GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.
THERE WE GO. THANK YOU ALL FOR
JOINING US, WE ARE GOING TO GO
AHEAD AND GET STARTED. AND I
JUST WANT TO SAY, I KNOW THAT
MEMBERS LIKELY HAVE BILLS UP ON
OTHER COMMITTEES TODAY OR HAVE
TO STEP OUT TO VOTE. AND SO
THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT
WE HAVE ARE DOING IT HERE IN THE
CAPITOL, SO THAT FOLKS CAN COME
AND GO. THE HEARING TODAY IS
INFORMATIONAL ONLY. THERE WILL
BE NO VOTES. AND SO AS YOU NEED
TO STEP OUT TO GO TO OTHER
COMMITTEES, WE COMPLETELY
UNDERSTAND. BUT WE ARE HERE
TODAY TO DIVE INTO OUR EARLY
ACTION AGREEMENT AS REFLECTED IN
SB 106 OR AB 106. OUR EARLY
ACTION BUDGET BILL. THIS IS
REFLECTS THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS
ANNOUNCED LAST WEEK BETWEEN THE
GOVERNOR AND THE LEADERSHIP OF
BOTH HOUSES OF THE LEGISLATURE
WOULD REDUCE THE SHORTFALL BY
APPROXIMATELY 17 BILLION. IT
WOULD FREEZE CERTAIN
DISCRETIONARY ONE TIME SPENDING.
THAT WILL PROVIDE US WITH
FLEXIBILITY, AS WE CONSIDER THE
TOUGHER CHOICES THAT LAY AHEAD
AND ALSO, IMPORTANTLY, WE AS THE
ASSEMBLY, CERTAINLY RESERVE THE
RIGHT TO REVISIT ANY OF THE
DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE AS PART
OF THIS EARLY ACTION AGREEMENT.
AS WE GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ABOUT REVENUES, ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THE TOUGH
CHOICES THAT LAY AHEAD, WE MAY
HAVE TO COME BACK AND REVISIT
SOME OF THESE, BUT I'M VERY,
GRATEFUL FOR ALL OF THE HARD
WORK. AND I PARTICULARLY WANT TO
THANK ALL OF OUR SUBCOMMITTEE
CHAIRS, MANY OF WHOM ARE IN THE
ROOM TODAY FOR THEIR HARD WORK.
THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT, FOR YOUR
HARD WORK IN PARTICULAR, IN
GOING THROUGH AND I ALSO WANT TO
THANK, OUR STAFF, OUR BUDGET
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR
HARD WORK AS WE HAVE, DONE DUG
IN AND DONE THE HARD WORK OF
IDENTIFYING, KNOWING THE CHOICES
IN FRONT OF US AND THE SOLUTIONS
IN FRONT OF US AS WE ADDRESS THE
SIGNIFICANT BUDGET CHALLENGES
THIS YEAR. SO WE HAVE ABOUT 65
DAYS LEFT, APPROXIMATELY, GIVE
OR TAKE, AS WE MOVE ON TOWARDS,
THE JUNE BUDGET AND CERTAINLY
MANY MORE DIFFICULT DECISIONS
THAT LAY AHEAD. AND THIS PUTTING
EARLY ACTION BEHIND US IS GOING
TO ALLOW US TO TAKE THE FIRST
IMPORTANT STEP IN ADDRESSING OUR
BUDGET CHALLENGES. AS I
MENTIONED, WILL HELP US TO
REDUCE THE SHORTFALL BY
APPROXIMATELY 17 BILLION. BUT
CERTAINLY THIS WILL ALSO ALLOW
US TO PIVOT TO THE MORE
DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT LAY
AHEAD. AND SO I WANT TO ASSURE
EVERYONE THAT THE ASSEMBLY
REMAINS COMMITTED TO A
THOUGHTFUL AND INCLUSIVE AND
TRANSPARENT PROCESS. WE ARE
PREPARED FOR THE TOUGH CHOICES
AHEAD, AND WE ARE PREPARED TO
MEET THEM HEAD ON. SO THANK YOU
TO ALL THE MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE,
AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN
IT OVER TO OUR VICE CHAIR FOR
ANY INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS. OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR, WELL,
WITH THAT, WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE
TO HAVE CHRIS FERGUSON FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE JOINING
US, OUR EXCELLENT LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST, GABRIEL PETKE AND THEN
CHRISTIAN GRIFFITH FROM THE
ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMMITTEE HERE,
WHO IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. SO MR. FERGUSON.
SURE, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, CHRIS FERGUSON FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. I'LL
KEEP MY INITIAL REMARKS BRIEF,
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
PARTNERSHIP AND CRAFTING THE
EARLY ACTION PACKAGE BEFORE YOU
TODAY, THIS PACKAGE REFLECTS
ROUGHLY $17.3 BILLION IN EARLY
BUDGETARY ACTIONS THAT WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE
EXISTING BUDGET SHORTFALL AND
POSITION THE STATE TO
RESPONSIBLY ADDRESS THE
REMAINING BUDGET SHORTFALL IN
JUNE, THESE ACTIONS CONSIST OF
ROUGHLY $3.6 BILLION IN
REDUCTIONS, $5.2 BILLION IN
REVENUE AND BORROWING, $5.2
BILLION, IN DELAYS AND DEFERRALS
AND SHIFTS ROUGHLY 3.4 BILLION
IN COSTS TO THE GENERAL FUND
COST TO THE GENERAL FUND TO
OTHER STATE FUNDS, ADDITIONAL
THE PACKAGE BEFORE YOU THE
COMMITTEE, REFLECTS BUDGET
LANGUAGE AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO FREEZE
ADDITIONAL ONE TIME FUNDING THAT
WAS INCLUDED IN THE 2021, 2022
AND 22 OR 2023 BUDGET. ACTS THIS
WILL CONCLUDE MY REMARKS, AND MY
COLLEAGUES AND I ARE AVAILABLE
TODAY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS
THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR. FERGUSON, THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST OFFICE,
HELLO, MR. CHAIR, MR. VICE CHAIR
, WE'RE I'M HERE WITH SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO
HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THAT'S
OF INTEREST. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. A LOT OF, BREVITY
TODAY FOR SACRAMENTO. ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. DO MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, MR. VICE CHAIR, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'LL JUST JUMP
RIGHT IN, TO TACKLE KIND OF EACH
EACH COMPONENT. YOU INDICATED,
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE THAT
THERE WAS 1.4 BILLION IN
BORROWING FROM SPECIAL FUNDS.
YEAH, THAT'S INCLUDED WITHIN THE
PACKAGE. OKAY. AND THEN, IN THE
COMMON THEME, I THINK THROUGH
THE, IN PREVIOUS LAO ANALYZES IS
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, AS THE
ASSEMBLY AND THE STATE
LEGISLATURE, UNDERSTAND THAT THE
DYNAMICS OF CURRENT YEAR ACTIONS
AND FUTURE YEAR, FUTURE YEAR
BUDGETS. SO ASSUMING I MEAN, LET
ME FIRST ASK THAT THAT AMOUNT
HAS TO BE REPAID. CORRECT? YEAH,
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. OKAY.
SO WHAT WOULD BE THE FUTURE?
WHAT WOULD BE THE DEBT SERVICE
ON THAT 1.4 BILLION IN
BORROWING? I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO
MY COLLEAGUE IN TERMS OF WHAT,
YOU KNOW, INTERESTS MAY ACCRUE,
DEPENDING ON THE FUNDS WHICH
WHICH COLLEAGUE WOULD THAT BE,
IF SHE'S AVAILABLE, LISA
MROZINSKI. OKAY, WE GOT AN EXTRA
SEAT HERE IF YOU WANT TO COME UP
. SO TIGHT QUARTERS THEN.
COMPARED TO 1100. HI. LISA
MROZINSKI WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. COULD YOU ASK THE
QUESTION AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE. SO
OUT OF THE 1.4 BILLION IN
BORROWING BEING PROPOSED BY THE
GOVERNOR, IT WILL BY THE BY IN
THIS IN THIS AGREEMENT, WHAT
WOULD THE DEBT SERVICE BE TO
FUTURE BUDGETS. WE SO MOST OF
THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED
IN THE MULTI YEAR. I WOULD HAVE
TO GET THAT FOR YOU. I APOLOGIZE
I DON'T HAVE THAT. I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEBT
SERVICE WOULD BE. IT IS A LITTLE
TROUBLING. THE DRESSING IS TO
VOTE ON THURSDAY AND YOU'RE NOT
TELLING US THE DETAILS. SO THIS
WAS INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET, THE, THE PAYMENT
SCHEDULE WAS IN, I BELIEVE ONE
OF THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. I JUST
APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE IT WITH
ME. IT WAS A GOOD THING I DID
SOME CALCULATIONS. SO, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA WOULD OWE MORE
THAN $4.6 BILLION IN DEBT
SERVICE. IS THAT ROUGHLY
CORRECT? I COULD NOT VERIFY
THAT. MAYBE MY QUESTION TO THE
LAO. COULD YOU COULD YOU GIVE US
A SENSE OF WHAT THE DEBT SERVICE
WOULD BE, SINCE THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE DOESN'T HAVE THAT
INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE?
MR. FONG, ON THE SPECIFIC
BORROWING, OR MORE BROADLY, JUST
BROADLY, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF
THE LEGISLATURE ASSUMES OR WANTS
TO BORROW 1.4 BILLION IN SPECIAL
FUNDS AND THERE IS A REPAYMENT,
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IN THE
FUTURE WHAT WHAT THAT DEBT
SERVICE WOULD BE, SO THAT WE
UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS TO
FUTURE BUDGETS. WELL, THERE IS A
REPAYMENT SCHEDULE RELATED TO
THE TO THE BORROWING THAT'S IN
THIS PACKAGE. BUT THERE IS AND
THEN BUT THIS THE NUMBER YOU
REFERENCED I THINK WOULD
ENCOMPASS MORE THAN JUST THAT.
IT SOUNDED MORE LIKE IT WOULD
INCLUDE DEBT SERVICE ON BONDS
THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED. SO I
GUESS IT'S SORT OF A QUESTION OF
JUST WHAT SPECIFIC DEBTS, DEBT
SERVICE WE'RE REFERRING TO.
OKAY. IF POSSIBLE, MAYBE THE
FINANCE CAN GET GET THAT
INFORMATION TO ME, CHRISTIAN.
MR. FONG, THESE THIS BORROWING
IS FROM SPECIAL FUNDS THAT HAVE
A BALANCE THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE
USED. AND SO ESSENTIALLY THIS IS
A AVAILABLE BALANCE TO BORROW IN
THE SHORT RUN. TYPICALLY WE
REPAY WITH A PMEA LEVEL OF
INTEREST, WHICH IS KIND OF A 3%
LEVEL. AND THERE IS REPAYMENT
TERMS FOR EACH OF THE LINES. SO
I THINK IT'S HARD TO AGGREGATE
IT OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEADS
BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT TERMS
FOR EACH OF THEM. BUT YOU THINK
OF IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
THE SPECIAL FUNDS. THOSE FUNDS
WOULD SIT IN THE ACCOUNT NOT
REALLY ACCRUING ANY INTEREST
OTHERWISE. SO BY LENDING TO THE
GENERAL FUND, IT'S ESSENTIALLY A
LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR THOSE
SPECIAL FUNDS. AND AGAIN, IT IS
OUR MONEY WE'RE BORROWING FROM
OURSELVES. SO THERE IS THE DEBT
SERVICE IS INTERNAL. SURE. I'M
JUST SAYING THERE IS GOING TO BE
AN IMPLICATION THOUGH TO THE
FUTURE. RIGHT? I MEAN, THERE IS
A WELL, I WOULD SAY IF YOU GO
BACK AND LOOK AT HOW WE HANDLED
THE GREAT RECESSION, WE BUILT UP
WHAT WAS CALLED THE WALL OF DEBT
BY GOVERNOR BROWN. AND WE DID DO
SOME SPECIAL FUND BORROWING, AND
THEN WE WERE ABLE TO REPAY IT
OVER TIME. AND IT WAS A VERY,
YOU KNOW, IT WAS PROBABLY THE
CHEAPEST AND EASIEST SOLUTION
THAT WE HAD TO RESPOND TO THE
GREAT RECESSION. AND IT'S THE
EASIEST ONE NOW AS WELL, BECAUSE
IN THE LONG RUN, IT HAS THE
LEAST IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF
COST AND SOME OF THE OTHER
OPTIONS. WE'RE LOOKING AT. IT'S
TOTALLY, LOOK, I, I'M NOT HERE
TO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
AND GET THE NUMBERS. SO IF, IF
THERE'S IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO, YOU
KNOW, WITH THE FRAMEWORK THAT'S
CURRENTLY BEFORE US, IF WE ARE
GOING TO INCUR NEW BORROWING,
WHETHER IT'S 3% OR 4% OR 2,
THERE IS GOING TO BE AN
IMPLICATION TO THE FUTURE. AND I
JUST WANTED TO GET THE IF THERE
IS THAT NUMBER, IF THERE CAN
AGGREGATE OR IF YOU CAN GIVE US
THE DEBT SERVICE, CHARTS THAT
THAT WOULD BE, CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF, I KNOW
THAT THAT THERE'S INTENT
LANGUAGE HERE ON, ON THE
RESERVES, THIS, THIS SPECIFIC,
PROPOSAL DOESN'T HAVE, A CALL
TO, TO TAP THE RESERVES. IS THAT
CORRECT? SO THE PACKAGE STATES
THE LEGISLATURE'S INTENT THAT
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET,
WITHDRAWALS FROM THE RAINY DAY
FUND, THAT'S BOTH THE SCHOOL
RAINY DAY FUND AND THE BUDGET
STABILIZATION ACCOUNT, AS
ADJUSTED, IT MAY REVISION WOULD
BE MADE. OKAY. SO THE AMOUNT
THAT WOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF THE
RESERVES IS NOT BEEN DETERMINED
YET. YEAH. THE FINAL AMOUNT
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONTINUED
DISCUSSION. AND THE MAY REVISION
. OKAY. AND THEN AND THEN MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TO ACCESS
THE RESERVES THERE WOULD HAVE TO
BE A DECLARATION OF A FISCAL
EMERGENCY. DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE
OF WHEN THAT DECLARATION WOULD
BE MADE. NO, I WOULD HAVE TO GET
BACK TO YOU ON THE SPECIFICS OF
WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD
MAKE SUCH A DECLARATION. OKAY.
IN TERMS OF THE, THE REDUCTIONS
IN, THE SPENDING REDUCTIONS, HOW
IS THERE A BREAKDOWN IN TERMS OF
HOW MUCH OF THE SPENDING
REDUCTIONS ARE ONE TIME AND HOW
MUCH OF THE SPENDING REDUCTIONS
ARE ONGOING? I THINK THE CONCERN
IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
SUSTAINABLE K¾T OF THE BUDGET IS
IN QUESTION. AND SO IS THIS JUST
A ONE TIME REDUCTION OF THIS
YEAR. AND THEN, BUT THAT WE
STILL HAVE ONGOING DEFICITS AS
OUTLINED IN THE LÀ ANALYSIS, SO
WE DO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
PUT THE STATE BUDGET ON MORE
STABLE FINANCIAL FOOTING
ONGOING. SO CAN YOU CAN YOU
BREAK DOWN HOW MUCH OF THE
SPENDING REDUCTIONS ARE ONGOING
FOR YEAR OVER YEAR, AND HOW MUCH
OF IT IS JUST ONE TIME? SO I
DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFICS. I
DON'T KNOW IF MY COLLEAGUE LISA
HAS THAT IN FRONT OF ME. I WOULD
NOTE THAT, JUST IN THE EDUCATION
ARENA ALONE, IT'S ROUGHLY $1
BILLION OF THOSE REDUCTIONS THAT
ARE ONE TIME IN NATURE OR DELAYS
THAT ARE ONE TIME IN NATURE. DO
YOU DO YOU HAVE THAT
INFORMATION? I KNOW 3 BILLION
FOR SURE IS ONE TIME. THAT'S THE
CURRENT YEAR AMOUNT, AND THEN
THERE'S THE 14 BILLION THAT IS
IN THE BUDGET YEAR. AND I KNOW
QUITE A FEW. I WOULD HAVE TO GET
THE TOTAL AMOUNT. I DIDN'T BREAK
IT DOWN BY THAT WAY. BUT THERE
ARE SEVERAL THAT ARE ONGOING
REDUCTIONS. OKAY. I THINK THAT I
THINK THAT'S THE FROM A FROM A
FRAMEWORK PERSPECTIVE, I THINK
THAT'S GOING TO BE UNDERSTANDING
THE CHALLENGES OF THE OF THE
CURRENT YEAR DEFICIT. THERE ARE
ONGOING DEFICITS, I GUESS,
PROJECTED IN THE OUT YEARS. AND
SO WE DO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW
TO DEAL WITH THE OUT YEARS. I
DON'T KNOW IF THE LAO HAS HAS A
PERSPECTIVE ON THIS, SO, MR.
VONG, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT,
YOU KNOW, ACCORDING WE HAVEN'T
SCORED THE PACKAGE, OUR OFFICE,
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE DOCUMENTS
REFER TO THE 3.6 BILLION OF
REDUCTIONS THAT GENERALLY
REDUCTIONS OF ONE TIME FUNDING,
WHICH I THINK DOES MAKE SOME
SENSE. OUR OFFICE HAS POINTED
OUT THAT THERE WERE THESE VERY
LARGE, ALLOCATIONS OF ONE TIME
AND TEMPORARY SPENDING FROM
THOSE PREVIOUSLY ESTIMATED
SURPLUSES THAT WERE VERY LARGE.
AND SO, IF ANYTHING, OUR OFFICE
MIGHT SUGGEST THERE'S MORE OF
THAT TYPE OF ONE TIME FUNDING
THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED, MAYBE,
YOU KNOW, IF NOT IN THIS PACKAGE
BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE
BUDGET PROCESS, THAT COULD HELP
SHRINK THE DEFICIT BEFORE
GETTING TO THAT ONGOING THING. I
THINK, HOWEVER, AS YOU MENTIONED
, THE STATE DOES FACE THESE
ONGOING DEFICITS THAT BOTH OUR
OFFICE AND DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
HAVE ESTIMATED. AND SO MOST
LIKELY AT SOME POINT THERE WILL
NEED TO BE ONGOING ADJUSTMENTS
AS WELL. BUT, FOR NOW, I MEAN,
THERE'S SOME FOCUS ON SOME OF
THOSE ONE TIME ALLOCATIONS,
PARTLY BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T,
PULL THOSE BACK NOW, THE MONEY
GOES OUT AND THEY BECOME NOT
AVAILABLE. THOSE ARE SORT OF, AS
WE'VE DESCRIBED THEM, A USE IT
OR LOSE IT ABILITY TO SAVE. AND
SO EVEN DIFFERENT FROM RESERVES
OR OTHER TYPES OF ONE TIME
SOLUTIONS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IF
YOU DON'T USE THEM, THEY'RE
STILL AVAILABLE IN SUBSEQUENT
YEARS. SO THAT'S ABSOLUTELY AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. DID DID
THE LAO DID YOU YOUR ANALYSIS
OUTLINED ABOUT 9,000,000,000 IN
1 TIME, WE OUTLINED ACTUALLY
MORE THAN THAT. THERE'S ROUGHLY,
15 OR 16 BILLION OF ONE TIME
AVAILABLE OVER THE SUBSEQUENT
THREE YEARS, INCLUDING THE
BUDGET YEAR. OKAY THAT 15 TO 16
BILLION. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU,
IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC,
SPECIFIC ITEMS, I UNDERSTAND
THAT THERE WAS ONE PROPOSAL TO
TAKE 100 MILLION FROM THE
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING FUND TO PAY
BACK, THE UI DEBT, CAN, CAN CAN
SOMEONE, I GUESS, EXPLAIN KIND
OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS HERE, IN
TERMS OF IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A
DOUBLE WHAMMY TO, TO BUSINESSES
IN CALIFORNIA. THEY, THEY HAVE
TO PAY A POTENTIAL INCREASE IN
PAYROLL TAXES FOR THE DEBT. AND
THEN NOW THE FUNDS THAT WOULD
HAVE GONE TO THEM FOR, FOR
TRAINING, NOW HAS TO BE USED IS
BEING SHIFTED. CAN CAN, CAN YOU
KIND OF OUTLINE THE THOUGHT
PROCESS THERE? ANDREW MÁS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO THE
PROPOSAL TO USE $100 MILLION OF
THE EMPLOYMENT TRAINING FUND IS
ALREADY ALLOWABLE USE IN
STATUTE. SO THIS WAS CONCEIVED
UPON WHEN THE, THE, WHAT WE CALL
THE ADD ON TAX. SO IT'S A POINT
1, ADD ON TAX. UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE, TAXES ON EMPLOYERS.
TYPICALLY THAT FUNDING IS USED
FOR TRAINING THAT CAN BE
ALLOCATED BY THE INTERIM
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PANEL,
HOWEVER, IN STATUTE, IT
AUTHORIZES THE LEGISLATURE TO
UTILIZE THAT FUNDING TO PAY
INTEREST ON UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE LOANS. OKAY, SO THAT'S
ALREADY IN STATUTE. YOU'RE JUST
INSTEAD OF ALLOWING IT TO GO TO
WORKFORCE TRAINING, IT'S NOW
GOING TO BE USED TO PAY THE PAY
DOWN THE INTEREST THAT'S
CORRECT. ALTHOUGH I WOULD POINT
OUT THAT THIS FUNDING WAS IN THE
FUND BALANCE. SO, DESPITE USING
100, UTILIZING $100 MILLION,
THERE'S NO IMPACT TO THE
PROGRAM. SO THE PROGRAM FUNDING
REMAINS ITS SAME LEVEL, AROUND
$130 MILLION. OKAY. SO HOW MUCH
WOULD THE HOW MUCH DOES THE, SO
THE 100 MILLION WOULD JUST BE
DIRECT PAY DOWN DOWN PAYMENT TO
THE INTEREST? THAT'S CORRECT.
YEAH. OKAY IN TERMS OF AND THEN
THE, THE DIABLO CANYON,
CONSERVATION FUNDING, DOES THAT,
DOES THAT AT ALL IMPACT THE
OPERATIONS OF. I KNOW THAT THE
LEGISLATURE VOTED TO KEEP, THAT
ENERGY, PRODUCTION ONGOING. SO
DOES THAT IMPACT ANYTHING IN
REGARDS TO THAT? CHAU. FORBES
ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMMITTEE, THE
CONSERVATION FUNDING WAS
SEPARATE. IT WAS MONEY THAT WE
SET ASIDE TO USE AROUND THE
PLANT FOR LONG LANE
CONSERVATION, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT DOES NOT
IMPACT THE $1.4 BILLION LOAN
THAT WAS AGREED TO FOR PG AND E
THAT'S, DONE THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES.
OKAY. SO IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE
OPERATIONS OF THE NUCLEAR POWER
PLANT. JUST IT'S JUST THE
CONSERVATION AROUND AROUND THE
SORT OF ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT WE
ALSO AGREED TO IN SBA 46. OKAY.
AND I GUESS THE BROAD QUESTION
LOOKING FORWARD, AND I KNOW THIS
IS GOING TO BE AN ONGOING
CONVERSATION AMONGST THE
SUBCOMMITTEE. SO THIS IS EARLY
ACTION 17 BILLION. SO WHAT'S CAN
YOU KIND OF TAKE PULL THE
CURTAIN BACK A LITTLE BIT. AND
IS THERE IS THE ADMINISTRATION
HAVE KIND OF A SENSE OF WHAT
THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO WITH THE
REST OF THE DEFICIT, ASSUMING
IT'S IF IT'S CLOSER TO THE LÀ Þ,
IF IT'S IN THE 70, 70 BILLION
PLUS, WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE
THOUGHT PROCESS THERE? YEAH, I
THINK FROM THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PERSPECTIVE, WE HAD A ROUGHLY
$38 BILLION DEFICIT AS OF THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. I CAN'T SPEAK
TO ANY CHANGES SINCE THAT POINT
IN TIME, BUT CERTAINLY WE PUT
FORWARD A PLAN AT THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET THAT WAS A COMBINATION OF
REDUCTIONS, DELAYS, DEFERRALS,
REVENUE AND BORROWING, TO
ADDRESS THAT DEFICIT. CERTAINLY
THERE WILL BE MANY CONVERSATIONS
AROUND THE PARTICULARS THAT WERE
IN THAT PACKAGE, IN THE NEXT 65
DAYS, AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED.
OKAY. SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND,
YOU GUYS WILL, OF COURSE, WHEN
THE MAY REVISION COMES OUT,
YOU'LL HAVE AN UPDATED ANALYSIS
ON WHAT THE DEFICIT WILL BE,
HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TELL
US HOW MUCH YOU'RE WILLING TO
TAKE OUT OF THE RESERVES, THOUGH
IT'S STILL UNCLEAR WHEN THAT
DECLARATION OF A FISCAL
EMERGENCY WILL TAKE PLACE, BUT
PRESUMABLY BEFORE MAY. CORRECT
OKAY. AND IN TERMS OF,
WITHDRAWALS FROM THE RESERVE,
WHAT I CAN SAY IS THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET PREDICATED ROUGHLY, I
BELIEVE IT WAS $11 BILLION IN
WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BUDGET
STABILIZATION ACCOUNT AND
ROUGHLY 5.7 BILLION FROM THE
PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
STABILIZATION ACCOUNT. THAT 5.7
BILLION WAS SPLIT BETWEEN
ROUGHLY 3 BILLION IN THE CURRENT
YEAR AND ROUGHLY 2.7 BILLION FOR
THE BUDGET YEAR. OKAY, SO THAT'S
THE ROUGH. WHAT WOULD BE
PROPOSED OUT OF THE GOVERNOR,
OUT OF THE RESERVE. AND THAT
WOULD STILL BE PREDICATED ON A
DECLARATION OF A FISCAL
EMERGENCY? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT'S WHAT THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET REFLECTED. OKAY. AND BUT
WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WOULD
TAKE PLACE. WHEN THE DECLARATION
WOULD TAKE PLACE. NO, I WOULD
HAVE TO TAKE THAT BACK TO THE
ADMINISTRATION. OKAY. BUT THE
ADMINISTRATION CAN DO IT ON. I
MEAN, YOU'D HAVE TO DO IT ON
YOUR OWN FIRST RIGHT BEFORE.
OKAY. SO THAT'S ALL THE BUDGET
IS PREDICATED ON THAT. YEAH.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR. VICE CHAIR. ARE
THERE OTHERS WITH, QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS? OKAY, MR. PATTERSON?
YEAH. REAL QUICK, SO I WANT TO.
IS THIS WORKING? YEAH I WANT TO
FOCUS ON THE $250 MILLION THAT
THE GOVERNOR WAS SENDING TO
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, FOR,
SIGNIFICANT REPAIR AND WORK IN
OUR DOWNTOWN AREA, ON
INFRASTRUCTURE AND
REVITALIZATION, ORIGINALLY, IT
WAS IS DELAYED. AND I RECALL IT
SHOWED UP AS A POSSIBLE
RECOMMENDATION FOR CANCELLATION.
WHERE DOES THAT $250 MILLION
STAND NOW? I DEFER TO MY
COLLEAGUE EMMA, WHO'S COMING UP.
HI, EMMA JUNGWIRTH, DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE, THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET STILL REPRESENTS A DELAY
OF FUNDING FOR FRESNO. SO THERE
HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES MADE IN
EARLY ACTION TO THAT PROPOSAL AT
ALL. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE DELAY,
PLEASE? HOW LONG? HOW MUCH OVER.
WHAT TIME? YEAH. SO THE FUNDING
FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, 50 MILLION
IS STILL BEING ALLOCATED TO
FRESNO, BUT THE WHAT WAS
PROPOSED? 100 MILLION FOR BUDGET
YEAR AND WHAT WAS PROPOSED? IT
WAS ORIGINALLY 100 MILLION IN
BUDGET YEAR, 100 MILLION BUDGET
YEAR PLUS ONE. AND WE'VE JUST
DELAYED IT BY ONE FISCAL YEAR.
SO THE FUNDING WOULD BE
ALLOCATED 50 MILLION CURRENT
YEAR AND 100 MILLION A YEAR.
YEAH IT WOULD SKIP A YEAR AND
THEN A FOLLOWING SIX, TWO YEARS,
YEAH. 25, 26 AND 2627. YEAH. I
YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, HOW
SIGNIFICANT THAT IS,
PARTICULARLY WITH THE HIGH SPEED
RAIL STATION THAT'S COMING IN
THERE, OUR ADMINISTRATION AND I
WAS A MAYOR OF FRESNO FOR EIGHT
YEARS. SO THIS IS REALLY
IMPORTANT TO ME AS WELL. AND I
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT
DIDN'T GET ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK
THAT WE ACTUALLY, I CAN REPORT
BACK TO MY MAYOR THAT THIS IS 50
MILLION NOW, ONE YEAR DELAYED
AND THEN TWO BUDGET YEARS
THEREAFTER. THE PLAN IS TO DO
THE 100 MILLION EACH. CORRECT.
THAT'S THE PLAN. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THAT. MR. SALIH OKAY,
SO WE ESTIMATE THE BUDGET
DEFICIT TO BE ABOUT $73 BILLION
TODAY. PLAN THAT'S BEEN OFFERED
PURPORTS TO PLUG ABOUT 18
BILLION OF THAT. WHAT'S THE PLAN
FOR THE REMAINING 50 BILLION. SO
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PUTS THAT
FIGURE AT ROUGHLY 38 BILLION.
THE $73 BILLION FIGURE IS A
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST, FIGURE, SO
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE A
HOLISTIC PACKAGE THAT WAS
ADDRESSING THAT 38 BILLION AS OF
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, THAT WAS
BETWEEN WITHDRAWALS FROM THE
RESERVE REDUCTIONS, DELAYS,
REVENUE AND OTHER BORROWING, TO
ADDRESS THAT DEFICIT, SO I CAN'T
SPEAK TO THE 73 BILLION AS THAT
WASN'T AN ADMINISTRATION FIGURE,
I WILL SAY THAT WITHIN THAT 38
BILLION, THERE WAS ALSO A
PROPOSAL AROUND ADDRESSING,
PRIOR YEAR FUNDING AND THE
PROPOSITION 98 GUARANTEE THAT
WOULD ALSO ADDRESS A SIGNIFICANT
, AMOUNT, ROUGHLY $8 BILLION, SO
CERTAINLY THAT'S OUR PLAN OAN
THAT WE PUT FORWARD. I DEFER TO
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST TO SPEAK
TO THE 73 BILLION. WELL, NO, I'M
SPEAKING TO THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE BECAUSE. SO YOU'RE STILL
OPERATING AS IF IT'S ONLY A $38
BILLION DEFICIT. IS THAT CORRECT
? YEAH. AT THIS POINT IN TIME,
WE CAN SPEAK TO THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET, WHICH HAD A $38 BILLION
DEFICIT NUMBER THAT WAS
ANNOUNCED, WE YOU WOULD NOT SEE
ANOTHER PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT ON
WHAT WE THINK THAT AMOUNT MIGHT
BE UNTIL THE MAY REVISION. SO
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
BEHIND THE SCENES, WHEN YOU GO
BACK TO YOUR OFFICE, SAY YOU
GUYS ARE NOT FIGURING OUT HOW TO
PLUG A $73 BILLION DEFICIT.
THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. I THINK
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE
STILL WORKING THROUGH WHAT THE
MAY REVISION WOULD LOOK LIKE AND
WHAT THOSE AMOUNTS ARE. SO I
CAN'T SAY THAT IT'S 73 BILLION.
CERTAINLY WE WOULD ACCOUNT FOR
UPDATED REVENUE PROJECTIONS.
WE'D UPDATE, EXPENDITURE
PROJECTIONS, AND WE WOULD CREATE
A PACKAGE FOR THE MAY REVISION
THAT ADDRESSES BOTH, OF THOSE
SCENARIOS. SO I CAN'T SAY THAT
IT'S 73 BILLION AT THIS POINT IN
TIME, BUT WE WOULD COME FORWARD
WITH A PACKAGE IN MAY THAT,
CREATES A BALANCED BUDGET AND
THAT ADDRESSES UPDATES TO BOTH
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES. OKAY
WELL, MY CONCERN IS I DON'T FEEL
LIKE THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE IS
TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY BECAUSE
THE LEGISLATURE, WHO EMPLOYS THE
LEO AND IS BETTER AT THIS,
FRANKLY, THAN THE GOVERNOR, SAYS
IT'S 73 BILLION. WE HAVE A LOT
OF GROUPS. I'M GETTING PEOPLE IN
MY OFFICE ALL THE TIME, ARE
WORRIED ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL CUTS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE IN
THIS BUDGET, AND WE'RE ABOUT TWO
MONTHS OUT FROM A DEADLINE, AND
WE'RE NOT HAVING ANY REAL
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT THOSE
CUTS ARE GOING TO BE. ARE THEY
GOING TO BE FROM HEALTH CARE?
ARE THEY GOING TO BE FROM
SCHOOLS? WHERE ARE WE GOING TO
CUT $50 BILLION FROM. AND WE'RE
NOT EVEN HAVING A REAL
CONVERSATION HERE. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT 3 BILLION IN CUTS TODAY.
THE REST ARE GIMMICKS AND
THEY'RE ONE TIME GIMMICKS. YOU
WON'T BE ABLE TO USE THOSE NEXT
YEAR. SO MY MESSAGE TO THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE IS YOU GUYS
GOT TO WAKE UP AND YOU GOT TO
TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY BECAUSE
CALIFORNIANS ARE GOING TO DEPEND
ON WHAT WE DO WITH THIS BUDGET.
AND WE CAN'T JUST HAVE, YOU
KNOW, A WEEK OR TWO TO FIGURE IT
OUT. WE NEED TO START WORKING ON
THIS NOW. SO I HOPE YOU'LL TAKE
THAT MESSAGE BACK, PLEASE. YEAH
CERTAINLY CAN TAKE THAT MESSAGE
BACK. I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE'VE HAD A TRIED AND TRUE
BUDGET PROCESS YEAR OVER YEAR
OVER YEAR THAT RELIES ON UPDATES
AT THE MAY REVISION, THAT WOULD
BE THE NEXT PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO SPEAK
TO, THE MEASURES THAT YOU
MENTIONED. I'M JUST GOING TO
INTERJECT HERE. I WANT TO MAYBE
ADD A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT HERE
FOR FOLKS WHO ARE WATCHING AT
HOME. WE HAVE MORE THAN 60
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS
THAT ARE SCHEDULED HERE. SO WE
HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKING THE
PROCESS OF THOUGHTFULLY
DELIBERATING HOW WE WERE TO
CRAFT THIS YEAR'S STATE BUDGET.
SINCE THE GOVERNOR INTRODUCED
HIS BUDGET IN JANUARY. IF YOU
WERE TO COME AND WATCH, YOU CAN
TURN ON THE TV IN YOUR OFFICE,
MAYBE WATCH SOME OF THE BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS. YOU'LL
SEE OUR VERY TALENTED,
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS WHO ARE
GOING THROUGH THOSE
CONVERSATIONS ALMOST EVERY DAY
OF THE WEEK. AND I JUST WANT TO
REMIND FOLKS, THIS IS OUR OUR
GOAL WITH EARLY ACTION IS NOT TO
WRITE THE ENTIRE BUDGET AND
WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOOLISH TO DO
SO BECAUSE WE WANT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS THOUGHTFULLY
RESPOND EARLY TO HEAR FROM
STAKEHOLDERS, TO HEAR FROM
LEGISLATORS ABOUT THEIR
PRIORITIES, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS IN A
THOUGHTFUL AND DELIBERATIVE
MANNER. SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
DO WITH EARLY ACTION HERE, AND
WHAT IS BEFORE US, IS TO TAKE AN
IMPORTANT FIRST STEP, A
MEANINGFUL FIRST STEP, A
THOUGHTFUL AND RESPONSIBLE FIRST
STEP ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT ADDRESS
THE SHORTFALL. BUT TO ACCELERATE
THAT PROCESS SO THAT THE
LEGISLATURE COULD HAVE NÓ
HEARINGS AND NO CONSIDERATION
AND NO OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM
INTERESTED FOLKS, INCLUDING
FOLKS IN YOUR DISTRICT, ABOUT
WHAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE
SOLUTIONS MIGHT BE. I WOULD
ARGUE IT WOULD BE A VERY
IMPRUDENT WAY. SO AGAIN, I WANT
TO TAKE EVERYBODY A BIG STEP
BACK. THIS IS NOT THE FINAL WORD
ON THE BUDGET. THIS IS THE FIRST
STEP. WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF WHAT THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE HAS
SUGGESTED TO US OUR USE IT OR
LOSE IT OPPORTUNITIES TO CAPTURE
SAVINGS. THAT'S ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT THIS INCLUDES THIS
FREEZE ON DISCRETIONARY ONE TIME
FUNDING. AND WE WILL CONTINUE
THAT HARD WORK AS WE HAVE BEEN
DOING IN CONVERSATION WITH THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND IN
CONVERSATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
AND IN CONVERSATION WITH
LEGISLATORS ABOUT HOW WE CRAFT
THAT LARGER SOLUTION. SO AGAIN,
I JUST WANT TO BACK EVERYBODY UP
FOR A SECOND. THIS IS NOT THE
FINAL WORD ON THE BUDGET. THIS
IS A FIRST STEP THAT IS
THOUGHTFUL AND RESPONSIBLE ABOUT
HOW WE MEET THAT. AND THEN WE
WILL CONTINUE THESE
CONVERSATIONS OVER THE NEXT
COUPLE OF WEEKS. AND
IMPORTANTLY, WHEN WE HAVE MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT REVENUE
ACTUALLY IS, WHEN WE HAVE MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE SIZE
OF THE SHORTFALL IS, THEN WE CAN
HAVE THOSE FINAL CONVERSATIONS.
BUT I WANT TO ASSURE YOU, MR.
SALIH, ALL OF YOUR COLLEAGUES
HERE ON THE BUDGET COMMITTEE,
INCLUDING THE SUBCOMMITTEE
CHAIRS, HAVE BEEN DIVING INTO
THIS. THEY'VE ALREADY THEY'RE
ALREADY WORKING THROUGH THESE
VARIOUS SCENARIOS. SO IF YOU
WANT TO HAVE CONVERSATION ABOUT
THAT, INVITE YOU TO COME HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH ME, WOULD
INVITE YOU TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH OUR
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS. BUT THIS IS
NOT THE STATE BUDGET. THIS IS
NOT THE JUNE BUDGET. THIS IS A
FIRST STEP. MR. CHAIR, WITH ALL
RESPECT, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE
PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU
IN YOUR OFFICE. I WANT TO HAVE
THEM IN PUBLIC HERE. AND I SIT
ON THOSE SUBCOMMITTEES, AND WE
ARE NOT HAVING MEANINGFUL
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHERE TO CUT
WITH THE BUDGET. SO I APPRECIATE
YOUR REMARKS, BUT I DON'T WANT
ANY CLOSED DOOR MEETINGS. JUST
JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE OVER
60 PUBLICLY TELEVISED COMMITTEE
HEARINGS THAT ANY PERSON IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAN WATCH.
AND I KNOW THAT ALL OF OUR
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS ARE DOING
THAT IN A VERY THOUGHTFUL AND
INCLUSIVE WAY. WITH THAT, I'M
GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO OTHERS
WHO'D LIKE TO COMMENT. MR.
ALVAREZ, THANK YOU. AS A, CHAIR
OF ONE OF THOSE SUBCOMMITTEES,
WE HAVE HAD QUITE A BIT OF
ABSENCES BY SOME MEMBERS AT
THOSE COMMITTEES BECAUSE WE
ACTUALLY HAVE HAD SOME VERY,
VERY DEEP, AND INFORMATIVE AND
OFTEN PAINFUL CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT WHAT THOSE TRADE OFFS ARE
GOING TO BE IN A DIFFICULT YEAR.
WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING THAT WORK
WE'VE HAD WELL OVER, I BELIEVE,
EIGHT, SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS IN
EDUCATION ALONE, AND I WOULD
HOPE THAT THERE BE CONTINUE TO
BE PARTICIPATION FROM ALL
MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE. I
APPRECIATE MR. MURATSUCHI. MR.
FONG, WHO HAVE BEEN THERE AT
EVERY SINGLE MEETING, LISTENING
TO THOSE REALLY DIFFICULT
CONVERSATIONS AND AGAIN,
HOPEFULLY OTHERS CAN JOIN. I
WILL JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE,
PERHAPS THE FINAL PARAGRAPH IN
WHAT HAS BEEN RELEASED IN OUR
AGENDA, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT THE
CHAIR ALREADY HAS ALREADY
STATED, WHAT THIS IS ABOUT
TODAY, THIS IS AN EARLY ACTION
PACKAGE THAT MAKES MEANINGFUL
AND SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS TO
ADDRESSING THE STATE'S
PROJECTED, PROJECTED DEFICIT,
AND, THIS IDENTIFIES THAT WE
NEED TO DO MORE, BUT THE LAST
SENTENCE, I THINK IS CRITICAL,
AND I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
WORK BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE IN THIS REGARD, THAT
THIS BILL CONTAINS IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS TO EMPOWER THE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO FREEZE
SPENDING FROM THE 2021, 2022 AND
2023 BUDGETS. THAT IS
SIGNIFICANT ACTION BEING TAKEN
WITH THIS, THE PROVISION WILL
ALSO PRESERVE THE OPTIONS. THIS
IS EVEN MORE CRITICAL AS WE GO
FORWARD, PRESERVE THE OPTIONS
FOR ADDITIONAL BUDGET SOLUTIONS,
WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT EACH ONE
OF US IN OUR SUBCOMMITTEES ARE
DISCUSSING, THAT EACH ONE OF US
ARE HAVING IN-DEPTH
CONVERSATIONS WITH DEPARTMENTS,
WITH DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, WITH
THE LAO, WITH STAKEHOLDERS, FOR
HOURS AND HOURS OF PUBLIC
TESTIMONY THAT WILL CONTINUE IN
THE ASSEMBLY. THAT'S THE KIND OF
WORK THAT OUR SPEAKER HAS ASKED
US TO DO THAT OUR BUDGET CHAIR
HAS ASKED US TO DO, AND WE WILL
CONTINUE TO DO THAT OVER THE
NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS IN ORDER TO
ACTUALLY GET TO A BUDGET THAT IS
BALANCED AND THAT IS FULL OF
REAL, REAL SOLUTIONS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THIS, THIS ISSUE IS
ADDRESSED, NOT NOT BY KICKING
THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD FOR MORE
YEARS, BUT BY ACTUALLY
ADDRESSING IT THIS YEAR SO THAT
IN THE FUTURE YEARS WE AREN'T
TALKING ABOUT RISKS TO SERVICES
THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT. SO
THERE'S JUST THREE ADDITIONAL
POINTS THAT I HOPE AT THIS
MOMENT. I THINK, THIS GIVES US
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO JUST
PAUSE AND REFLECT ON HOW WE
SHOULD BE THINKING TOWARDS THE
FORWARDS. THERE'S THINGS I WANT
TO PUT OUT THAT I KNOW IN OUR
SUBCOMMITTEE. WE'VE ALREADY
DISCUSSED, ONE THE FREEZING
WHICH ALREADY IS BEING DONE
HERE. AND WE HAVE TO APPRECIATE
THE, THE ADMINISTRATION FOR, FOR
STEPPING UP IN THAT WAY AND
SAYING, WE'VE GOT TO TAKE A
PAUSE AND SEE WHAT'S THERE SO
THAT WE CAN MAKE OTHER DECISIONS
AS WE GO FORWARD, TOO. I LIKE
TO, MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A
CONVERSATION IN JUNE ABOUT
ADDITIONAL RESERVES. I THINK, IF
NOTHING ELSE, IS A LESSON THAT,
THOSE WHO HAD THE FORESIGHT
YEARS AGO TO DO THE EMERGENCY
RESERVES WAS A SMART THING TO DO
. THE EDUCATION RESERVE, ANOTHER
SMART THING TO DO. BUT THERE ARE
OTHER PARTS OF OUR BUDGET THAT I
BELIEVE DESERVE, RESERVES AS
WELL, CERTAINLY IN HIGHER
EDUCATION, WHERE THE GENERAL
FUND IS THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR,
PRIMARILY TO OUR COMMUNITY
COLLEGE SYSTEM AND OUR CSU
SYSTEM, BUT ALSO TO OUR UC
SYSTEM. WHEN OUR GENERAL FUND
GOES DOWN, OUR INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION HAVE TO DEAL
WITH A MORE DIFFICULT SITUATION,
HAVING RESERVES ADDITIONAL
RESERVES FOR THOSE PURPOSES IN
THE FUTURE MAKES SENSE, AS I
THINK IT ALSO MAKES SENSE FOR
OTHER THINGS LIKE EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION. I THINK WE
SHOULD DEFINITELY TALK ABOUT
THAT THIS YEAR. AND THEN LASTLY,
I WILL SAY, I WANT TO THANK THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE WHO'S
HERE. CERTAINLY THE LAO, FOR
THIS BEING A COLLABORATIVE
RELATIONSHIP, AS IT SHOULD BE
DURING THIS PROCESS WHERE YOU
COME FORWARD, YOU PRESENT THE
BEST INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE.
WE ASK YOU SOME VERY TOUGH
QUESTIONS, OF WHICH SOME YOU
DON'T HAVE ANSWERS TO JUST YET.
BUT YOU'RE GOING TO BE EXPECTED
TO HAVE THOSE ANSWERS BEFORE WE
MAKE A FINAL DECISION. AND I
KNOW THAT, THAT TYPE OF WORK,
EITHER THROUGH OUR COMMITTEE OR
MAYBE THROUGH GOING BACK TO A
CONFERENCE PROCESS, WOULD BE THE
MOST IDEAL IN ORDER FOR US TO
REALLY HAVE THOSE DEEP LEVEL
CONVERSATIONS THAT OUR CHAIR
WANTS TO HAVE THAT ARE REQUIRED
IN A YEAR LIKE THIS. SO WITH
THAT, I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AND ALL OF
YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. ALVAREZ. MR.
BENNET, THANK YOU. I JUST VERY
BRIEFLY WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT
THAT AT AT A HEARING LIKE THIS,
WE REALLY HAVE TWO CHOICES. WE
CAN EITHER, TRY TO CHARACTERIZE
PEOPLE'S INTENT OR LACK OF
INTENTIONS, OR YOU'RE NOT TAKING
THIS SERIOUSLY. THE SOUND BITES.
OR WE CAN JUST ROLL UP OUR
SLEEVES AND IDENTIFY
SPECIFICALLY WHAT WOULD YOU DO
DIFFERENTLY WITH THE BUDGET,
WHICH IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE
DOING. AND I WOULD JUST SUGGEST
THAT THAT'S CERTAINLY THE MORE
PRODUCTIVE WAY FOR US TO MOVE
FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA. THANK YOU. AND I
WANTED TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT
WE ARE TAKING OUR JOB SERIOUSLY.
WE HAVE HAD, JUST IN MY
COMMITTEE SUB FIVE, WHICH IS ALL
STATE ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING,
AREAS TO TAXES, CANNABIS,
VETERANS, HOUSING AND HOMELESS.
SOME MAJOR ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
THAT WE HAVE HAD NOT ONLY
MULTIPLE HEARINGS FROM THE PAST,
BUT WE HAVE MANY, MANY HEARINGS,
PLANNED THROUGH APRIL AND MAY.
WE'D BE HAPPY TO GET YOU A
CALENDAR IF YOU NEED THAT FOR
YOUR PURVIEW. BUT IN THESE
COMMITTEES, WE ARE ASKING TOUGH
QUESTIONS. ONE THAT HAS BEEN
TALKED ABOUT IS CANNABIS. AS WE
KNOW, THE CANNABIS FUND HAS BEEN
A LITTLE VOLATILE GOING UP AND
DOWN. BUT THERE HAS BEEN MONEY
COMING INTO THE STATE. ONE OF
THE ISSUES WE FOUND IS IT'S BEEN
DIFFICULT TO GET THOSE FUNDS
OUT, AND THE ENFORCEMENT DOLLARS
ARE GOING OUT READILY, BUT
THERE'S EDUCATION FUNDS THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN MOVING OUT. SO ONE
OF THE PROPOSALS GOALS IS TO
MOVE THOSE FUNDS INTO ANOTHER
AREA UNTIL WE CAN GET THOSE
EDUCATION FUNDS OUT. BUT WE HAVE
SERIOUS, SERIOUS ISSUES TO FACE
AS WE MOVE INTO MAY, INCLUDING
ALL OF THE HOMELESS FUNDING, ALL
THE HOUSING FUNDING, FOSTER CARE
FUNDING. WE HAVE MANY ISSUES
THAT NOT ONLY ARE OUR
CONSTITUENTS GOING TO BE
WEIGHING IN, ADVOCATES ARE GOING
TO BE WEIGHING IN, AND THEY
ALREADY HAVE WEIGHED IN SINCE
THE JANUARY BUDGET WAS RELEASED.
OUR OFFICES ARE ENTERTAINING.
MANY, MANY MEETINGS, FROM
INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT TO WEIGH IN
. PLUS, WE HAVE SEEN, A HUGE
AMOUNT OF LETTERS THAT HAVE BEEN
SENT INTO OUR OFFICES, EITHER
ASKING TO CONSIDER SAVING A
PROGRAM, CONSIDER A HOLDING
PROGRAMS, NOT DELAYING. SO THERE
IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF
CORRESPONDENCE THAT OUR OFFICES
ARE NOT ONLY READING THROUGH,
BUT WEIGHING. AS WE DELIBERATE
ON. HOW DO WE EXACTLY MAKE THE
DETERMINATIONS FOR A BUDGET FOR
CALIFORNIA IN A VERY SLIM
BUDGET? THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MISS QUIRK-SILVA. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WITH
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? Ó, MISS
PETRIE-NORRIS THEN WE'LL GO BACK
TO MR. FONG, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AND I DO. I WANT TO THANK
OUR CHAIR AND OUR SPEAKER AND
ALL OF OUR SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS
FOR THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE BEEN
DOING AND THE VERY DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS THAT THAT YOU HAVE
UNDERTAKEN AS PART OF, COMING
TO, TO THIS PROPOSAL AND AS I
THINK YOU'VE YOU'VE HEARD FROM
OTHER MEMBERS, I THINK WHILE
EARLY ACTION IS WHAT'S BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE TODAY, I THINK THE
QUESTION OF WHAT'S NEXT IS
CERTAINLY VERY MUCH TOP OF MIND
FOR ALL OF US AND FOR ALL OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS. AND WHETHER IT'S
THE ESTIMATE FROM THE GOVERNOR'S
JANUARY BUDGET, THE LAO'S
ESTIMATE, OR WHAT WE SEE IN MAY,
I THINK THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT GAP TO CLOSE AND
SOME TOUGH CHOICES IN FRONT OF
US. AND SO, I GUESS, YOU KNOW,
KIND OF WITH THAT VIEW OF
LOOKING FORWARD, JUST TWO THINGS
THAT ARE REALLY TOP OF MIND FOR
ME. AND THE FIRST, OUR EDUCATION
SUB CHAIR ALREADY, HIGHLIGHTED
HIS DESIRE THAT WE HAVE SOME
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, RESERVES
AND OPPORTUNITIES TO GROW
RESERVES IN THE FUTURE SO THAT
IF WE ARE EVER IN A SITUATION
WHERE WE HAVE A $100 BILLION
BUDGET SURPLUS, A $74 BILLION
BUDGET SURPLUS, WE'RE ABLE TO
STORE MORE OF THAT AWAY IN
ANTICIPATION OF THE INEVITABLE
RAINY DAY, AND THEN NUMBER TWO,
AND I KNOW THIS THIS IS VERY
MUCH IN LINE WITH THE FRAMEWORK
AND THE PROCESS THAT OUR BUDGET
CHAIR HAS OUTLINED. IT IS
REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT THAT
OUR AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS ARE
ABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH, DATA,
WITH ANALYSIS SO THAT WE CAN
ACTUALLY EVALUATE THE ROI OF
ONGOING PROGRAMS. WE'RE NOT
GOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM
ANYMORE BY JUST, YOU KNOW,
STOPPING ONE TIME SPENDING LIKE,
THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING
AT HERE. SO AS WE'RE FORCED TO
MAKE TOUGH CHOICES ABOUT ONGOING
PROGRAMS, WE NEED TO HAVE REALLY
ROBUST METRICS BY WHICH TO
EVALUATE THOSE. AND REALLY
ROBUST METRICS BY WHICH TO
EVALUATE EFFICACY AND RETURN ON
INVESTMENT. AND SO I KNOW THAT
THAT'S A MESSAGE YOU'VE HEARD
LOUD AND CLEAR FROM, FROM US IN
THE ASSEMBLY, AND CERTAINLY ONE
THAT I THINK WILL CONTINUE TO
REALLY BE OUR NORTH STAR AS WE
AS WE MOVE INTO PHASE TWO OF, OF
CLOSING THIS GAP AND MEETING
THIS CHALLENGE. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. ANYBODY ELSE? MR. FONG,
I JUST HAVE A FEW ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS, JUST OFF. I THINK A
COUPLE QUESTIONS, CAME INTO MY
MIND AFTER LISTENING TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM SAN DIEGO IN
TERMS TO THE LAO, YOU KNOW, WHEN
WE TALKED ABOUT THE RESERVES,
AND I THINK WHAT MY COLLEAGUE
SAID IS IMPORTANT TO INCREASE
RESERVES IN YOUR PREVIOUS
ANALYZES OF PREVIOUS BUDGETS,
YOU INDICATED NOT ONLY THAT WE
HAVE TO BE DILIGENT IN TERMS OF
WHETHER WE SHOULD USE THE
RESERVES AND HOW WE USE
RESERVES, AND NOT USE RESERVES
TO PROP UP, YOU KNOW, ONGOING
SPENDING. IT IS TO ENSURE THAT
WE MINIMIZE, YOU KNOW, THE
EFFECT IF POSSIBLE. SO WILL YOU
HAVE AN ANALYSIS OF THIS, OF
THIS AND WHAT RECOMMENDATION DO
YOU HAVE MOVING FORWARD IN TERMS
OF THE USE OF THE RESERVES? IS
YOUR ANALYSIS STILL THE SAME?
SURE, MR. FONG, SO OUR OUR
ANALYSIS, I THINK REMAINS
BROADLY THE SAME AS BECAUSE WHAT
IS, REFERENCED IN THIS PACKAGE
SEEMS FAIRLY SIMILAR TO THE
JANUARY GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSAL OF USING ROUGHLY HALF
OF THE, THE RESERVES. AND WE HAD
SAID IN OUR, ANALYSIS BACK AT
THAT TIME THAT THAT SEEMED
ROUGHLY APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE,
YOU KNOW, FACED WITH A LARGE
DEFICIT LIKE WE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION ARE ESTIMATING
IT'S REASONABLE TO USE SOME OF
THE RESERVES AT A TIME LIKE
THAT, BUT IT'S ALSO GOOD TO
MAINTAIN SOME BALANCE IN THE
RESERVE FOR THE FUTURE YEARS AS
WELL, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE
ALREADY ANTICIPATE THERE TO BE
SOME FISCAL FISCAL PRESSURE IN
THOSE UPCOMING YEARS. SO THIS IS
NOT AN AREA WHERE WE HAD A
MAJOR, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENCE WITH
THE ADMINISTRATIONS PROPOSAL. SO
IN TERMS OF THE ANALYSIS YOU
PROVIDED, YOU DID OUTLINE IN
YOUR LAST, FORECAST THAT THAT
YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
OUTGOING YEARS. SO IS YOUR
ANALYSIS, IS YOUR CONCLUSION
STILL THE SAME EVEN WITH THIS
EARLY ACTION? THERE IS STILL
KIND OF ONGOING STRUCTURAL
DEFICITS GOING OUT TO THE
FUTURE. CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE
OUR CURRENT MULTI-YEAR YEAR
OUTLOOK INCLUDES THOSE I MEAN,
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE
ARE IN APRIL, WHICH IS A VERY
IMPORTANT REVENUE MONTH FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THERE HAS
BEEN SOME IMPROVEMENT IN OUR
WITHHOLDING TAX COLLECTION
TRENDS, IN PARTICULAR, ALTHOUGH
FAIRLY CONCENTRATED WITHIN A
COUPLE OF DAYS, WHICH IS HARD
TO, READ AS A BROAD IMPROVEMENT
IN THE OVERALL ECONOMY OR LABOR
MARKET SO MUCH AS MAYBE
SPECIFIC, VERY LARGE, HIGH TECH
FIRMS OR MAKING LARGE PAYMENTS
TO PEOPLE. AND SO WE'RE STILL
KIND OF WAITING TO SEE HOW THAT
PLAYS OUT. BUT YES, IN GENERAL,
WE'RE NOT EXPECTING THAT BROAD
PICTURE TO CHANGE DRAMATICALLY.
OKAY. AND THEN TWO, TWO
ADDITIONAL TWO LAST QUESTIONS IN
TERMS OF, THIS PROPOSAL AND THE
MOVING FORWARD, DOES ANY OF THIS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCES, ANY OF
THIS, DID YOU INCLUDE PROP ONE
IN YOUR IN YOUR BUDGETARY
ANALYSIS OR ANY OTHER? I KNOW
THAT SOME OF THE THERE WERE
SOME, DELAYS OR CUTS, LIKE, FOR
EXAMPLE, TO, TO SCHOOL
FACILITIES THAT MAY BE ROLLED
INTO MAYBE A FUTURE BOND THAT
WAS, THAT'S GOING TO BE PROPOSED
BY THE LEGISLATURE. IS THAT IS
THAT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT HERE, OR
ARE YOU ASSUMING ANY OF THOSE
THINGS WHICH I WOULD GUESS WE
SHOULDN'T ASSUME. SO I'LL DEFER
TO MY COLLEAGUE ON THE PROP ONE
ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO SCHOOL
FACILITIES. THERE IS A DELAY OF
550 MILLION FOR THE FULL DAY
KINDERGARTEN, TRANSITIONAL
KINDERGARTEN AND PRESCHOOL
FACILITY GRANT PROGRAM FROM A
PLANNED $550 MILLION DOLLAR
INVESTMENT IN 2425 TO INSTEAD
2526 CERTAINLY IS CONVERSATION
IS PROGRESS, AND TO THE EXTENT
WE THINK ABOUT AN EDUCATION
BOND, WHICH WE, CLEARLY
SUPPORTED IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET, THOSE WOULD BE FURTHER
CONVERSATIONS TO BE HAD WITH THE
LEGISLATURE. OUR BUDGET PROPOSAL
DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE ANYTHING
BEYOND A DELAY. AND THE EARLY
ACTION PACKAGE RIGHT NOW ONLY
REFLECTS A DELAY. OKAY. THANK
YOU. YEAH. WELL, LUPE MANRIQUEZ
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
SO GIVEN THAT PROP ONE JUST
RECENTLY PASSED, THERE'S, THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET OR THE PACKAGE
BEFORE YOU DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY
IMPACT OF PROP ONE. OKAY, BUT
WOULD THERE BE ADDITIONAL
SPENDING THAT IS NOT INCLUDED
IN, IN, IN THE JANUARY BUDGET
THAT WOULD NOW HAVE IT IN THE
MAY REVISION? SO THAT'S PART OF
WHAT OUR OFFICE IS DOING RIGHT
NOW. RIGHT NOW WE'RE EVALUATING
THOSE IMPACTS AND WE'LL BE
MAKING UPDATES FOR THE MAY
REVISION OKAY. AND SO THE DELAYS
THOSE THOSE SPENDING THAT THAT
AMOUNT OF SPENDING IS WILL BE IN
THE IT WILL BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT IN THE OUT YEARS.
CORRECT. THEY'RE NOT THEY DON'T
GO AWAY. THEY'RE JUST THERE IN
THE FUTURE YEARS. IT DEPENDS ON
THE TIMING OF WHEN THOSE EFFECTS
PER THE FOR PER PROP PER PROP
ONE WILL TAKE EFFECT. BUT THAT
WILL ALL SORT OF BE DETERMINED
AS PART OF OUR MAY REVISION.
SURE. RIGHT THE PROP ONE AND IN
ADDITION TO THE TO THE 3.3. 6
BILLION OR TO THE, THE DELAYS
YOU'VE GOT, 555. YEAH, THAT'S
550 MILLION. THAT'S ON THE
GENERAL FUND SIDE. I THINK, AS
IT RELATES TO THE 1.4 BILLION,
AS YOU MAY, HAVE HEARD FROM MISS
BURZYNSKI, THAT IS ALREADY
SCHEDULED INTO THE MULTI YEAR IN
TERMS OF WHAT THOSE REPAYMENTS
WOULD LOOK LIKE. I DO BELIEVE
THAT THE MULTI YEAR ASSUMES THAT
ROUGHLY 1.5 BILLION PER YEAR FOR
THE SCHOOL FACILITY PROGRAM
WOULD CONTINUE, SO WE DO HAVE
SOME LEVEL OF PROJECTION IN
TERMS OF WHAT THAT DEBT SERVICE
MIGHT LOOK LIKE. SHOULD THERE BE
A FACILITY BOND, SHOULD THERE
NOT BE? THAT WOULD DEFINITELY
COME OFF OF THE MULTI YEAR
PROJECTION. SURE. BUT ALL THE
ALL THE DELAYS ARE INCLUDED ARE
INCLUDED IN THE OUT YEARS. AND
THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS, GOING
BACK TO THE TO THE DEBT SERVICE.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THE
NUMBERS CORRECT. WE CURRENTLY
BORROW AS A STATE 3.2 BILLION
ALREADY THE SPECIAL FUNDS. THIS
WOULD ADD ANOTHER 1.4 BILLION IN
BORROWING. ON TOP OF THAT.
CORRECT I DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUE,
BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT'S ROUGHLY
RIGHT, MAYBE YOU SHOULD COME UP
AND JUST GIVE ME AN AFFIRMATIVE
OR A NEGATIVE ANSWER ON THIS
ONE. SORRY. GET YOUR STEPS IN
TODAY, I NEED IT, YEAH. LISA
MROZINSKI WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE
BORROWED 3.2 BILLION ALREADY.
AND WHAT? THIS PROPOSAL ADDS 1.4
ON TOP OF THAT, THAT'S WHERE
YOUR 4.6 CAME FROM. I REALIZED
WHEN I GOT BACK OKAY, I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE MY NUMBERS
WERE ADDING UP CORRECTLY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. VICE
CHAIR, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE? OKAY. WITH THAT, I
JUST WANT TO, WE'RE GOING TO
OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT IN
A MINUTE, BUT I JUST WANT TO
MAYBE ADD A FEW, COMMENTS. AND I
JUST WANT TO AGAIN, THANK ALL OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
AND OUR, EXCUSE ME, OUR
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS IN
PARTICULAR, AND ALSO MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR HARD
WORK. I WANT TO THANK FOLKS WHO
HAVE ATTENDED THE HEARINGS, WHO
HAVE SUBMITTED BUDGET LETTERS
THAT IS INTERESTING TO ME WHEN
THOSE SOMETIMES WHO COMPLAIN THE
LOUDEST ARE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT
SHOWN UP TO SUBCOMMITTEE
HEARINGS OR SUBMITTED ANY BUDGET
LETTER. SO I WANT TO THANK THOSE
THAT ARE DOING THE HARD WORK TO
HELP US CRAFT THIS BUDGET AND
CRAFT THE SOLUTIONS. AND I ALSO
WANT TO THANK THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE IN THE SENATE THAT WE
HAVE. EXCUSE ME, SIR, THIS IS MY
EXCUSE ME, EXCUSE ME SIR. MR.
STALEY, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER.
OKAY, WELL, MR. SALIH, WE HAVE
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE HERE.
THANK YOU. I'M I'M PROVIDING MY
COMMENTS. GO AHEAD. WHAT'S YOUR
POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE? I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. I AM
SIMPLY COMMENTING ON THE PROCESS
HERE. SO AS YOU NOTICE, I DIDN'T
MENTION ANYONE'S. WELL, YOU CAN
YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO YOUR
CONSTITUENTS WHY YOU DIDN'T SHOW
UP TO THOSE HEARINGS. ANYWAY,
THANK THOSE WHO ARE DOING THE
HARD WORK. I WANT TO THANK THOSE
THAT ARE DOING THE HARD WORK AND
THAT ARE DIGGING INTO THIS
PROCESS. I APPRECIATE THAT. I
WANT TO THANK THE GOVERNOR, AND
THE SENATE FOR THEIR COOPERATION
IN, IN DIGGING INTO THIS
THOUGHTFULLY AND COLLABORATIVELY
, I WANT TO THANK, MR. ALVAREZ.
I THINK HE HIT THE NAIL ON THE
HEAD HERE, THAT THIS IS A
COMPLICATED PROCESS, AND IT
REQUIRES US TO WORK THOUGHTFULLY
TOGETHER TO CONFRONT DIFFICULT
CHALLENGES. I KNOW THAT ALL OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS THAT I
HAVE SPOKEN WITH, AND THAT THEY
HAVE MENTIONED IN THEIR
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS, ARE
MINDFUL OF THE STRUCTURAL
CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE, NOT
JUST THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE
IN THE CURRENT YEAR BUDGET THAT
PEOPLE ARE DIGGING IN. AND I
JUST WANT TO APPRECIATE THE
GOVERNOR AND THE SENATE FOR
THAT, I WAS RAISED TO BELIEVE
THAT ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN
WORDS. AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT WE'RE NOT JUST SAYING THAT
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
SHORTFALL, BUT WE'RE TAKING
MEANINGFUL ACTION TO ADDRESS IT.
AND THEN WE'RE BEGINNING THAT
PROCESS, RIGHT NOW WITH THIS
IMPORTANT EARLY ACTION PROCESS,
WHICH IS GOING, TO AS, AS, AS
WAS MENTIONED, PROVIDE ABOUT $17
BILLION IN SOLUTIONS. SO WE KNOW
THAT THERE IS CONTINUED HARD
WORK AHEAD. AND I HAVE
TREMENDOUS CONFIDENCE IN OUR
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS, THE MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE
MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE WHO
ARE GOING TO DIG IN AND DO THAT
THOUGHTFULLY. WITH THAT, I WANT
TO INVITE, IF I MAY JUST CORRECT
FOR THE RECORD, WE DID INCLUDE
PROP ONE DEBT SERVICE ESTIMATES
IN OUR JANUARY 10TH BUDGET.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
NO. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THAT WITH THAT, I WANT TO,
INCLUDE, INVITE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO, COME
UP AND PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS, KENDRA HARRIS WITH THE
CLIMATE CENTER, WE SUBMITTED A
COALITION LETTER OF BROAD
COALITION LETTER ON CLIMATE
PRIORITIES LAST WEEK. I KNOW
THAT'S STILL CIRCULATING. THAT
LETTER WAS SIGNED BY A NUMBER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA COALITION
AND CLEAN AIR LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
AND OTHERS, I JUST WANT TO
COMMENT THAT A RECENT REPORT
RELEASED BY NEXTGEN SHOWS THAT
WE ARE NOT ON TRACK TO MEET OUR
2030 CLIMATE GOALS, AND CUTS TO
INVESTMENTS WILL ONLY MAKE THIS
REALITY WORSE. CUTS TO CRITICAL,
CLEAN AIR AND CLIMATE PROGRAMS
HAVE REAL, IMMEDIATE HUMAN
CONSEQUENCES LATER, AS TOO LATE
TO PROTECT CALIFORNIANS,
ESPECIALLY POLLUTION BURDENED
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AS WE
CONSIDER WHAT EXPENDITURES
SHOULD BE SHIFTED FROM THE
GENERAL FUND TO GRF, WE
PRIORITIZE THOSE THAT PRODUCE
CLEAN AIR, PUBLIC HEALTH AND
EQUITY BENEFITS. WE FACE AN
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS WITH
ELECTRICITY IN CALIFORNIA,
HELPING RESIDENTS MOVE TO
CHEAPER AND SAFER CLEAN ENERGY
AND CLEANER APPLIANCES IS ONE OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE CAN
DO TO IMPROVE AFFORDABILITY,
HEALTH AND ENSURE THAT OUR KIDS
GET A SHOT AT A THRIVING FUTURE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS AMY
HINES-IKE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST NETWORK. WE
WERE, UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACT
THAT THE FORECLOSURE
INTERVENTION IN HOUSING
PRESERVATION PROGRAM, NEEDED,
SOME SCALING BACK, BUT THE FACT
THAT YOU ALL DIDN'T CUT FURTHER
THAN WHAT THE GOVERNOR HAD
PROPOSED IS NOTED AND VERY MUCH
APPRECIATED. WE WERE JUST HOPING
THAT WE COULD APPEAR FOR SOME
AMOUNT IN THE OUT YEARS. IT
DOESN'T EVEN MATTER. I JOKE THAT
IT COULD BE A DOLLAR, JUST SO
THAT OUR APPROPRIATION JUST
APPEARS AS A LINE ITEM, SO THAT
WHEN WE HAVE BRIGHTER DAYS
AHEAD, WE CAN ADVOCATE FOR
POPULATING THAT BACK IN, WE VERY
MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF HOUSING JUSTICE
AND HOW WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI,
TIFFANY. MARK WITH CFT, A UNION
OF EDUCATORS AND CLASSIFIED
PROFESSIONALS. WE JUST WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR FOR THIS
HEARING. AND FURTHER, THAT WE
HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE
DEFERRAL FOR THE èC COMPACT
FUNDING, BUT NEVERTHELESS DEEPLY
APPRECIATE THE LANGUAGE FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THE
LEGISLATURE TO EXPLICITLY NOTE
FUNDING FOR 20 2526. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO THIS FURTHER
DISCUSSION IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE
TOMORROW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. HI, MARIELLA. ROCIO
WITH THE AMERICAN LUNG
ASSOCIATION. CALIFORNIA FACES
THE MOST POLLUTED AIR IN THE
NATION WITH MANY PARTS OF THE
STATE IN NON-ATTAINMENT AND
EXTREME NONATTAINMENT IN MEETING
FEDERAL CLEAN AIR STANDARDS, THE
STATE NEEDS TO CONTINUE FUNDING
CLEAN AIR PROGRAMS WITHOUT
DELAY. WE APPRECIATE THE
ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL DEFERRED
SPECIFIC CUTS UNDER THE GRF AND
URGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO
PRIORITIZE FUNDING FOR CRITICAL
CLEAN AIR AND ZERO EMISSION
PROGRAMS. THE CALIFORNIANS
DEPEND ON FOR LOCAL AIR QUALITY.
ALL CALIFORNIANS DESERVE TO
BREATHE CLEANER AIR, ESPECIALLY
THOSE LIVING NEAR PORTS AND
OTHER MAJOR TRAFFIC AREAS. WHO
WOULD BENEFIT THE MOST FROM
EQUITABLE CLEAN AIR PROGRAMS, WE
DEEPLY WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED
WITH THE PROGRAMS AT THE HEART
OF CLEANING UP, POLLUTION IN
HARD HIT AREAS SUCH AS THE,
CLEAN CARS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL
HARBOR CRAFT, ZERO EMISSION PORT
TRUCKS, AND EQUITABLE, BUILDING
DECARBONIZATION FACE SERIOUS
CUTS. THE STATE SHOULD BE
BALANCED BY DELAYING CLEAN AIR
INVESTMENTS, WHILE POLLUTING
SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED BY DELAY,
BY BALANCING A DELAY FOR CLEAN
AIR INVESTMENTS WHILE POLLUTING,
CAUSING INVESTMENTS IN FOSSIL
FUEL SUBSIDIES AND HIGHWAY
EXPANSIONS ARE CONTINUED, AGAIN,
WE URGE YOU TO PRIORITIZE
HEALTHIER PROGRAMS AS YOU
CONSIDER, THE BUDGET PROCESS
THIS YEAR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. HELLO. MY NAME IS
OLIVIA GLEASON WITH CALIFORNIANS
UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET.
CURB DESPITE WELFARE NEEDS
GROWING, THIS COMMITTEE
CONSIDERS, CUTS TO CAL WORKS,
CUTS TO EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND
CLEAN AIR. MEANWHILE, WITH FEWER
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS AND
FEWER PRISONS, CDCR'S BUDGET
REMAINS UNTOUCHED AT $14.6
BILLION. I THINK THIS COMMITTEE
FOR NAMING A NEED TO PRIORITIZE
IMMEDIATE AND LONG TERME
SOLUTIONS. WE MUST PRIORITIZE
CUTTING BACK FROM BLOATED
BUDGETS LIKE CDCR'S BEFORE
SLASHING WELFARE AND INVESTMENTS
IN CALIFORNIA'S YOUTH AND CLEAN
AIR LIKE WE JUST HEARD ABOUT.
CALIFORNIA IS AT A PIVOTAL
MOMENT. WE CAN FUND THE SERVICES
THAT WOULD PREVENT SUFFERING, OR
WE CAN CONTINUE A CULTURE OF
AUSTERITY BY FUNDING PRISONS AND
ROGUE CORRECTIONS BUDGETS. I'M
URGING YOU TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
PRISON CLOSURES AND CUT CDCR
SPENDING TO SAVE BILLIONS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. HI, MY
NAME IS ALICIA MONTEIRO. I'M
ALSO WITH CURB AND, JUST TO,
MIRROR. WHAT, OLIVIA JUST SAID,
THE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSING, BUDGET
CUTS TO VITAL PROGRAMS LIKE CAL
WORKS, CLEAN ENERGY, EARLY
EDUCATION. INSTEAD, I'M HOPING
THAT WE CAN TRIM EXCESS FROM
BLOATED BUDGETS LIKE CDCR BY
CLOSING FIVE PRISONS LIKE THE
LEO RECOMMENDED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
TANA OPPLIGER WITH CALIFORNIANS
UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET,
WHICH IS A STATEWIDE COALITION
OF OVER 80 ORGANIZATIONS. I URGE
THIS COMMITTEE TO TAKE DOLLARS
FROM BLOATED, WASTEFUL BUDGETS
LIKE CDCR'S BEFORE RESORTING TO
CUTS FROM WELFARE AND EDUCATION
AND CLEAN ENERGY, AS PROPOSED IN
THE EARLY ACTION, CDCR IS THE
ONLY STATE AGENCY WHOSE BUDGET
STAYS CONSISTENT OR EVEN
INCREASES AS THE POPULATION
DECLINES DRASTICALLY. AND WHY IS
IT THAT WE ARE MAINTAINING
BUDGETS FOR PRISONS THAT ARE
EMPTYING WHILE WE ARE CUTTING
AND DELAYING FUNDS TO WELFARE
AND SCHOOLS AND CLEAN AIR THAT
ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED RIGHT
NOW? THE LIO HAS ALREADY RAISED
A PARTIAL, MORE RESPONSIBLE
SOLUTION TO THE BUDGET DEFICIT.
CLOSE FIVE PRISONS NOW. SAVE
BILLIONS ANNUALLY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MELISSA ROMERO WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS.
WE REALLY WANT TO URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO, EVEN IN TIMES
LIKE THIS, TO PRIORITIZE
CLIMATE, EVEN IN AN INCREMENTAL
WAY, HOWEVER WAY THAT WE CAN,
BECAUSE THE COST THAT WE DO NOT
SPEND NOW WILL BE COST IN THE
FUTURE IN THE FORM OF NATURAL
DISASTERS, PUBLIC HEALTH COSTS,
IMPACTS THAT ARE UNIMAGINABLE
AND WILL IMPACT PEOPLE'S LIVES.
I ALSO WANT TO, JUST ECHO THE
COMMENTS MADE FOR AMERICAN LUNG
ASSOCIATION AND CLIMATE CENTER
FROM EARLIER AND ALSO TO URGE
THE LEGISLATURE TO END OIL AND
GAS SUBSIDIES. WE COULD BE
SAVING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
THE FORM OF TAX SUBSIDIES AND
TAX CREDITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
BENEFITING, OVERWHELMINGLY
BENEFITING THE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY. ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVOCATES HAVE IDENTIFIED ALMOST
$9 BILLION OF SAVINGS THAT WE
COULD BE SPENDING TOWARDS
CLIMATE SOLUTIONS AND OTHER
CRITICAL THINGS THAT ARE BEING
CUT RIGHT NOW, OR BEING PROPOSED
TO BE CUT, I SHOULD SAY, WE
REALLY WANT TO URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER THINGS
LIKE THE WATER'S EDGE TAX
ELECTION, AND THINGS, THINGS
THAT COULD BE UNDONE TO, TO
PROVIDE SOME, YOU KNOW, LONG
TERME FUNDING FOR, FOR THE STATE
AND FINALLY A CLIMATE BOND. THIS
IS THE YEAR THAT WE REALLY
DESPERATELY NEED A CLIMATE BOND.
WE WANT TO URGE YOU ALL TO
PRIORITIZE THAT THIS YEAR, AND
ESSENTIALLY WE NEED THAT IN
ORDER TO MEET OUR NOT ONLY OUR
CLEAN ENERGY GOALS, BUT ALSO OUR
CLIMATE RESILIENCE GOALS. SO
REALLY WANT TO URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT A CLIMATE BOND. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS DAX PROCTOR. I'M A
MEMBER OF CALIFORNIANS UNITED
FOR RESPONSIBLE BUDGET. THE
EARLY ACTION PROPOSAL CALLS FOR
300 MILLION IN CUTS TO CAL WORKS
AND OVER 500 MILLION IN CUTS TO
EARLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS, YET
ONLY CALLS FOR ABOUT 80 MILLION
IN CUTS TO THE $19 BILLION
CORRECTIONS BUDGET. THE TOTAL
REDUCTION FOR THE ENTIRE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, PARDON ME, IS
LESS THAN THE REDUCTION FOR THE
FORECLOSURE INTERVENTION AND
HOUSING PRESERVATION PROGRAM
ALONE IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR
CURRENT FISCAL CRISIS, WE SHOULD
BE PRIORITIZING EDUCATION,
SOCIAL SERVICES, AND OTHER LIFE
AFFIRMING AND LIFE SAVING
SERVICES OVER OUR PRISON SYSTEM.
THE QUESTION WE MUST POSE IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD FORWARD. IN A
TIME OF SIGNIFICANT BUDGETARY
CONSTRAINTS, WHY ARE WE NOT
ALREADY PRIORITIZING CUTS TO
PRISONS, PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH
CUTS COULD YIELD SIGNIFICANT
SAVINGS? REDIRECTING THESE FUNDS
COULD BOLSTER CRITICAL PUBLIC
SERVICES THAT ARE IN PERIL, LIKE
HOUSING, EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE
AND FOOD ASSISTANCE. THE
ARGUMENT FOR PRISON SPENDING
CUTS IS NOT ABOUT DIMINISHING
THE QUALITY OF CARE OR
RELIABILITY REHABILITATION
EFFORTS FOR PEOPLE IN PRISONS.
RATHER IT'S ABOUT ACKNOWLEDGING
THE EXCESSIVE COST BURDENS OF
STAFFING AND MAINTAINING
UNDERUTILIZED, OFTEN REMOTE
FACILITIES THAT STRAIN OUR
STATE'S FINANCES. A FREQUENT
REBUTTAL IS THAT REDUCTIONS IN
PRISON SPENDING TAKES YEARS TO
REALIZE THAT'S TRUE, BUT
CALIFORNIA'S BUDGET WOES ARE A
LONG TERME PROBLEM AND WON'T BE
SOLVED BY ONE TIME. CUT SPENDING
CUTS ALONE, AS YOU'VE DISCUSSED
TODAY, WE MUST CREATE A
THOUGHTFUL POLICY FRAMEWORK AND
EXPEDITED TIMETABLE FOR PRISON
INFRASTRUCTURE REDUCTION. THE
PRAGMATIC APPROACH ALLOWS FOR A
MORE RAPID AND STRUCTURED
RESPONSE TO THE EVOLVING NEEDS
OF OUR CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM,
WHILE ENSURING FISCAL PRUDENCE
AND PUBLIC SAFETY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. ANDRES RAMIREZ ON
BEHALF OF ALL HOME, JUST WANTING
TO THANK THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION FOR SAFEGUARDING
MOST OF THE STATE'S HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS PROGRAMS AND THE
EARLY ACTION PART OF THE BUDGET,
AND BEING WILLING TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS LEADING UP TO
JUNE, HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS,
AS YOU ALL KNOW, CONTINUE TO BE
THE ISSUES OF GREATEST CONCERN
TO MOST CALIFORNIANS, SO WE JUST
WANT TO ENSURE THE RESOURCES
CONTINUE TO BE THERE TO CONTINUE
THE HARD WON PROGRESS ON
HOMELESSNESS, ALSO BRIEFLY WANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE EARLY ACTION,
IMPACT ON THE FORECLOSURE
INTERVENTION, HOUSING
PRESERVATION PROGRAM AND SOME
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOUSING
PROGRAMS, AND RESPECTFULLY ASK
THAT NO FURTHER REDUCTIONS BE
MADE ON THOSE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. TIFFANY FAN, ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA COURT APPOINTED
SPECIAL ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION,
OR CAL CASA, IN THE 2022 BUDGET,
THE LEGISLATURE AND
ADMINISTRATION MADE CASA FOR
FOSTER CHILDREN A TOP PRIORITY,
ALLOCATING 60 MILLION OVER THREE
YEARS. NO OTHER FOSTER CHILD
SERVING CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION
HAS THE EQUIVALENT COURT
AUTHORITY, A COURT AUTHORITY,
ACCESS AND ABILITY TO TRULY
CHANGE A CHILD'S LIFE THROUGH
COURT ADVOCACY. CONSERVATIVELY,
THE ANNUAL COST TO TAXPAYERS IF
CHILDREN AND YOUTH DO NOT HAVE A
CASA IS AS MUCH AS 1.5 BILLION A
YEAR, SO WE APPRECIATE THAT THE
GOVERNOR INCLUDED THE COST OF
FUNDING IN HIS JANUARY BUDGET.
WE URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO
PROTECT THAT ALLOCATION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE
HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE
COMMENT? SEEING NONE. LET ME,
AGAIN, THANK, THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND THE LAO FOR JOINING
US TODAY. LET ME THANK IN
PARTICULAR, ALL OF THE HARD
WORKING STAFF, AND I WANT TO
THANK OUR ASSEMBLY BUDGET
COMMITTEE STAFF THAT I KNOW
SPENT A LOT OF LONG NIGHTS
WORKING THROUGH THIS AND TIME
OVER OUR RECESS. AND LET ME ALSO
THANK, STAFF FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE AND THE SENATE. WE
APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT YOU
DID, WE EXPECT THIS BILL WILL
COME UP FOR A VOTE ON THE FLOOR
ON THURSDAY, AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO DEBATING IT THEN. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. THIS
HEARING IS ADJOURNED. SO I WANT
YOU TO CHECK OUT A COUPLE
THINGS.