GOOD AFTERNOON. WE ARE CALLING
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE TO ORDER
CURRENTLY TODAY WE'RE GOING TO
BE HEARING 11. TRAILER BILLS.
MANY OF THEM ARE JUST CLEAN UP
TO OUR BUDGET PACKAGE FROM
EARLIER IN JUNE. THERE ARE A FEW
ITEMS THAT WERE DEFERRED IN
JUNE, AND MANY OF THEM ARE
TECHNICAL AND CLEAN UP IN
NATURE. THE HEARINGS
INFORMATIONAL WE'RE PLANNING ON
CONSIDERING THESE BILLS ON THE
FLOOR SOMETIME AFTER LABOR DAY.
WE HAVE MISS ERIKA LEE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. HERE WE
HAVE. AH HERE AND OF COURSE, OUR
BUDGET STAFF HERE WE WILL BE
TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT OVER THE
PHONE CALL IN NUMBERS. 87769289
. ACCESS CODE 18 50 11 00. IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ISSUES
, PLEASE CALL OUR BUDGET
COMMUNITY OFFICE AT 916. 319209
I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO OUR
VICE CHAIR. SEE IF HE HAS ANY
OPENING COMMENTS, OPENING
COMMENTS. WE WILL COME BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AFTER THE
PRESENTATION, BUT WE WILL START
WITH MISS LEE AND, UH, IF YOU
COULD JUST GO THROUGH ALL 11
BILLS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YES
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR BY
STEFAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
, ERIKA LEE HERE WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND, UM,
PRESENTING ON THIS FINAL BUDGET
PACKAGE, WHICH INCLUDES 11 BILLS
. ONE IS THE BUDGET BILL JR AND
10. ACCOMPANYING TRAILER BILLS.
UM THE FIRST BILL A BSP 104 IS
THE BUDGET BILL JR. WHICH
INCLUDES AMENDMENTS TO THE 23 24
AND 22 23 BUDGET ACTS. IN
EDUCATION. THE BILL PROVIDES
AMENDMENTS TO K 12 AND HIGHER
EDUCATION INVESTMENTS THAT
SUPPORT SCHOOLS, STUDENTS AND
FAMILIES. SPECIFICALLY IT SHIFTS
ROUGHLY 17 MILLION FROM THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE BUDGET TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BUDGET
TO ENABLE THE èC TO SUPPORT THE
FULL COST OF THREE INTER
SEGMENTAL AFFORDABLE STUDENT
HOUSING PROJECTS THROUGH THE
ISSUANCE OF èC REVENUE BONDS.
UM AND APPROPRIATE 163,000,001
TIME PROP PROPOSITION 98 GENERAL
FUND TO THE INCLUSIVE EARLY
EDUCATION EXPANSION PROGRAM FOR
INCREASING ACCESS TO INCLUSIVE
EARLY LEARNING AND CARE PROGRAMS
FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
AND PROVIDES AN EXTENDED
ENCUMBRANCE AVAILABILITY PERIOD
FOR THESE FUNDS. IN HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES. THIS BILL MAKES
TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS TO
IMPLEMENT THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH
CHILDCARE PROVIDERS UNITED
CALIFORNIA OR C CPU. AND THE
PARODY PACKAGE FOR NON
REPRESENTED CHILDCARE PROVIDERS.
IT SHIPS FUNDING FOR THE PUBLIC
HEALTH NURSE CERTIFICATION FEE
WAIVERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE, ACCESS AND
INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER AFFAIRS. IT INCREASES
BY 40,000,001 TIME FEDERAL TRUST
FUND AUTHORITY FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES TO REFLECT FEDERAL
GRANT AWARDS AND EXTENSIONS. AND
RESOURCES. IT INCLUDES 3.7
MILLION GENERAL FUND ONE TIME TO
ENABLE THE CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD
PROTECTION BOARD TO SUPPORT
COSTS FOR 19 EXISTING STAFF WHO
PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT
OF THE STATE FEDERAL FLOOD
CONTROL SYSTEM. IT INCLUDES AN
ADDITIONAL 12.2 MILLION GENERAL
FUND FOR THE PINE MOUNTAIN
FOREST FIRE STATION, WHICH IS
NEARING COMPLETION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE
PROJECT AND HAS BEEN DEEMED
INELIGIBLE FOR LEASE REVENUE
BOND FINANCING. BROADBAND. IT
INCREASES THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES
AUTHORITY TO EXPAND A 73 MILLION
GENERAL FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS
AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICING FOR THE
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION TO
SUPPORT WORK TOWARDS THE
CALIFORNIA MIDDLE MILE BROADBAND
INITIATIVE. CORRECTIONS THAT RE
APPROPRIATES THE REMAINING
BALANCES FROM THE NONPROFIT
PERFORMING ARTS GRANT PROGRAM
AND THE CALIFORNIA VENUES GRANT
PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT THE
PERFORMING ARTS EQUITABLE
PAYROLL FUND TO PROVIDE GRANTS
TO SMALL NONPROFITS. PERFORMING
SORRY, SMALL NONPROFIT
PERFORMING ARTS ORGANIZATIONS TO
HIRE AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES. IT
AMENDS PROVISIONAL LANGUAGE TO
EXPAND ELIGIBLE GRANT RECIPIENTS
TO INCLUDE OTHER ENTITIES THAT
HAVE EXPERTISE IN PROVIDING
LEGAL TRAINING TO LEGAL AID
PROVIDERS OR PUBLIC DEFENDERS.
AND THIS BILL MAKES OTHER
TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING
CHANGES. MOVING ON TO THE SECOND
BILL. A BSB 1 35 THE SAFETY, UH
, TRAILER BILL. THIS BILL
EXTENDS THE AUTHORITY TO USE
REMOTE HEARINGS IN SPECIFIED
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY ONE
ADDITIONAL YEAR, IT AUTHORIZES
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO
ADJUST THE AMMUNITION
AUTHORIZATION FEE VIA THE
REGULATORY PROCESS. IT PROVIDES
A DOJ THE NECESSARY AUTHORITY TO
CONFORM WITH FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
SHARING SUBSEQUENT SUMMARY
CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION.
AND MOVING ON TO THE NEXT BILL.
A BSB 1 37, THE HEALTH TRAILER
BILL. THIS BILL EXTENDS A
MORATORIUM ON THE NEW DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUED HOSPICE
LICENSES BY ONE YEAR IT REQUIRES
M, SAYS THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
APPOINTMENTS TO BE SUBJECT TO
CONFIRMATION BY THE STATE
SENATE. IT CLARIFIES THAT BOTH
PRESCRIPTION AND OVER THE
COUNTER DRUG PRODUCTS MAY BE
DEVELOPED OR MANUFACTURED
THROUGH CAL ARAX. IT AUTHORIZES
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES TO RAISE LICENSING AND
CERTIFICATION VIEWS, ASSIST UPON
RESIDENTIAL AND OUTPATIENT
SUBSTANCE USED TO SORT OF
PROGRAMS BY UP TO 5% ANNUALLY
BEGINNING IN 2027 28 AND
REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT TO
DEVELOP A FEE WAIVER PROCESS FOR
FACILITIES EXPERIENCING
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP BY JULY, 1 OF
2024. AND FINALLY THIS BILL
INCREASES FEDERAL TRUST FUND
EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY BY 56.2
MILLION TO REFLECT AN EXTENSION
OF A PREVIOUSLY AWARDED
SUBSTANCE USED TO SORT OF
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT BLOCK
GRANT TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE
INDIVIDUALS. MOVING ON TO THE
NEXT BILL. A BSB 1 38, THE HUMAN
SERVICES TRAILER BILL. THIS BILL
PROMOTES EQUITY WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES SYSTEM BY
ESTABLISHING MORE UNIFORM
PROCEDURES AT REGIONAL CENTERS
AND EXAMINING ACCESS TO COMMON
SUPPORTS AND GENERIC SERVICES
ACROSS THE STATE. IT ESTABLISHES
A COMPLEX NEEDS RESIDENTIAL
ACUTE CRISIS PROGRAM TO SERVE
INDIVIDUALS WITH COCO CO
OCCURRING INTELLECTUAL AND
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND
MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSES. IT RE
APPROPRIATES 27.4 MILLION IN ONE
TIME FEDERAL AMERICAN RESCUE
PLAN ACT FUNDING FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES. EARLY INTERVENTION
SERVICES PROGRAM, ALSO KNOWN AS
EARLY STARTS. APPROPRIATION
EXTENDS UNTIL MARCH OF 2025 AND
THE LIQUIDATION PERIOD FOR FUNDS
ENCUMBERED BY SEPTEMBER, 2023.
UM IT CODIFIES THE DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATIONS BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES PROGRAM FOR THE
BLIND WORKERS COMPENSATION SELF
INSURANCE PROGRAM AND MAKES
OTHER TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING.
CHANGES. MOVING ON TO A BSB 1 40
CHILDCARE TRAILER BILL. THIS
BILL IMPLEMENTS EARLY EDUCATION.
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
RELATED PROPOSALS TO RATIFY THE
JUNE 30 2023 AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE STATE AND CHILDCARE
PROVIDERS UNITED SEE CPU AND TO
PROVIDE PARODY FOR NON
REPRESENTED SUBSIDIZED CHILDCARE
AND PRESCHOOL PROVIDERS. THE CCP
YOU AGREEMENT AND PROPOSED
PARODY PACKAGE FOR NON
REPRESENTED PROVIDERS REFLECTS
THE COST OF CARE PLUS RATE.
CHANGE TO PART TIME AND FULL
TIME DEFINITIONS AND EXTENDS
CHILDCARE AND PRESCHOOL
REIMBURSEMENT FLEXIBILITIES. IT
ALSO INCLUDES 70.4 MILLION FOR
ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT AGENCIES TO
CONDUCT THE CPU RELATED
WORKLOAD. MOVING ON TO A BSB 1
41. THIS IS THE T K THROUGH 12
EDUCATION TRAILER BILL. THIS
BILL PROVIDES A WAIVER FOR THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO TEACHER RATIO
REQUIREMENT FOR PARADISE UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE 2021 22
FISCAL YEAR THROUGH THE 23. 2023
24 FISCAL YEAR. IT AUTHORIZES
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION TO RECOVER OVER
ALLOCATED LEARNING RECOVERY
EMERGENCY BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FROM
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES VIA
PRINCIPAL ABORTION AND OFFSET UM
, TO REALLOCATE FUNDS BASED ON
THE REVISED APPROPRIATION AMOUNT
AND REPORT ANY UNCOLLECTABLE
AMOUNTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND THE LEGISLATURE BY
JANUARY 31 OF NEXT YEAR. EXAMPLE
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
OPERATING AND EXPANDED LEARNING
OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM FROM
PENALTIES WHEN THEY ARE CLOSED
DUE TO SPECIFIED EMERGENCY
CONDITIONS. IT AUTHORIZES UNTIL
JULY OF NEXT YEAR, ANY HOLDER OF
A SUBSTITUTE TEACHING CREDENTIAL
OR PERMIT TO TEACH FOR UP TO 60
ACCUMULATIVE DAYS FOR ANYONE
ASSIGNMENT WITH THAT CREDENTIAL
OR PERMIT. THIS FLEXIBILITY WAS
ORIGINALLY PROVIDED AS PART OF
THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC RESPONSE
AND SUNSET ON JULY 1 OF THIS
YEAR. THE K 12 OMNIBUS OMNIBUS
TRAILER BILL ALSO MAKES
CLARIFYING CHANGES AND CORRECT
STATUTORY REFERENCES. MOVING ON
TO A BSB 1 42, THE HIGHER
EDUCATION OMNIBUS TRAILER BILL.
THIS BILL SHIFTS THE
AUTHORIZATION AND SUPPORT FOR
THREE INTER SEGMENTAL PROJECTS
FROM THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
COLLEGE BUDGET TO THE èC
BUDGET. IT ESTABLISHES INTENT TO
SEEK A STATEWIDE LEASE REVENUE,
BOND OR OTHER FISCAL APPROACH TO
SUPPORT APPROVED CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROJECTS NO
LATER THAN THE ENACTMENT OF THE
24 25 BUDGET. IT ALSO AUTHORIZES
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES TO RETAIN
ANY CASH PROVIDED TO SUPPORT
THEIR PROJECTS UNTIL THE LATTER.
EITHER. JUNE 29TH. 2024 OR THE
PASSAGE OF THE 24 25 BUDGET. IT
EXPANDS INSTITUTIONAL
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE GOLDEN STATE
TEACHER GRANT PROGRAM AND CAPS
THE PERCENTAGE OF APPROPRIATED
FUNDS THAT CAN SUPPORT AWARDS
FOR CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS. THAT
WOULD BE CAPABLE OF RECEIVING A
$10,000 AWARD. AND IT REQUIRES.
THIS BILL REQUIRES A SCHOLARSHIP
INVESTMENT BOARD TO PARTNER WITH
THE L. A UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE
OF EDUCATION TO EXPLORE WAYS TO
INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN THE
CALKINS PROGRAM THROUGH
ADDITIONAL DATA SHARING. MOVING
ON TO A BSB 1 43, THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT TRAILER BILL. THIS
BILL EXTENDS THE CURRENT
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
FOR GOAT HERDERS FROM JANUARY OF
2024 TO JULY OF 2026. IT
REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO
CONSULT WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND
SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE BY JANUARY. 1 OF
2026. ON THE CONDITION,
CONDITIONS OF SHEEP HERDERS AND
GOAT HERDERS TO INFORM FUTURE
DISCUSSIONS. UM THIS BILL
INCLUDES AN APPROPRIATION OF 1
MILLION SPECIAL FUNDS FOR D I R
N E. D D TO COMPLETE THE REPORT.
THIS BILL ALSO REQUIRES A
CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY TO SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE BY MARCH 1 OF NEXT
YEAR AND VARIOUS OPTIONS TO FUND
THE CALIFORNIA DREAM FOR ALL
PROGRAM AND MAKES CHANGES TO THE
EXISTING PROGRAM TO TARGET
ASSISTANCE TO FIRST GENERATION
HOMEBUYERS AND LOWER INCOME
INDIVIDUALS. IT ALSO EXPANDS THE
ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS OF RESOURCES
PROVIDED BY THE WOMEN IN
CONSTRUCTION PRIORITY UNIT
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO INCLUDE
ALL PRE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS
RATHER THAN JUST PRE
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS THAT ARE
REGISTERED WITH THE I. R. THIS
BILL ALSO CONFORMS CALIFORNIA
LAW TO FEDERAL LAW REGARDING
PORTABILITY OF PROFESSIONAL
LICENSES, LICENSES FOR SERVICE
MEMBERS AND SPOUSES. UM THAT
WENT INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1 OF
THIS YEAR. IT EXTENDS THE
EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY POST
GRADUATE PHYSICIANS. AND
SURGEONS TRAINING LICENSE
EXPIRES BETWEEN JUNE 1 OF 2023
AND DECEMBER 31 2023 TO MARCH
31ST OF NEXT YEAR. AND THE BILL
EXTENDS THE GOVERNOR'S COVID 19
EXECUTIVE ORDER AS A PERTAINS
TO, UM EXISTING LAW RELATED TO
THE BAGLEY, KEENE AND BROWNE
ACTS AND THE UTILIZATION OF
TELECONFERENCING. THE WAIVER
ENDED AT THE END OF THE LAST
FISCAL YEAR. THIS BILL EXTENDS
IT TO DECEMBER 31 OF THIS YEAR.
MOVING ON TO A BSB 1 48 THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR
VARIOUS BARGAINING UNITS. THIS
BILL RATIFIES AND FUNDS MOU S
BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND
BARGAINING UNITS, 12, THE CRAFT
AND MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS, 19,
THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONALS AND NINE
BARGAINING UNITS REPRESENTED BY
THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION. THIS BILL
ALSO FINDS PAYMENTS AND PAY
DIFFERENTIALS FOR BIÂU 13
BARGAINING UNIT, 13, THE STATION
ENGINEERS, STATIONARY ENGINEERS
AND 19 HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES PROFESSIONALS AS WELL
AS STATUTORILY REQUIRED GENERAL
SALARY INCREASES FOR BARGAINING
UNIT BY WHICH IS THE HIGHWAY
PATROL, UM AND TWO JUDGES. THE
1.2 BILLION APPROPRIATION.
INCLUDED IN THIS BILL PROVIDES
896 MILLION FOR RANK AND FILE
EMPLOYEES AND 262 MILLION FOR
EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES. MOVING ON TO
A BSD 1 51. THIS IS THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BARGAINING UNIT SIX. THIS BILL
RATIFIES AND FUNDS. THE MOU
BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND
BUCYK, ALSO KNOWN AS CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION. THE MOU TERM IS TWO
YEARS AND THE 297 GENERAL
MILLION GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATION. INCLUDED IN THESE
BILLS PROVIDES 231. MILLION
GENERAL FUND FOR RANK AND FILE
AND 66.1 MILLION GENERAL FUND
FOR EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES. AND THE
LAST TRAILER BILL IS A BSB 1 52.
THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
TRAILER BILL. THIS BILL
CLARIFIES EXISTING LAW FOR
SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS TO OBTAIN
FEDERAL CRIMINAL HISTORY,
BACKGROUND CHECK INFORMATION FOR
STATE EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS
FOR LICENSURE TO CONTINUE
REGULAR OPERATIONS AND UPHOLD
ITS REGULATORY DUTIES. THESE
CHANGES WILL BRING THE IMPACTED
STATE AGENCIES INTO COMPLIANCE
WITH US FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS. AND
ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE OBTAINING
THE REQUIRED BACKGROUND CHECKS.
WITH THAT THAT IS THE BUDGET
PACKAGE FOR TODAY AND HAPPY TO
TAKE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU,
ELENA. ANY COMMENTS? CAROLYN
CHUTE. HELLO. WE'RE HERE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU GO
BACK TO THE MEMBERS MEMBERS WITH
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, MR
ALVAREZ. SORRY WE'RE GONNA GO TO
MR FONG, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO MR
AMBROSE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM
I'LL JUST ASK. JUST GO DOWN TO
THE LIST OF BILLS, UM, FIRST,
MAYBE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, BUT HOW MUCH MORE
SPENDING IS ADDED WITH THESE
CHANGES TO THE TO THE BUDGET
THAT WAS PASSED WITH WITH THESE
ADJUSTMENTS. THERE'S ROUGHLY
ABOUT 20 MILLION GENERAL FUND
THAT HAS BEEN ADDED THROUGH
THESE ADJUSTMENTS. THERE'S ALSO
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDING
AUTHORITY THAT WAS PROVIDED
THROUGH GRANTS. UM JUST UNDER
100 MILLION. OKAY SO I'M TRYING
TO RECONCILE HOW UH, HOW WE CAN
JUSTIFY A NET INCREASE IN
SPENDING WHEN WE JUST SAW WITH
THE RECENT, UM ANALYSIS. WHAT I
THINK REVENUE CAME INTO THE
STATE $1.2 BILLION BELOW
FORECASTS. IS THERE. CONCERN
ABOUT THAT? UM I WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO NOTE THAT THERE WERE SOME UPS
AND DOWNS ACROSS. UM THE NET, I
WOULD SAY, UM, THE TOTAL IS
STILL LARGELY AROUND THE SAME AS
THE BUDGET ACT. 310 BILLION. UM
FOR, UH, THIS CURRENT BUDGET
2023 20 FOR SURE, BUT IN IN, BUT
EVEN PROJECTING OUT UH, YOUR
ANALYSIS SHOWS, UH, DEFICITS OF
14 TO 17 BILLION MOVING OUT, BUT
I'M JUST TRYING UNDERSTAND THAT
SHOULD WE BE INCREASING SPENDING
OR SHOULD WE ACTUALLY BE LOOKING
TO ACTUALLY REDUCE SPENDING WITH
THOSE CLOUDS ON THE HORIZON?
RIGHT AND WE HAVE POINTED TO THE
RISK ON THE HORIZON AS WELL,
PARTICULARLY THE OCTOBER DATE AS
WE WAIT FOR, UM UH, TAXES TO
COME IN. UM, I WOULD NOTE THAT
THERE ARE SOME SIGNS, UM, BOTH
IN STOCK MARKET, AND IT WOULD
HOLDING THAT ARE MORE POSITIVE
IN REGARDS TO CONTRAST WITH OUR
OR IN CONTRAST WITH OUR
FORECAST, BUT, UM, AGREE THAT
THERE ARE DEFINITELY THERE'S
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS SPENDING IN
THIS CLEANUP BUDGET, AND THERE
HAVE BEEN OVER THE PAST TWO
YEARS IN RECOGNITION THAT WE ARE
NOT ANTICIPATING. THE ONE TIME
FLUSH DOLLARS I THINK YOU'RE
SETTING A LESS INCREASE THAN
BEFORE, AND BUT THERE'S STILL AN
INCREASE AND I AND I THINK YOU
JUST ALSO HIGHLIGHTED ANOTHER
ISSUE. WHICH IS THE UNCERTAINTY
ABOUT OCTOBER AND I THINK THAT
GIVES US SOME PAUSE IN TERMS OF
LIKE IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE
RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO. MOVING
FORWARD. LET ME ASK THE L A. OH,
THERE HAS BEEN A RECORD OVER THE
PAST FEW YEARS OF THE STATE
EXEMPTING ITSELF FROM THE PUBLIC
CONTRACT CODE. UM MY READING OF
THE OF SB ONE OF FOUR IS THAT
ALLOWS, UH, FUNDS ALLOCATED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES. UM. TO KIND OF BE
EXEMPT FROM THE PUBLIC CONTRACT
CODE. IS TELL ME, I GUESS FROM
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE FOR YOUR
PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW WHAT'S THE
JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT? OR IS
THERE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT? I
THINK, UH, IN TERMS OF THE
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SPECIFIC,
UH, ISSUE AT HAND FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, I
WOULD LET THE ADMINISTRATION
ANSWER THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION
. THERE HAVE BEEN, UM IN THE
PAST FEW YEARS. A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT EXEMPTIONS FOR
DIFFERENT PURPOSES, EITHER DUE
TO URGENCY RELATED TO THE
PANDEMIC OR OTHER PRIORITIES OF
THE ADMINISTRATION, IN WHICH
PUBLIC CONTRACTING CODE HAS BEEN
UM, NOT WITHSTOOD. BUT I WOULD
LET THE ADMINISTRATION SPEAK TO
THE NECESSITY IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE. MAYBE THEN I'LL ASK
DEPARTMENT FINANCE IS THERE A
JUSTIFICATION FOR EXEMPTING? UM
THOSE FUNDS FROM FROM THE PUBLIC
CONTRACT CODE. SO TYLER WOOD'S
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE OF THE
MOU TIMELINES WERE TRYING TO
MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PAYMENTS GO
OUT QUICKLY. AND FOR SOME OF
THOSE PAYMENTS, WE ARE GOING TO
NEED A CONTRACTOR TO DO THAT
QUICKLY, SINCE THERE'S ONE TIME
PAYMENTS THAT NEED TO GO OUT AND
NOVEMBER AS WELL AS GETTING
MONEY TO THE A P S VERY QUICKLY
SO THEY CAN DO THE MONTHLY COST
OF CARE PLUS RATES. OKAY. SO IS
THIS HOW WOULD WE GET THE
INFORMATION? IT WAS WITH THE
INFORMATION BE PRESENTED AT SOME
POINT. OR WOULD YOU OR YOU
EXEMPTING IT PERMANENTLY? IT.
ONLY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE FOR
THIS POT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO GET THE PAYMENTS OUT
QUICKLY. OKAY SO THIS IS FOR
THIS SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC
SITUATION, CORRECT? OKAY. UM
THANK YOU. JUMPING TO USD 1 35.
I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT UM
. THE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY GIVEN
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
INCREASE FEES ON AMMUNITION. UM
MY FIRST QUESTION IS, UH, WHY
REPEAL THE EXISTING LANGUAGE? UM
THAT INCREASES ARE NOT TO EXCEED
THE C P. I IS THERE A REASON WHY
WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INCREASE
FEES ABOVE. THE C P. I. MARK HIM
AND HIS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ON
SO THE EXISTING AUTHORITY TO, UM
ADJUST THE FEE BASED OFF OF C P
. I IS INSUFFICIENT TO COVER THE
EXPENDITURES OF THE PROGRAM. UM
THE REVENUES EXPENDITURES EXCEED
REVENUES. UM CURRENTLY, THE FEE
IS SET AT $1 PER UH, AMMUNITION
TRANSACTION ON AND IT'S
CURRENTLY BRINGING IN ABOUT, UM
, ABOUT $2,000,002 MILLION IN
REVENUES ANNUALLY, BUT THE
EXPENDITURES ARE CLOSE TO 4 $5
MILLION AND SO GIVING, GIVING
THE O. J. THE AUTHORITY TO
ADJUST THE FEET UM, WILL ALLOW
THEM TO, UM, GET GET FEEDBACK
FROM, UM, STAKEHOLDERS THE
PUBLIC ON THE FEE LEVEL SO WE
CAN RIGHT SIZE THE FEE TO COVER
THE COSTS OF OPERATING THE
PROGRAM. BUT YOU DO UNDERSTAND
THE CONCERN THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY
INCREASING COSTS ON CALIFORNIANS
WHO ARE EXERCISING A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. WELL.
CURRENTLY THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE
ISN'T NECESSARILY, UM, UH,
INCREASING THE FEES THAT SETTING
THE FIEND STATUTE. IT WOULD JUST
BE GIVING DOJ THE AUTHORITY TO
INCREASE THE FEE. BUT YOU'RE NOT
. BUT YOU JUST SAID THAT. I MEAN
, YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE NOT
PROPOSING REDUCING THE VÆ. YOU
SAID THAT IT'S INSUFFICIENT. SO
YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE V.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES AREN'T
SETTING A NEW FEE. IT'S GIVING
DOJ THE AUTHORITY TO ADJUST THE
V ACCORDING TO JUST THINK IT UP.
UM THE CORRECT BECAUSE THE
CURRENT FEE REVENUES THAT'S
INSUFFICIENT TO COVER THE
EXPENDITURES OF THE PROGRAM.
RIGHT SO I'M JUST THAT'S WHAT
I'M SAYING. YOU YOU ARE GIVING
THE D O D O. J THE UNILATERAL
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE THESE FEES
AND I AND YOU'RE ALSO ALLOWING
THE DOJ TO INCREASE THOSE FEET
ABOVE SEA P I, WHICH WAS IN
STATUTE. UH WE'RE NOT GIVING DOJ
THE AUTHORITY TO UNILATERALLY
INCREASED THE FEE. UM THE FEW
WOULD BE ADJUSTED TO COME BACK
TO US PROCESS IT COME BACK TO US
TO VOTE ON THAT FEE WOULDN'T
NECESSARILY GO TO THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD GO THROUGH THE
ADMITTED THAT THE REGULATORY
PROCESS THAT INCLUDES A NUMBER
OF, UH I GET TO SAY, WHERE DO I
GET A SAY IN THIS? CERTAINLY
THIS PROPOSAL IS BEFORE THE
LEGISLATURE BUT AFTER IT PASSES
THE DOJ GETS TO DO IT
UNILATERALLY, THEY WOULDN'T
NECESSARILY DO IT UNILATERALLY
THROUGH THE REGULATIONS THAT
COME BACK TO ME. UM WELL, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY IMBALANCES
HERE. WHERE DOES IT COME BACK TO
ME? HOW DOES THE LEGISLATURE
VOTE? WHEN THE FEED GETS CHANGED
? THE LEGISLATURE WOULDN'T BE
VOTING ON. EXACTLY THAT'S MY
POINT, BUT THERE IS A REGULATORY
PROCESS INCREASES. WHERE DO I
GET A SAY? UM I WOULD. YOU KNOW
, IT'S BEFORE YOU NOW AND WHAT'S
THE FEE? WHAT WILL THE PHOEBE
BEFORE ME RIGHT NOW? WHAT'S THE
FEE GONNA BE? ISN'T UM WELL, WE
DON'T ENTIRELY NOT AT THIS
MOMENT. BUT EXACTLY SO WHY CAN'T
YOU BRING ME BACK THE FEE TO
COVER THE COSTS AND THEN I COULD
VOTE ON IT. I IT WOULD BE
DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH A FIEND
STATUTE BECAUSE, UM, THE I FEED
REVENUES ARE HAVE BEEN, UM,
REALLY DIFFICULT TO BASELINE IN
THE PAST FEW YEARS. THAT'S
REALLY RANGED FROM 1 MILLION TO
2 TO 3 MILLION, SO THERE ISN'T
NECESSARILY A BASELINE AND SO,
UM, SETTING IT IN STATUTE ALLOWS
THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST BUT
THERE IS A THERE IS A FLAW IN
YOUR LOGIC. YOU DO SEE THIS
RIGHT? YOU SEE THIS RIGHT?
YOU'RE SAYING WELL, THE FEE CAN
ADJUST. AUTOMATICALLY UP. WE SEE
THIS WITH THE GAS TAX EVERYTHING
ELSE. THE LEGISLATURE SOMEHOW
GIVES AUTHORITY TO THE EXECUTIVE
AND THEN THEY INCREASE THE FEES
AND WE HAVE NO SAY IT WOULDN'T
JUST, UM UP AUTOMATICALLY JUST
LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS LANGUAGE
HAS BEEN OUT SINCE THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, AND THERE
HAVE BEEN OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO WAY AND IT IS
BEFORE YOU NOW IS, UM MR JIMENEZ
HAS BEEN SAYING IT IS GOING
THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS
WILL TAKE YOUR STAKEHOLDERS WILL
BE INVOLVED. OKAY I'M GONNA GO
TO OUR BUDGET STAFF TO EXPLAIN,
UM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HI JENNIFER
KIM WITH THE ASSEMBLY BUDGET
COMMITTEE. I THINK THE ONLY TWO
POINTS I WOULD ADD, IS THAT THE
PROGRAM WAS ESTABLISHED, UM,
WITH THE INTENTION THAT THE BEES
WOULD SUPPORT THE PROGRAM THAT
THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR
GENERAL FUND, THERE WAS A $25
MILLION GENERAL FUND LOAN THAT
WAS PROVIDED TO FOR THE STARTUP.
THAT LOAN HAS NOT BEEN PAID
BACK. WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD TO
PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL LOAN
BECAUSE THE REVENUES HAVE NOT
BEEN SUFFICIENT TO RUN THE
PROGRAM. AND SO I JUST DO. I
JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE
GUARDRAILS ARE SO THAT THE FEET
IS THAT GO ABOVE AND BEYOND.
WHAT WHAT BE NECESSARY TO COVER
THE COSTS THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE
THAT'S PROPOSED LIMITS THAT THE
FEE CANNOT BE MORE THAN THE
REASONABLE COST TO OPERATE THE
PROGRAM. SO IT HAS THAT CEILING
IN PLACE, UM, AND IN TERMS OF
THE REGULATORY PROCESS, I KNOW
THAT MEMBERS HAVE ENGAGED IN THE
REGULATORY PROCESS FOR LIKE THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SO
THERE IS SO THE THING WON'T COME
BACK FOR A VOTE. BUT THERE ARE
WAYS FROM MEMBERS TO KIND OF
ENGAGE IN THE PROCESS THAT WAY.
LOOK I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
LIKE YOU SAY THERE'S GUARDRAILS
THIS THIS THE GUARDRAILS ARE
ALWAYS BLOWN THROUGH. AND SO.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE
POWER RESTS WITH THE LEGISLATURE
. AND IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A
PROPOSAL TO ADJUST THE FEES TO
COVER THE COST OF A PROGRAM,
THEN WE SHOULD SEE THE COST OF
THE PROGRAM, AND WE SHOULD SEE
THE ADJUSTMENT OF FEE SOMEHOW ME
LOANING MY POWER TO THE
EXECUTIVE TO SOMEHOW ADJUST THE
FEET TO WHAT THEY SEE FIT. WHICH
I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT
THEY HAVE MY BEST INTERESTS IN
MIND. AND THAT'S WHERE I MY
CONCERN IS AND I THINK THERE'S
GOING TO BE MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE GONNA ALSO
BE AFFECTED BY THIS BECAUSE
THEY'RE EXECUTE THEIR EXERCISING
A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
RIGHT AND THEIR COSTS ARE GOING
TO GO UP EXERCISING THAT, AND I
THINK THAT'S WHY I WOULD PREFER
TO HAVE PROCESS. THE
STAKEHOLDERS CONCEAL ENGAGED THE
LEGISLATURE. THERE'S NOTHING
THAT STOPS THE STAKEHOLDERS FROM
ENGAGING US IN DETERMINING WHAT
THE APPROPRIATE FEE WOULD BE
INSTEAD OF GIVING. THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE ABILITY INCREASE
THE FEE AND I'VE JUST GOT TO
ACCEPT IT. AND THEN THERE'S NO
WAY FOR ME TO ADJUST IT SO THAT
THAT'S JUST MY POINT. AND I
APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. UM
MOVING ON TO SB 1 37. I'M
WONDERING AS THERE BEEN ANY
FORMAL ANALYSIS ON THE STATE'S
ABILITY TO, UH ENGAGE IN THE
MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF
MEDICINE. THIS PROPOSAL WAS
FIRST STARTED OUT TO BE FOCUSED
ON INSULIN. AND NOW I THINK
WE'RE ADDING, UM REINDL OXEN AND
OTHER TYPES OF MEDICATION. SO
HAS THERE BEEN AN ANALYSIS IN
TERMS OF LIKE, SHOULD WE BE
CONTRACTING WITH WITH THE
GENERICS AND CHEAPER FORMS OF
THESE PRODUCTS OR VERSES
ACTUALLY RAMPING UP AND TRYING
TO PRODUCE SOME OURSELVES.
MEDICAL OR A DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. THE HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES AGENCY IS WORKING.
PROACTIVELY TO FIND OUR
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE MARKET.
WHERE WE CAN HELP BRING DOWN OUR
COSTS OF INSULIN AND OTHER
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TO MAINTAIN
ACCESS. THIS PROPOSAL, THOUGH
IT'S NOT NALOXONE. SO HAS THE
AGENCY IS AN AGENCY FIRST GOING
TO GO OUT TO MANUFACTURERS WHO
HAVE OTHER VERSIONS OF NALOXONE
FIRST OR IS THIS JUST A PROPOSAL
TO PRODUCING A LUXAN OURSELVES.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE
OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE IN THE
MARKET TO FIND THE BEST SOLUTION
FOR CALIFORNIA. OKAY? UM. I JUST
SO YOU'RE GONNA DO ALL OF IT.
BUT THEN HOW MUCH ARE WE GONNA
PUT THEY DO IT? IS THERE A
PROJECTION OF HOW MUCH? THE
STATE NEEDS TO PRODUCE OR IS
THERE ENOUGH OUT THERE WHERE WE
COULD? WE COULD GET ENOUGH AND
THIS IS JUST KIND OF A BACKSTOP.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE
STRATEGY HERE. I THINK THE
BOUNDARIES FOR THIS PARTICULAR
PROGRAM OR THAT THE STATE HAS
APPROPRIATED 30 MILLION OF THE
OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS FOR THIS
PURPOSE. SO THOSE ARE THE
GUARDRAILS AROUND THE FUNDS
ALLOCATED FOR THIS PURPOSE. OKAY
I MEAN, THIS IS CERTAINLY
IMPORTANT. I JUST I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S CHEAPER
VERSIONS OF LUXAN OUT THERE, I
WOULD THINK THAT THE STATE COULD
CONTRACT WITH THOSE
MANUFACTURERS. BUY AND SAVE SOME
OF THE SOME MONEY INSTEAD OF
TRYING TO RAMP UP OUR OWN
MANUFACTURING WITH ALL THE
CAPITAL THAT'S HAS TO BE PUT
INTO IT, RIGHT. WE'RE TRYING TO
MAXIMIZE VALUE HERE AND EXPAND
ACCESS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE,
OKAY? UH IN TERMS OF THE FEE
INCREASES ON RESIDENTIAL AND
OUTPATIENTS, SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT PROGRAMS. I'M STRUCK
BY THE FACT THAT THERE'S A FEE
INCREASE, AND THEN THERE'S A
HARDSHIP WAIVER. SO IT I'M HOW
DO I RECONCILE THAT IS THE FEE
SO HIGH THAT IT'S GONNA ACTUALLY
DISRUPT AND PUT UH, ALCOHOL AND
DRUG ABUSE RECOVERY PROGRAMS.
LIKE OUT OF BUSINESS. HOW? HOW?
HOW DO WE? HOW DO WE RECONCILE
THAT? GUADALUPE MANRIQUEZ
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO THE
PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU WOULD PHASE
IN UP TO 20% OF A FEAT INCREASED
THROUGH, UM 26 27 FOR THE SAME
REASON THAT YOU'RE RAISING SO
THAT IT'S NOT SUCH A HUGE IMPACT
ON THESE FACILITIES. UM STARTING
IN 27 28. WE WOULD DO A 5%
ANNUAL INCREASE UP TO 5% ANNUAL
INCREASE. TO KEEP UP WITH COST
OF LIVING. UM HOWEVER, UM. WE
REALLY DID TRY TO, YOU KNOW,
PHASED IN THE IMPACT OF THE
FACILITIES, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
THERE ARE SOME SMALLER
FACILITIES WITH, FOR EXAMPLE,
SIX BEDS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO
CONSIDER AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS
FRAMEWORK ALSO WORKS. SO AT THE
END OF THE PROCESS, HOW HOW MUCH
DID THE FEES GO UP TO 20%
INITIALLY AND THEN 5% UP TO WHAT
POINT OUR INITIAL PROPOSAL, UM,
PROPOSED TO RAISE FEES UP TO, UM
SEVEN BY 75% SO, UM, THAT WAS AT
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, AND NOW WE'RE
DOING UP TO 2020 2015% UNTIL WE
GET TO THAT INITIAL 75. THEN
AFTER THAT, UM WITH THE GOAL OF
LISTENING POTENTIAL, POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT BE INCREASED LIKE WE
WERE PROPOSING AT GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET 75. WE WOULD DO 5%
ANNUALLY UP TO 5% ANNUALLY. UM
TO KEEP UP WITH, UM, UM, COST OF
LABOR. CAN EVERYONE APPLY FOR
THE HARDSHIP WAIVER? OR HOW DOES
THAT WORK THAT WILL BE SUBJECT
TO THE PROCESS. DCS WILL ENGAGE
STAKEHOLDERS TO DEVELOP. WHAT
THAT HARDSHIP THE PROGRAM WILL
WILL LOOK LIKE, OKAY, I'LL APPLY
MY PREVIOUS ARGUMENTS ON FEE
INCREASES TO THIS ONE. THAT WE
PROBABLY DO NEED TO KNOW, LIKE
KIND OF WHAT? THAT WHAT THOSE
GUARDRAILS ARE AND HOW I MEAN,
IF THIS IS GOING TO BE SUCH A
HARDSHIP THAT YOU KNOW, SMALLER
FACILITIES, AS YOU'VE INDICATED
, ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN
JEOPARDY. I HOPE THAT THERE'S
INPUT FROM FROM US AS WELL IN
TERMS OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE, I
WOULD NOTE THAT FOR THIS
PROPOSAL ANYTHING ABOUT 5% WE
WOULD COME BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE. OKAY THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT, UM,
JUMPING TO SB 1 42. THE HIGHER
EDUCATION. UM UM PROPOSED BUDGET
TRAILER. THIS I THINK IS WHERE
IT GETS A LITTLE BIT WITH THE
CONCERNS ARE IN TERMS OF FUNDS
THAT HAVE BEEN ALREADY ALLOCATED
TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOR
STUDENT HOUSING SUPPORT. UM
WE'RE THERE ANY STIPULATIONS
THAT THE FUNDING WOULD HAVE TO
BE RETURNED WHEN THAT WAS
DISCUSSED? UM NO. AS YOU MAY
RECALL, THE 2023 BUDGET ACT DID
MAKE SOME CHANGES IN TERMS OF
FINANCING FOR THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROGRAM. UM INSTEAD OF CASH ON
HAND, IT WAS FOR A TYPE OF
FINANCING. UM AND SO THERE WAS
NO DISCUSSION OF UH, RETURNING
FUNDS AT THAT POINT. UM THIS
BILL DOES AUTHORIZE THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGES TO RETAIN ANY
CASH PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THEIR
PROJECTS UNTIL JUNE 29 OF 2024
OR THE PASSAGE OF THE 24 25
BUDGET, WHICHEVER IS LATER. IT
ALSO ALLOWS FOR THERE'S BUDGET
BUILD LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO INCREASE
FUNDS TO KEEP PROJECTS MOVING
FORWARD. IN ANTICIPATION THAT
THERE MAY BE SOME, UH, FINANCING
ISSUES IN THE CURRENT YEAR, SO
THERE'S THOSE GUARDRAILS. I JUST
MIGHT PUT IT. SO WHAT I I'M
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. LIKE SO
THE COLLEGE COMMUNITY COLLEGES
WHEN THEY RECEIVED THE FUNDING,
THEY WEREN'T AWARE THAT THAT
THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY TO
RETURN IT. AND SO I'M TRYING TO
UNDERST LIKE, WALK ME THROUGH
THIS. IF IF A COMMUNITY COLLEGE
HAS ALREADY SPENT SOME OF THE
MONEY ON PLANNING ON
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS ARE OR
WHATEVER WENT INTO TRYING TO
DEVELOP STUDENT HOUSING. UM THEN
WHAT ARE THEY TO DO? WITH THE
MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
EXPENDED, ARE THEY TO RETURN?
THE MONEY THAT'S LEFT, INCLUDING
, AND, OF COURSE, GIVE PAYBACK.
THE MONEY THAT THEY'VE THEY'VE
ALREADY ALLOCATED, OR IS IT JUST
THE AMOUNT THAT WAS UNSPENT? I
BELIEVE IT WAS THE AMOUNT THAT
WAS UNSPENT, BUT I WILL TURN TO
MY COLLEAGUE ON. HE'S ACTUALLY
ON THE LINE. UM, MR FERGUS,
EITHER WAY. DID YOU WANNA ANSWER
OR DID SURE CHRISTIANS AND WE'RE
FINDING SO EFFECTIVELY. WHAT?
WHAT WE WERE DOING IS SHIFTING
THE FINANCING MECHANISM AT THE
BUDGET ACT, SHIFTING THE
FINANCING MECHANISM TO, UH BE
REVENUE. BOND BASED, UH HAVE NO
REVENUE BONDS WILL BE ISSUED BY
LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICTS WITH THE EXPECTATION
THAT THEY WOULD RETURN THAT
GENERAL FUNDED THE STATE BECAUSE
THE LOCAL FINANCING WOULD BE
COVERING IT. AND THE STATE WAS
CREATING, UM, A DISCRETIONARY,
ONGOING PART OF FUNDING TO
SUPPORT THAT THE LOCAL ABILITY
TO SUPPORT THESE PROJECTS AS
THEY MOVE FORWARD, SO WE
SWITCHED THAT FINANCING
MECHANISM WITH THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE LOCAL
REVENUE BONDS WOULD HAVE COVERED
ALL OF THE COSTS AND THEY WOULD
RETURN THAT GENERAL FUND OF THE
STATE AND THE STATE WOULD THEN
YOU KNOW, BE PROVIDING ONGOING
FUNDING TO HELP THE COLLEGES.
WITH THE COSTS OF ISSUING THOSE
BONDS, ULTIMATELY WHAT YOU SEE
BEFORE YOU AND TODAY'S PACKAGE
GIVES A SHIFT OF FROM A CONCEPT
AROUND LOCAL REVENUE BONDS TO AT
LEAST REVENUE BOND STRUCTURE, UM
, AT THE STATE LEVEL OR SOME
OTHER FINANCING MECHANISM THAT
YOU WOULD SEE COME FORWARD, UH,
LIKELY AT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET.
SO I JUST I JUST WANTED TO GET
TO MAKE SURE I NAIL THIS DOWN
BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A HUGE
STICKING POINT AMONGST THE
NUMBER OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES IS
WHAT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY
ALREADY EXPANDED SOME OF THE
MONEY. DO THEY RETURN THAT MONEY
THAT THAT PORTION BACK OR IS IT
JUST THE UNSPENT? MARK MARTIN
WITH THE ASSEMBLY BUDGET
COMMITTEE. THE CONCEPT HERE IS
THAT THE COLLEGES THAT RECEIVED
MONEY LAST YEAR AND HAVE SPENT
IT OR IN THE PROCESS OF SPENDING
IT. WILL NOT HAVE TO GIVE IT
BACK. UH BEFORE WE DECIDE NEXT
YEAR HOW TO IMPLEMENT A STATE
BOND, AND SO THE THIS SHOULD
WORK SUCH THAT WE WILL. THESE.
THOSE COLLEGES THAT RECEIVE
FUNDING PREVIOUSLY WILL NOT HAVE
TO GIVE IT BACK. WE WILL ISSUE A
STATE BOND THAT WILL COVER THE
COST. SO THAT THEY WOULD STAY,
YOU KNOW, JUST KEEP THE CASH THE
STATE BOND WOULD BE ISSUED. WE
WOULD GENERATE THE REVENUE THAT
WE NEED. SO INSTEAD OF COLLEGE
IS GIVING MONEY BACK. THE STATE
BOND WOULD COVER THAT. SO IT'S
SO IT'S NOT A CLAWBACK. CORRECT
THOUGH. IT'S JUST YOU HAVE YOU
HAVE YOUR WHAT CAN MAKE COLLEGE
X GOT X MY DOLLARS. THEY SPENT
SOME OF IT BACK NOW THEY'RE
GOING TO INSTEAD OF PROCEEDING
WITH WHAT THEY ARE. WE'RE GOING
TO DO THERE NOW GOING TO SHIFT
TO THIS LEASE REVENUE BOND
OPTION. THAT'S CORRECT. WELL
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE
ON USE THE CASH THEY RECEIVED.
THE STATE WILL ISSUE A STATE
BOND THAT WILL SORT OF PAY THE
STATE BACK FOR THAT CASH SO THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.
THERE'S CONFUSION BECAUSE THE
INTENT LANGUAGE MENTIONS, YOU
KNOW LOCAL REVENUE BONDS, TOO,
SO I'M JUST I'M TRYING TO LIKE
SOME SOME SOME DISTRICTS.
ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY. THEY DON'T HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO BOND, SO I'M JUST
TRYING TO NAIL DOWN. THE
LANGUAGE ALLOWS THE LOCAL
DISTRICT TO ISSUE THEIR OWN
LOCAL BONDS IF THEY WANT TO. BUT
THE LANGUAGE ALSO STATES THAT WE
WILL WORK. OVER THE FALL AND
HOPEFULLY COME BACK EARLY NEXT
YEAR WITH A STATE BOND THAT WILL
COVER THE OTHER COLLEGES THAT
DON'T WANT TO DO A LOCAL BOND.
OKAY, SO THERE'S A LOT OF INTENT
HERE. SO LET ME JUST SO THAT I
GUESS FROM CLARIFY FOR ME THAN
WHAT EXACTLY THIS PROPOSAL IS
TRYING TO DO THEN IF IS IT? IS
IT TOO? IS IT BASICALLY SAY,
LOOK COMMUNITY COLLEGES. THERE
WAS MONEY IN THE BUDGET IN
PREVIOUS BUDGETS FOR STUDENT
HOUSING. YOU HAVE THE MONEY
CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD AND AS
YOU WERE PLANNING TO DO, BUT
NOW, INSTEAD OF DOING THIS,
WE'RE GOING TO NOW GO TO ELISE
REVENUE BONDS BACKED BY THE
STATE. YEAH IN ESSENCE, WE HAVE
SHIFTED FROM CASH, WHICH WAS THE
ORIGINAL PLAN TO NOW A STATE
FINANCING MECHANISM THAT WE WILL
WORK ON THIS FALL AND COME BACK
AND SO NO COLLEGE WOULD HAVE TO
GIVE THE MONEY BACK UNTIL WE
FIGURE OUT THE STATE FUNDING
MECHANISM, AND IDEALLY, THEN
THOSE COLLEGES WOULD JUST KEEP
THE CASH AND THE STATE BOND
WOULD COVER COVER THAT AMOUNT
THAT I JUST WANT. SO JUST TO BE
CLEAR. NONE OF THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGES THAT GOT FUNDING IN THE
PREVIOUS IN PREVIOUS BUDGETS FOR
STUDENT HOUSING, THEY DON'T HAVE
TO GIVE THE MONEY BACK. RIGHT
THE LANGUAGES EXPLICIT THAT IT
IT WOULD THEY WOULD NOT UNTIL WE
FIGURE OUT THIS THIS STATE BOND
UM AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT
SHOULD GENERATE THE REVENUE SO
THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO
REPAY THE MONEY. OKAY? IS THAT
FINANCE AGREES WITH THIS
ANALYSIS. OKAY EFFECTIVELY AT
THAT POINT, ITS JUST A SWAP IN
TERMS OF WHAT IS SUPPORTING THE
PROJECTS. OKAY? I JUST WANT TO
BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A LOT
A LOT OF CONFUSION WITHIN THE
MONKS. THE COMMITTEE COLLEGES
THAT SOMEHOW THEY GOT FUNDING,
THEY START SPENDING IT NOW THEY
GOT TO GIVE IT BACK. SO I'M JUST
VERY CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT
THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THE
MONEY BACK, OKAY? UM I WILL LET
ME JUST ADD THERE'S THERE WAS A
PORTION OF LOVE THIS. YOU MAY
HAVE TO COME BACK AND GIVE ME
SOME MORE DETAILS ON THIS. BUT
OVER A YEAR AGO, AND THERE WAS
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
ARTICLE ABOUT STUDENT AID FRAUD
AND OVER A YEAR AGO, THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE THEY WERE
ALLOCATED $100 MILLION FOR
CYPRUS SECURITY UPGRADES. UM I
WAS TOLD THAT $25 MILLION HAD
BEEN FULLY ENCUMBERED 75 MILLION
HAD BEEN PARTIALLY ENCUMBERED.
BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN REALLY ANY
RFP S, UM IS THIS SOMETHING THAT
YOU GUYS ARE TRACKING? UH, IN
TERMS OF HOW WE GET THESE CYBER
SECURITY SYSTEMS UP AND RUNNING
. IT WOULD HATE THAT. YOU KNOW
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF FINANCIAL
AID, IT WOULD BE CONTINUED TO BE
FRAUDULENT. AND UM, HOW CAN WE
ASSIST THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
WITH THAT? YEAH I WOULD HAVE TO
GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. I'M NOT
FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR
PROGRAM. OKAY I'LL SEND YOU THE
DETAILS. THIS IS A BECAUSE SOME
OF THAT MONEY CAN HAVE TO BE
REPAID TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND TWO OTHERS. I CERTAINLY
WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
DON'T HAVE AN E D D SITUATION
WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SYSTEM. THANK YOU. MY LAST
QUESTION ON SP 1 43. I CAN'T
BELIEVE WE'RE STILL TALKING
ABOUT GOAT HERDERS. BUT, UM AND
CHEAP HERDERS AS WELL. THE
EXTENSION OF THE LABOR
PROVISIONS. CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL
ADDRESS MHM THIS THIS ISSUE BY
THE SHEEP AND GOAT HERDERS ON A
RELATIVELY PERMANENT BASIS.
MARCH. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. UM
SO THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU WOULD
EXTEND THE CURRENT ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE FROM
JANUARY 1 2024 TO JULY 1 2026 SO
IT WOULD GIVE US 2.5 YEARS
ESSENTIALLY TO LOOK AT THE
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
AND THEN DECIDE, UH, A FUTURE
PATH WITHIN THOSE TWO WITHIN
THOSE 2.5 YEARS. UM D I R AND D
D D ARE REQUIRED TO DO A REPORT
TO LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS OF
GOAT HERDERS AND SHEEP HERDERS
AND ALSO ADDRESS WHETHER THE
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
IS APPROPRIATE GOING FORWARD, SO
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE
WOULD HOPE TO DISCUSS IN 2026.
SO YOU'RE TELLING ME IN TWO
YEARS WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH
THIS AGAIN. UNDER THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL. YES I DIDN'T HAVE GOAT
HERDERS ON MY BINGO CARD THIS
BUDGET YEAR AGAIN, BUT I GUESS
WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT. UM
IN TERMS OF, UM THE CHANGES TO
THE BACK LEAKING ACT. I THINK
THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING
CONVERSATION WITH OTHER BILLS.
UM BUT THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR
IN A ROW THAT THERE HAS BEEN A
BUDGET TRAILER THAT THAT
PROPOSES TO SUSPEND PROVISION OF
THE BAG. THE BAG LEAGUE TEEN ACT
, UM, THAT I WOULD ARGUE,
DECREASES TRANSPARENCY. UM I'M
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. LIKE
WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR
THAT? UM YES, WE UNDERSTAND THAT
THERE ARE SOME BILLS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE BEFORE THE
LEGISLATURE DEALING WITH THIS
AND THIS THIS IS A BRIDGE TO
POTENTIALLY, UH, POLICY CHANGES
. UM THAT ARE BEFORE THE
LEGISLATURE. UM THE BAGLEY QUÊ,
NOR THAT EXEMPTION ENDED JULY 1
OF THIS PAST YEAR AND THIS
BRIDGES THE GAP TO JANUARY 1 OF
NEXT YEAR. SHOULDN'T ANY OF
THOSE BILLS COMING TO, UM
DESIGNED. SO IF IT ALSO IT MEANS
THESE PROVISIONS EXPIRE. I MEAN
, YOU SAID THE BRIDGE, BUT THEY
EXPIRED IN JULY. SO WHAT OUR
STATE AGENCIES DOING NOW? IS
THERE A REASON? WHY THEY AREN'T
WILLING TO MEET IN PERSON. WE'RE
MEETING IN PERSON, SO I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND. AFTERNOON DANIEL
BRENDA WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. MY APOLOGIES, MEMBER. I
DON'T HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT.
AT THIS TIME. MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THERE ARE FOLLOWING THE
LAW AND THAT THIS IS TO PROTECT
THOSE PRIVATE ADDRESSES OF ANY
OF THE MEMBERS OR ATTENDEES OF
THE MEETING. UM, THAT ARE
ATTENDING FROM THEIR HOME
LOCATION TO MAINTAIN THEIR
PRIVACIES. BUT JUST SO I
UNDERSTAND PRE PANDEMIC THEY
WERE MEETING IN PERSON. THESE
ARE EMERGENCY PROVISIONS FOR THE
PANDEMIC, SO I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND. YOU KNOW, WE OF
COURSE, TALKED ABOUT
HIGHLIGHTING AND PROMOTING
TRANSPARENCY. AND SO TO
CONTINUOUSLY SUSPEND PROVISION
OF THE BAGLEY KEENE ACT IS VERY
DISCONCERTING TO ME. SO LIKE
THERE HAS TO BE A JUSTIFICATION
. YOU'RE ASKING US TO VOTE ON
THIS. I THINK THIS IS TO EXTEND
SOME OF THE FLEXIBILITIES THAT
HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AND AGAIN,
PROVIDING THE LEGISLATURE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON SOME
OF THE BILLS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU
SO THAT YOU'RE TELLING ME THE
MEETINGS IN JULY AND AUGUST HAVE
BEEN THE AGENCIES HAVE BEEN
BEATING. HOW THE AGENCIES HAVE
BEEN MEETING IN PERSON, UM,
THERE HAVE BEEN FLEXIBILITIES
THAT HAVE BEEN USED. BELIEVE
DEPENDING ON UM THE BOARS IN
REGARDS TO CALLING FROM A
CERTAIN LOCATIONS THAT ARE NOT
PHYSICALLY THERE, BUT, UM
THERE'S BELIEVE 10 DAYS NOTICE
IF YOU BUT THEY'VE BEEN MEETING
IN PERSON. SO IS THERE IS THERE
SOME REASON THAT WAS SOMEHOW
LIKE, OH, MY GOODNESS, LIKE THE
LAST TWO MONTHS HAVE BEEN JUST
TERRIBLE. WE CAN'T MEET IN
PERSON ANYMORE, AND WE GOT IT.
NOW SUSPEND THE BAG LEAKING ACT
OR CHANGE IT AND WEAKEN IT TO
WHERE WE NOW HAVE TO GO BACK TO
SOMETHING ELSE. UM AND AGAIN,
IT'S JUST TO PROVIDE THE
FLEXIBILITY THERE HAVE BEEN
SURGES IN COVID BEEN DIFFICULT
FOR SOME PEOPLE TO MEET, SO TO
MAINTAIN SOME OF THE
FLEXIBILITIES FOR A SHORT
DURATION. HMM I WOULD BUY WANT
TO BETTER JUSTIFICATION FOR
THAT. BUT YOU CAN GIVE THAT TO
ME AFTER THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO
GO TO MR AMBROSE THAN MR
BENNETT. THANK YOU. I HAVE JUST
A FEW QUESTIONS. UM ON SB, ONE
OF FOUR. THERE'S AN ITEM OF
REVERTING $50 MILLION. THAT WAS
SET ASIDE FOR A D U. S. I'D LIKE
TO GET, UM AH! REASON FOR THAT.
IS IT UNDERUTILIZED
UNDERSUBSCRIBED? WHY? UM AND I
SEE THAT I ASSUME THAT THAT'S
PART OF THE ALLOCATION FOR THE
MULTI FAMILY HOUSING. AND THE
DREAM FOR ALL BUT FIRST QUESTION
IS, UM, WHY ARE WE REVERTING
THAT ANDREW MARCH. DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE IS PART OF THE BUDGET
AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU THE $50
MILLION FROM THE 2022 BUDGET
ACTORS BEING REVERTED, UM $25
MILLION OF THAT IS BEING USED
FOR THE MULTI FAMILY HOUSING
PROGRAM. $20 MILLION IS BEING
USED FOR THE DREAM FOR ALL
PROGRAM. YEAH I UNDERSTAND THAT,
BUT, UM, WELL, IT'S THE REASON
WAS IT UNDERSUBSCRIBED? WAS
THERE NOT ENOUGH? UM THE MAN FOR
THE PROGRAM. THE MONEY WASN'T
SET ASIDE FOR THE CURRENT
EXISTING 80 YOU PROGRAM IT WAS
SET ASIDE TO PROVIDE LOAN
GUARANTEES THE DEPARTMENT WENT
THROUGH WORKING GROUP MEETING
DECIDED THAT IT REALLY WASN'T UM
IT WASN'T ABLE TO PROVIDE LOAN
GUARANTEES, WHICH WOULD LEVER
LEVERAGE PRIVATE SECTOR DOLLARS
SO BECAUSE OF THE NOT BEING ABLE
TO USE IT FOR ITS INTENDED
PURPOSE, WE DECIDED TO SHIFT IT
TO OTHER PRIORITIES. SO WAS THIS
THE A D YOU PROGRAM THAT THE
STATE? UM ON IT. OR WAS THERE AN
ADDITIONAL 80 YOU PROGRAM? THAT
WAS SORT OF OUTED AS A SUPPORT
TO BUILD 80. IT WAS SET ASIDE,
UH, TWO YEARS AGO AS MONEY FOR A
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM, WHICH WE
ASKED. LH EVADED. TAKE A LOOK AT
CREATING, UH, THEY WERE NOT ABLE
TO CREATE THAT PROGRAM. AND SO
BECAUSE OF THAT THE MONEY HAS
BEEN, UH, MOVE TOWARD OTHER
PRIORITIES. SO THIS MEANS WE
DON'T HAVE ANY ANY KIND OF
INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR A D U. S
AT THE STATE LEVEL. UM THE MONEY
HAS BEEN SPENT. THAT WAS A
DIFFERENT PART OF MONEY. THANK
YOU APPRECIATE THAT, UM. YEAH I
HAD QUESTIONS ON THE YOU SEE, UH
, YOU SEE IN THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE. I THINK THOSE WERE
ANSWERED BY THE EXCHANGE EARLIER
. UM SO I THINK I'VE GOT CLARITY
ON THAT THAT COMMUNITY COLLEGES
ARE NOT GOING TO BE ESSENTIALLY
ON THE HOOK. UM, AND THAT'S
IMPORTANT. AH THERE IS, UH.
THERE IS AN ITEM HERE TO, UH
COUNT ANY OF èC ENROLLMENT
ABOVE THE 23 24 TARGET OF 7800.
TOWARDS THEIR ENROLLMENT GROWTH
FOR 24 25. WHAT IS THE
ENROLLMENT TODAY AT U. C. UM SO
THAT I HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING AT AS TO HOW MUCH
OF THAT ENROLLMENT ARE WE? NOT
GOING TO EXPECT NOW IN YOUR 24
25. REFER TO MY COLLEAGUE MR
FERGUSON. I ACTUALLY SEE MR
MARTIN GETTING READY TO RESPOND.
AH MARK MARTIN ASSEMBLY BUDGET.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? YEAH.
I THINK I WILL GET BACK. I DON'T
KNOW THE èC ENROLLMENT OFF THE
TOP OF MY HEAD. UM AND I COULD,
BUT WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU. THIS
IS, UH, PART OF A MULTI YEAR
PLAN WHERE YOU SEE AS AN
INCREASING ENROLLMENT RIGHT EACH
YEAR FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS
. UM THE LANGUAGE ALLOWS THEM WE
HAD SET A ENROLLMENT TARGET IN
JUNE FOR THEM TO GROW. BY 7800
STUDENTS IN THE NEXT YEAR. THIS
LANGUAGE ALLOWS THEM TO GO PAST
THAT. CAP SO WE'RE TRYING TO
INCENTIVIZE THEM TO GROW AS MUCH
AS THEY CAN, AND SO THIS WOULD
ALLOW THEM TO KIND OF GO PAST
THE CAP, AND THEN NEXT YEAR, WE
WOULD SORT OF SETTLE UP WITH
THEM. UM IF THEY GO OVER BECAUSE
WE KIND OF HAVE A MULTIYEAR, UH
, ENROLLMENT GROWTH PLAN GOING
FOR THEM, AND SO THIS WOULD
ESSENTIALLY ALLOW THEM TO. WE
DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE THEM IF
THEY GO OVER IF THEY GO OVER
ENROLLMENT. THAT'S A GREAT THING
FOR CALIFORNIA AND WE WOULD
SETTLE UP WITH THEM NEXT YEAR
AND SORT OF ADJUST THE TARGET. I
GET THAT IN THE SETTLEMENT, BUT,
UM, IS IT AT THE REQUEST BECAUSE
THEY ANTICIPATE TO BE AT HIGHER
NUMBERS AND THEN KIND OF DON'T
WANT TO GROW MORE THAN THAT IN
24 25. YEAH THEY YOU SEE ASKED
FOR THIS LANGUAGE, THEY DO THINK
THEY MAY EXCEED THE TARGET. I
MEAN, THAT THAT WE SAID IN MY
OPINION, THAT'S A GOOD THING IF
THEY EXCEED THIS YEAR, AND THEY
EXCEED NEXT YEAR, GREAT, THAT'S
WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO. UM TO
BE INTERESTED INTO. HOW DOES
THIS UM I'LL USE THE PHRASE
DISINCENTIVIZE THEM TO CONTINUE
TO EXCEED THAT GOING FORWARD. IF
IF THEY GO OVER THEIR TARGET, WE
USUALLY WE PROVIDE THEM A SET
AMOUNT OF MONEY PER STUDENT AND
SET THAT TARGET. SO IF THEY GO
OVER THAT TARGET, THEY ARE
ESSENTIALLY UNDERFUNDED FOR
ENROLLMENT, SO THIS WOULD ALLOW
THEM TO NEXT YEAR AGAIN, WE
WOULD. IF THEY GO OVER THE
TARGET, THEN WE CAN KIND OF
RECALIBRATE THEIR THEIR TARGET
FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND ACCOUNT
FOR THOSE EXTRA STUDENTS THAT
THEY ENROLLED. WE CAN HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION IN NEXT YEAR'S
BUDGET, FOR SURE, BUT, UM NOT
LET'S PUSH THEM TO I ALWAYS DO
DO MORE IS MY OPINION? UM MY
NEXT QUESTION IS ON THE, UH,
STATE AUDITORS, UM, ON PERMANENT
PUBLIC HEALTH FOR EMERGENCY
REGULATION ON HOSPICE PROVIDERS.
UM WE'RE EXTENDING THAT AND
OBVIOUSLY AS A CHAIR OF THE
AUDIT COMMITTEE, UM WE'VE BEEN
HAVING SOME OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
AND WILL CONTINUE TO, BUT, UH,
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WORRY
ABOUT OFTEN IS EXTENDING AND
EXTENDING COMMITMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE NOT
IMPLEMENTED, ACCORDING TO THE
AUDITOR'S REPORT. CAN I JUST GET
AN EXPLANATION ON THE REASON WHY
THIS IS BEING PUSHED OUT FOR ONE
YEAR? DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
NINA HONG, UM, THE LEGISLATURE
HAD PROPOSED AND THE
MINISTRATIONS AGREED THAT THE
EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM
WOULD ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE
ADDITIONAL TIME TO WORK WITH
STAKEHOLDERS ON ADDRESSING SOME
OF THE STATE. AUDITOR 2022
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL
AS ALSO ALLOWING THE DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH MORE TIME TO
WORK ON THEIR EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS AND HAVE A MORE
ROBUST STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS. DO WE KNOW IF THAT'S
HAPPENING TODAY? IS THERE A BILL
THAT'S BEEN INTRODUCED HIS THEIR
PROPOSAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT?
NOT AT THIS TIME. SO HOW DO WE
KNOW THEN WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE
THIS BY 2025 THAT HASN'T BEGUN.
WAIT WE CAN GO BACK TO IF YOU
DON'T HAVE A RESPONSE. THANK
YOU. UM MY NEXT QUESTION IS ON
RELATED TO THE FEE INCREASES. UM
JUST ACTUALLY, THIS WAS
CURIOSITY AS A RESULT OF THE
RESIDENTIAL OUTPATIENT PROGRAM.
UH INCREASES AND THEN OTHER FEW
INCREASES THAT WERE MENTIONED
EARLIER BY THE VICE CHAIR. THEY
COME FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. WE HAD PROP 26, AND
YOU HAVE TO DO COST OF SERVICE
STUDIES. FOR EVERY FEE INCREASE
. THERE'S A STATE TO THE SAME.
DO WE HAVE COST OF SERVICE
REQUIREMENTS? FEES UH, COST OF
SERVICE STUDY REQUIREMENTS FOR
FEE INCREASES. SERIOUS QUESTION.
I DON'T I DON'T KNOW. GUADALUPE
MANRIQUEZ DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
WILL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON
THAT QUESTION. OKAY? THANK YOU.
OKAY, I HAVE, LIKE ONE MORE. OH
YES, THIS IS ON. UM SORRY ABOUT
L A HAD A THANK YOU SURE ON THE
PROP 26 QUESTION? YES THE STATE.
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IN THE STATE ARE NOT
EXACTLY PARALLEL BUT PROP 26 IN
TERMS OF REASONABLE COST, UM,
CONSTRAINTS AROUND FEE SETTING
DO APPLY TO THE STATE. THERE IS
LITIGATION AROUND EXACTLY WHAT
THAT MEANS. BUT THERE ARE THOSE
CONSTRAINTS AROUND HOW THE STATE
CAN SET FEES. AND DO YOU KNOW
WHETHER FALSE STUDY IS PRODUCED
? I MEAN, WE WERE DOING FEES AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL, YOU HAVE TO PUT
A PRETTY ROBUST ARGUMENT FORWARD
WITH, UH, STUDY THE SAME LEVEL.
I DON'T I DO NOT BELIEVE THE
SAME LEVEL FOR THAT APPLIES TO
THE LOCALS IN TERMS OF THOSE
STUDIES, AS REQUIRED. BUT THERE
IS LIKE A REQUIREMENT AROUND THE
REASONABLE COST TO ADMINISTER
THE PROGRAM, BUT NOT THE SAME
DEMONSTRATION. I DON'T BELIEVE
I'LL STILL ASK GUADALUPE AND THE
FINANCE TEAM TO PLEASE PROVIDE
MORE FEEDBACK ON THE INDEPENDENT
PANEL OF EXPERTS RELATED TO THE
SCREENINGS. THIS WAS AN ISSUE UM
AND I'M JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AND
UNDERSTAND. UM, SO THIS IS AN S
B. 141 AH! THERE'S A REFERENCE
TO THE TO WHAT WAS DONE IN THE
BUDGET ACT, AND I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE NOTHING IS CHANGING
WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEFORE
US TODAY ON ENSURING THAT THE
PANEL OF EXPERTS INCLUDES
INDIVIDUALS WHO, UM, HAVE
EXPERTISE IN BILINGUAL EDUCATION
, PARTICULARLY SO THAT STUDENTS
UM SO THAT THE ULTIMATE
ASSESSMENT TOOL THAT'S USED DID
NOT MISCLASSIFYING GLITCH.
LANGUAGE LEARNERS. UM AS A
SPECIAL EDUCATION. UH LEARNERS.
YES ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ERIN GABLE
FOR THE ASSEMBLY BUDGET
COMMITTEE. UM THE LANGUAGE IN
THE BUDGET DOES NOT CHANGE ANY
OF THE STATUTE AROUND THE SCREEN
. IT'S MERELY AROUND HOW THE
FUNDING ALLOCATED TO THE STATE
BOARD OR THE SELECTION OF THAT
PANEL, GIVING THEM SOME
FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. AND THE
COMMITMENT STILL REMAINS FROM
ALL EVERYONE ON ENSURING THAT
THOSE PANELS ARE REFLECTIVE OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER
COMMUNITY PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY. I
WOULD LET THE ADMINISTRATION
ANSWER, BUT YES, THEY HAVE BEEN
CONSISTENT IN THEIR COMMITMENT
TO US THAT THEY WANT TO PICK A
PANEL THAT IS REPRESENTATIVE AND
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE AND
IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEEDS
OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS.
THANK YOU. ALEXANDER EMPEROR
ALEXANDER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. I WOULD JUST PROVIDE
THAT CONFIRMATION ON BEHALF OF
THE ADMINISTRATION. THERE ARE NO
CHANGES TO THE COMMITMENT THAT'S
BEEN MADE OR TO THE LANGUAGE
REGARDING THE INVOLVEMENT OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE ENGLISH
LEARNER COMMUNITY. THANK YOU
APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO
GO TO MR BENNETT AND DR WEBBER
AND THE MR MURATSUCHI. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. MR CHAIR. MY
QUESTIONS FOR WHOEVER IS THE
MOST APPROPRIATE PERSON FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. BUT
FOLLOWING UP ON THE QUESTIONS
ABOUT KEN, UH, DEPARTMENTS RAISE
FEES AS LONG AS THEY STAY WITHIN
THE STATUTORY LIMITS IMPOSED
LIKE YOU CAN'T RAISE FEES BEYOND
THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THE
PROGRAM. ARE THERE. OTHER
EXAMPLES WHERE FEES ARE RAISED,
AND THOSE FEES DON'T COME BACK
TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR APPROVAL.
I WILL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU
ON THE POTENTIAL LIST OF FEES
THAT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. YOU
DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ME THE WHOLE
LIST. I JUST WANT TO KNOW
WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER
EXAMPLES. I DON'T HAVE THAT.
GREAT THANK YOU, ALL RIGHT, BUT
I THINK THAT'S THAT'S THE
QUESTION IS, DO WE ALREADY HAVE
THAT AS A POLICY OR NOT? I HAVE
TO FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT
EVERY FEE COMES BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE FOR APPROVAL AS LONG
AS IT STAYS WITHIN ITS STATUTORY
LIMITS THAT THAT ARE OUT THERE,
AND I SEE SOME PEOPLE IN THE
AUDIENCE SHAKING THEIR HEADS, SO
UM, THE SECOND THING IS COULD
WHOEVER IT IS THAT'S DOING 143
IN DEALING WITH THE GOAT
HERDERS. COME UP, PLEASE.
DISCUSSING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE HAVE ACCURATE
INFORMATION IN THE RECORD. UH
WHAT IS THE SALARY THAT TO GOAT
HERDERS? IF THIS IS EXTENDED,
WHAT IS THE SALARY THAT THE GOAT
HERDERS WILL BE RECEIVING ON A
MONTHLY BASIS? HI SOMEONE MEMBER
PATRICK LEE WITH THE ASSEMBLY
BUDGET COMMITTEE. IF THAT'S OKAY
, I'M GOING TO PROVIDE A BIT OF
BACKGROUND ON THE GOOD HERDER
ISSUE AND KIND OF WHAT'S
INCLUDED AND AVAILABLE. JUST
WE'RE ALL CLEAR. UM AS YOU KNOW,
GUTTER HERDERS AND SHEEP HERDERS
ARE VERY UNIQUE KIND OF WORK.
HERDERS ARE TYPICALLY MIGRANT
WORKERS ON THEIR H TWO A VISA,
OFTEN WORKING 24 HOURS, SEVEN
SHIFTS, ESPECIALLY UP. NOW GOATS
AND SHEEPS ARE INTERESTING USED
FOR FIRE MITIGATION, INCLUDING
TARGETED GRAZING. THE HERDERS
HAVE TO BE WITH THE ANIMAL
OVERNIGHT TO SET UP TEMPORARY
FENCING AND STOP LOCATIONS. WORD
OF PREDATORS, BUT IT IS
ESSENTIALLY A 24 HOUR SEVEN. JOB
IN 2001 RECOGNIZING THE REALLY
UNIQUE NATURE OF SHEEP AND GOAT,
HURTING, THE INDUSTRIAL WELFARE
COMMISSION ENACTED A WAGE ORDER
TO ESTABLISH AN ALTERNATIVE TO
THE MINIMUM WAGE, SO THAT WAGE
ORDER STATES THAT AS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO APPLYING MINIMUM
WAGE RULES, HERDERS CAN RECEIVE
A MONTHLY SALARY, ACCORDING TO
THE DEPARTMENT. INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS THAT MONTHLY WAGE PLUS
THE REQUIRED OVER TIME. WAS
$2954 PER MONTH IN 2019 AND
KEEPING UP WITH RECENT INCREASES
IN THE MINIMUM WAGE. IT IS NOW
$4528 PER MONTH FOR IN 2023 FOR
EMPLOYERS EMPLOYING 25 OR MORE,
UM, THIS ALL CHANGED EARLY LAST
YEAR, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RELATIONS HAS CHANGED
ITS INTERPRETATION OF THAT WAGE
ORDER IN SHORT, SAYING THAT
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ORDER WAS
WRITTEN THAT ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY
SALARY ONLY APPLIES TO SHEEP
HERDERS AND DOES NOT APPLY TO
GOAT HERDERS. UH AND BECAUSE THE
HURTING INDUSTRY HAS LARGELY
BEEN BUILT ON THIS ALTERNATIVE
SALARY SCHEDULE. STAKEHOLDERS
HAVE EXPRESSED SIGNIFICANT
CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL
DESTRUCTION DISRUPTION IN THIS
INDUSTRY. SO YOU MAY HAVE SEEN
REPORTS IN THE L A TIMES AND THE
SACRAMENTO BEE QUITTING THAT IF
YOU WERE TO APPLY HOURLY MINIMUM
WAGE LAWS TO A 24 HOUR, SEVEN
SHEEP FOR HERDERS, THE SALARY
FOR A GOOD HERDER WOULD BE
$15,925 PER MONTH OR $191,000
PER YEAR. SO LAST YEAR, THE
BUDGET THE BUDGET PACKAGE.
INCLUDED A TEMPORARY EXTENSION
OF GOOD HURTING MONTHLY PAY
PROVISIONS, WHICH IS SET TO
EXPIRE JANUARY. 1ST 2024, HOPING
TO PROVIDE MORE TIME TO FIND A
MORE PERMANENT POLICY SOLUTIONS
. SO UH, THIS TRAILER BILL, UM,
CURRENTLY IS EXTENDING NEWSPAPER
VISIONS UNTIL JULY. 1ST 2026 IT
ALSO MANDATES AS MY COLLEAGUE MR
MARCH POINTED OUT IN MANDATES
THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS TO DEVELOP A REPORT ON
THE EMPLOYMENT OF GOAT AND SHEEP
HERDERS, INCLUDING WAGE
VIOLATIONS, MINIMUM WAGE AND
OVERTIME COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR
STANDARDS, DEMOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION AND THE INTERPLAY
WITH THE H TWO, A VISA PROGRAM
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ARE
THERE ANY BENEFITS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CURRENT MONTHLY PAY? SO
THE I MEAN, UNDER THE H TWO A
PROGRAM, MEALS AND LODGING ARE
INCLUDED, AND THAT'S A SEPARATE
AND APART FROM THE APPROXIMATELY
$4000 MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
MR CHAIRMAN, I RESPOND TO A
QUESTION THAT MR BENNETT RAISED
IN REGARDS TO PEACE. UM THE
BOARDS AND BUREAUS OF THE
CONSUMER AFFAIRS HAVE FI
FEELINGS IN STATUTE, UM, AND THE
DEPARTMENT RAISES THEM
INCREMENTALLY THROUGH
REGULATIONS WHEN THOSE FEELINGS
ARE HIT, THEN IT COMES BACK TO
THE LEGISLATURE. FOR, UM, ABOUT
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'RE
GONNA GO DR WEBBER, THE MISS
MERCER ITCHY THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. UM I JUST WANT TO ECHO
WITH AH, UM, MY COLLEAGUE
REMEMBER, ALVAREZ SAID
CONCERNING SB 1, 37 AND THE
EXTENSION FOR THE HOSPICE
PROVIDERS. UM I'M NOT QUITE SURE
WHEN THE LEGISLATURE WAS
INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATION TO
EXTEND UM, THE IMPLEMENTATION
REQUIREMENTS FROM THE STATE
AUDIT. I WOULD LIKE TO GET AND
IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT NOW. PLEASE
UH, YOU KNOW, BRING IT TO MY
OFFICE. UM WHEN THAT OCCURRED,
AND WHAT IS THE REASON
CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THIS
PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT HAS HAD
THE ABILITY SINCE 1991 TO
IMPLEMENT, UM THE CHANGES AND
HAS NOT, I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAD A
VERY, VERY CONCERNING AUDIT
REPORT. UM ABOUT THE HOSPICE. UH
UM, VISIONED IN OUR STATE. AND
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO
WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. BY THIS
PARTICULAR DATE, AND NOW WE'RE
EXTENDING IT OUT. SO IF WE DON'T
HAVE THE ANSWER TODAY OF WHY,
THAT'S OKAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCING A
HUNG WILL PROVIDE YOU A
RESPONSE. OKAY THANK YOU. UM I
WANNA, UM BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT SB
1 38. FIRST I WANT TO THANK THE
GOVERNOR AND HIS TEAM FOR THE
EQUITY AND OVERSIGHT PIECE. IT'S
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. UM, WE MUST
CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE
MUST ELIMINATE ALL DISPARITIES
AND ALSO STANDARDIZE OUR DATA
COLLECTIONS, AND I REALLY WANT
TO APPLAUD EVERYONE FOR THE
TIMELINE THAT YOU HAVE SO THAT
WE'RE NOT ONLY UH, TELLING
PEOPLE WHAT WE NEED TO BE DONE,
BUT WE'RE GIVING THEM VERY CLEAR
DIRECTION ON WHEN WE EXPECT IT
TO BE DONE SO WE CAN HOLD PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE. SO I WANT TO REALLY
THANK THE GOVERNOR AND HIS TEAM
FOR THAT. UM I ALSO KNOW THERE
WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON THE
SENATE SIDE CONCERNING THE
COMPLEX NEEDS RESIDENTIAL
PROGRAM. AND I JUST WANT TO ECHO
SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE SENATE SIDE.
UM I, TOO HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE
OF THE FACT THAT, UM, IN JUNE
THERE WAS AFTER THE DECISION WAS
MADE ON THE TRAILER BOAT
LANGUAGE. UM THAT D D S AND D O
F ASKED FOR A BRAND NEW PROPOSAL
ON NON EMERGENT RESTRAINT
POLICY. UM I HOPE THIS IS A ONE
OFF THAT THIS IS AND HOW THINGS
ARE USUALLY DONE. UM BECAUSE THE
ONE THING THAT WE ALL HAVE TO
REMEMBER IS THAT HERE WE WORK OR
SHOULD BE WORKING IN A
PARTNERSHIP. UH BETWEEN
OURSELVES AND THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE. AND, UM, THAT'S ACTUALLY
WHAT IS EXPECTED OF US FROM THE
PEOPLE WHO SENT US HERE TO
CALIFORNIA TO SERVE HERE IN THE
STATE OF IN SACRAMENTO, UM, THAT
WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER AND THAT
WE ARE ENGAGING WITH ALL
STAKEHOLDERS AND THAT WE HAVE
TRANSPARENCY AND SO I GET VERY
CONCERNED WHEN I HEAR ABOUT
LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN AGREED ON
AND THEN AT THE LAST MINUTE TO
LANGUAGE THAT HAD NOT BEEN
DISCUSSED OR AGREED UPON BEING
TRYING TO PUSH OVER, UM WORKING
TOGETHER ALSO PREVENTS US FROM
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES THAT GO
AGAINST WHAT DATA AND RESEARCH
SAY WE SHOULD BE GOING IN THE
DIRECTION OF THAT, YOU KNOW,
PREVENTS US FROM ACTUALLY GOING
IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
PREVENTS US FROM CREATING
POLICIES AS A STATE THAT ARE
BACKWARDS AND REGRESSIVE AND
HARMFUL AND TRAUMATIC. AND SO,
UM IT WAS VERY, VERY DISTURBED
ABOUT THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT
WANTED TO INCLUDE NON EMERGENT,
UM, RESTRAINTS FOR THIS
PARTICULAR POPULATION, AND I
JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT YOU
PROBABLY HEARD IN THE SENATE AND
JUST STATE THAT I'M VERY HAPPY
THAT IT IS NOT IN WHAT THE FINAL
LANGUAGES THANK YOU. AND I WOULD
JUST LIKE TO REITERATE ALSO THAT
WE WANT TO WORK WITH LEGISLATURE
ON THESE, UM AS PART OF A 18.
AND IN REGARD TO THE FINAL GOAL
OF IF OF ALL OF THESE ISSUES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA
GO, MR MURATSUCHI AND THEN MISS
RIVAS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I
WANT TO ASK A QUESTION THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REGARDING
SP 1 52. THE. PROVISIONS RELATED
TO THE TECHNICAL CHANGES TO
IMPLEMENT FEDERAL CRIMINAL
HISTORY, BACKGROUND CHECK
PROVISIONS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES
AND LICENSE APPLICANTS. UM I
KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE HAS BEEN COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATING WITH THE ASSEMBLY
EDUCATION COMMITTEE STAFF, BUT I
WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE PUBLIC
RECORD THAT NONE OF THESE
TECHNICAL CHANGES WILL IMPACT
THE CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND
CHECK. PROVISIONS RELATED TO, UM
OUR SCHOOLS OR OUR OUR OUR
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES OR ANY OF THE
VOLUNTEERS INVOLVED IN SCHOOL
ACTIVITIES. CHARLENE MANNING
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. THE LIST
OF IMPACTED DEPARTMENTS DOES NOT
INCLUDE THOSE TYPES OF
EMPLOYEES. OKAY? AND UH, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FBI HAS,
UM, DETERMINED THAT CERTAIN
STATE ENTITIES HAVE INSUFFICIENT
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO OBTAIN
FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK
INFORMATION. UH UM, BUT THAT
THERE MAY BE NEED FOR SUBSEQUENT
LEGISLATION TO CLARIFY THAT
STATUTORY AUTHORITY AS IT
RELATES TO UH, OUR SCHOOLS IN
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES. I CAN'T SPEAK
TO THE SPECIFICS OF THOSE
EMPLOYEES. UM BUT THIS. THIS
TRAILER BILL ONLY TALKS ABOUT
SPECIFIC HAS SPECIFIC STATUTORY
CHANGES FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS,
BUT WE'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO
YOU ON THAT. I SEEM AS GABLE AND
DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER
INFORMATION ON THAT? YES SIR
AARON GABLE ASSEMBLY BUDGET
COMMITTEE, SO THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES THAT ARE
UTILIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, FINGERPRINTING AND
BACKGROUND CHECK THAT ARE
IMPACTED BY THE CHANGES FROM
FBI. AND IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING
THERE WILL BE A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE VEHICLE NEXT YEAR
TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THOSE
AGENCIES ALSO HAVE THEIR
STATUTES. UPDATED THERE'S NOT A
DEADLINE, UM, IMMINENTLY FOR
THOSE AGENCIES, SO WE HAVE UNTIL
NEXT YEAR TO BE QUESTIONED. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS
RIVERS AND MISS MONTANA. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. UH, I WANT TO
START WITH SB 1 43 OF QUESTIONS
ON THE GOAT HERDER. UH LIKE, I
KNOW THAT PROBABLY THOUGHT WE
WERE DONE WITH THAT. UM BUT MY
QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW YEAH. CAN
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE
CONTINUING? YOU KNOW THE GOAT
HERDER PICKS TENSION VIA THE
BUDGET AND NOT IN THE POLICY
COMMITTEE. UM BECAUSE I BELIEVE
LIKE YOU KNOW, ADDRESSING THIS
IN THE BUDGET DOESN'T PROVIDE
OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW TO BRING
UP CONCERNS WITH THIS STRUCTURE.
YEAH ANDREW MARSH DEPARTMENT OF
AND SO THE CURRENT LAW WAS
ESTABLISHED LAST YEAR VIEW
BUDGET TRAILER ABILITY 1 56,
ADDITIONALLY, BESIDES THE
EXTENSION IN STATUTE TODAY,
THERE'S ALSO THE APPROPRIATION
AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR D I R
AND D D D TO DO THIS STUDY. BUT
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT
THROUGH THE BUDGET. LIKE WHY,
YOU KNOW WE COULDN'T DO THIS
THROUGH A POLICY. BILL. I I'M
GOING TO GIVE MISS PROBABLY A
POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
BECAUSE SHE HAD A BILL ON THIS
SUBJECT, SO I THINK SHE WANTS
TO. SHE WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
I'M JUST GONNA THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY, SO I AGREE. I WOULD
NOT LIKE TO DO THIS THROUGH THE
POLICY PROCESS. AND I DID HAVE A
BILL. UM SPECIFICALLY SO WE
COULD HAVE MORE COMPREHENSIVE
CONVERSATIONS AND POLICY
COMMITTEE, BUT IT WAS NOT SET
FOR HEARING AND LABOR COMMITTEE.
SO I WOULD ALSO LIKE IF THIS IS
I'M WOULD APPRECIATE EVERYONE
CAN I VOTE RIGHT NOW TO MOVE
THIS FORWARD, AND THEN NEXT
YEAR, WE CAN HAVE THAT
COMPREHENSIVE CONVERSATION AND
NOT JUST KEEP EXPLAINED THIS
YEAR TO YEAR. SO, UM, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT I
DIDN'T KNOW THAT NOT ON LABOR
COMMITTEE ANYMORE. THANK YOU. UM
SO THAT'S THAT'S ALL. I HAD THAT
ONLY QUESTIONS. I MEAN, A LOT OF
TIMES WE DO POLICY IN THE BUDGET
. UM AND I ALWAYS NOTICED THAT
ON THE NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUES
THAT GET PUT IN THE BUDGET, BUT
THIS IS ONE THAT I ALSO NOTICED
IN THIS ONE. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. WE'RE GONNA GO TO MS ONE
MORE. ONE MORE COMMENTS SO
SORRY. UH IT'S THE COMMON I
WOULDN'T MAKE ITS GENERAL
COMMENT. UH YOU KNOW, REGARDING
A LETTER THAT MEMBERS OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DELEGATION SENT
REGARDING TRANSIT FUNDING, AND I
KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING FROM THE
LAST BUDGET VOTES THAT WE DID.
BUT FIRST YOU KNOW, I WANT TO
THANK BUDGET SHER TING, UM FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE TO
ENSURE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW STATE
TRANSIT FUNDING THAT THERE'S
ACCOUNTABILITY WITH THE TRANSIT
FUNDING, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, AS A
DELEGATION, WE'VE ASKED FOR
CHANGES, UM, THAT CLARIFY
LANGUAGE AROUND THE SB 1 25
BUDGET BILL TO ENSURE THAT LOCAL
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
AGENCIES LIKE L, A METRO THAT
SERVES OUR REGION REACH RETEK
RETAIN CONTROL OF THEIR
FINANCIAL DECISIONS AND REMAIN
ACCOUNTABLE. TWO RESIDENTS OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND OUR
VOTERS. UM I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR
LETTER HAS HELPED GUIDE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS AT
THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION
AGENCY AND WOULD LIKE TO NOTE
THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR
OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS MOVING
FORWARD TO ENSURE WE'RE
ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS. OF OUR
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ENTITY L
A METRO BECAUSE A LOT OF US DO
HEAR FROM THEM ON THIS ISSUE,
AND I SEE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD
. I KNOW YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR
WITH OUR CONCERNS. UM, BUT THANK
YOU, OR ADDRESSING THEM. THANK
YOU. WE'RE GONNA GO TO MS PONTA.
THANK YOU. I'LL START WITH A B
104 PICKING UP ON A BIT OF THE
QUERIES THAT WERE OFFERED BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ALVAREZ AROUND
THE $50 MILLION REVERSION ON
EIGHT YEARS. I THINK THE
QUESTION THAT I DIDN'T HEAR
ANSWERED THAT HE WAS ASKING
REALLY RELATED TO THE FACT THAT
WE DID NOT ACTUALLY HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO FUND UH, VERY
WELL USED PROGRAMS. SO JUST TO
PUT THAT IN CONTEXT WE HAD OVER
2500 AND 80 US. THAT WE'RE ABLE
TO BE BUILT, UH, AND THAT THOSE
FUNDS WERE PRIMARILY FOR
BUILDING OUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR LOW INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND
FOCUSING ON PRESERVATION. SO I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMPLETE
REVERSION OF THOSE FUNDS AND
DISMISSAL OF THOSE FUNDS. WHEN,
UH, FOR THE MOST PART IN MOST
CITIES, THOSE PROGRAMS ARE
INCREDIBLY OVERSUBSCRIBED. CAN
YOU COMMENT ON THAT REVERSION?
AND SO THE ORIGINAL $100 MILLION
THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE
PROGRAM WAS USED FOR $40,000
GRANTS TO HOMEOWNERS. UM SO A
LOT OF THOSE 80 US HAVEN'T
NECESSARILY BEEN CONSTRUCTED OUT
THERE. THEY MAY BE IN
CONSTRUCTION NOW, UM AND AS
CHARTING MENTIONED EARLIER, THE
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE $50
MILLION WAS FOR SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT PROGRAM THAN THE
$40,000 PRE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
THAT WERE BEING PROVIDED VIA THE
$100 MILLION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY
PROVIDED FOR THE PROGRAM. BUT WE
COULD HAVE USED THOSE $50
MILLION FOR THE APPLICATION OF
THE VERY SUCCESSFUL USE OF THE
80 FUNDING THAT WAS AS CHURCH NG
INDICATED. ALREADY SPENT. YEAH,
WE JUST MADE A DIFFERENT CHOICE.
THEY AGREE. THE PREVIOUS
AGREEMENT WITH THE $50 MILLION
WAS I WAS GOING TO BE USED FOR
SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
THAN THE PREVIOUS $100 MILLION.
AND AS PART OF THAT LAST YEAR IN
THE BUDGET, UM COLLEGE FADED, A
WORKING GROUP AND A REPORT AS
CHARGING MENTIONED EARLIER
AROUND SORT OF THE FEASIBILITY
OF SOME OF THESE OPTIONS. AND UM
, SOME CONCLUSIONS WHERE THAT
SOME OF THESE ALTERNATIVE
OPTIONS WEREN'T AS FEASIBLE. AND
SO, UM, THE DECISION WAS MADE
THREE PURPOSES, FUNDING FOR SOME
OF THE OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROGRAMS AND HOMEOWNERSHIP
PROGRAMS. UM $25 MILLION GOING
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION THROUGH THE MULTI
FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM, WHICH IS
THE FLAGSHIP MØT, OR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROGRAM IN THE STATE,
AND THEN ALSO $20 MILLION TO THE
DREAM FOR OUR PROGRAM, WHICH IS
A NEW SHARED APPRECIATION LOAN
DOWN PAYMENT PROGRAM, WHICH
THOUGHT A LOT OF SUCCESS EARLIER
THIS YEAR. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
KNOW THAT IT TYPICALLY TAKES
LESS THAN A YEAR TO PUT UP ON A
D U TWO HOUSE SOMEBODY, UH AND
IT TAKES 10 YEARS TO BE ABLE TO
BUILD THE KINDS OF, UH OF
HOUSING THAT THOSE PROGRAMS
APPLY TO MOVE ON. UM, I DID WANT
TO STICK WITH A B 104 A BIT AND
TALK ABOUT THE ALLOCATION OR THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY $73 MILLION FEDERAL
GRANT FUNDING FOR THE MIDDLE
MORRELL BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
. NOW WE KNOW JUST AS RECENTLY
AS TODAY THAT THERE ARE STILL.
UH UNDERSERVED AND UNSERVED. UH
URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS IN
PARTICULAR WHO ARE NOT ACTUALLY
ABLE TO ACCESS THE MIDDLE MILE,
UH, IN THE WAY THAT THEY NEED
TO, WHICH WILL LEAD TO,
PARTICULARLY FOR COMMUNITIES
LIKE MINE. MANY HOUSEHOLDS
WITHOUT FULL ACCESS TO BROADBAND
. I WANT TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT
KIND OF ADDITIONAL STEPS WE WILL
BE TAKING FROM THE D O S
PERSPECTIVE TO BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS. UM, THE MAPS THAT THE
CPC CPUC HAS ALLOCATED THAT
STILL REMAIN INSUFFICIENT TO BE
ABLE TO FULLY ENSURE ACCESS TO
BROADBAND INTERNET FOR EVERY
SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IN UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION MEMBER, DANIEL BRENDAN
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GET BACK TO
YOU WITH SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE
MAPPING. ALRIGHT, IT CONTINUES
TO BE REMAINED VERY PROBLEMATIC
AND I WAS IN A CNC MEETING WHERE
I ESSENTIALLY SAID IF WE ACCEPT
THIS MONEY, THIS $73 MILLION IN
FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING, WE NEED
TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES HAVE THE RESOURCES
THAT THEY NEED. AND WITH THIS
ACCEPTANCE, I'M STILL NOT SEEING
THE KIND OF CHANGES THAT WE NEED
TO MAKE TO MAKE ENSURE THAT
THAT'S POSSIBLE. I WANT TO. I
JUST WANT TO COMMENT THAT THE
BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES SOME
REPORTING LANGUAGE THAT WE PUT
INTO THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
ASSEMBLY IN PARTICULAR TO TRY TO
HAVE MORE FOLLOW UP ON THESE
ISSUES BECAUSE OF CONCERNS THAT
MEMBERS HAD ABOUT THE
EXPENDITURES. I APPRECIATE THAT
VERY MUCH. I THINK THE CHALLENGE
IS THAT THERE'S A TIMING ISSUE
WITH THE BEING ABLE TO FULLY
ALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS AS THEY
RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND BEING ABLE TO
MAKE USE OF THEM. WITH A BIT OF
A TICKING TIME BOMB IN TERMS OF
WHEN WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE USE OF
THOSE FUNDS, SO I'M VERY FEARFUL
THAT WE'RE GOING TO MISS, UH, AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT EVERYONE. I'LL MOVE ON
TO A B 1 40 JUST WANTED TO. UM
UH SHARE THAT AND THAT THERE ARE
MANY PROVISIONS IN A B 1 40 THAT
ACTUALLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WE'VE RAISED AS A
LEGISLATURE, PARTICULARLY THE
WOMEN'S CAUCUS AROUND ENSURING
THAT WE HAVE A MIXED DELIVERY
SYSTEM WANTED TO POINT OUT JUST
THAT WE WERE ABLE TO THROUGH
MUCH OF THIS LANGUAGE BE ABLE TO
CLARIFY DEFINITIONS AROUND PART
TIME AND FULL TIME CARE BEING
ABLE TO ESTABLISH A COST OF
CARE, PLUS RATE FOR FAMILY,
CHILDCARE PROVIDERS AND
CHILDCARE CENTERS AND ALSO TO
ESTABLISH A RETIREMENT TRUST AND
HEALTHCARE BENEFITS. TRUST FOR,
UM FOR CHILDCARE PROVIDERS AND
JUST TO PROVIDE SOME GOOD NEWS.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN
FIGHTING FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
AND UM, AND MOVES US TO BE ABLE
TO HAVE A MIXED DELIVERY SYSTEM
. SO I WANTED TO ALLOW FOR OUR,
UH, CHAIR CONSULTANT TO BE ABLE
TO COMMENT JUST ON THE ON THE
MOVEMENT THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE
TO MAKE IN THIS IN THIS WITH
THIS BUDGET TRAILER LANGUAGE
AROUND THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ERIN GABLE FROM
THE ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMMITTEE.
SO, UM THE AS WAS SAID BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE THIS WHAT
THE BILL DOES IS IT RATIFIES THE
AGREEMENT WITH CHILDCARE
PROVIDERS. CALIFORNIA UNITED
CALIFORNIA AND THEN EXTENDS
PARITY FOR ALL OF THOSE POLICIES
AND THE COST OF CARE PLUS RATE
ACROSS THE ENTIRE CHILDCARE AND
PRESCHOOL SYSTEM, SO WE WILL BE
SEEING A RATE INCREASE THAT'S IN
THE FORM OF A PAYMENT ON TOP OF
THEIR EXISTING RATE. BASED OFF
OF REGIONS AND REGIONAL COSTS,
AND THAT WILL START ON JANUARY
1ST OF 2024 AND THEN EXTEND
THROUGH 2025 AT THAT TIME. WE'RE
HOPING YOU'LL SEE ELSEWHERE IN
THE BILL THE AUTHORITY FOR AN
ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY FOR HOW
WE DETERMINE CHILDCARE PAYMENTS
AND REIMBURSEMENT RATES IN
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE HOPING AT THAT
TIME THAT WE WILL HAVE RECEIVED
FEDERAL APPROVAL FOR THIS
ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY, AND
THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT
HOW TO FUND TOWARDS THAT KIND OF
A RATE SYSTEM IN THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANT TO
QUICKLY MOVE ON TO A B 1 41 AND
JUST DIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO
EARLY LITERACY. THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF MEASURES IN HERE ONE
IS, UH, THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
TO IDENTIFY AN APPROVED LIST OF
SCREENING INSTRUMENTS WANTED TO
ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION AROUND
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THOSE
SCREENING INSTRUMENTS WILL
ACTUALLY APPLY TO, UH VERY EARLY
LEARNERS IN THE 3 TO 4 YEAR
OLDS, UH, CATEGORY BECAUSE
THAT'S SUCH AN INCREDIBLE
NECESSITY AND WE'VE BEEN PRETTY
RETICENT AS A STATE TO FOCUS IN
ON THAT AGE GROUP IN TERMS OF
LITERACY AND SCREENING. I WOULD
DEFER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE IF I GET THIS WRONG, BUT
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE INTENT
OF THE STATE BOARD BECAUSE THE
JURISDICTION OF THEIR WORK HERE
IS AROUND T K THROUGH GRADE 12
THAT THE SCREENER WOULD NOT BE
FOR PRESCHOOL FOR THE STATE
PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS. AMBER
ALEXANDER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. I THINK A LOT OF THE
CONVERSATIONS AROUND USE OF THE
SCREENING TOOLS WILL BE
DETERMINED AFTER THE PANEL HAS
BEEN CONVENED AND THEY BEGAN
HAVING THEIR DISCUSSIONS. BUT
THE INTENT IS THAT THE SCREENING
TOOLS AS PART OF THAT PROCESS,
THERE WOULD BE AN EVALUATION IN
TERMS OF APPROPRIATE GRADE SPANS
, FOR WHICH THOSE TOOLS WILL BE
APPLIED. AS WELL AS A JUDGE OF
STUDENTS IN WHICH THOSE TOOLS
WOULD BE APPLIED. THERE'S
NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE
CURRENTLY THAT WOULD REQUIRE
THAT THE TOOLS BE USED ON THOSE
STUDENTS, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT
THROUGH THE PANEL PROCESS. THERE
WAS AN EVALUATION OF THE TOOL
AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE
APPROPRIATE THROUGH THAT
PROCESS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
COULD BE CONSIDERED DOWN THE
ROAD. NOW THAT WE'VE ESSENTIALLY
MOVED SO STRONGLY IN THIS SPACE
OF TK, I THINK ONE OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE IS TO
ENSURE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING
SCREENING INSTRUMENTS TO BE ABLE
TO ADDRESS THE EARLY LEARNING
NEEDS OF OUR TK STUDENTS THAT
ARE NOW IN OUR T K 12 SYSTEM. SO
I'M HOPING THAT THAT WILL BE
CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL. AND
FURTHER ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S I COULD
JUST ADD. WE HAVE IN A PRIOR
YEARS AUTHORIZED FUNDING FOR A
EARLY LITERACY SCREENERS
SPECIFIC FOR THE STATE PROGRAM,
THE STATE PRESCHOOL PROGRAM SO
WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU WITH THE
TIMING ON WHEN THE DEPARTMENT
WAS GOING TO BE RELEASING THAT
INFORMATION. THANK YOU. AND THEN
JUST A FINAL QUESTION ON, UH,
THE PROVISION THAT PROHIBITS
FUNDS TO BE USED FOR LITERACY
COACHES, EXISTING LITERACY
COACHES AND READING SPECIALISTS.
WITH THE GRANT PROGRAM. UH HUH.
NEW CLARIFY WHY THERE WAS A NEED
TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE MAKING
THAT PROHIBITION. YES SO THAT
WAS A REQUEST WE HAD HEARD
DURING THE BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS
EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE HOPE TO
MAKE SURE WE WERE NOT
SUPPLANTING FUNDING AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL THAT MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN
CONTRIBUTING IN PARTICULAR TO
THE SALARIES OF OUR TEACHERS AND
TWO EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PROVIDING
SIMILAR UM, LITERACY COACHING
ACTIVITIES. SO WE SAW THIS AS A
AS CLEANUP BECAUSE WE HAD
ORIGINALLY REJECTED THE LITERACY
COACHING FUNDING IN THIS PART OF
THE JUNE BUDGET. UM AND SO WE
HAD MISSED THIS CLEANUP PIECE
WHEN WE DECIDED TO PUT IT BACK
IN. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GREAT ANY
OTHER COMMENTS PARTS FROM THE
DIESS. OKAY NOT NOT SEEING ANY.
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC
COMMENT ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?
PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE
MICROPHONE. WE'RE GONNA GO ONE
MINUTE EACH FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU, DANA GROWED ARM ON
BEHALF OF THE TRANSFORMATIVE IN
PRISON WORKGROUP. MAKING
COMMENTS ON THE UNIT. SIX M O A
. FOR THE CCP. OH, A WANTED TO
JUST HIGHLIGHT THAT THE AMOUNT
AGREED UPON FOR THAT CONTRACT
WOULD BE 16 TIMES THE AMOUNT
COMMITTED TO REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMS AND CDCR AND REPRESENTS
FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT THAT WE
SPEND ON FOOD CLOTHING.
COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY AND
MANY OTHER SERVICES RECEIVED BY
INCARCERATED PEOPLE. SO IF WE
WANT TO MOVE IN A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION IN CALIFORNIA, WE NEED
TO ALSO BE INVESTING IN THOSE
SERVICES AND SUPPORT AND NOT
OVER INVESTING IN THE SECURITY
PARTS OF WHAT CDCR IS MEANT TO
BE PROVIDING. THANKS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MALIK BYNUM WITH UNITED DOMESTIC
WORKERS AND CHILDCARE PROVIDERS
UNITED HERE IN SUPPORT OF A BSB
104 AND A BSB 1 40, SPECIFICALLY
IN A BSB 104 WOULD UPLIFT THE
FOUR ITEMS PERTAINING TO BOTH. I
JUST S AND CHILDCARE AND WE
ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK
DONE ON ALL FRONTS TO PUT THE
CHILD CARE CONTRACT IN A BSB 1
40 IN FRONT OF YOU, WHICH
INCLUDES OVERDUE SUBSIDY RATE
INCREASES ON A PER CHILD BASIS,
FIRST OF ITS KIND RETIREMENT
BENEFIT FOR PROVIDERS, CONTINUED
INVESTMENT IN THE HEALTHCARE
SPACE AS WELL AS THE TRAINING
SPACE AND MOVING TOWARDS AN
ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY TO
ACCOUNT FOR THE TRUE COST OF
CHILD CARE IN THE STATE. THANK
YOU AND APPRECIATE YOUR VOTE ON
THESE IF YOU WANT TO GIVE THE I
VOTE ON THIS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHANNELS FAMILY WITH
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE
COUNTY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES. UH
DITTO TO EVERYTHING THAT MR
BYNUM HAD JUST PREVIOUSLY
MENTIONED ABOUT THE CHILDCARE
PROVIDERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORK. UM AND SUPPORTING THE
PROVIDERS AND WHO ARE THE
BACKBONE OF OUR ECONOMY ALSO
WANTED TO MAKE QUICK MENTION OF
A B S B 148. THIS IS IN REGARDS
TO BARGAINING UNIT 19. UM WE
REPRESENT AFSCME LOCAL 26 20,
WHO REPRESENTS NEARLY 5000
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONALS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE TH
RESULT OF MANY MONTHS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. THE
WORKFORCE HAS CHANGED QUITE A
BIT SINCE COVID VACANCY RATES
HAVE GROWN, UM I DOUBLE DIGITS
IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. THESE ARE
MODEST COLOR INCREASES THAT
WE'VE REQUESTED. UM AND THERE
ARE ALSO SPECIAL, UM SALARY
ADJUSTMENTS FOR CERTAIN
CLASSIFICATIONS, AND THESE ARE
FOR THE POSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
REALLY DIFFICULT TO RECRUIT. UM
AND RETAIN. THANK YOU URGE YOUR
VOTE. GOOD AFTERNOON. SHARON
MEMBERS. I'M RAQUEL YOFFIE WITH
THRIVING FAMILIES. CALIFORNIA
FORMERLY KNOWN AS KAPPA. WE
WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR
GRATITUDE TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR
DEAD. FOR DESIGNATING FUNDING
AND SP 104 FOR THE 2023 THROUGH
25 C CPU AGREEMENT WILL ALSO
CONTINUING TO FULLY FUND OUR
COMMUNITY AGENCIES TO ENROLL
SUPPORT. AND LIFT UP FAMILIES.
THIS BUDGET PACKAGE REFLECTS THE
NEED TO CONTINUE ENSURING
FAMILIES HAVE STABLE ACCESS TO
CHILDCARE WILL PROVIDING MUCH
NEEDED STIPENDS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PAY TO PROVIDERS WHO ARE THE
BACKBONE OF THE HEALTHY AND
STABLE ECONOMY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
MATT CRIMMINS HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS ON BEHALF OF
OUR MEMBERS AND STATE BARGAINING
UNITS, 12 AND 13. WE'D LIKE TO
OFFER OUR SUPPORT FOR A BSB 1 48
ENERGY APPROVAL. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MR CHAIR REMEMBERS.
MY NAME IS LUIS MIRANDA ON
BEHALF OF THE BARRY COUNCIL, THE
CASINO COALITION AND MANY
MEMBERS OF THE EU INDUSTRY.
WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ASSEMBLY TO
MAINTAIN THE FUNDING CURRENTLY
BEING REVERTED TO 80
EXPENDITURES IN A B 104. THE
RADIO INDUSTRY HAS SEEN
TREMENDOUS SUCCESS FROM THE
EXISTING COLLEGE F A PROGRAM
IT'S FUNDED ABOUT 2400 HOMES.
40% OF THOSE HAVE BEEN IN
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN
ECONOMICALLY DISINVESTED 40% OF
THE AMOUNT OF THE APPROPRIATE
AMOUNT OF MONEY HAS GONE TO LOW
INCOME FAMILIES THE REST TO
MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES IN THE
GRAND PROGRAMS SPENT MONEY IN 50
OF CALIFORNIA'S 58 COUNTIES
STRONGLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR
THE MONEY AND ASKED THAT YOU
REJECT THE REVERSION. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MATT, EASILY
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF A B AND S, B 1 51
AND THANK THE GOVERNOR'S
ADMINISTRATION FOR THEIR
NEGOTIATIONS AND AS WELL AS THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION, AND THE MENTAL
HEALTH AND WELLNESS FUNDING
THAT'S IN THIS MOU, AS IS
DEFINITELY THE MOST IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS. UM FOR US AT THIS
TIME, AND WE DEFINITELY THANK
EVERYONE INVOLVED FOR
RECOGNIZING THE STRUGGLES AND
DIFFICULTIES THAT OUR MEMBERSHIP
GOES THROUGH ON A DAY TO DAY
BASIS. UM I MENTIONED IN THE
SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE EARLIER
TODAY THAT THIS YEAR ALONE WE'VE
ALREADY HAD EIGHT SUICIDES FOR
OUR MEMBERSHIP. UM AND THAT'S
IT'S NOT A UNIQUE YEAR.
UNFORTUNATELY, SO AND WE
DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THOSE
DIFFICULTIES. SO WE URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHARTING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DANIEL.
CHERYL WITH S E I U LOCAL 1000
AND SUPPORT OF A B S B 1 48. WE
ARE VERY ENCOURAGED BY THIS
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
STATE AND OUR MEMBERS AT THE
GREAT LENGTHS THAT IT GOES TO
PROTECT STATE WORKERS, NOTABLY
THROUGH THE SPECIAL SALARY
ADJUSTMENTS, WAGE EQUITY
ADJUSTMENTS AND THE CONTINUED
HEALTH CARE INSURANCE PREMIUM
STIPENDS, AND WE URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M JULIET TERRY WITH
THE CHILD CARE RESOURCE CENTER.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
ADMINISTRATION AND MEMBERS OF
THE ASSEMBLY WHO HAVE ACTED AS
CHILDCARE CHAMPIONS RECENTLY, UM
AND FOR THE PROGRESS MADE IN
NEGOTIATIONS WITH CHILDCARE
PROVIDERS UNITED OF CALIFORNIA
MADE EVIDENT A BSB 1 40 CCRC
SUPPORTS KEY PROVISIONS IN A BSB
1 40, INCLUDING THE INVESTMENTS
IN THE YOU SEE YOU WORK FOR
SALARIES RAGES, BENEFITS
IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE FAMILY
FEE SCHEDULE, MODIFYING THE
DEFINITION OF FULL TIME CARE AND
REIMBURSING PROVIDERS BASED ON
CONTRACT EXPENDITURES AND
MAXIMUM CERTIFIED HOURS.
UNFORTUNATELY CCRC IS VERY
CONCERNED WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PERCENTAGES
PROPOSED A BSB 1 40. TO SUPPORT
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ONGOING MONTHLY STIPENDS
PROPOSED 10% IS INSUFFICIENT FOR
ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT PROGRAMS TO
DISTRIBUTE THESE FUNDS. THESE
PERCENTAGES SHOULD BE BASED ON
THE CURRENT CONTRACT TERMS OF
17.5. FOR A P S AND 15% FOR
CENTERS. WE ASK YOU OR URGE YOU
FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND MAKING THE
NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO MAINTAIN
THESE CURRENT LEVELS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PERCENTAGES SO WE
CAN EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY
PROCESS THESE PAYMENTS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN
KEITH DONE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
SAVE OUR GOATS COALITION. NO,
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT JOE
MONTANA OR TOM BRADY. THESE ARE
THE FOUR LEGGED CREATURES THAT
HELP KEEP OUR COMMUNITIES SAFE
FROM FIRES. THEY ARE A GREAT
RESOURCE FOR BATTLING CLIMATE
CHANGE WHEN WE CAN'T USE
MECHANIZED VEHICLES OR
PESTICIDES, WHICH ARE DAMAGING
TO OUR COMMUNITIES, THIS IS A
VALUABLE TOOL THAT HELPS US
FIGHT FIRES. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO
SUPPORT MAYBE. NSP 1 43. THANK
YOU. ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT IN
THE ROOM. GREAT SEEING NONE. WE
ARE GOING TO GO TO OUR PHONE
LINE OPERATOR. ARE YOU THERE?
I'M HERE. GREAT. WHY DON'T WE
START PUBLIC? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT
. YOU MAY PRESS ONE THAN ZERO.
WHO GO TO LINE 20. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. LINE 20 OR LINE IS OPEN.
DO YOU HAVE A SON? MUTE? THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR TERENCE
MEMBERS PAMELA KIDS REPRESENTING
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN TODAY.
FIRST OF ALL, LIKE TO THANK THE
ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF FOR THE
TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING
AMENDMENTS TO THE DELPHI
PROPOSAL. THE DIVERSE EDUCATION
LEADERS PIPELINE INITIATIVE, UM,
WHICH CLARIFIES THE MAIN PURPOSE
OF THE BILL WOULD ALSO WHICH
WOULD PROVIDE FOR PARTNERSHIPS
TUNES. SURE THAT STUDENTS MEET,
UH, MEET THAT PARTICULAR
OUTCOMES. AND IN ADDITION, WE'D
LIKE TO, UM, SPEAK TO EVERYONE
40 THAT EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION
BILL. THE SINGLE RATE STRUCTURE
WILL SUPPORT E IN GENERAL AND
SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS TO
CONTINUOUSLY INCREASED
COMPENSATION LEVELS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT THIS
YEAR. THANK YOU. LINE 27. YOUR
LINE IS OPEN. GOOD AFTERNOON
COMMITTEE CHAIR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND STAFF. MY NAME IS
EBONY WHEATON, DIRECTOR OF
SPECIAL PROJECTS FOR THE
DIVERSITY AND LEADERSHIP
INSTITUTE ON BEHALF OF HUNDREDS
OF EDUCATORS, PARENTS, STUDENTS
, LABOR ASSOCIATIONS AND
ADVOCATES ACROSS THE STATE. WE
WANT TO EXPRESS OUR DEEP
APPRECIATION TO THIS COMMITTEE,
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION FOR ITS $10
MILLION INVESTMENT IN THE
DIVERSE EDUCATION LEADERS
PIPELINE INITIATIVE. EVERYONE
KNOW THIS INVESTMENT WILL HELP
ENSURE THAT CALIFORNIA CREATES
PATHWAYS OF ADVANCEMENT FOR
DIVERSE AND CULTURALLY
RESPONSIVE EDUCATORS WERE WHILE
ALSO STRENGTHENING OUR SCHOOL'S
ABILITY TO DELIVER FOR THE NEXT
GENERATION OF LEADERS. SO TODAY
WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU APPROVED
THE LANGUAGE AMENDMENTS PUT
FORWARD WITH RESPECT TO THIS
INITIATIVE, AND WE THANK YOU IN
ADVANCE FOR YOUR CONTINUED
SUPPORT FOR T K 12 EDUCATORS IN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
LINE 28. 28 YEAR LINE IS OPEN.
DO YOU HAVE A SON MUTE? WE WILL
GO ON TO A LINE OF 36. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CONNIE CHOI WITH
PUBLIC ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT OF
81 41 TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION
OF LONG TERM ENGLISH LEARNERS
AND EDUCATION CODE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE STATE'S
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM. ALL THAT
DEFINITION OVER IDENTIFIED THE
NUMBER OF ENGLISH LEARNERS OF
HOTELS WITH POTENTIAL TO HARM
STUDENTS. PROGRESS HAS CHANGED
TO SEVEN PLUS YEARS REDUCES HIS
OVER IDENTIFICATION SINCE IT'S
SIGNIFICANTLY THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE AND AT
REGINA. THANK YOU LINE 39. THIS
IS JENNIFER BAKER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR
BILINGUAL EDUCATION. I'D LIKE TO
AFFILIATE MY COMMENTS WITH THE
COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST MADE BY
PUBLIC ADVOCATES AND SUPPORTED
THE CHANGE IN THE LONG TERM
ENGLISH LEARNER DEFINITION IN 81
41. THANK YOU. THANK YOU LINE
38. THANK YOU, MODERATOR. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
TIFFANY MARK ON BEHALF OF CFT
JUST WANTED TO THANK THE STAFF
AND ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR HARD
WORK TO ENSURE IN 81 41 THAT
STUDENTS CAN HAVE UP TO, UH, TO
HAVE A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER OF THE
60 DAYS AND ALSO AN 81 42 THAT
ENSURES PART TIME FACULTY AT
COMMUNITY COLLEGES CAN ACCESS
CALPERS AND COUNSELORS
HEALTHCARE AS ENVISIONED BY LAST
YEAR'S GREAT INVESTMENT IN PART
TIME, FACULTY HEALTHCARE. IN
COMMUNITY COLLEGES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU LINE 24. DANIEL
SAVINO ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL
CENTER AGENCIES AND SUPPORT OF A
BSP 1 38. WELL WE'VE ALREADY
SUBMITTED A LETTER OF SUPPORT.
WE WANTED TO KNOW HER
APPRECIATION OF ITS APPROACH TO
MEASURING EQUITY AND ITS
PROPOSED CODIFICATION OF WORK
HARDER, AND THE REGIONAL CENTERS
ARE ALREADY DOING THE
STANDARDIZED STANDARDIZATION
PROCESSES AND RESPITE
ASSESSMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU LINE 46. CHEN CHASE FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
CALLING IN SUPPORT OF A BSB 1 43
. THIS BILL PROVIDES AN
EXTENSION FOR EXPIRING POSITION
, POSTGRADUATE TRAINING LICENSES
. WE APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
LEGISLATURE AND ADMINISTRATION.
THIS WILL ENSURE THAT YOU SEE
MEDICAL TRAINEES CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE CLINICAL CARRIED OR
PATIENTS WHILE THE MEDICAL BOARD
PROCESSES A BLACK BACKLOG OF
APPLICATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. I'M 48. GOOD AFTERNOON.
THIS IS COLONEL LEGO, WITH THE
CHILDCARE LAWCENTER CALLING IN
SUPPORT OF A B S B 1 40 OF THE
POLICIES IN THIS BILL HELP BOTH
FAMILIES AND PROVIDERS. WE ALSO
SUPPORT ADDING RESOURCES FOR
CONTRACTORS TO BE ABLE TO GET.
UM THE PAYMENTS, UM OUT TO
PROVIDERS AS WELL AS IMPLEMENT
THESE IMPORTANT POLICIES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. I'M 49. KIMBERLY
ROSENBERG. ER WITH S E I U
CALIFORNIA AGO, THE COMMENTS AND
MY COLLEAGUES WITH VW AND LOCAL
1000 ON OUR APPRECIATION FOR A B
1041 41 48, WHICH ARE INTEGRAL
TO LIFTING UP WORKERS VOICES AND
GIVING THEM THE NECESSARY WE
NEED. WE ALSO REALLY WANT TO
APPRECIATE THE LEGISLATURE'S
EFFORTS TO SUPPORT WORKERS AND
THE MINISTRATIONS INCOMING AND
MANY OF THEM, OF COURSE, THE
STAFF FOR MAKING SURE IT LOOKS
CORRECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
LANGFITT E ONE. MR CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS PAUL YODA ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND MARYLAND AND BREED
. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU AND
THE GOVERNOR FOR ALLOWING THE
INCLUSION OF THE LANGUAGE
RELATING TO HUNTER'S POINT. THE
REDEVELOPMENT THERE, IT'S GOING
TO GET 10,000 MUCH NEEDED
AFFORDABLE UNITS BUILT NOT JUST
IN SAN FRANCISCO, BUT THE ENTIRE
BAY AREA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
I'M 14. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS
ANNA FUNK FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR
COLLEGE ACCESS AND SUCCESS
DELIVERING COMMENTS FOR A GROUP
OF ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING
HIGHER EDUCATION, CONSUMER
PROTECTION, WORKFORCE AND
AFFORDABILITY. ADVOCATES ON A B
S B 1 42 PERTAINING TO THE
GOLDEN STATE TEACHER, GRANT. UH
SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE CONCERNED
THAT THIS GROWING TREND WHERE
OUT OF THE INSTITUTIONS BY NEW
AND INVENTIVE WAYS TO STRUCTURE
BOUNDARIES OF THE PROTECTIONS
MEANT TO ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIA'S FINANCIALLY DOLLARS
STUDENTS THAT IN STATES HIGH
QUALITY HIGH QUALITY
INSTITUTIONS WITH THE OVERSIGHT
AND WE HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS
WITH ANY LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
ALLOW STATE ONLINE POST
SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS TO ACCESS
TO GRANTS AND THE PRESIDENT.
THIS IS SET FOR THE
INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS TO
CALIFORNIA FINANCIAL AID IN
GENERAL, UH, WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THAT YOU CAN YOU
RECONSIDER OUR PROVISIONS, WHICH
ALLOW OUT OF STATE ONLINE POST
SECONDARY EDUCATION.
INSTITUTIONS TO ACCESS THE
GOLDEN STATE TEACHER. GRANT UM,
WE AGREED THAT GROWING AND
SUPPORTING OUR TEACHER PIPELINE
IS A CRITICAL STATE GOAL, BUT IT
SHOULD BE DONE BY BUILDING UPON
THE GOOD WORK. OUR INSTINCT
INSTITUTIONS ARE ALREADY DOING,
NOT COMBAT AND NOT COME UP
EXPENSIVE, PROVIDING FUTURE
TEACHER CANDIDATES FOR THE
QUALITY EDUCATION THAT INCLUDES
IN PERSON. LEARNING AND SKILLS
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU LINE 34. HI CAN
REALLY SANCHEZ WAS NEXT IN
CALIFORNIA, CALLING IN REGARDS
TO SC 142 PERTAINING TO THE
GOLDEN STATE TEACHER GRANT
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS. WE HAVE
JOINED WITH OTHER HIGHER
EDUCATION ADVOCATES AND
SUBMITTING A LETTER WITH OUR
SHARED SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH ANY
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW OUT OF
STATE ONLINE POST SECONDARY
INSTITUTIONS TO ACCESS THE
GOLDEN STATE TEACHER GRANT
PROGRAM AND THE PRESIDENT THIS
WOULD SET FOR FINANCIAL AID
ACCESS IN CALIFORNIA AND
THREATENED THE STATE'S
REPUTATION AS A LEADER IN
PROTECTING STUDENTS, MR AND
BORROWERS. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THAT YOU RECONSIDER ALL
PROVISIONS. WHICH ALLOW THESE
SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONS ACCESS TO
THE GOLDEN STATE TEACHER GRANT
PROGRAM IN SP 142. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU LINE 47. BUT YEAH,
THIS IS SERENA LYNN. I'M A
MOTHER OF TWO CHILDREN UNDER SIX
YEARS OF AGE AND WORK AT
EDUCATIONAL ENRICHMENT IS, UM I
JUST WANT TO SEE A STRONG STRONG
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FOR A B 1
40. IT IS CRUCIAL TO SUPPORT OUR
CHILD CARE WORKFORCE THAT ARE
SERVING OUR MOST VULNERABLE AND
YOUNG AND SINCE AND TODDLERS AND
AS YOU KNOW, THE WORKFORCE IS A
MAJORITY OF WOMEN. WOMEN OF
COLOR, AND I THANK YOU FOR
RECOGNIZING SEEING AND FUNDING
THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU LINE
32. GOOD AFTERNOON SHIRTING AND
MEMBERS ANNE THOMAS ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF CHILD
AND FAMILY SERVICES. WE ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE AND
SB 1 37 ON THE PSYCHIATRIC
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS.
CALIFORNIA IS IN DESPERATE NEED
OF PROGRAMS THAT CAN TREAT YOUTH
FOR MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS WITH
SPACES AND TREATMENTS DESIGNED
FOR THEIR NEEDS RATHER THAN
LANGUISHING IN EMERGENCY ROOMS.
WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
EXPAND CARE OPTIONS AT A TIME OF
AN UNPRECEDENTED YOUTH
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS.
ADDITIONALLY WE'D LIKE TO
EXPRESS APPRECIATION AND SUPPORT
TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND
LEGISLATURE FOR WORKING WITH US
ON CLEANUP LANGUAGE TO THE
ADOPTION FACILITATOR,
PROHIBITION AND SB 1 38, WHICH
WILL CLARIFY THE PROHIBITION AND
TARGETED TO UNSCRUPULOUS
ADOPTION FACILITATORS. WHILE NOT
IMPACTING OTHER KEY ADOPTION
SERVICE PROVIDERS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU LINE 16. HI THIS
IS RYAN O'CONNELL CALLING ON
BEHALF OF COMMUNITY OF OVER
30,000, CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS
CALLED HOW TO A Dð CALLING ABOUT
ONE OF FOUR AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTING THAT YOU MAINTAIN THE
$50 MILLION IN ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT INCENTIVE FUNDING.
KELLY JEFF AIDS FOUND A VERY
COST EFFECTIVE AND FAST WAY TO
DEPLOY THE MONEY AND PREVIOUS
ROUNDS AND THEY'RE WORKING GROUP
HAS COME UP WITH A PLAN. TO
DEPLOY THAT MONEY AGAIN TO REAL
PEOPLE, REGULAR HOMEOWNERS WHO
ARE IN FACT FINISHING AWS FROM
THAT FIRST ROUND. JUST THIS
MORNING, UH, NATIONAL
PUBLICATION WROTE UP ONE FAMILY
THAT WAS ABLE TO AVOID MOVING
ACROSS COUNTRY AND AVOID MOVING
HALF THEIR FAMILY ACROSS COUNTRY
THANKS FOR RECEIVING THE EDU
BRANDS LAST YEAR. AND I HOPE
THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THAT GREAT
WORK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU LINE 45. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS SARAH BETTY AND I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE OF BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS
AND SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF A B 1
35 BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS HAVE 800
SITES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND WE SERVE
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KIDS
EVERY YEAR. THE STATE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE DOES NOT CURRENTLY
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO NOTIFY
YOUTH SERVING NONPROFITS SUCH AS
OURS WHEN THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE
FEDERALLY ARRESTED FOR BARRIER
CRIMES, WHICH INCLUDE SERIOUS
OFFENSES LIKE KIDNAPPING, AMONG
OTHERS. THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOES
CURRENTLY SHARE THIS VITAL
INFORMATION WITH STATE AGENCIES
AND LEAD EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYEES. BOYS AND
GIRLS CLUBS BEGAN ADVOCATING TO
CLOSE THE SAFETY LOOPHOLE
EARLIER IN 2023, AND WE WANT TO
THANK STAFF AND OUR LEGISLATIVE
CHAMPIONS FOR ENSURING THEIR
AMENDMENTS IN THIS BILL THAT
WILL GIVE THE DOJ AUTHORITY TO
SPECIFICALLY CONTRACT WITH THE
FBI TO SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT
NONPROFIT EMPLOYEES SUBSEQUENT
FEDERAL ARREST WITH THEIR
EMPLOYERS, WE KNOW THAT THIS IS
A VITAL AND URGENT FIX THAT
NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED
IMMEDIATELY TO ENSURE THAT
MILLIONS OF KIDS SERVED BY
NONPROFITS IN OUR STATE REMAINS.
SAFE EVERY DAY. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR SUPPORT AND ACTION TODAY.
THANK YOU LINE 30. THANK YOU
SEARCHING FOR TODAY'S ASSEMBLY
BUDGET, HARRY. MY NAME IS
VALERIE DINO. I'M THE DIRECTOR
OF POLICY AND EDUCATION FOR
EVERY CHILD, CALIFORNIA, A
STATEWIDE NONPROFIT. MY COMMENTS
ARE RELATED TO A V 1 40 EARLY
CARE AND EDUCATION TRAILER BILK
. WE THINK THE ADMINISTRATION OF
LEGISLATURE FOR PRIORITIZING THE
WHOLE EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION
SYSTEM DIDN'T NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE CHILDCARE PROVIDER UNITED,
INCLUDING MULTI YEAR COMMITMENTS
TO SUPPORT UNDER RESOURCED,
EARLY CARE AND SYSTEM. WE URGE
THE RE EXAMINATION OF THE
CONTRACT RATE PERCENTAGE FOR THE
COST PLUS RAISE AS THIS IS BELOW
CURRENT STANDARDS AND
INSUFFICIENT TO DO THE WORK
NECESSARY TO PROCESS THE FUN
MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF FOREIGN
PART TIME CARE UNIVERSITY
PROVIDERS BASED ON CONTRACT
EXPENDITURES AND THE MAXIMUM
CERTIFIED HOURS, INVESTING THE
WORKFORCE, SALARIES, WAGES AND
BENEFITS TO SUPPORT RETAINING,
RECRUITING AND TRAINING
PROVIDERS. HOWEVER WE ARE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE INSTITUTION
ADMINISTRATIVE RATES TO SUPPORT
THE PROCESSING OF COST PLUS
RATES ON A MONTHLY BASIS. WE
ASKED INSTEAD THAT THE CURRENT
CONTRACT TERMS BE UTILIZED THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROCESS 10%
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
PERCENTAGES. FAILED TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE GUNNING MANDATES
SAFFY NEEDS AND ASSISTANCE
CHANGES TO ENSURE THE FUNDS ARE
SENT OUT. ACCURATELY
INEFFICIENCY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION ON THIS MATTER. THANK
YOU. FINE, 40. GOOD AFTERNOON
SHARE TING AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS STEVEN.
OH, LARRY, AND I'M A PROUD
MEMBER OF S E I U LOCAL 1000 ON
CALLING TODAY AND SUPPORT OF OUR
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT INCLUDED AN
S B A B 1 48. THE CONTRACT IS A
MUCH NEEDED INVESTMENT IN OUR
CIVIL SERVICE WORKFORCE. I
STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE IT.
BUT IT REACHES THE ASSEMBLY
FLOOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
GOOD. THANK YOU AND 42. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR TEACHING AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
DALIA HAR AND I, TOO AM A PROUD
MEMBER OF THE YEAR. YOU'D LOOK
1000. I'M CALLING TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF THE TENTATIVE
AGREEMENT INCLUDED IN A B 1 48.
THIS CONTRACT IS A MUCH NEEDED
IMPROVEMENT IN OUR CIVIL SERVICE
WORKFORCE. AND THEY STRUGGLED TO
URGE YOU TO APPROVE IT WHEN IT
REACHES THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY
COURT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR TIME AND WISHING YOU WERE
VERY RELAXING. THANK YOU. I'M
50. GOOD AFTERNOON CHURCH, NG
AND ESTEEMED COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS DENISE QUINN ALLEN.
AND I AM ALSO A PROUD MEMBER OF
C I U LOCAL 1000. I'M CALLING
TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT INCLUDED AN
A B 1 48. THE CONTRACT IS A MUCH
NEEDED INVESTMENT IN OUR CIVIL
SERVICE WORKFORCE. AND I
STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE IT
WHEN IT REACHES THE FLOOR. THANK
YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU
LINE 33. GOOD AFTERNOON FAMILY
THING AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS JEREMY KING. AND I'M
ALSO A PROUD MEMBER OF C I U
LOCAL 1000. I'M CALLING TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF THE TENTATIVE
AGREEMENT, INCLUDING A B 1 48.
THE CONTRACT IS A MUCH NEEDED
INVESTMENT IN OUR CIVIL SERVICE
WORKFORCE, AND I STRONGLY URGE
YOU TO APPROVE IT WHEN IT
REACHES THE ASSEMBLY FOR THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU
LINE 52. HI GOOD AFTERNOON,
SHIRKING AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS AMY VALDEZ. I AM YET
ANOTHER PROUD MEMBER OF S. C I U
LOVE GOING 1000. I'M ALSO
CALLING IN TODAY AND SUPPORTED
THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT INCLUDED
AN ABBEY 1 48. THIS CONTRACT
LIKE EVERYONE ELSE SAID IS MUCH
NEEDED INVESTMENT AND ALL OF OUR
CIVIL SERVICE WORKFORCE. I
STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE IT
WHEN IT REACHES THE ASSEMBLY
FLOOR. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR TIME. THANK YOU LINE 43. 1
43. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. DO YOU
HAVE A SON? MILTON MY NAME IS
EDDIE ISAAC'S, UM GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR CHANGING COMMUNITY
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS I'M A PRIME
MEMBER OF STU LOCAL 1000. I'M
CALLING TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE
A. B S. B. 1 48 TENTATIVE
AGREEMENT FOR 95% 9 BERNIER'S
NETWORKERS. IT MUST BE
INVESTMENT IN OUR CIVIL SERVICE
WORKFORCE. DOCUMENT AND
RETENTION AND I SHOW YOU PROVE
IT WHEN IT REACHES YES, M BEFORE
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU AND 55. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
AFTERNOON COMMITTEE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JESSICA
MALDONADO. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF
ADVOCACY. BUT THE DIVERSITY AND
LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE ALONG WITH
HUNDREDS OF EDUCATORS, PARENTS,
STUDENTS, LABOR ASSOCIATIONS AND
ADVOCATES ACROSS THE STATE. I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
LEGISLATURE FOR IT'S 10 MILLION
INVESTMENT IN THE DIVERSE
EDUCATION LEADERS PIPELINE
INITIATIVE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
SINCERELY THANK THE SPONSORS OF
THE INITIATIVE, SENATOR
BRANSFORD AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BONTA FOR MAKING VERSE AND
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE 12
EDUCATORS A PRIORITY. THIS
INITIATIVE WILL ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC SCHOOL
LEADERS REFLECT AND REPRESENT
THE RICH DIVERSITY OF OUR PUBLIC
SCHOOL STUDENTS AND FAMILIES.
THEY WILL ALSO HELP CLOSE A
LONGSTANDING EQUITY GAP,
ESPECIALLY FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE
BEEN HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED.
FOR THIS REASON, WE ARE
INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL FOR THE
SUPPORT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE IN FAVOR OF
THE DIVERSITY, EDUCATION LEADERS
PIPELINE INITIATIVE. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU
NEXT TO GO TO LINE 54. HI UM,
CHAIR MEMBERS, ELIZABETH
ESQUIVEL WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BUSINESS
OFFICIALS IN SUPPORT OF A B 1 41
PACIFIC LEE AS IT RELATES TO THE
EXTENT EXTENDING THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR A SUBSTITUTE
TO TEACH FOR 60 DAYS AND A
SINGLE CLASSROOM THROUGH JULY
2024 VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
THAT HAS CONCLUDED OUR PUBLIC
COMMENTS. ORDER FEL. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. AH! SEEING NO OTHER
PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM. WE
WILL ADJOURN. SURE.