREE HUNDRED AND
FIFTY TWO THOUSAND ANNUALLY
BEGINNING IN. TWENTY TWENTY ONE
TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE
COMPLAINTS OF PRICE GOUGING
RELATED TO DECLARED STATES OF
EMERGENCY.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVE THIS
PROPOSAL OF THE SENATE REJECTED
IT.
THIS IS REALLY AN ISSUE OF
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY WE WOULD
NOTE THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES -- WERE
PROVIDED OUR UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT DOJ WOULD USE THAT TO
SUPPLEMENT THE WORK THAT LOCAL
DJS WERE IT WOULD BE DOING IN
THIS AREA.
FINANCE WE SUPPORT THE ASSEMBLY
ACTION ON THE SIDE OF A I HAVE A
QUESTION AS WE LOOKED AT THE WAY
OUT THE ENABLING LEGISLATION AB.
NINETEEN NINETEEN ON MY
INTERPRETATION IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT DOJ WAS NOT
TASK WITH THE ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS BILL.
THE BILL CREATES MISDEMEANORS
HER FORCIBLE BY LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT -- AND SO ARE YOU
ANTICIPATING THAT THERE WOULD BE
A GOOD NUMBER OF EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES WERE DEALS YOU
WOULD EVEN HAVE TO BE INVOLVED.
THE ALL SPEAK BRIEFLY AND THEN
TURN IT OVER TO A COLLEAGUES TO
GENERAL YOU -- AS YOU NOTED
MADAM CHAIR LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT WILL PLAY A PRIMARY
ROLE IN ADDRESSING THESE TYPES
OF SITUATIONS.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS NOTICED WITH
THESE EMERGENCY CASES THAT THEY
DON'T NECESSARILY.
THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY CONFINED
TO JURISDICTIONAL LINES SO OFTEN
THERE ACROSS COUNTIES ARE OTHER
JURISDICTIONS SAID THE DOJ CAN
PLAY A VERY HELPFUL COORDINATING
ROLE ESPECIALLY IN A SITUATION
OF STRESS WHEN WE ARE DEALING
WITH THIS.
AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING
EMERGENCY.
AND SO FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE TO
POSITIONS WOULD BE ADEQUATE
STATE WHY. FOR THIS TYPE OF
COORDINATING BUT IF YOU WANT TO
ADD.
I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT I
THINK WHEN WE ARE REVIEWING THE
PROPOSAL I'M IT DOES CONSIDER
CONTINUED COOPERATION WITH THE
LOCALS AND THEY WOULD STILL BE
ENFORCING THESE LAWS AS WELL BUT
IT IS MORE OF A A COORDINATION
EFFORT ON BEHALF OF DOJ AND YOU
KNOW MAKING SURE THAT.
THEY'RE ABLE TO HANDLE ANY CROSS
IT -- JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.
MEMBERS FROM OTHER QUESTIONS
FROM MEMBERS.
FREE NONE WILL HOLD THE ANIMALS
NOW ON TO ISSUE FOURTEEN AUDIT
ON HATE CRIMES EL AL.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED TO SEVEN
HUNDRED AND NINETY SEVEN
THOUSAND FROM THE GENERAL FUND
AND FIVE POSITIONS IN -- TWO
THOUSAND NINETEEN TWENTY THAT
DECLINES TO SIX HUNDRED AND
NINETY THREE THOUSAND ANNUALLY
BEGINNING IN.
TWENTY TWENTY ONE AND THIS IS TO
AUDIT AND MONITOR THE COLLECTION
AND SUBMISSION OF HATE CRIME
DATA AS WELL AS IMPLEMENT OTHER
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE.
BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
IN A MAY REPORT MAY TWO THOUSAND
EIGHTEEN REPORT I BELIEVE.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVE THE
PROPOSAL WHILE THE SENATE
REJECTED IT.
WE DO RECOMMEND THAT FAMILIES
ACTION ON THIS ITEM AS IT WOULD
PROVIDE DOJ WITH RESOURCES TO
IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE AUDITOR.
FINANCE.
WE CONCUR WITH LA -- IN SUPPORT
THE ASSEMBLY ACTION.
THE MORE LOT.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR ORANGE
COUNTY HAS A ROBUST -- UMAN
RELATIONS COMMISSION I'M JUST
WONDERING.
THEY'RE THEY'RE PROVIDING GOOD
ANGLE DATA ON HATE CRIMES.
BUT I I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S
PREVALENT EVERY OTHER OF THE
FIFTY SEVEN COUNTIES.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE'RE
READY KIND OF COVERING
[inaudible]
THIS JUST.
BY PROGRAMS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.
WHAT WILL FINANCE CAN RESPOND
BUT BUT IT'S?
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT THIS
PARTICULAR ALLOCATION -- IS
REALLY DEALING WITH -- DATA BASE
HATE CRIME DATABASE.
MANAGEMENT AN INJURY.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S
THE KIND OF WORK ON THE TO THAT
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
OR NOT IT IS AN ORANGE AND IT'S
WHY I JUST GOT IT.
OKAY FINANCES SKINNER WERE ROUTE
ONCE RESPOND THE SKINNER.
NOT ON THERE OKAY FINANCE.
I'M NOT SURE I FULLY -- HAVE THE
BACKGROUND ON WHAT YOU THE
PROGRAM IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
BUT THESE POSITIONS AT DOJ ARE
TO HELP WITH -- THE LOCALS AND
IN REPORTING HATE CRIMES IN THE
INFORMATION TO DOJ AS WELL AS
PROVIDING TRAINING TO LOCAL
AGENCIES ON HOW TO IDENTIFY IT
AND HOW TO RECORD IT -- WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE GETTING
THIS ACCURATE INFORMATION I
THINK IS WHAT THE AUDITOR FOUND
IN THEIR REPORT SO.
THESE POSITIONS WILL HELP DOJ --
WITHOUT CLICK THE INFORMATION.
AND IF I MAY I MAY PROVIDE A
LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT TO SO
SPECIFICALLY SOME OF THE
FINDINGS THAT WERE MADE -- THAT
THIS WOULD ADDRESS IS THAT ONE
OF THE FINDINGS WAS THAT SOMEONE
FORSMAN AGENCIES WERE NOT
ACCURATELY IDENTIFYING HATE
CRIMES AND THEN DETERMINING
WHETHER OR NOT TO ENTER THEM
INTO THE SYSTEM.
AND THAT THEY ALSO KIND OF LACKS
THE APPROPRIATE TOOLS -- EXCITER
AT ANOTHER FINDING THAT THEY
FOUND WAS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES DIDN'T HAVE ADEQUATE
POLICIES IN THIS AREA AND THAT
DOJ KIND OF LACKED OVERSIGHT AND
SO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS
THAT THIS BUDGET PROPOSAL IS TO
ADDRESS -- AT LEAST TO THOSE TWO
KEY FINDINGS ALONG WITH OTHERS.
THANK YOU.
BECAUSE THE HUMAN RELATIONS
COMMISSION IS NOT A LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
AND SO.
IT YEAH IF IF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY
OFFICIALS AREN'T DOCUMENTING
PROPERLY THEN.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR FOR
LETTING MASS YOUR MISTAKEN --
FOLLOWED BY THAT THE WEBER WITH
SKINNER.
YES THANK YOU -- OUR
SUBCOMMITTEE WHEN WE DISCUSSED
THIS AND SOME OF US DID READ.
THE AUDITOR'S REPORT.
AND WHEN WE ASKED YEAR J. WHAT
WAS THE BASICALLY THE AUDITOR'S
REPORT -- POINTS OUT AS HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED HERE THAT.
YOU KNOW WE ARE NOT GETTING THE
INFORMATION FROM THE LOCAL
ENTITIES.
BUT IS I THINK WE KNOWN WE'VE
DISCUSSED WHETHER IT'S BROWN
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT APPS NO
MATTER WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
CALIFORNIA'S HUGE STATE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF AGENCIES SO
WHAT WAS FRUSTRATING IN THE
PROCESS OF HEARING THIS WAS
[inaudible]
DEAR [inaudible]
DID YOU.
THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT HOW
WOULD ADDING FIVE MORE F. T. E..
INSURER THAT WE IN FACT HAD ALL
THE HATE CRIMES REPORTED.
AND THE AUDITOR'S REPORT ALSO
POINTED OUT THAT.
INTO THEM AND THIS IS THEIR
ASSESSMENT DATA THE I. D. O.
J.'S -- IN WAS INEFFECTIVE AT
DIRECTING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
UTILIZE THE DATABASE SO AGAIN.
GIVEN THE INFORMATION IN THE
AUTHORED REPORT IT WASN'T CLEAR
HOW OFFERING FIVE WORK FUNDING
FIVE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS WOULD
NECESSARILY ACCOMPLISH.
WHAT WAS TRYING TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED?
SO -- THAT IT WAS THE RECENT THE
SENATE REJECTED THANK YOU.
YEAH I WILLIAM NO I'M.
I'M VERY PROBABLY SENSITIVE TO
THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE GET
INVOLVED IN LOOKING AT THE GANG
LIST THAT EXISTED IN STATE.
AND AND WHEN I DID THAT I'D SOME
POINT EVEN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL I
ASKED -- WHAT WHAT DO YOU DO
ABOUT HATE CRIMES YOU KNOW
BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SITUATIONS
WHERE WE'VE HAD?
A GROUP OF STUDENTS WHO WOULD
YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED A GANG IF THEY HAD
BEEN A DIFFERENT RACE.
ACTUALLY ATTACK AND KILLED A
YOUNG MAN IN SAN DIEGO.
AND THEY DID ONE IS LISTED AS A
HATE CRIME THEY DID IT BECAUSE
OF WHO HE WAS HE WAS A HAWAIIAN
KID IN A GOUP OF THEM.
REFER SKINHEADS BASICALLY
FOLLOWED HIM HOME AND CHILDREN
OKAY -- THAT WAS NEVER LISTED AS
A HATE CRIME AND NOR WOULD THEY
EVER SEEN AS A GANG.
SO I'VE ASKED THEM OFTEN DO YOU
I KNOW YOU CHRONICLE LIST AND
ACTIVITIES FOR BLACK AND BROWN
KIDS WHO ARE CALLED GANG MEMBERS
OKAY AND AND THAT'S A BIG THING
STATEWIDE.
DO YOU DO THE SAME THING FOR
WHITE KIDS WHO MAY BE A PART OF
A GANG A SKINHEAD GANG THAT
BASICALLY.
GET ENGAGES INSTANCE SOMETIMES
EVEN WORSE ACTIVITIES IN TERMS
OF UP ON INDIVIDUALS BASED ON
THEIR RACE OR WHATEVER AND THEY
DON'T -- SO THERE'S A PROBLEM IN
GETTING THAT DATA.
BECAUSE THE DATA WITHIN INFORM
US OF THE SIZE OF THE PROBLEM
WHERE IT'S LOCATED -- IT GOES
ACROSS COUNTY LINES AND DID
VARIOUS PLACES -- AND AND THEN
WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT YOU KNOW
HOW DO WE INTERVENE HOW DO WE
HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOGNIZE
IT AND IDENTIFIED IN RIGHT NOW
THEY DON'T REALLY DO A LOT OF
THAT.
AND SO -- YOU KNOW I LOOK AT
THIS AND SAID OKAY THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT LIKE MOST
PROBLEMS YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO
FIGHT IT YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO
DEAL WITH THAT UNLESS YOU KNOW
THE SIZE OF IT.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S
LOCATED IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
TALK ABOUT INTERVENTION AND
THINGS THAT SCHOOLS IF YOU DON'T
EVER SEE IT AS A PROBLEM.
AND SOME COUNTIES DON'T EVER SEE
IT AS A PROBLEM.
YOU KNOW BECAUSE OF THE MAKE UP
OF THE COUNTY OR WHATEVER IT MAY
BE AN ACTIVITIES A CAR.
AND THEY DON'T THINK THIS IS
LIKE HORSE OF KIDS PLAN AROUND
WHATEVER BABY AND YET IT REALLY
RISES THE ACTIVITIES AND THE THE
HARM THAT SUN RISES TO THE LEVEL.
OF A GANG ACTIVITY A MOB KIND OF
SITUATION OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE
BUT WE NEED TO GET TO THE POINT
WE START LOOKING AT THESE THINGS.
BECAUSE THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT AND
WE'RE FINDING THAT -- THEY HAVE
SOMEHOW INFILTRATED MANY OF OUR
SCHOOLS AND OUR COMMUNITIES AND
THE MAN WITH A MANIFEST
THEMSELVES IN THE WORST KIND OF
SITUATION AND WE SEE IT.
BUT ON THE ON GOING BASIS THE
LITTLE THINGS THAT HAPPEN WE
HAVE A TENDENCY TO WRITE THEM
OFTEN SO -- THIS IS THIS WILL BE
IMPORTANT IT'S OF NO MORE THAN
JUST A COLLECTION OF DATA AND
TELLING PEOPLE WHERE IDEAS AND
HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND IT ALL
WHEN THINGS BREAK OUT AND YOU
HAVE A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR.
AND CERTAIN PEOPLE INVOLVED IN
THE SAME BEHAVIOR OF FROM YOU
KNOW THEN YOU GET A SENSE OF
SOMETHING THAT'S GROWING THAT
SIGNIFICANT THAT WE NEED TO
ADDRESSCELL -- THAT WAS MY TAKE
ON THIS IN TERMS OF THE THE THE
HATE CRIMES IN TRYING TO GET THE
DATA.
FOR ALL ANY INFORMATION BECAUSE
THESE THINGS DON'T JUST HAPPEN
AND ALL THE SAID THEY JUST.
YOU KNOW USE YOU SEE IT AND SAY
WELL YOU KNOW IT HAPPENED
OFTENTIMES THE THINGS IN THIS
THEIR THEIR SIGNS AN INDICATION
THAT THINGS ARE OCCURRING.
THAT WE HAVE A TENDENCY TO
IGNORE.
YOU KNOW BECAUSE WE'RE NOT A
CUSTOM -- TO WATCHING
[inaudible]
OKAY.
WILL HOLD THE PHANTOM OPEN ISSUE
FIFTEEN DIVISION OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE RE ORGANIZATION.
I THINK SO.
HELLO PLEASE PROCEED -- TOMORROW
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THAT'S PART OF ITS BUDGET PLAN
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED REMOVING
THE DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION.
AND MAKING IT A SEPARATE
DEPARTMENT OF THE HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY.
THE NEW APARTMENT WOULD BE
CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH
AND COMMUNITY RESTORATION.
THE SENATE APPROVED PLACE ON A
TRAILER BILL THAT WOULD SHIFT
ALL JUVENILE JUSTICE GRAMS TO
THE NEWLY CREATED DEPARTMENT OF
USING COMMITTEE RESTORATION BY
JANUARY FIRST.
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY ONE AND
SHIFT THE NAME CHANGE FROM THE
JULY TWENTY TWENTY TWO JANUARY --
TWENTY TWENTY THEY ALSO APPROVED
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS
PROPOSED.
ON THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED A
PROPOSED AND ADOPTED PLACE OLD
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE HAVE
CREATED AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AND ALSO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT
TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS
REGARDING THE COLLECTION AND
REPORTING OF DATA.
RELATED TO THE SAFETY IN CARE OF
YOUTH.
THE CONFERENCE ISSUES ARE THE
CONTENTS OF THIS TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED BY EACH
HOUSE.
WE RECOMMEND A COMPROMISE TO PUT
THE TOTAL BILL LANGUAGE ADOPTED
BY BOTH HOUSES.
AS THE LANGUAGE APPROVED BY EACH
HOUSE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH
EACH OTHER [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FINANCE WE CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION'S MAY
REVISION PROPOSAL THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE
ISSUE [inaudible]
FIFTEEN SENATOR NIELSEN.
MADAM CHAIR I THIS IS A VERY
SIGNIFICANT.
SUBSTANTIAL AND FAR REACHING
[inaudible]
APPROACH.
A REDIRECTION OF THE ENTIRE.
HISTORY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE IN
CALIFORNIA.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE'S
NOT MERIT IN THIS CHANGE.
BUT THERE ARE SO MANY LOOSE ENDS.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE
HAVE BEFORE US TODAY IS VERY
THOROUGHLY THOUGHT OUT.
AND PRETTY PLAN.
AS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
TREMENDOUS CHANGE.
AND AND THE STAKES ARE HIGH HERE.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THIS
WOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE A GOOD
CANDIDATE FOR TRAILER BILL.
AND AND I AND I ARGUE THAT
BULLSHIT PERSONALLY THAT THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA BE LET DOWN.
IS THIS JUST STEPS ON WAY.
THROUGH AS A TRAILER BILL IT IS
A MAJOR CHANGE.
IT CAN HAVE HOPE IT CAN A
PROMISE.
BUT DON'T INFO OVER INFLATE THE
PROMISE.
THEN IGNORE SOME OF THE DOWNSIDE
[inaudible]
SENATOR SKINNER.
THANK YOU -- OUR SUBCOMMITTEE
WAS.
SUPPORTIVE OF THE
ADMINISTRATION'S MOVED.
TO HAVE -- DJJ HOUSED WITH THE
pHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE NAME
CHANGE.
AND WE UNDERSTOOD IT IN THE IN
IN OUR DISCUSSION IN THE HEARING
AS SOMETHING THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION.
WAS THAT PART OF ITS PURPOSE WAS
SAY KIND OF RE ORIENTATION AND A
CULTURE CHANGE TO HOW WE DEAL
WITH ARE JUVENILES THAT ARE IN.
THAT -- ARE IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
AND CERTAINLY THE LEGISLATURE IN
TERMS OF MANY OF THE BILLS THAT
HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS.
WHILE NONE OF THE BILL'S
EXPLICITLY HAD THIS COMPONENT
CERTAINLY ARE.
IN THE ORIENTATION OR IN THE
DIRECTION OF TRYING TO RECOGNIZE
THAT.
THE RESEARCH ON BRAIN
DEVELOPMENT SHOWS THAT OUR TIME
JUVENILE STORY VERY UNIQUE
POPULATION MORE UNIQUE THAN HAD
BEEN PREVIOUSLY -- CONSIDERED
ARE FACTORED AND REALLY DO NEED
TO BE TREATED VERY DIFFERENTLY.
AND THAT HAVE M. THE POTENTIAL.
FOR TO REHABILITATION BECAUSE OF
THEIR THEIR IT NOT ONLY THEIR
AGE BUT ALSO THIS LEVEL OF BRAIN
DEVELOPMENT THAT WITH THE RIGHT
TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS.
WE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE A
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WINTER REALLY
DO ASSIST TURNING THESE PEOPLE'S
LIVES AROUND.
AND SO WITH WITH THAT IN MIND
THE ARE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE OF THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL. TO
BOTH -- MOVE THE DIVISION INTO
THIS NEW INTO ITS IN TO HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES AND TO DO THE
NAME CHANGE BUT WE FELT THAT.
WE WE WANTED TO ENSURE AND NOT
TO SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S
INTENT IS ONLY COSMETIC.
BUT WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT
THERE WERE RESOURCES TO HELP
WITH THAT CULTURE CHANGE WHICH
IS WHY WE INCLUDED IN OUR
PACKAGE SOME FUNDING. TO BEGIN --
TO DO THIS THERAPEUTIC
COMMUNITIES MODEL WHICH HAS BEEN --
IS BEING APPLIED IN A NUMBER OF
OUR STATE PRISONS WITH A VARIETY
OF AGES BUT FOR WHICH THE
RESEARCH SHOWS HAS MORE PROMISE
EVEN. FOR YOUNG PEOPLE SO THAT
WAS ONE OF OUR THAT WAS OUR
INTENT IN ADDING THAT COMPONENT.
NO I'M NOT SURE IF THE ISSUE
AROUND THE AN ADVISORY BOARD.
WAS REALLY BROUGHT BEFORE US
WHEN WE HER DECIDE I'M I THINK
WE HEARD THE ITEM BEFORE.
THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE DID
BUT IN HEARING WHAT THE LA --
JUST RECOMMENDED WHICH WOULD BE
KIND OF A HYBRID -- COMPROMISE
BEING BOTH THE ASSEMBLY AND THE
SENATE SECTION.
AT LEAST -- FOR FOR MY OWN SELF
AND I SPEAK NOW JUSTICE -- ONLY
ONE SENATOR AND THAT
SUBCOMMITTEE I WOULD BE VERY
OPEN.
TO INCORPORATING THE ASSEMBLIES
ADVISORY -- BOARD SUGGESTION IN
THAT ACTION.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FACT WEBER IT IS --
MA'AM CHAIR AND WE TO LOOK AT
THIS PROPOSAL AND HAD QUITE A
FEW INDIVIDUALS TO CALM AND TO
TESTIFY CONCERNING.
THE PROPOSAL ITSELF YOU KNOW
HAVING -- DONE SOME WORK AS
WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST
FEW YEARS ON THE WHOLE ISSUE OF
THE JUNE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND HOW
DO WE MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE IN
TERMS OF BUILDING IN PEOPLE'S
LIVES AND AND MAKE IT NOT JUST A
PIPELINE TO A BIGGER PRISON
LATER ON WE WERE.
COULDN'T WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THAT YOU KNOW THIS BOOK THAT
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE -- TAKEN
SERIOUSLY BY OUR COMMITTEE AS
WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE WE
REQUESTED QUITE OFTEN A LOT OF
INFORMATION AND WE DIDN'T GET
NECESSARY LOT OF DETAILS FROM.
OF FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND OTHERS WHO MAKING
THE PROPOSAL SO THE PROPOSAL
DIDN'T COME TO US WITH A LOT OF
DETAILS A LOT OF INFORMATION.
OF THAT WAS THERE THAT WAS THAT
WAS PROBLEMATIC FOR ME BECAUSE
I'M A DETAIL PERSON ESPECIALLY
WHEN YOU START TALKING WITH
CHANGING PROGRAMS AND ADJUSTING
BECAUSEI KNOW IT'S ONE THING TO
CHANGE I'M ANOTHER THING TO
CHANGE IN A WAY THAT MAKES A
DIFFERENCE.
AND OUR THINKING WAS -- WITH
THIS WITH REGARD TO THIS AS THE
AS WE HAD ALL OF THE FOLKS
TALKING AND COME IN MANY OF THE
ADVOCATES WERE VERY.
MUCH IN FAVOR THOSE WHO WORK
WITH YOUNG PEOPLE IN BJJ -- WERE
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CHANGE
THAT THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THEY
WOULD THAT WE NEED TO SOMETHING
DIFFERENT WE'VE BEEN DOING SOME
DIFFERENT THINGS AND REDUCING
THE POPULATION BUT WE REALLY
NEED TO HAVE A SYSTEM THAT WAS
DIFFERENT TO DEAL WITH YOUNG
PEOPLE -- AND FOR THAT REASON --
WE WANTED MORE DETAILS ABOUT
WHAT IS TO BE DONE WE ALSO
DIDN'T WANT TO NOT THAT THIS WAS
WHAT THE THE PROPOSAL WAS BUT WE
DIDN'T WANT TO JUST TAKE IT.
FROM.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO TO THE
OTHER DEPARTMENT AND THAT WOULD
BE IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T THINK
JUST MOVING A PROGRAM FROM ONE
HOUSE TO THE NEXT HOUSE WOULD
MAKE EIGHTY SIX ANY SUBSTANTIVE
DIFFERENCE IN CHANGE.
AND I WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE OR HAVE
AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE
FELT THAT.
IN THIS MOVE THAT GO THAT'S TO
POST THAT'S TO TAKE PLACE IN
THIS MOVIE THERE'S SOME THERE'S
A NEED FOR SOME -- SOME ANALYSIS
AND SOME INPUT AND SOME
SUGGESTIONS OF OF HOW THE
PROGRAM SHOULD BE THAT IS NOT
JUST A MOVEMENT BUT IT REALLY IS.
A TRYING TO INCORPORATE ALL THE
GOOD THINGS THAT FOLKS HAVE
TALKED ABOUT THOSE WHO ADVOCATES
OUT THERE AND AND MANY OF THEM
WERE SKEPTICAL ONE OF THE CHANGE
WHAT WAS SKEPTICAL THAT WAY
THERE THAT WAS JUST GOING TO BE.
A MOVING FROM ONE HOUSE TO THE
NEXT WITH THE SAME PEOPLE WOULD
BE THE SAME.
THAT THE SAME ACTIVITIES WOULD
BE THE SAME AND OUTCOMES BE THE
SAME BUT MAYBE UNDER DIFFERENT
NAMES.
SO I THINKING WAS THAT TO HAPPEN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOT ONLY MADE
UP THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK IN
THE DEPARTMENT BUT ALL OF THAT
BUT SOME OF THE ADVOCATES IN THE
COMMUNITY WHO HAVE SPENT YEARS
WORKING WITH YOUNG PEOPLE.
AND SOME OF THEM HAD BEEN AND
AND IN THE SYSTEM THEMSELVES --
WHO CAME TO US AND TALK ABOUT
THE THINGS THEY WERE DOING AND
HOW WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE
CERTAIN KINDS OF THINGS IN PLACE
TO HELP YOUNG PEOPLE TO GROW AND
DEVELOP AND?
AND WHY THEY WERE IN THE SYSTEM
AND WHAT AND HOW TO PREVENT IT
IN THE FUTURE SO.
WE THOUGHT AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WOULD BE IN A WOULD BE IMPORTANT
IN STRUCTURING THE PROGRAMS THAT
AND AND STRUCTURE A WHAT WOULD
TAKE PLACE.
OF THAT IT WOULD NOT BE JUST A
QUICK THING THAT WE WOULD DO IT
TO BE OVER AND WE'VE DONE IT AND
WE SHIFTED FROM ONE PLACE THE
OTHER NOW LOOKS DIFFERENT
BECAUSE THIS NEW PAINT.
AND FACILITIES BUT BASICALLY
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MUCH
MORE INTERNAL IN TERMS OF WHAT
THE PROGRAM WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH
THE OUTCOMES WOULD BE HOW THE
YOUNG PEOPLE WOULD BE MENTORED
AND SUPPORTED IN A DIFFERENT
KIND OF WAY THAN THEY WERE RIGHT
DANCE SO. FOR THAT REASON WE
THOUGHT YOU KNOW DOING SOME OF
THE THINGS THAT ARE THE SENATE
TALKED ABOUT WOULD BE GOOD BUT
WE BUT WE ALWAYS FELT THAT THERE
HAD TO BE.
SOME OTHER MINDS AND BRAINS IN
THIS ROOM TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND
TO BEGIN TO FASHION A PROGRAM --
PRETTY MUCH LIKE MISTER NIELSEN
WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT THIS IS
AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT EVENT.
THAT WOULD DOING AND WE SHOULD
MAKE IT COUNT IT SHOULD MEAN
SOMETHING IN THE AND AND THAT
IT'S REALLY REALLY BE A
DIFFERENT KIND OF INSTITUTION.
AND MANY OF US TALK ABOUT THINGS
THAT WE'VE SEEN -- THAT I'VE
SEEN AS I'VE TRAVELED WORLD AND
SEE.
THE GOD AND ONTO THEIR WHAT WE
WOULD CALL THE JUVENILE HALL AND
SEE TOTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF
PHILOSOPHY OF HOW THEY HANDLE
YOUNG PEOPLE AND HOW THEY
REBUILD THEM WITH FAMILIES
BECAUSE THERE'S SOME XIN IS.
WHEN KIDS ARE IN TROUBLE IS
BECAUSE THIS PROBLEMS IN THE
FAMILY SO YOU GOT A BILL THE
FAMILY IF YOU'RE GOING TO HELP
THE KIDS MOVE BACK INTO THE
FAMILY?
AND SO I THINK THAT A LOT OF
THINGS LIKE THAT THAT IS THE
YEAR THAT WE NEED TO WORK ON
THAT WE CAN INCORPORATE THESE
THIS INSTITUTION.
TAKES AN AWFUL LOT OF MONEY WE
SPEND OVER THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS PER CHILD.
IN THIS IN THIS SET OUT IN TO
XIN AND WE SHOULD BE AT THAT
POINT -- GETTING GREATER
OUTCOMES IN TERMS OF YOUNG
PEOPLE LEAVING THEIR IN A BETTER
POSITION AND AND MOVING TO
BECOME REALLY CONTRIBUTING
MEMBERS TO THE SOCIETY SO.
THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMEND AT THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE -- BECAUSE WE
DIDN'T SEE IT AS A QUICK MOVE A
QUICK FIX THAT THIS WAS AN
ONGOING PROCESS THAT WE WOULD.
AT AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME
BACK AND TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY
DISCOVERED AND WHAT THEY FOUND
AND SO FORTH AND SO ON SO WE
COULD COST SO WE COULD BE
INVOLVED IN SHAPING INFORMING.
THIS NEW ENTITY -- THAT HAD
MOVED FROM ONE PLACE TO THE
OTHER BECAUSE WE NOT ONLY ONE OF
THE OPTICS TO BE CORRECT AND AND
AND THE PEOPLE WHO RUN IT WITH
THE ATTITUDE TO BE CORRECT --
BUT WE ALSO WANT THE PROGRAM TO
BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT AND THE
OUTCOME SO SO THAT'S WHY WE
RECOMMEND IT AND ADVISORY
COMMITTEE -- WE WERE WE DIDN'T
GET WHAT WE WANT.
BUT WE GET FROM THE MINISTRATION
TERMS OF A PLAN LAID OUT.
BUT WE KNEW PLENTY TO BE LAID
OUT RIGHT AND WITHOUT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE WOULD HELP ACCOMPLISH
THAT THANK YOU.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS.
ARE WE WILL HOLD THIS ITEM OPEN
ISSUE SIXTEEN DJJ APPRENTICESHIP
POLLOCK WITH CALIFORNIA
CONSERVATION CORPS [inaudible]
BELIAU.
WITH WITH THIS VIDEO PROPOSAL
FOR ONE POINT FOUR MILLION IN
GENERAL FUND IN TWENTY NINETEEN
TWENTY GOING DOWN TO NINE
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND TWENTY
TWENTY TWENTY ONE AND ON GOING.
ON TO ESTABLISH A PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN DJJ DRUG DIVISION OF
JUNE JUSTICE AND THE CALIFORNIA
CONSERVATION CORPS -- THE
REQUESTED RESOURCE IS WOULD
IMPLEMENT ED UP FRIENDSHIP
CONSERVATION CORPS PILOT PROGRAM
WITH THE GOAL TO PROVIDE DJ
YOUTH WITH A SKILL BUILDING AND
JOB READINESS OPPORTUNITIES.
AND RIDE PATHWAYS TO
CONSERVATION COURIERS.
THE SENATE APPROVED THE FUNDING
AND POSITIONS BUT CAPPED AT FIVE
YEARS.
AND THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED AS
BUDGET.
THE COMPETITION IS ON THE LINE
TO THE FUNDING FOR THE PROPOSED
RESOURCES.
WE RECOMMEND ADOPTING THE
SENATE'S AUCTION BECAUSE THIS
WAS OPPOSE AS A PILOT IT WOULD
BE APPROPRIATE TO LIMIT THE
FUNDING. TO A PERIOD OF TIME SO
THAT THAT PROGRAM CAN BE
EVALUATED BEFORE IMPLEMENTING ON
AN ONGOING BASIS.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FINANCE WE SUPPORT THE
ASSEMBLY ACTION AND WE
UNDERSTAND THAT OUR PROPOSAL ON
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET MAY
REVISION USES THE WORD PINE AWAY --
BUT THE WAY THAT WE WERE
THINKING OF THAT WORD WAS THAT
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT IS THE
FIRST EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF
RESTORATIVE PROGRAMMING THAT
WERE ENVISIONING FOR THIS NEW --
DEPARTMENT AND WE DID NOT
ENVISION AND DO NOT ENVISION
THIS PROPOSAL WAS LIMITED
TERMINATE ME WAY.
ALL RIGHT COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM MEMBERS. THREE NINE THIS
ITEM WILL BE LEFT OPEN.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE.
SEVENTEEN UNDER THE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS.
INTEGRATED SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER TREATMENT AT ALL CDC
OUR FACILITIES ELIA.
BUT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD
ESTABLISH AN ONGOING INTEGRATED
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TREATMENT
PROGRAM APOLOGIES THAT SHOULD BE
A HAND OUT IN FRONT OF THE ON
THE DEATH WE HAVE IT -- SO THIS
WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AT ALL TH.
VOTER BE IMPLEMENT ALL THIRTY
FIVE FACILITIES AND THE PROGRAMS
CALLED WOULD BE TO TREAT
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS A
CHRONIC ILLNESS REDUCE
FATALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH IT
AND IMPROVE.
THE REHABILITATIVE ENVIRONMENT
IN PRISONS IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE
CHANGES TO REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMS INCLUDING ALL COGNITIVE
BEHAVIOR THERAPY PROGRAMS AND
ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE MEDICATION
ASSISTED TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR
OF YOUR USES OLD ON ALCOHOL USE
DISORDER OR SENATE.
APPROVED THE BOOK OUT PROPOSAL
HAS BUDGETED AND ASSEMBLY
ADOPTED A TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
IN BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE THAT
WOULD ESTABLISH A THROUGH YOUR
PILOT OF THE PROGRAM AT THAT
THREE FACILITIES WITH EXISTING.
MEDICATIONS AS A TREATMENT
PILOTS AND FOR DIGITAL
FACILITIES WITH THE HIGHEST --
WOULD OVER STRAITS FOR TOTAL OF
SEVEN FACILITIES -- BY THE DO
NOT AN ONGOING PROGRAM AT ALL OF
PRESENCE AS APPROVED BY THE
SENATE -- THIS WOULD PROVIDE
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT OF A THREE
YEAR PERIOD WITH SIXTEEN MILLION
DOLLARS AND TWENTY NINETEEN
TWENTY AND FORTY EIGHT MILLION
AND TWENTY TWENTY AND TWENTY
TWENTY ONE TWENTY TWO INCLUDES A
DRUG INTERDICTION PROGRAM AT ONE
OF THE SEVEN FACILITIES.
AND ALLOWS ADMINISTRATION TO
AUGMENT THE AMOUNT PROVIDED BY
UP 220% WITH PRIOR NOTIFICATION
TO THE LEGISLATURE.
IT ALSO REQUIRES REPORTS ON THE
PROGRAM'S IMPLEMENTATION AND AN
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.
THE CONFERENCE ISSUES ARE THE
CONTENTS OF THE TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE AND THIS FAMILIES
BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE TO PROVIDE
THE FUNDING FOR THE PILOT.
OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO
APPROVED -- ASSEMBLY PLAN --
THIS WOULD ALLOW THE LEDGE
CESSATION OF THE ABILITY TO
ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
PROGRAM AND A TIME AND WHETHER
IT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED
STATEWIDE AND HOW IT SHOULD BE
EMPLOYMENT STATEWIDE.
THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
GIVEN THAT THE PROGRAM IS IT
UNTESTED AND ACROSS EXTENSIVE
COORDINATION WITH -- COMMUNITY
PROVIDERS OUTSIDE OF THE
DEPARTMENTS CONTROL.
WE NOTE THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES
NOT INCLUDE ANY FORMAL REPORTING
ON IN FROM THE GOVERNOR FOES NOT
INCLUDE ANY FORMAL REPORTING ON
THE IMPLEMENTATION ALL THE
THICKNESS OF THIS PROGRAM.
IN ADDITION THE ASSEMBLY PLAN
WOULD ALLOW THAT -- DEPARTMENT
TO COLLECT DATA TO BETTER FROM
THE COSTS OF AND RESOURCE
NECESSARY TO EXPAND THE PROGRAM
TO OTHER FACILITIES -- IT'S
POSSIBLE THAT THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE THE THE
INSTRUCTOR NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT THE STATEWIDE THAT
HAS NOT BEEN CLEANED THE
PROPOSAL FOR INSTANCE -- AND
THAT ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR
TREATMENT IS ON SORT IN ITS
CALMLY BASED OFF OF ESTIMATES
ARE NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTIVE
OF CDC OURS POPULATION.
TELL PASSAGE WE RECOMMEND GOING
TO THE ASSEMBLY ACTION THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FINANCE I'LL TURN IT
OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE CLINT.
TACKLING COME APARTMENT --
FINANCE THAT WE SUPPORT THE
SENATE VERSION ON THIS PROPOSAL --
INMATES HAVE -- THERE'S A
WIDESPREAD NEED FOR SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDER TREATMENT
THROUGHOUT THE PRISON SYSTEM
LIMITING IT TO ONLY SEVEN
PRISONS WALL THERE'S OPIOID.
DEATHS ON THE INCREASE AS WELL
AS HOPPED HOSPITALIZATION SEEMS
TO LIMIT CARE IN A WAY THAT WE
DON'T THINK IS RESPONSIVE TO THE
ISSUE.
AND SO THEREFORE WE REQUEST --
THE FULL FUNDING OF OUR PROPOSAL.
THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THE
PROPOSAL THAT ARE DEFINITELY NEW
AND UNIQUE TO A KERN
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM BUT MOST OF
THESE COMPONENTS ARE EVIDENCE
BASED FAIRS ASSESSMENTS.
AND THERE'S TREATMENT AND
THERE'S FOLLOW UP AND THERE'S
MOVING THROUGH LEVELS OF CARE
AND ALL THOSE THINGS GENERALLY
SPEAKING ARE EVIDENCE BASED.
BUT IT HASN'T BEEN TESTED AND IN
THIS EXACT SETTING BUT THERE
MOST OF THESE PIECES HAVE
ACTUALLY BEEN REVIEWED AS
APPROPRIATE AND IN THE WAY OF
ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM.
QUESTION FOR MEMBERS TO NIELSEN.
WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT.
THE DRUGS THAT ARE NOW
[inaudible]
IN [inaudible]
THE PRISON.
THE CITY SHE ARE.
HAVE ANY NEW IDEAS ABOUT.
INTERCEPTING THE INCOMING
[inaudible]
DRUGS. FOR EXAMPLE SOME COME IN
THROUGH THE FIRE CAMPS.
THAT'S NOT THE BIGGEST PLACES.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT WOULD
GETS INTO THE INSTITUTION.
YEAH I SO I THINK THERE HAVE
BEEN PROPOSALS OVER THE LAST EW
YEARS ABOUT INTERDICTION EFFORTS
I THINK LAST YEAR FUNDED A PILOT
AT ONE INSTITUTION TO DO TWENTY
FOUR SEVEN SORT OF SCREENING --
TO INTERDICT DRUGS THERE'S BEEN
PREVIOUS PROPOSALS I THINK THIS
COMMITTEE HEARD RELATED TO THE
USE OF NINES FOR INTERDICTION --
I THINK THE THE KEY COMPONENT
HERE IS THAT THERE'S EVEN ON THE
IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTERDICTION
EFFORTS THERE'S STILL SORT OF
SIGNIFICANT NEED FOR SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDER TREATMENT THAT'S
DONE IN A NEW WAY ABSOLUTELY I
WOULD NOT IN.
STATE YOU'D EVER GOING TO STOP
ENOUGH GETTING IN.
NO OF TREATMENT IS IS ESSENTIAL.
BUT A TREATMENT ALSO NEEDS TO
FOLLOW THE INMATE.
BACK OUT INTO SOCIETY AS WELL.
THAT IS ALSO IMPORTANT.
AND AT OUR PROPOSAL DOES HAVE --
NURSING STAFF THAT ARE GOING TO
WORK -- TO TENER STYLISH
COMMUNITY PLACEMENTS.
I MAKING SURE THAT.
WHERE -- THAT THEY CAN ACCESS TO
CONTINUE TREATMENT IN THE
COMMUNITY.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR
MEMBERS.
FRIEDMAN WILL HOLD THAT ITEM
OPEN.
LET'S MOVE ON TO ISSUE EIGHTEEN
THE CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE
INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION
PROGRAM CALVET FUNDING.
PAGE TWENTY OF THE AGENDA.
WE'VE GOT A LA JOH -- PAPER LA --
WHEN YOU'RE READY AND CHAIR?
CALVET BUSY CAM COMPETITIVE
GRANT PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY
THE BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS THAT PROVIDES
FUNDING.
TO CITIES AND COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS TO ENGAGE IN
VIOLENCE PREVENTION WORK.
IT'S BEEN FUNDED OUT AROUND NINE
MILLION ONE TIME FOR YOU TO THE
PAST TWO FISCAL YEARS
YOUR HAND OUT PROVIDES A BIT
MORE INFORMATION ON THE PROGRAM.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSES TO PROVIDE
TWENTY SEVEN MILLION GENERAL
FUND IN NINETEEN TWENTY AND NINE
MILLION GENERAL FUND AND TWENTY
TWENTY ONE AND I'M GOING.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED IS
BUDGETED.
THE SENATE WOULD PROVIDE THIRTY
MILLION IN NINETEEN TWENTY AND
NINE MILLION IN TWENTY TWENTY
ONE AND GOING. TO THE CONFERENCE
ISSUE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS.
THE SENATE ADDITIONAL THREE
MILLION ONE TIME IN THE BUDGET
YEAR.
WE THINK THIS IS A MATTER OF
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY WE WERE
JUST NOTE THAT THE BCC IS SIX AS
EXPECTED TO SUBMIT A REPORT ON
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FIRST
ROUND OF GRANTS IN MARCH --
TWENTY TWENTY AND THIS REPORT
COULD INFORM PEAK AT FUNDING
DECISIONS.
THANK YOU FINANCE. TWENTY
ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY -- INFORMATION
ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE
PROGRAMS.
OKAY.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE
PROGRAMS -- THE HOWEVER THE THE
BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE THAT
ESTABLISHES THE CAL THAT PROGRAM
DOES REQUIRE THE BOARD OF STATE
IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS.
TO PRIORITIZE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE
BEEN FOUND TO REDUCE VIOLENCE
WHEN IMPLEMENTED ELSEWHERE --
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROGRAMS
THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING FUNDED --
ARE DOING THAT WOULD DEPEND ON
WHETHER THE THIS IS EFFECTIVE IN
ACTUALLY SELECTING ULTIMATELY AT
PROGRAMS THAT ARE BASED ON
EVIDENCE BASED -- PROGRAMS AND
WHETHER THOSE ARE IMPLEMENTED
WITH FIDELITY HERE IN CALIFORNIA --
IN ADDITION I WOULD JUST NOTE
THAT THE PROGRAM THE FIRST ROUND
OF CALVET THAT CAL BIT --
GRANTEES ARE STILL IN THE MIDST
OF THEIR FUNDING THEIR FIRST
ROUND OF FUNDING.
SO THEY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
SKINNER THANK YOU.
I'M ACTUALLY THE LEGISLATURE'S
PROVIDED FUNDING TO AND SOME
COMMUNITIES FOR GUN VIOLENCE
PREVENTION EVEN PRIOR TO THE
SEVENTEEN EIGHTEEN YEAR.
AND I THINK ALEJO'S POINT ABOUT.
WILL WAS STEPPING BACK THERE IS
A GOOD AMOUNT OF RESEARCH
[inaudible]
THAT -- DOCUMENTS THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THEORIES
VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS.
NOW I THINK THE ALEJO'S POINT
WHETHER THE ONES THAT GOT FUNDED
HAVE FOLLOWED THE TYPE OF AREA.
THAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS REALLY
WORKS.
YOU KNOW I CAN'T SAY BECAUSE I
HAVEN'T LOOKED AT WHAT -- WHAT
THE RECENT -- ENTITIES THAT WERE
FUNDED IN THE MOST RECENT ROUNDS
FOR BE A CC BUT CERTAINLY WHAT I
IF THE REPORT SHOWS THAT WE NEED
TO IMPROVE THE CRITERIA.
THAT WOULD BE -- GREAT -- BUT I
THINK WE WOULDN'T WANT IF IT
CHOSE PERHAPS.
SOME ISSUES AROUND AFFECTED MISS.
IT WOULDN'T BE A MATTER OF THAT
VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
ARE AN EFFECTIVE IT MIGHT BE A
MATTER OF THE CRITERIA WE ARE
USING BECAUSE THERE IS A GREAT
DEAL OF BODY OF RESEARCH ON THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF IT.
AND IN FACT THERE'S EVEN
DOCUMENTATION ON LOWERED GUN
VIOLENCE RATES IN THOSE
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN
RESEARCHED -- IN OAKLAND IS ONE
OF THEM FOR EXAMPLE SO -- JUST
BAD DATA BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE
THERE IS GOOD RESEARCH SHOWING
THAT APPROPRIATELY USE THESE
VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
ARE QUITE EFFECTIVE.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
THIS ITEM.
SEEING NONE WILL PULL THE ITEM
OPEN.
MOVING ON THE FINAL ISSUE OF THE
EVENING ISSUE NINETEEN IN CARS
[inaudible] THREE INCREASED
PEACE OFFICER TRAINING.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A OHIO --
PAPER ON THIS IS WELL LA -- WHEN
YOU'RE READY?
GREAT THE GOVERNOR'S UP THE
GOVERNOR'S PLAN PROVIDES THIRTY
FOUR POINT NINE MILLION ON AN
ONGOING BASIS FROM THE GENERAL
FUND. TO POST THIS IS A PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT -- AUGMENTATION ON
AN ONGOING BASIS FOR POST.
POST PLANS TO USE IT IN A VERY
PARTICULAR WAYS WHICH IS LAID
OUT ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR HAND OUT
AND THAT PROVIDES -- A BREAK OUT
OF IT BUT SPECIFICALLY IT'S TO
RESTORE CERTAIN PROGRAMS AND%
SERVICES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY
ELIMINATED DUE TO REDUCTIONS
INCOME ALL FINE AND FEE REVENUES --
NEW PROGRAMS IN CERTAIN AREAS
AND THEN EXPANSIONS AND OTHERS.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED -- THIS
FUNDING ON A ONE TIME BASIS --
IN TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN TWENTY
AND THE MONEY IS GENERALLY
CONTENTION ON THE ENACTMENT OF
LEGISLATION CHANGING THE CURRENT
STANDARD FOR WHEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CAN USE
DEADLY FORC.
THE FUDS WOULD GENERALLY BE
USED TO HELP TRAIN THE OFFICERS
ON THAT NEW STANDARD -- AND WE
WOULD KNOW THAT THREE MILLION OF
THE TOTAL AMOUNT WOULD BE
ONGOING IN NATURE FOR POST KIND
OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
ADDITIONALLY THE ASSEMBLY
APPROVED BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE
REQUIRING ANNUAL REPORTING.
AND THE OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE FUNDING PROVIDED AS WELL AS
HAVING -- ONE THE AGENCIES AND
EXCUSE ME AS WELL AS HAVING POST
REPORT ON KEY METRICS RELATED TO
FOR EXAMPLE TO THE NUMBER OF
OFFICERS TRAINS AND THE COST --
PER OFFICER TRAINED.
AND SO THE ISSUES AND CONFERENCE
ARE WHETHER THE FUNDING IS ONE
TIME OR ONGOING -- WHETHER THEIR
CONDITIONS ON THE FUNDING AND
THEN FINALLY -- ON THE LANGUAGE
THAT TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE.
ON THIS PACKAGE ESSENTIALLY WE
DO THINK IT'S AN ISSUE OF
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY IN TERMS OF
HOW MUCH MONEY TO PROVIDE
WHETHER IT'S ONE TIME OR ONGOING.
AS WELL AS HOW MUCH DISCRETION
TO PROVIDE TO POST -- WE DO HAVE
TO COMMONSENSE RELATED TO
WHATEVER PACKAGE THE LEGISLATURE
DOES CHOOSE TO ADOPT THE FIRST
IS AND WHATEVER PACKAGE THAT'S
ADOPTED WE DO RECOMMEND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE ENSURE.
THAT THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND
PRIORITIES RECOMMEND ADOPTING
THE ASSEMBLY IS BUDGET BILL
LANGUAGE ON REPORTING THAT WOULD
DEFINITELY PROVIDE THE
LEGISLATURE WITH MORE
INFORMATION ON THE IMPACT.
THE FUNDING HAD UPON TRAINING
AND THAT WOULD HELP INFORM
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS IN THE
FUTURE ABOUT WHERE TO PUT
RESOURCES AND HOW MUCH IS
NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS
ARE INTERESTED IN [inaudible]
FINANCE PLEASE.
WE SUPPORT THE SENATE ACTION ON
THIS PROPOSAL AND I'LL MAKE TWO
BRIEF POINTS THE FIRST IS THAT.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE NATURE
OF THE FUNDING GIVEN THE
IMPORTANCE THE ADMINISTRATION
PLACES ON THIS PROGRAM AND THE
ISSUE THAT IT'S INTENDED TO
ADDRESS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS FUNDING
SHOULD BE ON GOING AND THEN THE
SECOND POINT IS WITH REGARD --
TO WHERE THIS FUNDING IS GOING --
FOURTEEN POINT NINE MILLION IS
TO RESTORE OPPOSED TO ITS
HISTORICAL LEVEL OF FUNDING WHEN
IT COMES TO THE REMAINING TWENTY
MILLION DOLLARS THE
ADMINISTRATION IS OPEN TO WAYS
OF DIRECTING THAT FUNDING --
SPECIFICALLY -- AIMING THESE
RICH RESOURCES AT DE ESCALATION
PROGRAMS WHICH WE KNOW IS A
CONCERN UT FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION AND MANY MEMBERS
OF THE LEGISLATURE [inaudible]
QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
THANK YOU EVER YES I'D OUT MY
LOSING TO THE COMPROMISE AND AND
I THINK THERE COULD WITH WHERE
WE'RE AT VARIOUS PLACES BUT I
THINK WE'RE PROBABLY THE SAME
CONVERSATION. ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT -- WE DID AND AND COMMITTEE
AND WE WERE LISTENING TO LA LA --
IS THAT YOU KNOW UNLESS WE
IDENTIFIED -- AT SOME POINT WE
KNOW THERE'S A NEED FOR SOME
ADDITIONAL MONEY THIS ON GOING
BECAUSE OF THE SUFFERING WHAT
WHAT THEY'VE HAD IN THE PAST IN
TERMS OF REDUCTION SO YOU WANT
TO STABILIZE ADMINISTRATION OF
IT.
BUT IF WE'RE TALKING YOU KNOW WE
HAVE TO IDENTIFY WHAT WE WANT
PEOPLE TO DO WITH THE MONEY.
ESPECIALLY IF IF IF WE CREATE
POLICY OF THAT THAT DEMANDS A
DIFFERENT LEVEL OF TRAINING WE
HAVE TO FUND THAT TRAINING AND
AND THAT'S WHAT WE COMMITTED TO
DO.
THE FUN TRAINING SO THAT WE
COULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OF
DEADLY FORCE EFFORTS AND THINGS
BEING USED OF IN THE GOVERNOR
AGREES WITH THAT.
SO WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
THAT AND AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE
LAST YEAR WE GAVE AN ADDITIONAL
TWENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS IN
THE BUDGET -- AND FIVE IT WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE FOR SPECIAL
GRANTS OF THE OTHER TWENTY WAS
SUPPOSED TO BEGIN AND HOPEFULLY
THE TRAINING AND DE ESCALATION
AND IT WASN'T DONE IT WAS IN USE
FOR THAT.
AND SO AND WITHOUT SOME
LANGUAGES SAYS THIS IS WHAT WE
EXPECT -- AND WE FIND IT TO BE
TRUE IN A WHOLE LOT OF PROGRAMS
IS NOT JUST THIS -- ONE BUT
WE'RE BEING TOLD ALL CONSTANTLY
THAT IF YOU IF YOU GIVE MONEY
YOU DON'T DIRECT FOR YOU THINK
IT'LL GO WITH IT'S AN EDUCATION
WERE EVER.
ANY GOALS FOR WHATEVER PEOPLE
FEEL IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AT THAT
MOMENT AND THEN AS A LEGISLATURE
WILL UPSET BECAUSE IT WOULD COME
BACK AND LOOK AND SEE THAT THE
PROGRAMS ARE NOT IMPLEMENTED.
BOB WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS
ONLY THE BEGINNING OF FUNDING
THEY'LL BE A LOT MORE FUNDING
NEEDED TO TO REALLY CHANGE THE
CULTURAL POLICING IN CALIFORNIA.
BUT IT WOULD IF WE'RE GOING TO
START IT WE HAVE TO START WITH
AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
MONEY'S GOING IN THAT DIRECTION
WHETHER ITS ONGOING COST OR
WHATEVER IT MAY BE THE IDEA OF
REPORTING BACK IN TERMS OF
TELLING US.
WHAT YOU DID WITH THE MONEY
SETTING OUT SOME GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES VERTICALLY MARY OF
TRAINING SO THAT THE CURRICULUM
BEING DEVELOPED IS BEING
DEVELOPED IN IT WHAT THE
PARTICULAR GOAL IN MIND?
OTHERWISE WE WOULD JUST TRAINING
FOLKS WE HAVE NO WAY OF
DETERMINING WHETHER NOT WE'RE
GOING TO COMP WAS THE GOALS THAT
WE SET BECAUSE WE'RE NOT.
SAYING THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN -- WE DO THAT IN MANY
AREAS OR THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
YOU KNOW WHEN WE CHANGED OUR
CURRICULUM PUBLIC SCHOOLS WE
GAVE UP ABOUT HOW MANY MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS BILLION DOLLARS
WHATEVER IT WAS. TO BASICALLY
TRAIN THEM ON THE NEW CURRICULA
WHY BECAUSE WE WANT THE
CURRICULUM TO BE IMPLEMENTED
WITH ONE SOME SENSE OF THE DELI
WE JUST GAVE A MONIES THEY HAVE
STAFF DEVELOPMENT WE KNOW WHAT
HAPPENS EVERYTHING HAPPENS.
OTHER THAN WHAT WE WANT TO
HAPPEN AND SO I I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT AS WE TALK ABOUT WHAT
WE WANT TO DO IS A COLLABORATIVE
IN TERMS OF PULLING THE THE
VARIOUS PROPOSALS TOGETHER.
THAT WE KNOW THAT SOMEONE WILL
THERE'S SOME FUNNY THE NEEDS TO
HAPPEN TO BASICALLY STABILIZE
THE STRUCTURE GIVE THEM THE
THINGS THEY NEED WHAT IT'S FORTY
MILLION WHATEVER IT IS.
BUT IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT
TRAINING DOLLARS WE NEED TO
IDENTIFY THE TRAINING THAT WE
HAVE SET FORTH THAT WE THINK IS
GOING TO MOVE US TO A DIFFERENT
KIND OF CULTURAL POLICING.
IN CALIFORNIA AND THAT WILL BE
VERY IMPORTANT AND IN FACT IN
ALL OF OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT THEY MADE VERY
CLEAR IF WE'RE GOING TO
IMPLEMENT THIS WE HAVE TO HAVE
RESOURCES TO DO IT.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THE TRAINING TO
ACCOMPLISH IT AND I TOTALLY
AGREE WITH THAT AND THAT'S WHY
LAST YEAR WE GIVEN TWENTY FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS. TO BEGIN THE
PROCESS THAT DIDN'T GET. TO GET
STARTED SO THIS TWENTY MILLION
WILL BE ON TOP OF THE OTHER
TWENTY THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE
ACCESS -- TO AS WELL AS IN THE
OTHER THAT'S THE A PLUS THE
FIFTY SO WE WERE GIVING SOMEONE
A SIGNIFICANT DOLLARS IS COMING
YEAR HOPEFULLY WE WILL DO SOME
MORE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT A LOT
OF OTHER THINGS DEALING WITH
MENTAL HEALTH AND ALL OF THE
KINDS OF TRAINING THAT.
WE HAVE TO DO BUT IF WE'RE GOING
TO EXPECT SOMETHING TO COME FROM
THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT OUR
EXPECTATIONS ARE.
THANK YOU -- WE DID NOT ON THE
PUBLIC.
SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE AND SENATE
DID NOT SPECIFY IT FOR THE DE
pESCALATION TRAINING ONLY BECAUSE
WE HAD PROVIDED THE FUNDING LAST
YEAR AND ONLY THIRTY THOUSAND OF
IT WAS SPENT.
SO WE CERTAINLY SEE THE NEED WE
WE ARE OPEN VERY OPEN AND
SUPPORTIVE OF MAKING SURE THAT
THE POST REALLY IMPROVES ITS
CURRICULUM FOR USE OF FORCE
TRAINING.
AND WE OR YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY
YOUR SUPPORT OF THAT WOULD HAVE
APPROVED THE MONEY THE PREVIOUS
YEAR.
BUT BECAUSE THAT MONEY HAD NOT
EVEN YET BEEN TH -- SPENT BUT WE
ALSO NOTED AND THIS IS THE
ADMINISTRATION IT ALSO NOTED
THAT WE HAVE SOME DEFICITS IN
POST FUNDING OVERALL.
AND SO WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF
HELPING TO ADDRESS EVEN THOSE
DEFICIT SO.
QUESTION ON THIS.
ON ISSUE.
NINETEEN SEE NONE WILL HOLD THAT
ANA ITEM OVER.
WE DID WE ALREADY COMMENCED WITH --
ITEM TWENTY THREE COMPLETE THAT.
THE THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR
TIME AND ATTENTION TODAY AT THIS
POINT WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE
HAVING.
A BUDGET CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
MEETING TOMORROW WEDNESDAY.
WE WILL HAVE ONE ON THURSDAY AND
IT WILL BE UPON THE CALL OF THE
CHAIR.
WITH THAT WE STAND ADJOURNED
THANK YOU