GREAT HEY. GOOD MORNING
EVERYONE, WELCOME TO ASSEMBLY
BUDGET SUB. FOR TODAY WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR FROM OUR
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY. WE HAVE
SEVEN ITEMS THAT ARE PLANNED FOR
DISCUSSION FOR EACH PRESENTATION
ITEM, I'LL ASK EACH OF THE
WITNESSES REFERENCED IN THE
AGENDA TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES,
BEFORE THEY BEGIN THEIR
TESTIMONY. AT THE END OF THE
PRESENTATION ITEMS, MEMBERS OF
THIS SUBCOMMITTEE MAY ASK
QUESTIONS OR MAKE COMMENTS ON.
ANY OF THE 23 NON PRESENTATION
ITEMS. WILL NOT BE TAKING ANY
VOTES TODAY. AFTER ALL THE ITEMS
ARE HEARD, WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC
COMMENT. EACH MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE TO
SPEAK. THERE WILL BE NO REMOTE
TESTIMONY IN THIS COMMITTEE. AND
LET'S TAKE ROLL PLEASE. BENNETT
HERE. CONNOLLY. LARA.
PETRIE-NORRIS WILSON. SO ISSUE
ITEM ONE TRANSPORTATION BUDGET
SOLUTIONS IF YOU'LL.
GOOD MORNING. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, GENTLEMEN. JUST PULL THAT
NICE AND CLOSE. YOU WON'T HAVE
TO LEAN SO FORWARD AND WE'LL
HEAR BETTER. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS CARLOS
QUANT. I'M THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
FOR BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION
HERE AT THE CALIFORNIA STATE
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY. TODAY,
I'LL BE PROVIDING AN OVERVIEW OF
THE GENERAL FUND SOLUTIONS
INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNOR'S 2024
TRANSPORTATION BUDGET. WITH ME
HERE TODAY, I HAVE CHIEF DEPUTY
SECRETARY FOR RAIL AND TRANSIT,
CHAD EDISON AND STEPHEN KECK.
THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AT
CALTRANS, TO HELP ASSIST ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, WITH
THE SUPPORT OF THE LEGISLATURE,
CALIFORNIA HAS MADE SOME
SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN THE
STATE'S TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE, TOTALING $16.1
BILLION. SPECIFICALLY, THIS
FUNDING WAS COMPRISED OF THE
FOLLOWING INVESTMENTS 7.65
BILLION GENERAL FUND FOR THE
TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL.
CAPITAL PROJECT FOR RAIL
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT
IMPROVE STATEWIDE RAIL AND
TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN
STATE, LOCAL AND REGIONAL
SERVICES, AND ARE DESIGNED TO
REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND
GREENHOUSE GAS PRODUCTION. 4.2
BILLION IN PROPOSITION ONE, A
BOND, FUNDS FOR THE HIGH SPEED
RAIL PROJECT, 1.2 BILLION FOR
INVESTMENTS IN PORT FREIGHT AND
GOODS MOVEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE,
1.1 BILLION FOR THE ZERO
EMISSION TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM
, WHICH SUPPORTS INVESTMENTS IN
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES,
ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE OR
TRANSIT OPERATIONS. 1 BILLION
GENERAL FUND FOR THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PROJECTS
WHICH EXPAND WALKING AND BIKING
NETWORKS TO INCREASE THE SAFETY
AND MOBILITY OF NON-MOTORIZED
USERS. 400 MILLION FOR CLIMATE
ADAPTATION PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT
CLIMATE RESILIENCY AND REDUCE
RISK TO INFRASTRUCTURE, AND FROM
EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS. 350
MILLION GENERAL FUND FOR HIGH
PRIORITY GRADE SEPARATIONS
PROJECTS, WHICH SUPPORT CRITICAL
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT GRADE
CROSSINGS, AND FINALLY 150
MILLION GENERAL FUND FOR THE
RECONNECTING COMMUNITIES.
HIGHWAYS TO BOULEVARDS PILOT
PROGRAM, WHICH WILL INFORM THE
FUTURE CONVERSION OF KEY
UNDERUSED HIGHWAYS INTO
MULTIMODAL CORRIDORS THAT SERVE
EXISTING RESIDENTS. WHILE THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE
SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN
IMPLEMENTING THESE INVESTMENTS,
THE STATE'S GENERAL FUND
REVENUES HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY
DECLINED, RESULTING IN A
STRUCTURAL BUDGET DEFICIT. TO
ADDRESS THIS DEFICIT, THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSES
APPROXIMATELY 4.8 BILLION IN
SOLUTIONS. THE FIRST SET OF
SOLUTIONS ARE CASH MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS. THESE SOLUTIONS ALIGN
THE BUDGET WITH PROJECTED
EXPENDITURE SCHEDULES AND
LEVERAGE EXISTING APPROPRIATIONS
TO MEET PROJECT OBLIGATIONS.
UNTIL FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS ARE
AVAILABLE. THE PROPOSED BUDGET
INCLUDES 2.75 BILLION IN CASH
MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INCLUDING
2.1 BILLION FROM THE COMPETITIVE
TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL
CAPITAL PROGRAM, 400 MILLION
FROM THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM, 150 MILLION FROM THE
HIGHWAYS TO BOULEVARDS PROGRAM
AND 100 MILLION FROM THE PORT
AND FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM. THESE SOLUTIONS ARE NOT
EXPECTED TO HAVE ANY
PROGRAMMATIC IMPACTS ON THESE
PROGRAMS. THE NEXT SOLUTION
INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET IS A FUNDING DELAY. THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSES TO
DELAY 1 BILLION IN FORMULA
FUNDING FROM FISCAL YEAR 2024 25
TO 20 2526. I WOULD NOTE THAT
THIS SOLUTION HAS BEEN ADOPTED
AS PART OF THE EARLY ACTION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION. THE NEXT
SOLUTION IS A FUND SHIFT. THE
SOLUTION PROPOSES TO REDUCE 791
MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATIONS AND THE TSP
PROGRAM, AND BACKFILL THEM WITH
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUNDS.
THE FINAL SOLUTION IS A BUDGET
REDUCTION. THE SOLUTION PROPOSES
296,000,000IN GENERAL FUND
REDUCTIONS, INCLUDING 200
MILLION FROM THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND 96
MILLION FROM THE 2021 PORT OF
OAKLAND APPROPRIATION FOR
VARIOUS PORT IMPROVEMENTS. I
WOULD NOTE THAT THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION REDUCTION WILL
NOT IMPACT ANY EXISTING
COMMITMENTS MADE DURING THE LAST
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT
CYCLE, AS THE REDUCTION WOULD BE
APPLIED TO FUTURE GRANT AWARD
CYCLES. OF ALL THE SOLUTIONS
PROPOSED IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET, THE LEGISLATURE
ADMINISTRATION HAVE TAKEN EARLY
ACTION TO PARTIALLY ADDRESS THE
BUDGET SHORTFALL AND APPROVED
THE CASH MANAGEMENT SOLUTION FOR
THE PORT AND FREIGHT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM AND THE
REDUCTION TO THE PORT OF OAKLAND
APPROPRIATION. AND, AS
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE
FUNDING DELAY FOR THE FORMULA
TCP PROGRAM, ALONG WITH VARIOUS
FUND SHIFTS FROM THE GENERAL
FUND TO THE GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION FUND, WHILE THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET FOR
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDES SEVERAL
SOLUTIONS, IT ALSO MAINTAINS
ROUGHLY 99% OF THE FUNDING FOR
THE HISTORIC INVESTMENTS MADE IN
CLEAN TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE. THESE
INVESTMENTS ARE ALREADY
BENEFITING COMMUNITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND HAVE
LEVERAGED NEARLY 30 BILLION IN
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
FROM THE BIPARTISAN
INFRASTRUCTURE LAW. THE
ADMINISTRATION LOOKS FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO
CONTINUE TO PURSUE INVESTMENTS
IN TRANSPORTATION,
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IMPROVES
SAFETY, ADDRESS CLIMATE ACTION,
AND ADVANCE EQUITY. AT THIS
POINT, MY COLLEAGUES AND I ARE
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. BEFORE
WE GO, DO ANY OF YOUR OTHER
COLLEAGUES WANT TO BE PART OF
THIS OVERVIEW PRESENTATION
BEFORE I START ASKING QUESTIONS?
I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK WE'VE
GOT IT COVERED HERE, AND I KNOW
WE HAVE LOUGH HERE, BUT I DO
WANT TO JUST MENTION ONE THING.
AS YOU WERE MOVING THROUGH
THOSE. WELL, I THINK IT'S
ACCURATE TO SAY AT LEAST
SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF THE
LEGISLATURE MET MEMBERS HAVE
APPROACHED ME. THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM IS ONE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRETTY
STRONG INTEREST IN. I'LL BE
ASKING SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT
THAT, BUT IF THERE'S AN AREA OF
CONCERN THAT I WANT, WANT TO
POINT OUT IN THE OVERVIEW,
THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO.
THANK YOU LEO. THANK YOU. LUKE
KUSHMARO WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST OFFICE, WE FIND THAT
MANY OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
ARE REASONABLE. NOTABLY, WE FIND
THAT THE CASH FLOW ADJUSTMENTS
ARE DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT WILL
PROVIDE FOR NEAR FIRM COST COST
PRESSURE RELIEF WITHOUT
IMPACTING FUNDING THAT ALREADY
HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO PROJECTS.
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOTE THAT THIS
WOULD CREATE COST PRESSURES IN
FUTURE YEARS WHEN THAT FUNDING
IS RESTORED, WE ALSO FIND THAT
THE PROPOSED FUND SHIFT FOR
COMPETITIVE TURK-P REDUCES
GENERAL FUND PRESSURE WHILE
MAINTAINING OTHER FUNDING THAT
ALREADY HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO
PROJECTS. AND GIVEN THE BUDGET
PROBLEM, WE FIND THAT THE
REDUCTIONS TO ADP, AS WELL AS
THE PORT OF OAKLAND, WHICH WAS
APPROVED AS PART OF THE EARLY
ACTION, ARE REASONABLE AS THIS
FUNDING HAS NOT YET BEEN
COMMITTED, WE DO NOTE THAT
ADDITIONAL SOLUTIONS MAY BE
NECESSARY IF THE BUDGET PROBLEM
WORSENS, AND THE LEGISLATURE
COULD CONSIDER A COUPLE OPTIONS
SUCH AS ADJUSTING THE GENERAL
FUND AMOUNTS TO BE PROVIDED FOR
FORMALLY, RCP, AND COULD ALSO
CONSIDER SHIFTING FUNDING FROM
PROGRAMS CURRENTLY SUPPORTED BY
GENERAL FUND TO OTHER STATE
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS, SUCH AS
THE STATE HIGHWAY ACCOUNT OR THE
ROAD MAINTENANCE AND
REHABILITATION ACCOUNT, WE NOTE
THAT A SIMILAR ACTION WAS TAKEN
LAST YEAR WHEN THE LEGISLATURE
SHIFTED $500 MILLION OF ONE TIME
GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATIONS FOR
TRANSPORTATION TO THE STATE
HIGHWAY ACCOUNT. THIS COULD HELP
ADDRESS THE GENERAL FUND
CONDITION, BUT COMES WITH SOME
LIMITATIONS AND TRADE OFFS,
NOTABLY, THE FUNDS CAN ONLY BE
USED FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, AND
IT ALSO REDUCES FUNDING FOR
OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT ARE
CURRENTLY SUPPORTED BY THOSE
FUNDS. IN SHORT, WE RECOMMEND
THAT APPROVING MANY OF THE
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS, INCLUDING
THE CASH FLOW ADJUSTMENTS, THE
FUND SHIFT FOR COMPETITIVE TO
RCP, AND THE REDUCTIONS FOR ATP.
WE ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT
HISTORICALLY, GENERAL FUND HAS
NOT BEEN A MAJOR SOURCE OF
FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION,
GIVEN THE SURPLUS IN PREVIOUS
YEARS. RECENT BUDGET AGREEMENTS
HAVE PROVIDED OR PLANNED TO
PROVIDE AN UNPRECEDENTED AMOUNT
OF GENERAL FUND FOR THESE
PURPOSES. THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSALS ULTIMATELY IMPACT $4.3
BILLION IN GENERAL FUND.
HOWEVER, THROUGH A COMBINATION
OF THE DIFFERENT FUND SHIFTS,
MOST OF THIS FUNDING IS ACTUALLY
PRESERVED FOR THESE PROGRAMS.
USING THE FUND SHIFTS AND CASH
MANAGEMENT, AS WELL AS DELAYS
WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF
REDUCTIONS AS WELL. SO OVERALL,
GIVEN THE BUDGET CONDITION, THIS
DOES A GOOD JOB OF MAINTAINING
THE PRIORITIES FROM PAST BUDGETS
WHILE FREEING UP GENERAL FUND.
HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
WELCOME, ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON.
APPRECIATE YOUR, ATTENDANCE.
AND, WITH YOUR PARTICULAR
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, ROLE,
I'LL LET YOU START OFF WITH
QUESTIONS. I'LL WAIT FOR YOU.
SO. ALL RIGHT. GREAT THANK YOU
FOR YIELDING. YOU'RE WELCOME, I
HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, AND
THE FIRST ONE IS, WITH THE, WHAT
IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
COMPETITIVE TRANSIT AND
INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM
AND THE FORMULA BASED TRANSIT
AND INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL
PROGRAM. SO WE CAN GET THAT OUT
ON THE RECORD, PLEASE. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO THE FUNDING
THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
PACKAGE FOR TCP WAS COMPRISED OF
TWO SEPARATE PROGRAMS. ONE OF
THEM WAS A COMPETITIVE GRANT
PROGRAM AND SO THAT WE DID A
CALL FOR PROJECTS. WE PUBLISHED
GUIDELINES. SO WE HAD SEVERAL
AGENCIES APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS.
WE'VE AWARDED ALL OF THOSE
FUNDING, THE SECOND SET OF
FUNDING WAS THE TRANSIT
INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL FORMULA
PROGRAM, WHICH WAS A PROGRAM
THAT WE WORKED WITH THE
LEGISLATURE TO ESTABLISH THAT
PROVIDED, LOCAL AGENCIES FUNDING
FOR TRANSIT, AND CAPITAL
PROJECTS. AND SO THOSE WERE
ALLOCATED ON A FORMULA BASIS,
AND I'LL DEFER TO MR. EDISON TO
PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THOSE, YES. SO
THE FIRST BATCH OF FUNDING, THE
COMPETITIVE FUNDING, ALLOWED
AGENCIES THAT HAD COST PRESSURES
ON EXISTING PROJECTS TO COME IN
AND APPLY THOSE FUNDS FOR MORE
PROJECTS. THEY WERE THEY WERE
ALSO AVAILABLE FOR PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT ON Kò PROJECTS LIKE
THE LIKE THE PORTAL PROJECT IN
SAN FRANCISCO, AND THEN THEY
ALLOWED SOME FUNDING FOR NEW
PROJECTS, WHEN WE DID THE, THE
FORMULA WAS PART OF LAST YEAR'S
BUDGET AGREEMENT, SB 125, AND IT
ALLOWS REGIONAL AGENCIES WITH
THEIR TRANSIT AGENCY PARTNERS TO
PROPOSE MONEY TO BOTH, COMPLETE
ESSENTIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS AS
WELL AS FUND OPERATIONS. SO THEY
HAVE FUNDING FLEXIBILITY WITHIN
THAT FUNDING. AND MOST OF THEM
HAVE 45 OF THE 49 HAVE ALREADY
SUBMITTED THEIR PLANS FOR HOW
THEY WILL SPEND AT LEAST THE
FIRST YEAR OF THAT MONEY,
ALTHOUGH MOST AGENCIES,
INCLUDING THE LARGE ONES, HAVE
SUBMITTED PLANS FOR ALL FOUR
YEARS IN RECENT MONTHS AND IN
THE COMPETITIVE GRANTS, COULD,
THEY USE THAT FOR OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE? THE COMPETITIVE IS
NOT AVAILABLE FOR OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE. THE FORMULA IS. AND
IN THE FORMULA, WHAT PERCENTAGE
OF THE FORMULA FUNDING IS GOING
FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE,
AND WHAT PERCENTAGE IS GOING FOR
NEW PROJECTS. SO THE THIS IS
STILL UNDER REVIEW BECAUSE,
APPLICANTS HAVEN'T ASKED FOR ALL
THE MONEY YET, BUT THE SB 125
FUNDING IS BOTH TCP AND ZERO
EMISSION TRANSIT CAPITAL. AND
WELL, ABOUT AT LEAST 20 TO 25%
OF THE REQUESTS TO DATE HAVE
REQUESTED THAT MONEY FOR
OPERATIONS, AND THE REST IS
GOING TO MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.
BUT WE WILL HAVE MORE DETAILS IN
THE COMING IN THE COMING WEEKS
ON ON EXACTLY WHAT THOSE
REQUESTS ARE. DO YOU HAVE A
ROUGH IDEA OF WHAT PERCENT, WHAT
OF THE REQUESTS THAT HAVE COME
IN, WHAT THAT ROUGH NUMBER IS,
HOW FAR ARE WE IN TERMS OF THE
REQUEST FOR. YES. SO WE ARE WE
ARE CLOSE TO OF THE $5.1 BILLION
AVAILABLE, WE ARE APPROACHING,
$4 BILLION OF THAT BEING
REQUESTED, AND OF THAT, WELL
OVER $1 BILLION IS BEING APPLIED
TO OPERATIONS IN THE, IN THE, IN
THE INITIAL REQUESTS OF THE
AGENCIES. GREAT. THAT'S VERY
HELPFUL. THANK YOU. WANT TO,
TAKE A LOOK AT IN THE 2021,
2022, 1.1 BILLION OVER A THREE
YEAR PERIOD FOR THE CLEAN
CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE, AND THAT
SUPPORTS THE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS
HIGHWAY LITTER ABATEMENT, STATE
AND LOCAL BEAUTIFICATION
PROJECTS, AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
CAMPAIGN. MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT ALL OF THESE APPROPRIATIONS
HAVEN'T GONE OUT. THIS IS A
POSSIBILITY, FOR A CUT THAT'S
BEEN RAISED, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR
REACTION TO, THE LEGISLATURE
CUTTING SOME PART OF THAT
PROGRAM? SO THE CLEAN CALIFORNIA
PROGRAM ACTUALLY SUNSETS AT THE
END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, THERE
ARE SOME FUNDS THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN FULLY UTILIZED. THE
ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION WAS
CONTINUOUS APPROPRIATION FROM
THE GENERAL FUND. THE DEPARTMENT
IS USING THOSE FUNDS TO CONTINUE
TO, A LONG COURSE OF INCREASED
LITTER ABATEMENT ACROSS THE
STATE INTO NEXT FISCAL YEAR AS
WELL, UNTIL WE CAN FULLY UTILIZE
ALL THOSE FUNDS. I THINK WHAT
YOU'RE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT,
IF, THAT WERE TO BE USED FOR A
GENERAL FUND SOLUTION, WE WOULD
HAVE TO, PRETTY MUCH, CURTAIL
THOSE ACTIVITIES AND LOOK AT A
POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN FORCE,
FOR THE FOLKS THAT WE'VE HIRED
TO DO THAT WORK. AND WHAT
PERCENTAGE OF IT IS LITTER
ACTIVITIES AND WHAT PERCENTAGE
OF IT IS BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS
AND PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN, I
DON'T HAVE THOSE EXACT NUMBERS.
MY, WE'LL GET THOSE TO YOU. OF
COURSE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
THE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS HAVE
ALL BEEN AWARDED OR PROGRAMED
FOR AWARD ALREADY, SO IT'S
PRETTY MUCH JUST LITTER
ABATEMENT AT THIS POINT. THAT
HAS NOT YET BEEN FULLY UTILIZED.
PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS, SAME
THING, I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK
ON THAT AND GET BACK TO YOU,
SIR, IF YOU'D GET THOSE NUMBERS,
WE'D APPRECIATE IT. GREAT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THROUGH THE
CHAIR. CAN I ASK A FOLLOW UP
QUESTION ON THAT? YOU NOTED THE
AMOUNT THAT WAS LEFT OVER FROM
THE ORIGINAL 100 MILLION, WHAT
HOW MUCH WAS THAT THAT YOU'RE
CARRYING OVER INTO THE NEW YEAR?
I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT AMOUNT,
BECAUSE, OF COURSE, WE WON'T
KNOW UNTIL WE FINISH THIS FISCAL
YEAR HOW MUCH HAS, YET TO BE
ENCUMBERED OR LIQUIDATED? OKAY.
AND DO YOU EVEN LIKE AN IDEA OF
PERCENTAGE WISE? IT'S RELATIVELY
SMALL. SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF
ABOUT HALF OF ONE YEAR'S WORTH
OF LITTER PICKUP. OKAY. THANK
YOU. AND COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT
5.5 MILLION GENERAL FUND FOR
SIDESHOW TASK FORCE MEANS?
THAT'S A CHP THING. IS IT? I
THINK CHP IF, WILL WE'LL HAVE TO
CHECK WITH CHP AND GET BACK TO
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WELL
WHAT IS TRYING TO GET MY
ATTENTION? I THINK CHP Þ CHP
LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY MAY BE READY
TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. NO, I
DON'T THINK ANDREW'S GOING TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WE'LL
WE'LL PROVIDE YOU THAT
INFORMATION. CHAIR. GREAT THANK
YOU. UNLESS ANDREW'S JUMPED OVER
TO THE CHP, RECENTLY. ALRIGHTY.
OKAY, IF I COULD MOVE OVER.
CHAIR AND CHAIR OF ASSEMBLY. OH,
HI. THIS IS KATHY MCCALL,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. YOU ASKED
ABOUT THE SIDESHOW TASK FORCE
THAT WAS TEMPORARY FUNDING TO
FOR QUÊ CHP TO PUT A TASK FORCE
TOGETHER TO ADDRESS SIDESHOWS,
IT IT ENDS AT. I WANT TO I'M
ALMOST POSITIVE IT ENDS AT THE
END OF THIS BUDGET YEAR. IT WAS
A ONE YEAR FUNDING THAT WAS
APPROVED. AND WHEN YOU SAY
SIDESHOW, WHAT WHAT SO A NO
CORRECT ME CHP IF I'M WRONG, BUT
IT'S WHEN ALL THE CARS GET
TOGETHER AND THEY'RE DOING SHOWS
ON THE INTERSECTIONS OF OUR CITY
STREETS, WHEN ALL THE HIGHWAY
PATROL CARS GET TOGETHER NÓ ALL
IT'S USUALLY YOUNG, YOUNG THE
YOUNG PEOPLE ENFORCEMENT
AGAINST. YES. OH, OKAY. OKAY.
THAT WOULD BE A COOL IF YOU
WOULD HAVE SAID. YOU SAID YOU
SAID FAST AND FURIOUS. I WOULD
HAVE KNOWN EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT. ALL RIGHT. GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RIGHT,
OKAY. THE AND, SO THE STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTING THE DOLLARS
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED AND, DO
YOU HAVE THAT TO YOUR
SATISFACTION NOW? THE STATUS OF
THE DOLLARS. OKAY. AND THE. THE
ADMINISTRATION'S NOT BACKFILLING
THE CUT TO THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM WITH THE
STATE HIGHWAY ACCOUNT CONSISTENT
WITH WHAT WAS DONE LAST YEAR.
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR
RATIONALE FOR THAT? CERTAINLY,
SIR STEPHEN KECK WITH CALTRANS,
SO THE DRIVING FACTOR BEHIND NOT
PROPOSING THAT BACKFILL IN, FOR
THE REDUCTION IN THE
AUGMENTATION IS BECAUSE IN THIS
CASE, FUNDS OR THESE FUNDS HAVE
NOT YET BEEN AWARDED OR
PROGRAMED TO PROJECTS. SO, BY
REDUCING THAT AUGMENTATION, WE
WILL NOT IMPACT ANY PROJECT
THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PLANNED TO
MOVE FORWARD IN CONTRA LAST, IN
LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, THE $650
MILLION THAT WAS SHIFTED TO THE
STATE HIGHWAY ACCOUNT,
INCLUDING, 200 MILLION FOR ATP,
THAT WAS BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD
PROJECTS PROGRAMED FOR THAT
MONEY. AND TO TAKE THAT AWAY AT
THAT TIME WOULD HAVE, IMPACTED
THOSE PROJECTS NEGATIVELY. SO I
APPRECIATE THAT PROGRAM, THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO BE CAUTIOUS
ABOUT ANY PLACE WHERE WE HAVEN'T
ACTUALLY ALLOCATED THE FUNDS, I
ALSO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT
WE'RE IN A TRANSITION OAN
BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, ETC.
WE ARE TRYING TO PULL PEOPLE OUT
OF VEHICLES, DECREASE THE
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, TRY TO
ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO BIKE
AND WALK AND BECOME LESS LESS
CAR DEPENDENT, AND THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SEEMS TO
BE THE MAJOR FOCUS THERE, AND
I'M NOT SURE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE, AT LEAST THE
ASSEMBLY SIDE OF IT IS, IS READY
TO SAY WE WANT TO WALK AWAY FROM
THAT, PARTICULARLY AS,
PEDESTRIAN DEATHS HAVE BEEN
GOING UP, BICYCLE DEATHS HAVE
BEEN GOING UP, AND WE HAVE MORE
AND MORE PEOPLE MOVING TO THOSE
TWO FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION.
THÀNH, SO APPRECIATE THAT IT
FALLS UNDER THE NORMAL CATEGORY
OF NOT ALLOCATED. IT'S AN AREA
WHERE WE WILL WANT TO HAVE
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
DEPARTMENT ON. SO THANK YOU, AND
, CHAIR EXCUSE ME, COULD I
PROVIDE JUST A COUPLE MORE
POINTS OF CONTEXT ON THAT?
ALWAYS APPRECIATE THAT, SO I
THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN
WE TALK ABOUT THIS TO, TO KNOW
THAT WHENEVER WE USE OTHER
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO BACKFILL
IN THIS CASE, IN ESSENCE, WE'RE
TAKING AWAY FROM SHOP, WHICH IS
THE BREAD AND BUTTER, MAJOR
HIGHWAY REHAB PROGRAM THAT
CALTRANS OPERATES. WE WERE
BECAUSE OF THE WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE'RE NOT BREAKING
COMMITMENTS. WE DID THAT LAST
YEAR. 650 MILLION IS NOT. IT'S
NOT AS IF THAT IS, YOU KNOW,
HALF OF SHOP OR SOMETHING. BUT
THAT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CUT
TO THE SHOP PROGRAM. WE DIDN'T
REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO GO BACK TO
SHOP. EVERY TIME WE HAVE A
PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE WORK
THAT'S IMPORTANT. THERE'S BEEN A
LOT OF STORM DAMAGE, AS YOU
KNOW, SINCE THAT HAPPENED. AND
WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO, YOU
KNOW, SAVE EVERY DIME THAT WE
CAN CAN FOR THE SHOP, I THINK
THE OTHER THING TO THAT I TRY TO
REITERATE TO PEOPLE IS THAT ATP
REMAINS AN ENORMOUS PRIORITY,
EVEN WITH THIS REDUCTION. IF IT
WAS ACCEPTED IN FULL. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE ATP, WHICH
GETS AROUND $250 MILLION A YEAR,
EVEN IF WITH THIS REDUCTION,
WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT A ONE
TIME INFLUX OF 850 MILLION ON
TOP OF THE 250 MILLION. SO I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
CONTEXTUALIZE THAT WE'RE NOT,
YOU KNOW, CUTTING ALL OF IT OR
DECIMATING THE PROGRAM. THIS IS
A IN OUR EYES, I KNOW THAT
ADVOCATES WOULD FRAME IT
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY, THIS IS A
RELATIVELY MODEST REDUCTION TO A
VERY LARGE AUGMENTATION TO THE
PROGRAM. THAT'S ALL. ONE TIME
FUNDING. YES. AND THAT MAY BE
SOMETHING FOR US TO CONSIDER IF,
IN FACT, THERE IS A TRANSITION
IN TERMS OF WHERE WE WANT TO GO
MOBILITY WISE IN THE STATE, WE
MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THAT, BUT
THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. CONTENT I
APPRECIATE YOU ADDING THAT TO
THE CONVERSATION AS, AS WE MOVE
FORWARD. IN TERMS OF TRYING TO,
YOU KNOW, REACH THE CLIMATE
CHANGE GOALS, WE HAVE TO KEEP
KEEP WORKING ON THAT. BUT IF WE
COULD, THE 280 MILLION PROPOSED
FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE FLEET
REPLACEMENT, IS, WHY IS IT TO
MORE APPROPRIATE TO USE THE SHA
DOLLARS THAN FUNDING THE
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR TO ALLOW CALIFORNIANS TO
WALK AND BIKE SAFELY, WHICH IS
GOING BACK TO ATP. SO TELL ME
ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC VEHICLE
REPLACEMENT. I UNDERSTAND SHOP
AND THE DAMAGE THAT'S OUT THERE.
IT HIGHLIGHTS IT REALLY
HIGHLIGHTS THAT IN MANY AREAS WE
HAVE FUNDING CHALLENGES. WE NEED
. WE HAVE A CHALLENGE
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING MODEL IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIGHT
NOW. WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT WITH
WITH MORE ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND
WE'RE WE'RE NOT AT VEHICLE MILES
TRAVELED YET. AND SO WE HAVE
THOSE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES OUT
THERE, BUT WHILE WE'RE DOING
THAT, HOW ABOUT VEHICLE ELECTRIC
VEHICLE FLEET REPLACEMENT? I
JUST WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO GET
ON THE RECORD. WHY YOU THINK
THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. TO REITERATE A
LITTLE BIT OF WHAT MY COLLEAGUE
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN
ADDITION TO HAVING ITS ONGOING
FUNDING OF, I WOULD SAY, $275
MILLION A YEAR FOR ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION, IT'S NOT THE
ONLY SOURCE OF ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION TYPE OF ELEMENTS
THAT ARE FUNDED THROUGH THE
STATE, WE CALL IT COMPLETE
STREETS IN THE SHOP AND THE
RECENTLY ADOPTED SHOP THAT WAS
ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION IN
MARCH, CONTAINS OVER $1 BILLION
OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SAFETY OF
THE TRAVELING PUBLIC ON THE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM, THE RECENTLY
APPROVED STATE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, ALSO
ADOPTED IN MARCH BY THE
COMMISSION, INCLUDES AN
ADDITIONAL $200 MILLION FOR
THOSE SAME TYPES OF ELEMENTS. SO
THE ATP JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE
ONLY PROGRAM THAT IS SOLELY
FOCUSED ON THOSE ELEMENTS. BUT
IT'S NOT THE ONLY PROGRAM THAT
FUNDS THOSE ELEMENTS. WITH
REGARDS TO OUR FLEET
REPLACEMENT, THE PRIMARY DRIVER
BEHIND REPLACING THE CALTRANS,
THESE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE
CALTRANS FLEET IS THE AGE AND
CONDITION OF THAT FLEET. WE HAVE
FOR FAR TOO LONG, DEFERRED THE,
REPLACEMENT OF THAT FLEET RIGHT
NOW, WE HAVE MORE THAN 6200
VEHICLES IN THE CALTRANS FLEET
THAT ARE BEYOND WHAT IS
CONSIDERED USEFUL LIFE BY
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
STANDARDS, AND WE BEGAN TWO
YEARS AGO IMPLEMENTING A PROGRAM
TO REPLACE THAT FLEET, A RAMPED
UP PROGRAM, IT IS NOT
SPECIFICALLY TO REPLACE THEM
WITH, ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES PER
SE, BUT THAT IS THE CURRENT
GUIDANCE THAT WE'RE RECEIVING IS
WHILE WE'RE REPLACING THE FLEET
TO BEGIN TO TRANSITION TO
ELECTRIC VEHICLES, WITHOUT THE
FUNDING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN
THIS BUDGET, THERE IS NO OTHER
PROGRAM FOR US TO UNDERTAKE THAT
REPLACEMENT OF OUR FLEET AT THE
LEVEL THAT WE NEED. SO THAT'S
WHY WE WOULD IN THIS CASE, WE
ARE PROPOSING THAT FLEET
REPLACEMENT. AND WHEN YOU SAY AT
THE LEVEL THAT WE NEED WHAT WHAT
ARE THE PARAMETERS, WHAT WHAT IS
THE LEVEL THAT YOU'RE TRYING,
HOW OFTEN ARE YOU TRYING TO
REPLACE VEHICLES? WHAT IS IT,
THREE YEARS, FIVE YEARS, NUMBER
ONE, I DON'T HAVE THE. AND
NUMBER TWO, WHAT PERCENTAGE DO
YOU HAVE AN EXISTING, PERCENTAGE
OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES THAT WERE
FIRST GENERATION ELECTRIC
VEHICLES THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
REPLACE AND IF YOU HAVE THAT
DATA. SO I DON'T HAVE THAT
PARTICULAR DATA WITH ME FOR
THAT. THAT SECOND QUESTION, I
WILL SAY THAT, IN PHASE ONE, OF
THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT LAST
YEAR, WE PURCHASED ALMOST 3000
VEHICLES, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH
WERE, ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES,
AND THIS PHASE TWO, WE'RE
LOOKING TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE
AT LEAST HALF OF THE VEHICLES AS
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES. I DON'T
THINK WE'RE YET AT THE POINT
WHERE WE'RE REPLACING OLD
ELECTRIC VEHICLES WITH NEW ONES,
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE OLDEST,
MOST POLLUTING VEHICLES. FIRST
TO REPLACE THOSE BEFORE WE START
REPLACING FIRST CHEN ELECTRIC
VEHICLES. SO OUR GOAL, IN
ADDITION TO KEEPING A FLEET THAT
WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC, WE WANT
TO GET RID OF THOSE LEAST, WELL,
LET'S SAY THE MOST POLLUTING AND
THE LEAST OPERATIONAL VEHICLES
FIRST. THANK YOU, AND THERE WAS
A LITTLE DISTRACTION HERE FOR A
SECOND, SO I MISSED THE FIRST
PART. DID YOU ANSWER THE
QUESTION IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE
NUMBER OF YEARS THAT WE HAVE?
WHAT'S WHAT'S THE STANDARD WE'RE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE, AND THAT YOU
NEED EXTRA FUNDING FOR TO MAKE
SURE WE GET THERE. SO THERE'S A
IT'S NOT JUST A YEAR STANDARD.
THERE'S THE USE OF THE VEHICLE,
THE MILES OF THE VEHICLE, THE
CONDITION OF THE VEHICLE. AND IT
VARIES BY VEHICLE TYPE. SO
PASSENGER VEHICLES MIGHT GET A
DIFFERENT REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE
THAN A HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE, AND
IT'S ALL CONTROLLED THROUGH DGS
GUIDELINES, WHICH I DON'T I
CAN'T COMPLETELY DESCRIBE TO YOU
AT THIS TIME, BUT WE'LL BE HAPPY
TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION,
CURRENTLY, ABOUT HALF OF OUR
FLEET IS IN THAT RANGE FROM DGS
OF NEEDING REPLACEMENT. SO
THAT'S 6200 VEHICLES, IS ABOUT
HALF OF OUR CALTRANS FLEET.
THANK YOU, AND, WITHOUT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER WILSON HERE, I
HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS ON
THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
REALLY APPRECIATE THIS HELPFUL
OVERVIEW, AND WE'LL GO TO ISSUE
NUMBER TWO, INSTITUTIONALIZING
THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED TRAVEL
PROJECT AND BUILDING A DATA AND
DIGITAL SERVICE DIVISION.
THESE MEMBERS COME.
LET'S SEE. WILL YOU TRY YOUR MIC
AND SEE IF IT'S ON? GREAT. GOOD.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY, GENTLEMEN.
AGAIN. ALL RIGHT. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. CHAIR,
WE'VE HAD A LITTLE STAFF CHANGE,
I'M JOINED BY KEITH DUNCAN, OUR
CHIEF BUDGET OFFICER AT CALTRANS
, SO THIS FIRST ITEM, THE
DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING 70
PERMANENT POSITIONS AND $26
MILLION IN FUNDING TO
INSTITUTIONALIZE THE CALIFORNIA
INTEGRATED TRAVEL PROJECT, AND
TO ESTABLISH THE DATA AND
DIGITAL SERVICES DIVISION WITHIN
THE DEPARTMENT. THE INITIATIVE
AIMS TO ADDRESS THE COMPLEX AND
FRAGMENTED TRANSPORTATION
ECOSYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH
ENCOMPASSES MORE THAN 700
TRANSIT SERVICES AND MULTITUDE
OF DIFFERENT FARE PAYMENT
SYSTEMS, LIMITED SERVICE
APPLICATIONS, WHICH MAY ONLY
WORK FOR ONE OF THOSE PROVIDERS
AND NOT ALL OF THEM, AND VERY
DIVERSE REGIONAL POLICIES. THE
LACK OF STANDARDIZATION AND
INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN THESE
DIFFERENT TRANSIT SERVICES LEADS
TO CUSTOMER CONFUSION AND
FRUSTRATION, AND REALLY HAMPERS
RIDERSHIP ON OUR TRANSIT
SYSTEMS. THIS PROPOSAL WILL
PROVIDE RESOURCES TO ALLOW THE
DEPARTMENT TO HELP AGENCIES
COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL TRANSIT
FEED SPECIFICATIONS, KNOWN AS
GTFS. THOSE, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE
THAT, PROGRAMS LIKE GOOGLE MAPS
AND APPLE MAPS USE, TO BE ABLE
TO TELL THE PUBLIC BUS
SCHEDULES, TRANSIT SCHEDULES,
AND REAL TIME GTFS DATA WILL
ALLOW, YOU, AS A WRITER OF
TRANSIT SERVICES, TO TELL WHERE
YOUR BUS IS WHILE YOU'RE WAITING
FOR IT. IF IT'S GOING TO BE
DELAYED WHILE YOU'RE ON IT, HOW
LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU TO
GET TO YOUR DESTINATION IN REAL
TIME. THOSE STANDARDS ARE USED,
VERY EXTENSIVELY THROUGHOUT THE
REST OF THE COUNTRY AND IN
EUROPE. NOT SO MUCH HERE,
BECAUSE OF OUR FRAGMENTED
SYSTEM. IT WILL ALSO ALLOW US TO
HELP PROCURE STANDARDIZED
ANNUNCIATORS AND DIGITAL SIGNAGE
IN CONJUNCTION WITH SOME OF
THOSE SMALLER TRANSIT AGENCIES
TO HELP PROCURE STANDARDIZED
AUTOMATIC PASSENGER INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, SO THAT WE CAN TELL,
WHICH PASSENGERS ARE GETTING ON
WHERE AND WHERE THEY'RE GETTING
OFF, AND IT WILL HELP TO EXPAND,
THE USE OF OPEN PAYMENT FARE
SYSTEMS ACROSS CALIFORNIA AND AN
OPEN, EXCUSE ME, AN OPEN PAYMENT
FARE SYSTEM IS WHERE YOU CAN USE
YOUR PHONE, JUST LIKE YOU DO AT
THE GROCERY STORE OR THE GAS
PUMP, OR EVEN AT THE RESTAURANTS
THESE DAYS TO TAP AND PAY. YOU
CAN'T DO THAT ON ALL OF OUR
TRANSIT SYSTEMS. AND SOMETIMES
YOU NEED A SEPARATE PASS FOR
THIS AGENCY, A SEPARATE PASS FOR
THAT AGENCY, AND MAYBE A THIRD
ONE FOR ANOTHER AGENCY. SO WE'RE
LOOKING TO TRY TO STANDARDIZE
THAT ACROSS THE STATE, WE'RE
ALSO GOING TO BE ABLE TO HELP
SMALL AND RURAL TRANSIT
AGENCIES, SEEK AND APPLY FOR
FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING. WE'VE
IDENTIFIED MORE THAN 50
DIFFERENT FEDERAL GRANTS THAT
ARE AVAILABLE FOR SMALL TRANSIT
PROVIDERS THAT THEY JUST DON'T
HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO KEEP
TRACK OF, KNOW WHEN TO APPLY, OR
EVEN HOW TO APPLY. AND WE CAN
ALSO HELP THEM TO UTILIZE THOSE
FEDERAL FUNDS BECAUSE MOST OF
THEM, AGAIN, ARE NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THE FEDERAL FUNDS PROCESS,
THAT DATA AND DIGITAL SERVICES
DIVISION ITSELF WILL OVERSEE
PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS IN GRANT
MANAGEMENT, AS WELL AS HELPING
LOCAL AGENCIES, DELVE INTO THE
DATA THAT THEY'LL BE RECEIVING
FROM THESE NEW SYSTEMS SO THAT
THEY CAN OPTIMIZE THEIR ROUTES.
I TALKED ABOUT AUTOMATED
PASSENGER INFORMATION SYSTEMS.
RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE
PEOPLE ARE GETTING ON AND OFF.
RIGHT. YOU HAVE THE DRIVER WHO
CAN GENERALLY TELL, BUT THEY
DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC COUNTS.
WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, IT'S
DIFFICULT TO KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE
YOUR TRANSIT SERVICE IS BEING.
DOES IT? DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO
CONTINUE TO STOP HERE IF
NOBODY'S GETTING ON OR OFF? SO
THAT WILL REALLY HELP TO PROVIDE
THAT INFORMATION AS WELL, AND
FINALLY, BY BRINGING ALL THESE
SMALL LOCAL AGENCIES TOGETHER
UNDER THE STATE'S UMBRELLA, NOT
UNDER OUR CONTROL, BUT WE CAN
REALLY, MAXIMIZE OUR PURCHASING
POWER, RIGHT? INSTEAD OF HAVING
EACH INDIVIDUAL AGENCY GO OUT
AND TRY TO FIND THESE, THESE
PRODUCTS THAT WE NEED, WE CAN
GET IT ALL INTO ONE BIG SERVICE
CONTRACT THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES AND HELP,
LEVERAGE OUR DOLLARS THAT WAY
AND LOCAL AGENCY DOLLARS AS WELL
. LAL THANK YOU, TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE PROPOSAL INCREASES, I'M
SORRY. DEPARTMENT OF. ARE YOU
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OR. YES.
OKAY YOU HAVE NOTHING TO ADD AT
THIS TIME. GREAT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, TO THE EXTENT THAT
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD INCREASE
PUBLIC TRANSIT RIDERSHIP, WE
FIND IT COULD HAVE MERIT AS THIS
ALIGNS WITH CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES, SUCH AS IMPROVING
TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY AND
REDUCING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
IN INDIVIDUAL AUTOMOBILES.
HOWEVER PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE
ONGOING NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL
AND THE BUDGET SITUATION, THE
LEGISLATURE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER
WHETHER IT OTHER PRIORITIES, MAY
BE BETTER JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
USE OF THIS FUNDING, FOR
EXAMPLE, IT COULD CONSIDER USING
THE FUNDS TO SUSTAIN FUNDING FOR
PROGRAMS THAT IT HAD PLANNED TO
SUPPORT WITH GENERAL FUND THAT
ARE NOW SUBJECT TO BUDGET
SOLUTIONS. IT COULD ALSO
CONSIDER PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC TRANSIT
AGENCIES DIRECTLY THAT ARE
FACING OPERATIONAL SHORTFALLS.
THANK YOU. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS PROGRAM IS ONGOING AND NOW
THIS WILL MAKE THIS PROGRAM HAVE
SORT OF A PERMANENT STATUS,
CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND SO THE
HOW MUCH OF THIS PERMANENT
STATUS IS GOING TO BE AN
EXPANSION OF THE PROGRAM FROM
ITS CURRENT LEVEL? YEAH. SO
SPECIFICALLY THE DATA AND
DIGITAL SERVICES DIVISION WOULD
BE A NEW SERVICE THAT WE WOULD
BE PROVIDING TO HELP. AGAIN,
THESE SMALL RURAL AGENCIES
MANAGE THEIR DATA, AND FOR US TO
BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER GRANTS
, SERVICES TO THOSE LOCAL
AGENCIES, CONNECTING THEM WITH
OPPORTUNITIES, HELPING THEM WITH
THE APPLICATION, PROVIDING THAT
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AS WELL,
THAT WOULD BE AN EXPANDED
FUNCTION, IN ADDITION TO THE
CONTINUATION OF CAL I.T.P, I'M
ALSO GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT
WE'VE HAD SOMEWHERE ON THE ORDER
OF SEVERAL HUNDRED TRANSIT
AGENCIES REACHING OUT TO US
AFTER OUR FIRST ROUND SAYING,
HEY, WE WANT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE
INVOLVED GOING FORWARD AS WELL.
SO WE'RE SEEING SOME INCREASED,
INTEREST ON THAT TRADITIONAL CAL
I.T.P SIDE AS WELL. IF THIS IF
THIS EXPANSION WAS DELAYED A
YEAR, WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT?
SO, FIRST WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF,
AND KEITH CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG. WE HAVE THE LOWLAND
FUNDING, WHICH MAY JEOPARDIZE
SOME EXISTING POSITIONS THAT WE
HAVE WORKING ON THIS, I COULDN'T
TELL YOU WHAT THE ULTIMATE
IMPACT OF A OF A ONE YEAR DELAY
WOULD BE, BUT I CAN SAY THAT,
YOU KNOW, AS RIDERSHIP IS
INCREASING POST PANDEMIC, THIS
IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO
BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT, ESPECIALLY
THE DATA COLLECTION AND DATA
PROCUREMENT PHASE OF THIS,
BECAUSE REALLY, THE WHAT THE
PANDEMIC DID TO RIDERSHIP WAS
UNPRECEDENTED. IT MAKES IT VERY
DIFFICULT FOR US TO KNOW, YOU
KNOW, HOW WHAT WE'VE ALREADY
DONE IS IMPACTING RIDERSHIP. BUT
WE DO KNOW THAT OTHER PLACES
THAT HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE AN
OPEN FARE PAYMENT SYSTEM HAVE
SEEN IN NEW YORK CITY A 10%
INCREASE IN RIDERSHIP JUST
BECAUSE OF THAT, SO WE'RE VERY
EAGER TO GET THIS GOING AS WE'RE
TRYING TO ENTICE RIDERS BACK TO
TRANSIT. WHAT WHAT AMOUNT OF
MONEY WOULD WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE JUST CONTINUE THE
EXISTING PROGRAM? SINCE YOU SAY
IT'S IN A ROLE, KEITH MAY HAVE
THAT NUMBER. IF NOT, WE'LL WE'LL
GET BACK TO YOU WITH THE
SPECIFICS. IT LOOKS LIKE HE
MIGHT HAVE THAT NUMBER. KEITH
DUNCAN, CALTRANS BUDGETS,
ROUGHLY, ROUGHLY A THIRD OF
WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS
CURRENTLY WHAT'S BEING RESOURCED
THROUGH, CONTINUOUS OR I'D SAY
EXPIRING FUNDS FROM THE CARES
ACT, THE FEDERAL ACT FROM A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. SO IF I
COULD SAY THIS AND THAT IS THAT
THIS IS A GREAT PROGRAM. AND, IF
, IF, IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE DIDN'T
HAVE A BUDGET PROBLEM AT ALL,
THAT'D BE, YOU KNOW, DOUBLING
DOWN ON THIS PROGRAM, I THINK TO
EXPRESS SORT OF THE WILL OF
LEGISLATURE, VERY STRONG SUPPORT
FOR TRANSIT OVERALL, TRYING TO
MAKE SURE THAT TRANSIT WORKS. I
THINK THE QUESTION IS, AND I
THINK EVERYBODY WANTS US TO HAVE
A MODERN TRANSIT SYSTEM, AND
IT'S HARD TO HAVE A MODERN
TRANSIT SYSTEM WHEN YOU HAVE
SORT OF ALL THESE DIFFERENT,
PARTICULARLY THESE SMALL RURAL
AREAS, ETC. THE QUESTION IS, IS
THIS THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO DO
THIS? THIS EXPANSION? AND, I
THINK THERE'S A STRONG DESIRE TO
TRY TO HAVE A REALLY MODERN
SYSTEM. THERE'S ALSO A STRONG
DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT JUST A
YEAR AGO, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
A TRANSIT CLIFF, THE FISCAL,
THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO OFF
THE EDGE IF THIS MONEY KEPT
TRANSIT AGENCIES FROM GOING OFF
THE EDGE, THAT WOULD BE A
POTENTIALLY VERY DIFFERENT
DECISION THAN WHETHER WE WANT TO
DO THIS EXPANSION. THE FINAL
THING THAT I WOULD OFFER IN
TERMS OF A CONCERN TO BRING UP
NOW, BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS AS WE GO FORWARD,
BECAUSE THAT JUST IN GENERAL, MY
EXPERIENCES, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
TRYING TO DO TECHNOLOGY, AG
EXPANSIONS, TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES,
ETC. USUALLY FIND THAT THEY
DON'T GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE BANG
FOR THE BUCK THAT THEY THOUGHT
THEY WERE GOING TO GET BECAUSE
OF A VARIETY OF REASONS. BUT THE
CHALLENGE OF TRYING TO DO SORT
OF A TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE WITH
HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF TRANSIT
AGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE,
IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO
TRACK WHETHER WE'RE REALLY
GETTING THE BANG FOR THE BUCK
THAT WE WANT, THAT WE COULD HAVE
A PROGRAM THAT SOUNDS REALLY
GOOD ON PAPER AND WE PUT $80
MILLION INTO IT, AND WE EXPAND A
LOT OF POSITIONS, AND WE STILL
HAVE ONLY A MARGINAL IMPROVEMENT
IN THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE
TO HAVE, WHICH IS EVERYBODY
WALKS ON THE ON ON THE TRANSIT
AND NO MATTER WHAT AGENCY
THEY'RE ASSOCIATED WITH, THEY
CAN THEY CAN PAY. THE AGENCY
KNOWS WHERE THEY GOT ON, THE
AGENCY KNOWS WHERE THEY GOT OFF.
THAT'S ALL REALLY NICE. WE MAY
STILL BE SAYING WE NEED ALL OF
THAT AFTER, YOU KNOW, THE
SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OF THIS
DEPARTMENT. SO THOSE ARE THE
CONCERNS THAT THAT I WANTED TO,
EXPRESS, AND, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PETRIE-NORRIS HAS JUST SHOWN UP
AND I'LL GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY
TO ASK A QUESTION. WE'RE ON
ISSUE TWO, NO. AND THANK YOU,
CHAIR. I THINK THE, I WOULD JUST
ECHO THE POINTS THAT YOU'VE MADE
THAT WHILE THESE ARE, IMPORTANT
INVESTMENTS, I DO THINK WE NEED
TO TAKE A REALLY HARD LOOK ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS THE RIGHT
TIME FOR US TO BE MAKING THEM,
AND I THINK THAT WHILE WE AND I
THINK WE ALSO NEED TO, THINK
ABOUT THE INVESTMENTS WE'RE
MAKING AND, YOU KNOW,
CONVERSATIONS AROUND ANY SORT OF
LIKE FISCAL CLIFF WITH, LIKE,
THE REALITY OF A SITUATION, NOT
KIND OF WHAT WE HOPE EVENTUALLY
RIDERSHIP WILL BE AND PLAN FOR
THAT. I THINK SOMETIMES IT FEELS
LIKE WE'RE ALWAYS WE'RE
BUDGETING WITH SORT OF THIS
HOPEFUL SCENARIO IN MIND THAT IT
SEEMS LIKE WE'RE WE HAVE NOT YET
BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE. SO I THINK
WE'VE GOT TO BE REALLY
REALISTIC, AS WE'RE WEIGHING
THESE INVESTMENTS AND
OPPORTUNITIES AGAINST OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES THIS YEAR. THANKS
SO IF I COULD ASK, DO YOU HAVE
ANY DATA ON HOW THE, YOU KNOW,
THE EXPENDITURES WE'VE MADE SO
FAR FOR CAL I.T.P, HAVE HELPED
OR IMPACTED RIDERSHIP? WE HAVE.
DO WE HAVE ANY DATA THERE THAT
COULD HELP US AS, SO IN TERMS OF
THE DATA COLLECTION, THAT'S
REALLY ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS
WITH THE LOCAL AGENCIES IS THEY
DON'T HAVE THAT GREAT THAT
ROBUST DATA COLLECTION, AND
THAT'S WHY WE'RE REALLY PUSHING
THIS AUTOMATED PASSENGER, COUNT
TYPE OF SYSTEMS AS WELL AS THE
OPEN PAYMENT SYSTEM. GREAT. AND
THE OTHER QUESTION THAT WE
SUBMITTED TO YOU IN ADVANCE,
COULD THE PTA FUNDING, BE USED
FOR THE ZERO EMISSION TRANSIT
CAPITAL PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD
THEN FREE GRF UP FOR SOME OTHER
THINGS? IS THAT IS THAT
TECHNICALLY AND LEGALLY
POSSIBLE? YEAH. WE BELIEVE THAT
GIVEN THE DESCRIPTIONS WE HAVE
OF THE ZERO EMISSION TRANSIT,
CAPITAL PROGRAM, THAT IT MOST
LIKELY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PTA
FUNDING. WE WOULD HAVE TO
CAREFULLY ANALYZE ANY SPECIFIC
PROPOSAL. BUT, THE SHORT ANSWER
IS MOST LIKELY YES. WE'LL HAVE
MORE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS.
LIKE MANY THINGS WITH YOU GUYS
OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS AND
MONTHS. ALRIGHTY, ANYTHING ELSE?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER? ANYTHING THAT'S
MISSING THERE FROM THAT, YOU
NEED INFORMATION ON. ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE READY TO GO ON TO ITEM
ISSUE THREE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. CHAIR, THIS, WE
TOUCHED ON THIS A LITTLE BIT
ALREADY. THIS IS OUR REQUEST FOR
279 MILLION FROM THE STATE
HIGHWAY ACCOUNT FOR A TWO YEAR,
LIMITED TIME INITIATIVE TO
REPLACE OUR AGING FLEET AND TO
INSTALL ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
INFRASTRUCTURE AT CALTRANS
FACILITIES ACROSS THE STATE, OUR
AGING FLEET OF MORE THAN 12,000
VEHICLES, PRESENTS ENVIRONMENTAL
AND OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES WHICH
IMPACT THE EFFICIENCY FOR
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, TO BE
CLEAR, OUR REQUEST OF 279
MILLION INCLUDES 250 MILLION FOR
FLEET REPLACEMENT, 22.5 MILLION
FOR, ZEV INFRASTRUCTURE AND 6
MILLION, 6.5 MILLION TO FUND 50
POSITIONS THAT ARE CONTINUING
OVER FROM OUR FIRST PHASE THAT
WAS APPROVED TWO YEARS AGO, THIS
PROPOSAL, ADDRESSES YEARS THREE
AND FOUR OF OUR MULTI-YEAR PLAN
TO REPLACE VEHICLES THAT HAVE
THE HIGHEST EMISSIONS, THE
HIGHEST MILEAGE, THE HIGHEST
REPAIR COSTS, AND THAT ARE IN
GENERALLY POOR CONDITION, WE AIM
TO REPLACE APPROXIMATELY 3000
VEHICLES WITH THIS FUNDING OVER
THE NEXT TWO YEARS. AND IN THIS
PHASE, WE'RE FOCUSING ON MEDIUM
AND HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES, THESE
ARE IN MANY CASES, SPECIALTY
TYPE OF VEHICLES THAT WE USE TO
MAINTAIN, AND, OUR HIGHWAY
SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THOSE
RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING AND
REPAIRING, SAFETY BARRIERS, SNOW
PLOWING, VEGETATION CONTROL, I
HAVE A BIG OLD LIST. I WON'T GET
INTO IT, BUT THESE ARE A LOT OF.
THESE ARE SPECIALTY TYPE OF
EQUIPMENT THAT WE USE TO
MAINTAIN OUR HIGHWAY SYSTEM. WE
DO HAVE CALIFORNIA'S LARGEST AND
MOST DIVERSE FLEET, AND IT'S
VITAL FOR MAINTAINING ACCESS TO
OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND
FOR PROVIDING FOR THE, THE
PUBLIC SAFETY, AND CONTINUATION
OF OUR MULTI YEAR PLAN TO
REPLACE OUR FLEET IS CRITICAL
FOR US TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE
THAT ROLE. DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, TED DOE, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, WE HAVE NO COMMENT. LEO
FRANK JIMENEZ WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE, NO
CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSAL, BUT
AS MR. KECK MENTIONED, THIS
PROPOSAL IS FOR YEAR THREE AND
FOUR OF A LONGER TERME FLEET
REPLACEMENT PLAN BY THE
DEPARTMENT. AS NOTED IN YOUR
AGENDA, THE LEGISLATURE MAY WANT
TO ASK OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS OF
HOW YEARS ONE AND TWO WENT, AND
ALSO OVERSIGHT OF THIS PROPOSAL,
WHICH TENDS TO FOCUS A BIT MORE
ON THE MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY
SIDE. I'M GOING TO START WITH
THE MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY SIDE.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THIS DO YOU
EXPECT TO BE ELECTRIC VEHICLES,
YEAH. SO WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT IN
THIS ARENA, THE MEDIUM AND HEAVY
DUTY, WE WON'T FIND THE SAME
LEVEL OF READINESS IN THE
INDUSTRY THAT WE SAW WITH OUR
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES IN PHASE
ONE, MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
PROGRAM, THEY'RE STILL LOOKING
TO PURCHASE, OVER 50% OF THE
VEHICLES AS ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN
THIS ROUND, AND, YOU KNOW, KEY
TO THAT IS WORKING WITH THE
MANUFACTURERS, WHEN WE PURCHASE
VEHICLES, WE PURCHASE WHAT THEY
CALL FLEET VEHICLES. THEY'RE NOT
THE SAME AS WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND
ON A ON A COMMERCIAL CAR LOT,
AND SO WE NEED TO WORK WITH
MANUFACTURERS TO SAY, YOU KNOW,
WHAT'S YOUR PRODUCTION LOOK
LIKE? Kò IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS IS
HAVING MONEY IN HAND. WHEN WE
HAVE MONEY IN HAND, WE GET
RESPONSES AND WE GET RAMP UP TO
PRODUCE, THOSE VEHICLES. AND WE
SAW THAT LAST YEAR AS WELL WITH
OUR FLEET PURCHASES. SO WE'RE,
WE'RE THINKING ABOUT 50% FOR,
FOR THIS ROUND. I WOULD
ENCOURAGE US TO DO WHAT WE CAN,
BUT BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT FIRST
GENERATION ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN
HIGH POWERED, MEDIUM AND HEAVY
DUTY, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING
PERFORMANCE. GUIDELINES AND
PERFORMANCE, YOU KNOW, ISSUES
THAT COULD COME ABOUT. SO. YES,
SIR. AND TO THAT POINT, PART OF
OUR STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD IS
FOR THOSE VEHICLES THAT ARE NOT
ON STANDARD DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES PURCHASE LISTS,
WE'LL BE USING IN MANY CASES
BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT, WHICH IS
AVAILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR
THOSE NONSTANDARD VEHICLES.
WE'LL BE LOOKING AT STUFF LIKE
THAT. WHAT'S THE PERFORMANCE OF
THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM? WHAT KIND
OF MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED FOR
THE VEHICLE. SO THAT REALLY IT
WILL REDUCE THE OVERALL LONG
TERME COST OF OPERATING THE
FLEET? AND OF COURSE, THE
HARDEST THING WITH FIRST
GENERATION IS TO DETERMINE WHAT
THE BATTERY LIFE IS GOING TO BE,
PARTICULARLY WITH HEAVY DUTY.
ABSOLUTELY. STUFF, YOU KNOW, AS
YOU MOVE. SO CAN YOU TELL US
ABOUT YOUR SUCCESSES AND YOUR
CHALLENGES WITH YOUR ONE AND TWO
IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION?
YEAH, CERTAINLY. SO, IN THE
FIRST, TWO YEARS IN PHASE ONE,
WE WERE ABLE TO PURCHASE, 2782
TOTAL VEHICLES, I THINK WE HAD
PLANNED FOR 3000 WITH THE
FUNDING WE RECEIVED. SO VERY,
VERY CLOSE TO THAT, THE MAJORITY
OF THOSE HAVE BEEN DELIVERED.
THEY'VE BEEN, THEY'VE GOTTEN THE
CALTRANS TREATMENT AND ARE ON
THE ROAD, DOING THE JOBS, WITH
REGARD TO, ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH WAS
INCLUDED IN PHASE ONE AS WELL,
WE HAD A TOTAL OF 2180, TOTAL
CHARGING PORT. EXCUSE ME. I'M
STUMBLING A LITTLE BIT OVER THE
WORDS, 2180 CHARGING PORTS,
INCLUDING SOME MOBILE CHARGING
SOLUTIONS THAT WE FELT WERE
NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT WE
ALWAYS COULD MAKE SURE OUR
VEHICLES RAN WHERE THEY NEEDED
TO RUN. SO I'D SAY, WE JUST
ABOUT HIT OUR TARGETS FOR THE
FIRST TWO YEARS, THERE WERE SOME
CHALLENGES, AS NOTED, BUT WE
DID, HAVE A VERY GOOD WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WITH MANUFACTURERS,
ESPECIALLY IN YEAR TWO, WHERE WE
WERE ABLE TO PROCURE, I THINK
ACTUALLY EVEN HIGHER THAN OUR
ORIGINAL TARGET FOR ZEVS IN YEAR
TWO, AND WE'RE TAKING DELIVERY
OF THOSE VEHICLES NOW AND GIVING
THEM THE CALTRANS TREATMENT AND
YOU'LL, YOU'LL SOON SEE THOSE ON
THE ROAD AS WELL, BUT AGAIN,
WORKING WITH THE INDUSTRY HAS
BEEN THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE, BUT
ESPECIALLY IN YEAR TWO WHEN THEY
SAW WE HAD THE MONEY, WE GOT
RAMP UP PRETTY, PRETTY QUICKLY.
THE INDUSTRY'S BEEN REALLY
CHALLENGED WITH SUPPLY CHAIN
ISSUES. AND CONSEQUENTLY WE'RE
WE'RE SEEING HIGHER PRICES
ACROSS THE BOARD. HOW MUCH WERE
WERE WE IMPACTED IN TERMS OF
WHAT WE HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH
VERSUS WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO
ACCOMPLISH DUE TO THOSE HIGHER
PRICES? YEAH. SO IN TERMS OF THE
VEHICLES, I THINK WE PLANNED ON
ABOUT 3000 AND WE ENDED UP
GETTING 2782 VEHICLES. SO PRETTY
DARN CLOSE, DESPITE INFLATION,
THAT WAS OVER 8% AT ONE POINT,
THIS, CURRENT YEAR REQUEST IS
NOTABLY HIGHER THAN THE FIRST
TWO YEAR REQUEST TO ACCOUNT FOR
BOTH THE INFLATION AND THE FACT
THAT MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES INHERENTLY COST MORE.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SO
WHAT WHAT JUMPED OUT AT ME IN
THIS ITEM WAS THE 50 POSITIONS
ANNUALLY THAT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE
A LOT OF PEOPLE TO MANAGE THIS
PROGRAM TO ME. ARE THESE NEW
POSITIONS OR IS THIS EXISTING
STAFF? YEAH. SO IT IS EXISTING
STAFF THAT WAS INCLUDED. I'LL
TRY TO, EXISTING STAFF THAT WAS
INCLUDED IN THE FIRST YEAR,
FIRST. SORRY, THE FIRST PHASE,
THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THIS
PROGRAM. AND IT'S NOT. SO WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STAFF OR
CALTRANS FLEET, IT'S VARIED.
RIGHT. YOU HAVE THE FOLKS WHO
NEED TO DO THE PURCHASE OF THE
VEHICLES, WHICH IS NOT THAT
MUCH. RIGHT, BUT YOU ALSO NEED
TO WORK WITH THE MANUFACTURERS
ON THE SPECIFIC DESIGN OF MANY
OF OUR VEHICLES, FOR MEDIUM AND
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES, ESPECIALLY
SOME OF THESE ARE ACTUALLY BUILT
IN-HOUSE BY CALTRANS. SO SOME OF
THESE POSITIONS WOULD GO TOWARDS
THAT. OKAY. SO IN SOME CASES
THEY'RE ACTUALLY SO THIS IS NOT
50 PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST LIKE
ORDERING VEHICLES. OH NO NO NOT
AT ALL I THINK THAT'S A VERY
SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THIS OKAY.
THAT IS A HELPFUL POINT OF
CLARIFICATION. RIGHT. WE HAVE
THE ENGINEER THE SOLUTION BUILD
IT IN MANY CASES. AND THEN WE
HAVE TO DISPOSE OF THE OLDER
VEHICLES AS WELL, WHICH TAKES
QUITE A BIT OF EFFORT. OKAY. SO
THERE'S SOME FOLKS THAT ARE
ACTUALLY DOING MANUFACTURING AND
DEVELOPMENT. OH YEAH IT'S VERY
IMPRESSIVE. IF YOU HAVE TIME YOU
SHOULD COME OUT TO ONE OF OUR
EQUIPMENT SHOPS. IT'S AMAZING.
OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. SO EVEN
IN BUDGET TIMES, I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOT BUILD UP
A LOT OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE OR
BUILD UP A FLEET THAT IS AGING.
IT'S PENNY WISE AND POUND
FOOLISH. SO IN GENERAL,
SUPPORTIVE OF THESE EFFORTS IN
TERMS OF FLEET, I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION FROM THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. MY UNDERSTANDING TOO.
THESE ARE ONGOING POSITIONS THAT
ARE NOW TRANSITIONING FROM
TEMPORARY TO PERMANENT. YES. AS
WE MOVE FORWARD, AS OPPOSED TO,
YOU KNOW, THE PROGRAM BEFORE
WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SORT
OF AN EXPANSION OF A NEW
PROGRAM, AND WITH THAT, IF THERE
ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE ON TO ISSUE FOUR,
A VERY HIGH SPEED RAIL, AND WE
HAVE THREE DIFFERENT, ISSUES ON
HIGH SPEED RAIL. TWO OF THEM
WILL BE PRESENTATION ITEMS. AND
WHILE WE'RE MAKING THE
TRANSITION, I'M GOING TO HIT THE
RESTROOM VERY QUICKLY. RIGHT.
EXCUSE ME.
WHEN YOU'RE READY. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS BRIAN
ANNIS. I'M THE CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER FOR THE CALIFORNIA HIGH
SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY. I'M JOINED
BY MY ASSISTANT CFO, NATALIE
DANIEL, AND ALSO OUR BUDGET
OFFICER, DEREK LEE. AND I'M
HAPPY TO BRIEFLY PRESENT ON THE
BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL THAT IS,
IN YOUR AGENDA, THE BCP REQUEST
IS SOMETHING WE CALL FORM TO
FUNCTION. THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO
REDUCE CONSULTANT RESOURCES AND
REPLACE THEM WITH NEW STATE
STAFF POSITIONS. THIS WILL
RESULT IN AN OVERALL DEPARTMENT
SAVINGS OF ABOUT $8.7 MILLION
PER YEAR. A SPECIFIC OUR
PROPOSAL REQUEST TO REDUCE 63
FULL TIME CONSULTANT EQUIVALENT
POSITIONS AT A COST OF ABOUT
$22.2 MILLION, AND ADD 67 STATE
STAFF POSITIONS, WHICH WILL COST
ABOUT 13.5 MILLION, HERE, OF
COURSE, STATE STAFF ARE LESS
EXPENSIVE THAN THE CONSULTANT
POSITIONS. SO AGAIN, WE HAVE NET
SAVINGS OF ABOUT $8.7 MILLION,
THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION AND
GOVERNMENT CODE 19 130 TO USE
STATE STAFF FOR STATE FUNCTIONS
INSTEAD OF CONSULTANTS, UNLESS
WHERE THE WORK INVOLVES,
SPECIALIZED SKILLS THAT ARE NOT
AVAILABLE IN STATE SERVICE OR
THE WORK IS TEMPORARY OR
OCCASIONAL, THIS IS ALSO
CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR IN
A 2018 AUDIT. AS NOTED IN YOUR
STAFF AGENDA, IN PRIOR BCP FROM
FISCAL YEAR 1920 AND 2021, WE
PREVIOUSLY ELIMINATED,
CONSULTANT POSITIONS AND ADDED
STATE STAFF CONSISTENT WITH THE
AUDIT, WE HAVE RECENTLY DONE A
BROADER REVIEW OF CURRENT
CONTRACTS AND WE BELIEVE WE CAN
TAKE ON ADDITIONAL WORK WITH
STATE STAFF IN THE AREAS OF OUR
PROPOSAL, IN ADDITION TO
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GOVERNMENT
CODE, OUR PROPOSAL IS ALSO
APPROPRIATE TO INCREASE DIRECT
STATE OVERSIGHT OVER CRITICAL
AREAS LIKE CONSTRUCTION QUALITY.
AND FINALLY, AS PART OF THE BCP,
WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE TO AUTHORIZE THE
AUTHORITY TO USE UP TO 5% OF
PROPOSITION ONE, A BOND PROCEEDS
FOR ADMINISTRATION, THE 2008
BOND ACT AUTHORIZED 2.5, OR 225
MILLION, INITIALLY FOR
ADMINISTRATION AND 5% OR 450
MILLION WITH LEGISLATIVE
APPROVAL, AFTER 15 YEARS SINCE
THE BOND ACT PASSED AND WAS
APPROVED BY VOTERS, WE'VE
EXHAUSTED, ALMOST EXHAUSTED, THE
INITIAL $225 MILLION AND NEED
ACCESS TO THE REMAINING, 225
MILLION. THAT WOULD GET US UP TO
THE 5% LEVEL. AND THIS REQUEST
IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN FUNDING
FOR ONGOING ADMINISTRATIVE
OPERATIONS GOING INTO THE 2425
FISCAL YEAR. AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
. BOWEN PETERSON, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. WE HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.
OKAY LEO. HELEN CHRISTIE WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE, WE HAVEN'T RAISED ANY
CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSAL.
GREAT. ASSEMBLYMEMBERS GREAT.
I'VE JUST OFFERED THIS, AND THAT
IS, WE PRETTY MUCH DON'T HAVE
ANY CHOICE IN TERMS OF GOING
FROM TWO AND A HALF TO 5, I WISH
WE HAD THE PEOPLE WHO ORIGINALLY
RAN THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE HIGH
SPEED RAIL WHO THOUGHT BY 15
YEARS WE WOULD BE IN A VERY
DIFFERENT SPOT, BUT IT LEADS. IT
LEADS TO MY NEXT POINT, WHICH IS
FOR 20 YEARS ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. WE WRESTLED WITH
THIS QUESTION. IS IT BETTER TO
USE CONSULTANTS AS A BETTER TO
USE, YOU KNOW, STAFF, I'VE COME
TO CONCLUSION THAT IF YOU HAVE
IF IT'S A SHORT TERME PROJECT,
IT'S CONSULTANCY MAKES SOME
SENSE. IT'S VERY CLEAR THE HIGH
SPEED RAIL IS NOT A SHORT TERME
PROJECT. RIGHT THE SECOND THING
IS IF AS AS LONG AS YOU CAN HIRE
A GOOD STAFF, THE ADVANTAGE OF
STAFF IS THAT THEY HAVE MUCH
MORE LOYALTY TO THE PROJECT,
THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S ALMOST AN INCENTIVE
SOMETIMES TO SORT OF SAY, WELL,
LEAVE A BUNCH OF THINGS UNDONE
BECAUSE YOU'LL NEED THE
CONSULTANT MORE AND MORE, STAFF
HAS, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY A
LOYALTY TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND TO THE PROJECT.
AND YOU GET PEOPLE THAT REALLY
START TO OWN THAT. SO WITH THAT,
CERTAINLY BOTH OF THESE MAKE
SENSE TO ME FROM FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF MOVING FORWARD.
AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO
ISSUE FIVE, ESTABLISHING THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AT
THE HIGH SPEED RAIL. WELCOME
BACK. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON. MY
APOLOGIES. OH NO PROBLEM. BEGIN
WHEN YOU'RE READY. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS BEN
BELKNAP. I WAS RECENTLY
APPOINTED AS THE CALIFORNIA'S
FIRST EVER INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
THE HIGH SPEED RAIL. AND I'M
JOINED WITH AMANDA MILLEN. SHE'S
RECENTLY HIRED AS THE DEPUTY OF
ADMINISTRATION, INVESTIGATIONS
AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES. THE
ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL IS TO IMPROVE THE
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY BY
CONDUCTING OF THE HIGH SPEED
RAIL PROJECT, BY CONDUCTING
INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE REVIEWS
AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE
AUTHORITY'S PLANNING, DELIVERY
AND OPERATIONS OF HIGH SPEED
RAIL. IN THIS BCP, WE ARE
REQUESTING A WORKLOAD BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT OF 14 TOTAL
POSITIONS, EQUATING TO ROUGHLY
$2 MILLION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS
REQUEST IS TO ESTABLISH A FULLY
FUNCTIONING INSPECTOR GENERAL'S
OFFICE THAT CAN CARRY OUT THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OUTLINED IN
STATE LAW, INCLUDING INDEPENDENT
ASSESSMENTS OF THE AUTHORITY'S
ANNUAL REPORTS AND OTHER REVIEWS
OF THE AUTHORITY'S OPERATIONS.
SINCE MY APPOINTMENT, I HAVE
HIRED THREE MEMBERS OF
MANAGEMENT, BEGAN BUILDING OUT
THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF
THIS OFFICE, REVIEWED THE
AUTHORITY'S 2023 PROJECT UPDATE
REPORT AND AM CURRENTLY
FINALIZING OUR REVIEW OF THE
AUTHORITY'S 2024 BUSINESS PLAN
THROUGH THESE REVIEWS, WE HAVE
MADE AND WILL SOON MAKE SEVERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AUTHORITY
TO IMPROVE ITS PLANS AND ARE
ACTIVELY WORKING WITH THE
AUTHORITY TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO
MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS IN
FUTURE REPORTS. APPROVAL OF THE
BCP WOULD ENABLE MY OFFICE TO
IMPLEMENT ITS FISCAL YEAR 2425
WORK PLAN, WHICH, IN ADDITION TO
REVIEWING THE 2025 PROJECT
UPDATE REPORT, WILL INCLUDE SIX
DIFFERENT OPERATIONAL REVIEWS OF
CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE HIGH
SPEED RAIL PROJECT, INCLUDING
THE AUTHORITY'S EFFORTS TO
CONTROL PROJECT COSTS, OVERSEE
ITS CONTRACTORS, AND SECURE
NECESSARY FUNDING. WE WILL
FINALIZE OUR WORK PLAN IN THE
COMING MONTHS THROUGH A FORMAL
RISK ASSESSMENT IN WHICH WE WILL
EVALUATE VULNERABILITIES AND
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PROJECT AND WILL IDENTIFY ANY
ADDITIONAL AREAS OF PRIORITY FOR
REVIEW, A PROCESS THAT WILL
INCLUDE INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS
INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATION,
LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS AND STAFF.
FINALLY, APPROVAL OF THE BCP
WILL ALSO PROVIDE NECESSARY
FUNDING FOR THE FOR MY OFFICE TO
HIRE STAFF AND ESTABLISH AND
IMPLEMENT THE OFFICE'S STATUTORY
RESPONSIBILITIES TO RECEIVE AND
INVESTIGATE WHISTLEBLOWER
COMPLAINTS. AND WITH THAT, I'D
WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. BEFORE WE GO TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IN LAO, I
JUST WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT
THAT, THE ASSEMBLY HAS CREATED A
SEVEN SUBCOMMITTEE BASED,
FOCUSED ON ACCOUNTABILITY,
TRANSPARENCY AND, THE OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL IS ONE THAT I
BELIEVE THE ASSEMBLY'S GOING TO
HAVE A STRONG INTEREST IN
SUPPORTING, AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
SO, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
QUESTION THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT
WITH WHERE THE A NEW EMPHASIS ON
THE PART OF THE ASSEMBLY IN
TERMS OF THAT. SO WE WISH YOU
WELL. WE WANT TO USE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE OUR
STRONG DESIRE FOR YOU TO BE
TRULY INDEPENDENT AND FOR YOU TO
BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH US
ANY TIME THAT YOU FEEL IT'S
APPROPRIATE, AND THAT IS, I
THINK, A SINCERE AND GENUINE
INVITATION FROM ALL THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ON THIS, THIS
COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE
TO COMMUNICATE ANYTHING ABOUT
HIGH SPEED RAIL FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF WHAT YOUR
RESPONSIBILITIES ARE. SO THANK
YOU, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
NOTHING TO ADD AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU. LAO HAS A LOT TO ADD
RIGHT, HELEN CHRISTIE WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST AGAIN, SO WE
DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS ON THIS
PROPOSAL. OVERALL, WE THINK THE
REQUESTED LEVEL OF RESOURCES
MAKES SENSE. IT APPEARS
REASONABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THE
WORK PLAN THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
BUT WE'VE IDENTIFIED THREE
POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO REALLY THE
MOST SUCCESSFUL AND INDEPENDENT
OPERATION OF THE OFFICE, WHICH
WE KNOW WAS A BIG PRIORITY FOR
THE LEGISLATURE WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE REALLY TOOK THE
INITIATIVE TO CREATE THIS
OFFICE. THIS WAS A BIG PRIORITY
AS PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS, TO
PUT TO APPROVE THE PROP ONE
FUNDING FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL, SO
THOSE THREE ISSUES THAT WE'VE
IDENTIFIED ARE, FIRST, THAT SOME
OF THE PROPOSED POSITIONS ARE
TEMPORARY IN NATURE RATHER THAN
PERMANENT. AND WE THINK THAT
THERE'S SOME CHANCE IT COULD BE
MORE DIFFICULT TO HIRE AND
RETAIN THOSE TEMPORARY
EMPLOYEES. THERE'S, OF COURSE, A
TRADE OFF WITH TEMPORARY
EMPLOYEES, BUT WE THINK THERE'S
PROBABLY ENOUGH ONGOING WORKLOAD
TO SUSTAIN THESE FOLKS. AND IT
WOULD BE EASIER TO GET THE BEST
PEOPLE IF WE HAVE PERMANENT
POSITIONS IN THERE. THAT'S ALSO
CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL
REQUEST MADE BY THE OFFICE,
WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED
BY THE ADMINISTRATION. OAN.
SECOND, WE WOULD NOTE THAT THE
OIG CURRENTLY LACKS AUTHORITY TO
USE ONE OF ITS REQUESTED
CLASSIFICATIONS, WHICH WE, WE
HAVE HEARD FROM THE OIG THAT
THAT CLASSIFICATION IS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW THE OIG
TO PAY A SIMILAR LEVEL TO SOME
OF THE OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN THE
STATE THAT HAVE SIMILAR KINDS OF
AUDIT POSITIONS, LIKE THE STATE
COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, LIKE THE
STATE AUDITOR, LIKE CALPERS, SO
THAT'S ANOTHER POTENTIAL ISSUE.
AND THEN THIRD, THERE ARE SOME
KIND OF TECHNICAL TWEAKS THAT
WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE HAVE
IDENTIFIED SOME AREAS RELATED TO
THE JLBC NOTIFICATIONS, THAT WE
THINK COULD HELP PRESERVE THE
BUDGETARY INDEPENDENCE OF THE
OFFICE AND REALLY MAKE SURE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE IS AWARE WHEN
THE OIG HAS BUDGETARY NEEDS, SO
WE DO HAVE SOME RECOMMENDED
ACTIONS THAT WOULD ADDRESS THOSE
CONCERNS, FIRST, WE RECOMMEND
THE LEGISLATURE FUND ALL OF THE
REQUESTED POSITIONS ON A ON A
PERMANENT BASIS. SECOND, WE
RECOMMEND THAT THE LEGISLATURE
PROVIDE THE OIG WITH, A
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO USE THE
REQUESTED OR SIMILAR POSITIONS.
AND THIRD, AGAIN, SOME TWEAKS
BOTH TO BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE AND
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE RELATED TO
JLBC JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
COMMITTEE NOTIFICATIONS JUST TO
ENSURE THAT BUDGETARY
INDEPENDENCE. HAPPY TO GO
THROUGH THOSE IF YOU'D LIKE. BUT
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL
STOP ON THOSE. CERTAINLY WANT TO
BE RESPECTFUL OF THE OTHER
MEMBERS HERE, BUT I WILL BE
SURPRISED IF THERE ISN'T STRONG
SUPPORT FOR THE LAO'S
RECOMMENDATIONS. BUT, OUR
COMMITTEE CHAIR OF
TRANSPORTATION, I'LL LET YOU
KICK THIS OFF. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON. THANK YOU. DEFINITELY
APPRECIATE YOU AND THE WORK THAT
YOU DO, IN THE OIG, AS IT
RELATES TO HIGH SPEED RAIL AND
ANY WAY THAT I CAN SUPPORT YOUR
WORK, HAPPY TO, THIS QUESTION IS
RELATED TO THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST, THE OFFICE. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SO IN
FUNDING THE POSITIONS ON A
PERMANENT BASIS, THAT DOESN'T
CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF THE
REQUEST, RIGHT? IT'S JUST NOW
PERMANENT. INSTEAD OF TEMPORARY.
SO IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE AMOUNT
IN THE BUDGET YEAR, BUT IT WOULD
CHANGE THE AMOUNT IN THE OUT
YEARS BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE
PROPOSED FOR IS IT THREE YEARS,
I THINK THEY'RE PROPOSED FOR
FUNDING FOR THREE YEARS. SO
THEY, RIGHT NOW THERE'S A HIGHER
LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR THE FIRST
THREE YEARS, AND THEN IT WOULD
DROP OFF A LITTLE BIT AS THOSE
TEMPORARY POSITIONS WOULD, WOULD
GO AWAY, UNLESS THEY'RE
REAUTHORIZED THROUGH A
SUBSEQUENT BUDGET ACTION. BUT IF
THEY WERE APPROVED ON A
PERMANENT BASIS, THEN KIND OF AS
PART OF THE BASELINE BUDGET,
THAT HIGHER LEVEL WOULD CONTINUE
FOR KIND OF INDEFINITELY UNTIL
AGAIN, THE LEGISLATURE IS ALWAYS
ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES, BUT THE
DEFAULT WOULD BE TO PROVIDE THE
FUNDING FOR THOSE POSITIONS AND
THE WORK PLAN. AND THIS MIGHT BE
FOR YOU THEN THE WORK PLAN THAT
YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, IT'S BASED
ON JUST HAVING THOSE POSITIONS
FOR THREE YEARS AND THEN
DROPPING OFF, OR THE WORK PLAN
THAT YOU HAVE IS EXPECTED TO
ACHIEVE WHERE YOU WOULD JUST GET
REAUTHORIZED THÀNH CONTINUING
REAUTHORIZATION FOR THOSE
TEMPORARY POSITIONS. SO TO BE
CLEAR, THAT'S A ONE YEAR WORK
PLAN THAT JUST LOOKS FOR THE
NEXT FISCAL YEAR. AND WE WOULD
ADJUST IT EVERY YEAR. AND WE
ANTICIPATE NEEDING 14 POSITIONS,
INCLUDING MY OWN. I KNOW IN
ADDITION TO MY OWN. SO 15 TOTAL,
TO CARRY OUT THAT WORK PLAN. AND
EVERY YEAR WE WOULD ADJUST THAT
WORK PLAN IN PERPETUITY. AND
WOULD YOU SAY IN PERPETUITY THE
LIKELIHOOD OF NEEDING LESS THAN
15 POSITIONS BASED ON THE
INFORMATION YOU HAVE TODAY? AND
I RECOGNIZE THAT, THAT YOU WOULD
STILL NEED THOSE POSITIONS. YEAH
OKAY. THE ESTIMATE WE PUT
TOGETHER IS BASED ON YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE IN AUDITING. WE KNOW
WHAT THE TASKS ARE IN FRONT OF
US, WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES US
TO DO. WE THINK THIS IS A
BASELINE AMOUNT, A REASONABLE
ESTIMATE OF THE AUDITING
RESOURCES NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT
THAT RESPONSIBILITY. OKAY, SO 15
POSITIONS AND THREE FOR THE
FORESEEABLE FUTURE BASED ON THE
INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
OKAY. SO THERE WOULD BE AND THAT
WAS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST AS I
UNDERSTAND IT WAS ORIGINAL
REQUEST WERE TO BE PERMANENT.
AND THEN MAYBE FOR COST SAVING
MEASURES OR FOR SOME MEASURES
THAT WAS WHERE I THINK THE FINAL
ONE, THAT'S WHERE IT WAS
REDUCED. IS THAT WHERE THE JOINT
BUDGET, BUDGET LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE, THEY REDUCED IT OR
WHO ACTUALLY REDUCED IT? SO IT'S
COMMON FOR AND I OF COURSE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CAN, CAN,
CAN ALSO COMMENT. BUT TYPICALLY
DEPARTMENTS PROVIDE, YOU KNOW,
THEY PROVIDE THEIR BCP AND THEN
THEY GO THROUGH A PROCESS WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION, THE REVIEWED
OFTEN BY AGENCY. AND THEN
FINANCE. AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE
CHANGES THAT ARE MADE. USUALLY
THE LEGISLATURE. WE DON'T
NECESSARILY WE USUALLY DON'T
KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE. WE JUST SEE
WHAT'S IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET.
WE DON'T USUALLY SEE WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT ORIGINALLY PROPOSED,
THIS CASE, IN THIS CASE, IT'S
DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE
LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY WANTED
TO GIVE THE OIG ADDITIONAL
BUDGETARY INDEPENDENCE. SO
THERE'S LANGUAGE IN STATUTE THAT
REQUIRES THAT THE JLBC, THE
JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
COMMITTEE, WOULD BE NOTIFIED ON
JAN TEN WHEN WITH THE SUBMISSION
OF THE BUDGET, IF THERE'S A
MODIFICATION TO THE BUDGETARY,
THE TOTAL BUDGET AMOUNT FOR THE
OIG IN THIS CASE, IT WAS YOU
KNOW, IT'S SORT OF A KIND OF
TECHNICAL THING BECAUSE THERE
WASN'T A CHANGE TO THIS. THE
REQUEST FOR THE BUDGET YEAR. AND
SO THE JLBC DIDN'T RECEIVE A
NOTIFICATION THÀNH, BUT SORT OF
THE OUTYEAR AMOUNTS WOULD BE
DIFFERENT, SO IN, IN OUR THAT'S,
THAT'S PART OF ONE OF THE
REASONS FOR OUR, OUR
RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THAT,
THAT TWEAK TO THE TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE. WE, WE THINK THAT SORT
OF THIS IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE INITIALLY
INTENDED, THAT IT WOULD BE A
MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
LEGISLATURE THROUGH THE JLBC TO
BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CHANGE. THAT
WAY, YOU WOULD KNOW IF THERE'S A
CHANGE TO TEMPORARY VERSUS
PERMANENT, YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE
THINGS YOU WOULD YOU WOULD
RECEIVE A NOTIFICATION. WE ONLY
FOUND OUT BECAUSE WE
SPECIFICALLY JUST ASKED A
QUESTION AND THEY WERE HONEST,
WHICH WE APPRECIATE. THEY, YOU
KNOW, THEY INDICATED THAT THAT
THAT HAD BEEN A CHANGE THAT WAS
MADE, BUT WE THINK IT WOULD BE
NICE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO JUST
GET THAT INFORMATION UP FRONT
BECAUSE THAT DID SEEM MORE IN
SPIRIT, MORE SORT OF IN KEEPING
WITH THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT OF
WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE WAS AWARE OF THOSE
CHANGES WERE MADE. DOES THAT
HELP? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. IT DOES.
AND THEN ON THE SECOND,
RECOMMENDATION, PROVIDE THE
AUTHORITY TO USE THE REQUESTED
OR SIMILAR CLASSIFICATION. NOW
THAT BECAUSE IT RELATES TO,
HIGHER AND COMPENSATING
SUFFICIENTLY QUALIFIED STAFF,
THAT WOULD HAVE SOME LEVEL OF
BUDGETARY COMPONENT TO IT TO BE
ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THAT
RECOMMENDATION, IT COULD CAUSE A
BUDGET INCREASE, SO TO SPEAK.
THEY'RE ALREADY REQUESTING THE
FUNDING FOR THOSE SPECIFIC
CLASS, THAT CLASSIFICATION THAT
THEY WANT TO USE. SO IT'S
ALREADY WITHIN THE AMOUNT THAT'S
PROPOSED AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT'S
ALREADY WITHIN THE AMOUNT THAT
THAT THEY'RE THAT THE OIG IS
PROPOSING. IT'S JUST THAT
TECHNICALLY THEY'RE SO THEY'RE
REQUESTING ACCESS TO A
CLASSIFICATION THAT THEY
TECHNICALLY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
AT THIS MOMENT. THEY'RE
REQUESTING FUNDING FOR THAT
POSITION. SO, OKAY, IT'S AND
THERE'S A THERE'S A WHOLE HR
PROCESS BEHIND THAT AS I
UNDERSTAND IT. BASICALLY THEY
WANT TO USE A CLASSIFICATION
THAT'S NOT A STANDARD STATE
CLASSIFICATION. AND THEY WANT TO
USE SORT OF A, YOU KNOW,
BASICALLY DEPARTMENT SPECIFIC
CLASSIFICATION. AND TO USE THAT
THEY EITHER NEED SPECIFIC
AUTHORIZATION FROM HR OR OR FROM
CALHA. AND THE AUTHORIZING OR
THE OWNING. THEY CALL IT, I
GUESS THE OWNING, DEPARTMENT,
WHICH IS THE DEPARTMENT THAT HAS
THAT HAS CREATED THAT SPECIFIC
CLASSIFICATION. SO I DON'T KNOW
IF THAT HELPS, BUT AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, THEY WOULDN'T
NEED ADDITIONAL FUNDING BEYOND
WHAT'S IN THIS REQUEST TO USE
THAT CLASSIFICATION. NOW, OF
COURSE, IF IT WAS, THE
LEGISLATURE GAVE BROAD AUTHORITY
FOR THEM TO CREATE THEIR OWN
CLASSIFICATIONS. YOU KNOW, WHO
KNOWS WHAT'LL HAPPEN IN THE
FUTURE. IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE
THAT THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, NEED
ADDITIONAL POSITIONS, AND MAYBE
THOSE WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE.
BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AT LEAST
FOR BUDGET YEAR, THERE WOULDN'T
BE ANY KIND OF COST IMPLICATION.
BUT AND SO IF IT'S NOT THROUGH
BUDGET, HOW WOULD THE
LEGISLATURE ENSURE THAT YOU CAN
USE THAT CLASSIFICATION? OR IS
IT PURELY AN INTERNAL, ISSUE
WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION? YEAH,
I CAN RESPOND TO THAT, SO
THERE'S A BIT OF A HISTORY HERE.
SO EVERY OTHER AUDIT
ORGANIZATION AND OIG OFFICE IN
CALIFORNIA HAS ACCESS TO THESE
HIGHER LEVEL AUDIT
CLASSIFICATIONS, BEYOND THESE,
THE BASE ONES THAT WE HAVE
ACCESS TO, WHEN I FIRST TOOK
OFFICE, I REACHED OUT AND
REQUESTED FROM THOSE DEPARTMENTS
ACCESS TO THOSE. AND I GOT TOLD,
NO, AND I'M, I'M FINE WITH THAT
BECAUSE THEY SAID, HEY, WE'RE
WE'RE PLAYING IN THE SAME POOL
HERE FOR THE SAME PEOPLE. WHY
WOULD I VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP THAT
THAT, CLASSIFICATION TO YOU, WE
ARE WORKING WITH CAL H.R. TO GET
APPROVAL FOR CLASSIFICATIONS.
MAYBE EVEN DESIGNING SOME OF OUR
OWN. WHAT WE'VE LEARNED OVER
TIME IS THAT THAT CAN TAKE
YEARS, AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS
THAT NEED ANSWERED BY THE TO THE
LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW, THERE'S
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT, SO
TO PUT OURSELVES IN EQUAL
COMPETITIVE FOOTING, I
APPRECIATE ELIO'S
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GIVE US
STATUTORY, ACCESS TO
CLASSIFICATIONS, THAT WOULD HELP
US ACCELERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
OUR OFFICE AND ACCELERATE THE
ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT
THAT THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS. DID
THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT
ABSOLUTELY DID, THANK YOU SO
MUCH. I SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, ALL
THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'VE
PROVIDED AS IT RELATES TO THIS
OFFICE. AND I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT, AS THE CHAIR NOTED,
IS THAT YOU WON'T GET ANY
PUSHBACK FROM US HERE IN REGARD
TO THIS. THIS IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT, AND, YOU KNOW, A
LEGISLATURE SESSIONS OF PREVIOUS
IS THE ONE THAT INSTITUTED THIS,
RECOGNIZING THE ISSUES AS IT
RELATED TO HIGH SPEED RAIL, AND
AT THE SAME TIME, RECOGNIZING
THE DESIRE THAT THAT PROJECT
MOVE FORWARD IN A WAY THAT
BENEFITED ALL CALIFORNIANS AS
WELL AS OUR BUDGETS. AND, THAT'S
, SUPER IMPACTFUL AND, FINISHED
WITH MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. THANK YOU. AND ALONG A
SIMILAR VEIN AS OUR AS OUR CHAIR
NOTED, THE ASSEMBLY AND I THINK
THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE IS
REALLY PRIORITIZING OUR
OVERSIGHT ROLE OR FOCUS ON
ACCOUNTABILITY. JUST IN GENERAL,
AND I THINK PARTICULARLY WHEN IT
COMES TO THE HIGH SPEED RAIL.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU ARE SITTING
HERE AND WE'RE GRATEFUL TO HAVE
YOU IN THIS ROLE, BUT IT IS SO,
SO IMPORTANT THAT AS WE'RE
STANDING IN THIS OFFICE UP, THAT
WE'RE DOING SO IN A WAY THAT
GIVES YOU THE INDEPENDENCE, THE
AUTHORITY AND THE STAFF TO
ACTUALLY DO THAT JOB, FOR THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA. AND SO I
Tð, THINK I THINK THAT THE LIU'S
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SPOT ON. AND
I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN WOULD
BE, DOES THE ADMINISTRATION I'M
NOT SURE WHO THE RIGHT PERSON IS
TO ASK IS THE ADMINISTRATION
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS? BECAUSE I THINK
THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WILL BE
ADVOCATING FOR AS WE MOVE INTO
THE BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IS THE
ADMINISTRATION'S REPRESENTATIVE
HERE TODAY, MATTHEW MACEDO,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS I
JUST WANT TO ADDRESS, SOME OF
THE LOSS, POINTS, AND SOME OTHER
THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP.
FIRST, REGARDING THE TEMPORARY
NATURE OF THE FOUR POSITIONS,
THIS IS A NEW DEPARTMENT, AND SO
, YOU KNOW, FINANCE FEELS THAT
THE WORKLOAD FOR ALL THE
POSITIONS MAY BE JUSTIFIED, BUT
WE DON'T HAVE ESTABLISHED
WORKLOAD, AND SO IT'S A
CHALLENGE TO DETERMINE EXACTLY
HOW MANY POSITIONS ARE NEEDED, I
RECOGNIZE MR. BELNAP HAS AN
EXTENSIVE CAREER AS AN AUDITOR.
AND KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING ON
THAT LEVEL, BUT, IT STILL
DETERMINED DIFFICULT TO
DETERMINE AN EXACT LEVEL OF
WORKLOAD, INTENSITY AND HOURS,
REQUIRED. SO FINANCE DIDN'T WANT
TO ESTABLISH POSITIONS THAT
POTENTIALLY HAVE LITTLE TO DO
DAILY AND TEMPORARY POSITIONS
OFFER THE FLEXIBILITY NEEDED TO
DETERMINE TOTAL WORKLOAD, AND
THEIR TEMPORARY NATURE WILL BE
REEVALUATED BASED ON, MR.
BELKNAP'S WORK PLAN THAT HE
WILL, BE CONDUCTING ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS, AS HE STATED, SECONDLY,
ON THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO
PROVIDE ACCESS TO CERTAIN
POSITION CLASSIFICATIONS,
GENERALLY, FINANCE IS OPPOSED TO
CREATING, GRANTING SPECIFIC
DEPARTMENTS, ADDITIONAL
AUTHORITIES THAT WOULD REMOVE
THEM FROM THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
EXISTING PURVIEW, ALLOWING
STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS TO COLLEGE
STARS, EXIT EXCEPTIONAL
ALLOCATION PROCESS WOULD SET AN
INAPPROPRIATE PRECEDENT. THIS
PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONSIDER
POTENTIAL PITFALLS, INCLUDING
PAY COMPACTION, SALARY
DETERMINATION FOR DEPARTMENT
SPECIFIC CLASSES, BARGAINING
UNIT REPRESENTATION, AND OTHER
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND
PERSONNEL ISSUES THAT ARE
WEIGHED BY CAL HR. DURING ITS
REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONAL
ALLOCATIONS OF DEPARTMENT
SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATIONS.
FURTHERMORE THE HSR, OIG HAS
SEVERAL OPTIONS UNDER EXISTING
STATUTE, INCLUDING WORKING WITH
CAL HRA TO GO THROUGH THE
EXCEPTIONAL ALLOCATION PROCESS
OR GOING THROUGH THE HARVEST
MEMO PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT SPECIFIC
COMPENSATION POLICIES ARE NEEDED
TO ADDRESS OR NEED ARE
NECESSARY, OR APPROPRIATE FROM
THE STATE'S POINT OF VIEW,
THIRDLY, REGARDING THE TWEAKS TO
THE PROVISIONAL BUDGET LANGUAGE
AND TRAILER BILL, LANGUAGE
FINANCE OPPOSES THE PROPOSAL BY
LIU BECAUSE IT IMPACTS INTERNAL
BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, PROCESS
AND NEGOTIATION ON. GO AHEAD.
CONTINUE. ALL RIGHT, SO AND I'M
SURE THIS IS NOT YOUR INTENT,
AND I'M SURE THAT THE WAY THAT
THIS HAS BEEN HANDLED THUS FAR
IS NOT THE INTENT, BUT IT ALL
FEELS LIKE A WHOLE BIG, LONG
BUREAUCRATIC LIKE EXPLANATION
FOR WHAT EFFECTIVELY FEELS LIKE
SUBVERTING THE WILL OF THE
LEGISLATURE, WHICH, AS I SAID,
I'M SURE IS NOT YOUR INTENT. BUT
THAT'S HOW THAT EXPLANATION JUST
LANDED FOR ME, AND WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE IDENTIFIES AN AREA
OF SUCH FRANKLY CRITICAL
DEFICIENCY THAT WE THINK THAT AN
INSPECTOR GENERAL IS WARRANTED
AND A HIGH PRIORITY, IT FEELS AS
IF THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE
WORKING IN LOCK STEP WITH THE
LEGISLATURE TO HONOR THE INTENT
OF THAT, RATHER THAN COME UP
WITH ALL KINDS OF, LIKE, LITTLE,
YOU KNOW, SORT OF BUREAUCRATIC
LOOPHOLES THAT EFFECTIVELY
SUBVERT THAT INTENTION. SO I
WOULD, VERY STRONGLY URGE THE
ADMINISTRATION TO ENGAGE WITH US
IN A VERY AUTHENTIC WAY SO THAT
WE CAN ENSURE THAT WE STAND THIS
OFFICE UP, BECAUSE THIS IS I
MEAN, I HEAR ABOUT THE HIGH
SPEED RAIL AT EVERY COMMUNITY
MEETING I HAVE SINCE SINCE THE
DAY I WAS ELECTED, SIX YEARS
AGO, SO WE HAVE GOT TO, TO
AUTHENTICALLY ENGAGE IN GETTING
THIS PROJECT ON TRACK AND
IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND
RESOLVING THEM. THANKS. THANK
YOU. CHAIR, CAN I ASK A FOLLOW
UP QUESTION? ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON, YOU NOTED THAT, TO
STATUTORILY, ALLOW ACCESS TO
CLASSIFICATION WOULD BE
UNPRECEDENTED. I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT
CLEARLY. OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S NOT
BEEN DONE IN ANY OTHER WAY. I
BELIEVE THERE MAY BE ONE
DEPARTMENT THAT EXISTS THAT HAS
THAT AUTHORITY. AND NOTING THAT
A LOT OF THIS PARTICULAR OUR,
OFFICE, IG OFFICE, FOR HIGH
SPEED RAIL, A LOT OF WHAT YOU
HAVE WAS DONE STATUTORILY. IS
THAT NOT CORRECT IN COMPARISON
TO OTHER IG'S OFFICES? A LOT OF
THE POWER THAT THEY HAVE
LEGISLATURA. WELL EACH
DEPARTMENT IS SORT OF CREATED
STATUTORILY. AND SO WHEN
PREVIOUS LEGISLATURE, ENACTED
THE BILL, IT SORT OF CREATED THE
DEPARTMENT BASED ON OTHER IGS
AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT
EXIST. SO SO, I WOULD SAY NO,
THERE, THERE, EXISTENCE IN
STATUTE IS NOT UNPRECEDENTED,
OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER IGS
EXIST THE SAME WAY IN STATUTE.
SOME OF THEIR I THOUGHT SOME OF
THEIR AUTHORITY WAS, IS THAT NOT
SOME OF THE AUTHORITY THAT THEY
PARTICULAR, I GUESS THE OFFICE
OF YES OIG EXISTS BECAUSE OF
STATUTE. I JUST THOUGHT I
THOUGHT I HEARD AND I WASN'T
HERE DURING THE TIME THAT IT WAS
CREATED. OF COURSE, I THOUGHT I
HEARD THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF WHAT THEY HAVE, WERE
IN STATUTE AND THAT WAS
UNPRECEDENTED IN REGARD TO
CERTAIN AUTHORITIES THEY HAVE
THAT MAYBE OTHERS MIGHT HAVE BY
VIRTUE OF GRANTING BY THE
ADMINISTRATION OR, YOU KNOW,
PART OF A PROCESS. BUT THESE
WERE ACTUALLY PUT IN STATUTE, I
WOULD SAY NO, THAT THEY THEY'RE
THE HSR OIG HAS SPECIFIC, DUTIES
OUTLINED IN STATUTE, BUT I WOULD
SAY THAT EVEN THE CALIFORNIA
STATE AUDITOR FOR EXAMPLE, HAS
BROADER AUTHORITY THAN, THIS OIG
DOES. OKAY. AND DID YOU. YEAH, I
JUST WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE
THINGS, IF I MIGHT. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN MY UNDERSTANDING AND
OF COURSE, MR. BELNAP HAS WORKED
AT THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE FOR A
LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME. SO HE
CAN HE CAN COMMENT ON AS WELL ON
THIS. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THE STATE AUDITOR HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO CREATE ITS OWN
CLASSIFICATIONS. AND, BASICALLY
THE LANGUAGE, SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE THAT THE OIG, I THINK,
HAS HAS WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THEM
IS LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY
ALREADY EXISTS IN LAW FOR THE
STATE AUDITOR. SO THERE'S AT
LEAST ONE PRECEDENT AND ONE
PRECEDENT IN THAT SENSE. I DON'T
KNOW IF THERE ARE OTHERS
THROUGHOUT THE, THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, BUT I THINK TO YOUR OTHER
POINT, I THINK I GUESS I HAVE A
COUPLE COMMENTS, SO I THINK THAT
THAT, AS LEAST AS I'M AWARE,
SOME OF THE OTHER IGS ARE LISTED
IN STATUTE. I THINK THE
LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY FOR
THIS OIG, WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT
WAS IT WAS ESPECIALLY
INDEPENDENT. SO THERE ARE
DIFFERENT MODELS FOR OIG, SORT
OF THROUGHOUT GOVERNMENT, AND
SOME OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY WITHIN
IN THE DEPARTMENT. SOMETIMES
THERE'S AN INSPECTOR GENERAL
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, SOMETIMES
IT'S WITHIN THE AGENCY, IN SOME
CASES IT'S JUST NOT QUITE AS
SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT. AND MY
UNDERSTANDING, WAS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE REALLY PRIORITIZED
INDEPENDENCE WHEN IT CREATED
THIS PARTICULAR THE OIG. AND
THERE ARE NO THERE ARE A LOT OF
ASPECTS OF SORT OF HOW THAT WAS
DONE IN THE LAW. AND IT ALSO
CREATED SOME LANGUAGE THAT
REALLY, AT LEAST TO ME,
SUGGESTED SOME INTENT THAT THE
OIG HAVE THE ABILITY TO HIRE THE
NEEDED PEOPLE. THERE'S SOME
LANGUAGE IN STATUTE, THAT
REQUIRES OIG TO SELECT A POINT
AND EMPLOY OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT
ITS FUNCTIONS, AND REQUIRES THAT
THE OIG ENSURE THAT THOSE
OFFICERS HAVE THE REQUISITE
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE ITS
BROAD SORT OF LANGUAGE. SO I
THINK THE CHALLENGE, AS AT LEAST
AS I UNDERSTAND IT AND AGAIN,
MR. BELNAP, SHOULD CORRECT ME IF
I'M WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THAT THAT'S NOT SEEN AS
STRONG ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE OIG
TO ACTUALLY KIND OF JUST, YOU
KNOW, GO OUTSIDE OF THE TYPICAL
PROCESS. AND SO I THINK THAT'S
THE REASON FOR, FOR SOME
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
PROVIDE THAT. BUT, I DON'T KNOW
IF THAT'S HELPFUL CONTEXT. SO
THERE IS SOME STATUTE AND SOME
OTHER AREAS FOR OTHER OIG, BUT
THIS ONE REALLY I THINK WAS
MODELED TO BE A LITTLE, YOU
KNOW, ON THE STRONGER SIDE,
GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
PROJECT AND THE OVERSIGHT AND
SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THE
PROJECT HAS HAD AND JUST THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S INVOLVED,
IN THIS PROJECT AND THE STAKES,
WHICH ARE REALLY HIGH, AS THE
LEGISLATURE KNOWS, SENATOR, THE
CHAIR, SO WOULD BECAUSE OF THAT
INTENT OF ITS INDEPENDENCE,
WOULD YOU SAY THAT IF THE
LEGISLATURE WAS TO ENACT IN
STATUTE ACCESS OR THE ABILITY TO
CREATE CLASSIFICATION, ARE THEY
ARE WE SETTING A, A STEP FOR AN
UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION THAT
COULD BE APPLIED FOR EVERY
SINGLE TIME WE CREATE OR EVERY
SINGLE TIME AN IG IS CREATED,
THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THIS
THING THAT WE GIVE TO THE STATE
AUDITOR. I MEAN, I DON'T THINK
YOU WOULD I DON'T THINK YOU
WOULD HAVE TO. I THINK I THINK
CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY
WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE
LOOKED AT IN ESTABLISHING THAT
OIG, THE LEGISLATURE COULD COULD
LOOK AT THIS MODEL AND DECIDE,
IS THIS A MODEL THAT'S WORKING?
DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS AGAIN? DO
YOU WANT TO DO A DIFFERENT
MODEL? I THINK THAT WAS PART OF
THE PROCESS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
WHEN THIS ONE WAS CREATED, WAS
KIND OF LOOKING AT THE OTHER
MODELS OF OIG THAT THE STATE HAS
AND THAT OTHER THAT BOTH STATE
GOVERNMENT HAS, AS WELL AS THAT
ARE, YOU KNOW, IN PLACE IN THE
STATE AND OTHER PLACES AND
TRYING TO KIND OF CHOOSE FROM
AMONG THEM AND THINKING ABOUT
THOSE THINGS. BUT, YOU KNOW, OF
COURSE, NOW THAT THE OIG IS
GETTING UP AND RUNNING, THEY'RE
SORT OF ENCOUNTERING THE
PRACTICAL REALITIES OF, LIKE,
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE DETAILS
OF, OH, WE ACTUALLY WANT TO USE
THIS SPECIFIC AUDITOR
CLASSIFICATION, SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT THAT PERHAPS WERE
NOT NECESSARILY APPARENT, YOU
KNOW, WHEN THE, THE LANGUAGE WAS
BEING CRAFTED BECAUSE THERE WERE
JUST SUCH SORT OF SPECIFIC
DETAILS THAT I THINK THAT THEY
PROBABLY WEREN'T THE MAIN AREA
OF FOCUS, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE
LEGISLATION WAS BEING CRAFTED
IS, IS MY IS MY SENSE. BUT IF
THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT
ANYONE WANTS TO ADD ON ANY OF
THOSE POINTS, THANK YOU. I'LL
LET YOU ADD ON AFTER I SPEAK, IF
, IF YOU HAVE ANY ANYTHING AND
THE SAME THING WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, I WANT TO
PULL BACK AND, AND ASK OURSELVES
THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS WE
WANT GREAT OVERSIGHT. AND HOW DO
YOU GET GREAT OVERSIGHT? YOU
HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE PASSIONATE
ABOUT THEIR JOB, AND YOU DON'T
WANT SOMEBODY WHO GOES, OH, THIS
IS JUST MY JOB. AT 5:00, I'M
DONE. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M
THINKING ABOUT MY NEXT CAREER,
ETC. FOR OVERSIGHT LIKE THIS. IT
YOU NEED PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY
PROFESSIONAL. THEY KNOW HOW TO
BE LIKE LAO. QUITE FRANKLY. LOOK
HOW MUCH VALUE WE GET JUST RIGHT
NOW FROM FROM THE LAOS OFFICE.
PEOPLE THAT ARE PROFESSIONAL,
THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT
CONFRONTATIONAL, THEY'RE NOT
COMBATIVE, BUT THEY ALSO DON'T
GET PUSHED AROUND. AND THEY HAVE
A PATIENT AND THAT PATIENT
DELIVERS US. SO WE NEED 15
PEOPLE WHO ARE TAKING ON AN
ENORMOUS PROJECT, WHICH IS THIS
HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT THAT HAS
GOTTEN OFF TRACK, PARDON THE
PUN, MULTIPLE TIMES. RIGHT AND
HOW DO WE GET THOSE PEOPLE? AND
SO I HAVE TO SAY TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, I HOPE
THAT YOU'LL RESPECTFULLY SAY
THIS. YOU'LL TAKE THIS BACK TO
THE ADMINISTRATION. I THINK
YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THE
ASSEMBLY VERY COMMITTED TO THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LAO. AND
IT IS TONE DEAF TO NOT RECOGNIZE
IS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WHEN YOU
SAY, OH, WE WANT THE POSITIONS
TO BE TEMPORARY BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, FOR BUDGETARY REASONS THAT
WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE
WORK IS. WHEN IN FACT, EVERYBODY
KNOWS YOU CAN'T GET THAT PATIENT
AT PERSON TO COME HERE FOR A
TEMPORARY POSITION. YOU CAN'T
YOU JUST YOU CAN'T GET AS
PATIENT A PERSON PROBABLY TO
COME. YOU CAN'T GET AS QUALIFIED
OF AN AUDITOR TO HEAR SOME OF
THE DEPARTMENTS SAY, WHY SHOULD
I CREATE THIS CLASSIFICATION FOR
YOU? BECAUSE NOW YOU'LL BE
COMPETING WITH THOSE SAME PEOPLE
THAT I'M TRYING TO HIRE. THERE
IS A SHORTAGE OF QUALITY
AUDITORS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
TODAY SO THAT'S THE APPLAUSE.
I'VE JUST HEARD TIMING, RIGHT. I
WAS LOOKING FOR THAT. RIGHT. SO
SO I WANT TO EMPHASIZE HOW
STRONGLY THESE LAO
RECOMMENDATIONS SEEM. I HOPE
THAT WE DON'T HAVE A BATTLE OVER
THIS, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE. IT'S A IT'S SUCH A
SPECIALIZED DEPARTMENT. THE IDEA
THAT THIS COULD SET SOME
TERRIBLE PRECEDENT FOR THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. WHEN IT IS SUCH A
SPECIALIZED DEPARTMENT, DOES IT
DOES IT STRIKE ME AS A REAL THE
IDEA THAT THE BUDGET SAVINGS OF
MAKING THESE POSITIONS TEMPORARY
VERSUS PERMANENT, WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A DEPARTMENT OF 15
DOESN'T DOES IT ALSO STRIKE ME
AS REIGNING? TRUE, IN TERMS OF
COMMON SENSE? THE IDEA THAT, WE
DON'T HAVE FIRM GUIDELINES ON
HOW WE ARE NOTIFIED ABOUT A
CHANGE THAT WE'VE ASKED TO BE
NOTIFIED ABOUT JUST DOESN'T MAKE
COMMON SENSE. THIS IS NOT A
FIGHT WORTH HAVING, IN, IN MY
MIND. BUT. SO I'M GOING TO LET
YOU ANSWER TWO QUESTIONS, THAT I
HAVE IF YOU OPPOSE STATUTORY
AUTHORIZATION AND IF YOU HAVE
ANY BELIEF THAT WE HE HAS A
DIFFICULT JOB AND HE'S GOT TO
GET GOING, HE CAN'T WAIT THREE
YEARS TO GO THROUGH THE NORMAL
REVIEW PROCESS AND GET APPROVAL
FOR THIS CHANGE. WHAT DO YOU
GUYS HAVE IN MIND FOR SPEEDING
UP THE AUTHORIZATION? IF WE
DON'T TAKE THE BULL BY THE HORNS
AND DO IT STATUTORILY? I
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT. THE,
POSITION MR. BELKNAP IS IN, HE'S
TRYING TO BUILD A NEW OFFICE.
HE'S UNDER YOU KNOW, STRICT
SCRUTINY FROM THE LEGISLATURE,
FROM THE PUBLIC, ALL I'D SAY IS
THAT THERE ARE EXISTING
POSITIONS THAT EXIST THAT HE
COULD HIRE. IT'S JUST THAT THE
SPECIFIC POSITIONS THAT, WE
WOULD BE REQUESTING EXEMPTION
FOR, ARE JUST PAID A LITTLE A
LITTLE MORE AND, I THINK THOSE
CLASSIFICATIONS EXIST FOR A
REASON, AND THEY ARE ONLY
ACCESSIBLE TO CERTAIN AUDITING
DEPARTMENTS FOR A REASON, AND
ALL ALL WE ARE SAYING IS THAT WE
SHOULD GO THROUGH THE EXISTING
PROCESS TO SORT OF WEIGH THE
PROS AND CONS OF GRANTING
EXEMPTION OR NOT, OF WHETHER
THIS DEPARTMENT IS WORTHY OF
THIS. RIGHT. AND THAT PROCESS
TAKES A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND
THAT IS AND THIS DEPARTMENT IS
IN NEED OF PULLING ITSELF
TOGETHER. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. MY NEXT
QUESTION FOR YOU, IF THE
LEGISLATURE APPROVES THIS BQP
BQP, WHICH HAS THESE POSITIONS
RIGHT, ISN'T IT A VIOLATION OF
THE LAW IF THE ADMINISTRATION
DOESN'T ALLOW THE CLASSIFICATION
, IT IS NOT. WE WILL, ESTABLISH
THE SORT OF EXISTING ONES THAT
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, AND THE
FUNDING WILL BE, SORT OF
ACCESSIBLE SHOULD, SHOULD THE
CHA PROCESS GO THROUGH AND HE
DOES GET ACCESS TO THEM, BUT IF
HE DOESN'T, WE'LL ESTABLISH SOME
OF THE OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS AND
, THE MONEY WILL BE, SAVED OUT
AND REVERTED BACK TO THE PTA.
WHAT POSITIONS WOULD THEY BE
ALLOWED TO FILL? I'D HAVE TO GET
BACK TO YOU ON THAT. OR MAYBE
MR. BELKNAP KNOWS EXACTLY WHICH
ONES. WELL, NOW IT'S TIME TO
TURN TO YOU. I WANTED TO LET YOU
KIND OF HAVE THE VÀ. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. SO THE ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION WOULD BE A MIDDLE TIER
AUDITOR CLASSIFICATION. THOSE
UPPER END CLASSIFICATIONS WE
WOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO. THERE
ARE TWO TIERS, ONE VERY LOW END,
ONE MIDDLE AND THEN UPPER. WE
DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO UPPER, I
WANT TO DO A LITTLE SIDE. THIS
HAS BEEN A VERY PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATION. I HOPE THAT
NOTHING ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION
GIVES YOU THE INDICATION THAT WE
HAVEN'T HAD VERY GOOD
RELATIONSHIP AND CONVERSATIONS
WITH DOV IN SO MANY WAYS, MR.
PETERSON AND MR. MACEDO HAVE
BEEN HELPFUL IN SETTING UP THIS
OFFICE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
1 OR 2 AREAS OF CONFLICT THAT
REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE
ON. AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT
MR. MACEDO HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY
REASONABLE THROUGHOUT THIS
PROCESS. SO I HOPE YOU DON'T GET
THE IMPRESSION THAT WE'VE BEEN
BICKERING BECAUSE WE'VE NOT
BEEN. IT'S BEEN VERY GOOD. GOOD
RELATIONSHIP, THE ONLY THING
THAT WE'RE ASKING THAT MY OFFICE
IS ASKING IS THAT WE HAVE THE
ABILITY TO MATCH THE OTHER
CLASSIFICATIONS THAT OTHER
AUDITING ENTITIES ARE USING. SO
I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF
PRECEDENT THAT IS. WE HAVE THAT
THE PRECEDENT WOULD BE THE
AUTHORITY, BUT TO MATCH
SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN
ESTABLISHED, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT
TRYING TO EXCEED THEIR PAY
SCALES. WE JUST WANT TO MATCH
THEM SO WE CAN COMPETE NOW, NOT
A YEAR OR TWO FROM NOW. THAT'S
ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. YEAH, I HAVE TO
AGREE BECAUSE PART OF THE
COMMENT THAT YOU GAVE IS THAT
ONCE CAL HR OR THE PROCESS
DETERMINES THAT IT'S BECAUSE
THEY'RE AVAILABLE ONLY I THINK
THE PHRASING YOU USED THAT I
WROTE DOWN WITH QUOTES ONLY
ACCEPTABLE FOR A REASON, WHICH
IT SEEMS LIKE THE LEGISLATURE
HAD ALREADY ESTABLISH THAT THE
REASON WHY THOSE WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT
WE CREATED THE OIG WITH THE
LEVEL OF INDEPENDENCE THAT IT
HAS, AND AS WELL AS THIS IS A
MEGA PROJECT, WE HAVE
SIGNIFICANT BUDGETS IN THE
STATE, PRETTY HUGE, AND MOST OF
THEM ARE IN TRANSPORTATION,
WHICH IS WHY THERE'S A WHOLE,
HEARING ON JUST TRANSPORTATION
TODAY, AND THIS PROJECT IS
EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT FOR THE
FUTURE OF CALIFORNIA AND FOR
THE, NOT ONLY US WHO WILL BE
ALIVE ONCE THIS GETS DONE, BUT
THE GENERATIONS TO COME AND, IT
IS FIRST REALLY IN OUR NATION
AND, AND THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS
THAT ARE FLOWING THROUGH ON THIS
PROJECT THAT REQUIRE THE
EXPERTISE THAT THAT AN
INDEPENDENT OIG SAYS THAT THEY
REQUIRE. AND I THINK THAT'S THE
SPIRIT, THAT THE LEGISLATURE
BROUGHT THIS FORTH IN. AND SO
THE FACT THAT THROUGH THERE
THERE'S A PROCESS WHERE IT'S
DETERMINED ONLY ACCEPTABLE FOR A
REASON, AND THAT WOULD TAKE
MULTIPLE YEARS, IS CONCERNING TO
ME. AND SO I'LL DO WHATEVER IN
MY POWER AS CURRENT
TRANSPORTATION CHAIR, THAT TO BE
ABLE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT
TAKEN CARE OF. I LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH YOU RIGHT, BECAUSE
THIS IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT TOPIC
IN INDEPENDENCE. I'M JUST GOING
TO SWEEP AROUND ONE MORE TIME
WITH PEOPLE WITH ANY CONCLUDING
COMMENTS, ANY ANY CONCLUDING
COMMENTS. LEO, NOTHING TO ADD.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. RIGHT ALL
RIGHT, I APPRECIATE THE
PROFESSIONALISM YOU'VE DISPLAYED
TODAY, I'VE RECOGNIZED THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION ISN'T JUST ANTI,
ANY KIND OF OVERSIGHT AT ALL,
BUT THAT YOU HAVE, ISSUES AND
CONCERNS. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING
ABLE TO HONESTLY HEAR THAT. IT
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TONE DEAF ON
A COUPLE OF THINGS, BUT THAT'S
OFFERED IN A PROFESSIONAL, QUITE
FRANKLY, IN A PROFESSIONAL
GUIDANCE. I MEAN, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PETRIE-NORRIS POINTED OUT
THIS IS HOW IT SOUNDS TO ME.
RIGHT? AND I'M SAYING THAT'S HOW
IT SOUNDS TO ME. IT'S NOT THE
FIGHT WORTH WORTH HAVING, I HOPE
WE CAN GO FORWARD, WISH YOU
GREAT SUCCESS AND WANT TO RE
RE-EMPHASIZE, THE VALUE OF US
FEELING LIKE YOU WILL COME TO US
ANY TIME YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE
SOMETHING YOU NEED TO
COMMUNICATE AND I WOULD THINK IN
PARTICULAR TO THE TRANSPORTATION
CHAIR AND MYSELF, SINCE, YOUR
BUDGET COMES THROUGH HERE AND
YOUR POLICY ISSUES GO THROUGH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, THANK
YOU ALL VERY MUCH. IT'S BEEN
VERY HELPFUL, REALLY
PROFESSIONAL. APPRECIATE THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF EVERYBODY
HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. AND, WE
WILL NOW JUMP TO, MOTOR VEHICLE
COUNT. AND WHILE THEY, I'VE GOT
I'LL BE RIGHT BACK. ALL RIGHT.
COMMERCIAL BREAK. SO.
HERE'S.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WANT TO. I
JUST WANT TO. I HAD THIS THOUGHT
. AND THAT IS 80 MEMBERS IN THE
ASSEMBLY. THERE ARE VERY FEW
THINGS THAT UNIFY ALL OF US. I
THINK MAYBE THIS IS ONE TOPIC
THAT WE JUST COVERED THAT
PROBABLY DOES UNIFY VIRTUALLY,
80 OF US, BUT MOTOR VEHICLE
COUNTS, FUND SOLVENCY. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
BOWEN PETERSON, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. SO THE MOTOR VEHICLE
ACCOUNT PROVIDES FUNDING TO
ENFORCE THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE VEHICLE CODE
AND THE USE OF VEHICLES ON THE
HIGHWAYS. THE MVA CONTINUES TO
FACE OPERATIONAL SHORTFALLS
WHERE EXPENDITURES ARE OUTPACING
REVENUES, SINCE LAST MAY
REVISION, THE REVENUE HAS
INCREASED $134 MILLION OVER
EXPECTATIONS FROM 2022 23 TO 20
2425. HOWEVER OUR NEW CAR SALES
AND REGISTRATION RENEWALS
CONTINUE TO SLOW OVERALL,
AFFECTING THE REVENUE GROWTH.
TOTAL REVENUE IN 20 2425 IS
EXPECTED TO BE ABOUT $4.9
BILLION, WITH THE MAIN SOURCES
OF THAT BEING AN ANNUAL $71
VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE AND A
$32 CHP FEE. EXPENDITURES ARE
EXPECTED TO BE $5 BILLION, WITH
CHP SPENDING ABOUT THREE 3
BILLION AND DMV SPENDING ABOUT
1.4 BILLION. THE 20 2425 MVA
FUND BALANCE IS EXPECTED TO BE
ABOUT $53 MILLION, AND I WILL BE
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU, LAO.
THANK YOU, LUKE KUSHMARO, THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST OFFICE. AS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE NOTED,
EXPENDITURES ARE OUTPACING
REVENUES AS A RESULT OF THIS
STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE. THE MVA IS
PROJECTED TO BECOME INSOLVENT
BEGINNING IN 2025, 2026, IN
RECENT YEARS, THIS EXPENDITURE
HAS OUTPACED REVENUES BY ABOUT
EIGHT PERCENTAGE POINTS. MAJOR
DRIVERS INCLUDE, THE REPLACEMENT
OF CHP AND DMV FIELD OFFICE,
WHICH IS A TEMPORARY EXPENDITURE
, INCREASED EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION COSTS, WHICH THE
STATE CURRENTLY HAS LIMITED
ABILITY TO CONTROL. AND THE
REASON FOR THIS LIMITED CONTROL
IS THAT FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS,
STATUTE HAS BASED CHP OFFICER
COMPENSATION ON THE AVERAGE OF
FIVE SPECIFIC JURISDICTIONS IN
THE BAY AREAS IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, AND WHAT THEY PAY
THEIR SWORN OFFICERS BECAUSE THE
PAY INCREASES FOR THE CHP
OFFICERS IS WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON
DECISIONS MADE BY THESE FIVE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE STATE HAS
LIMITED CONTROL, AND PAY
INCREASES COULD BE HIGHER OR
LOWER THAN THE ASSUMPTIONS,
WHICH COULD MOVE THE DATE WHEN
THE FUND BECOMES INSOLVENT,
EITHER SOONER OR POTENTIALLY
PUSH IT BACK, DEPENDING ON WHAT
THESE INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTIONS
DO, IN ADDITION, WORKLOAD
ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW DRIVER'S
LICENSE AND ID CARDS THAT COMPLY
WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS HAS BEEN
A SOURCE OF EXPENDITURES AND
SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PAYMENTS
RELATED TO A 2017 2018 BUDGET
ACTION. THE STATE HAS UNDERTAKEN
IN PAST EFFORTS TO, BOLSTER THE
FUND. EXAMPLES INCLUDE ENDING A
PRACTICE OF TRANSFERRING ABOUT
90 MILLION ANNUALLY FROM THE MVA
TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND
ALLOWING REGISTRATION FEES TO BE
ADJUSTED ANNUALLY TO ACCOUNT FOR
INFLATION. HOWEVER, THE
EXPENDITURES HAVE GROWN FASTER
THAN INFLATION, WE RECOMMEND
THAT THE LEGISLATURE CONSIDER
MVA COST PRESSURES WHEN
EVALUATING NEW SPENDING
PROPOSALS, WE NOTE THAT THE
GOVERNOR PROPOSES SPENDING,
ABOUT 22,000,000 IN 2024, 25 AND
14 MILLION ONGOING IN NEW
FUNDING PROPOSALS, AND THEN,
UNTIL A PLAN IS PUT INTO PLACE
TO ADDRESS THE MVA'S STRUCTURAL
DEFICIT, WE SUGGEST THAT THE
LEGISLATURE SET A HIGH BAR FOR
CONSIDERING WHETHER TO APPROVE
SUCH PROPOSALS, IN ADDITION, WE
RECOMMEND THAT THE LEGISLATURE
DEVELOP A PLAN TO ENSURE THE
FUND REMAINS SOLVENT, IN ORDER
TO DO SO, EXPENDITURES AND
REVENUES MUST BE BROUGHT INTO
BALANCE, AS SUCH, WE RECOMMEND
THAT THE LEGISLATURE DEVELOP A
PLAN TO ADDRESS THE STRUCTURAL
DEFICIT ON AN ONGOING BASIS,
SUCH AS BY, INCREASING THE
SUSTAINABILITY OF THE FUNDING,
THROUGH REVENUE INCREASES SUCH
AS A FEE INCREASE IN VEHICLE
REGISTRATION FEES, REDUCING MVAS
COSTS OR SOME COMBINATION OF
THESE STRATEGIES, AS THE
LEGISLATURE WILL WANT TO
CONSIDER TRADE OFFS INVOLVED IN
THESE. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR EVERY $1
INCREASE IN THE VEHICLE
REGISTRATION FEES, THE MVA
REVENUES WOULD INCREASE BY ABOUT
$36 MILLION. HOWEVER, THIS WOULD
RESULT IN INCREASED COSTS FOR
HOUSEHOLDS AND BUSINESSES THAT
OWN VEHICLES. SIMILARLY,
REDUCING COSTS WOULD ALSO HAVE
TRADE OFFS, NOTABLY THAT IT
WOULD REDUCE SERVICE LEVELS,
WHICH COULD AFFECT PUBLIC
SATISFACTION. IN THE CASE OF THE
DMV AND PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE
CASE OF CHP, BECAUSE IT WOULD
RESULT IN REDUCED ENFORCEMENT,
IN ADDITION, WE RECOMMEND THAT
LEGISLATURE CONSIDER COST
PRESSURES, IMPACTS FROM EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION, BOTH IN TERMS OF
HOW TO ABSORB FUTURE INCREASES
AS EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION RISES
TO HELP ENSURE THE FUND DOESN'T
BECOME INSOLVENT AGAIN IN THE
FUTURE, AND ALSO TO CONSIDER
POTENTIALLY CHANGING THE
METHODOLOGY FOR SETTING CHP
OFFICER PAY TO INCREASE THE
STATE'S FLEXIBILITY. WE ALSO
RECOMMEND CONSIDERING THE MVA
CAN FUND CONDITION WHEN
EVALUATING FUTURE MEMORANDUMS OF
UNDERSTANDING NEGOTIATED BETWEEN
THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE
BARGAINING UNITS REPRESENTING
DMV AND CHP EMPLOYEES. THANK YOU
, THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
QUESTIONS. AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR
, WHAT WHAT ARE WHAT ARE YOU
YOU'VE GIVEN US, YOU KNOW, SOME
OPTIONS TO CONSIDER, ARE THERE
ANY SORT OF SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS MOVING FORWARD
OR. WE'RE IN THE KIND OF
CONSIDERING OPTIONS PHASE, RIGHT
NOW WE JUST PUT FORWARD OPTIONS
FOR CONSIDERATION, THERE ARE A
FEW DIFFERENT APPROACHES. WE
NOTE THAT THE FUND IS EXPECTED
TO REMAIN SOLVENT THROUGH THE
BUDGET YEAR, BUT WE RECOMMEND
TAKING ACTION SOONER RATHER THAN
LATER. CERTAINLY. AND I WOULD
AGREE THAT WE, WANT TO, I THINK,
CONFRONT THIS PROBLEM NOW RATHER
THAN KIND OF LET IT METASTASIZE.
I WOULD I GUESS I WOULD JUST I
WOULD CAUTION AGAINST OUR KIND
OF THROWING OUT SORT OF A 40
YEAR HISTORY OF THE WAY THAT CHP
OFFICERS ARE COMPENSATED. I
THINK THAT COULD POTENTIALLY
LEAD TO PICKING UP ON THE
CONVERSATION WE JUST HAD. IF
YOU'RE NOT SETTING, A SALARY
RANGE THAT'S COMPETITIVE WITH
OTHER AGENCIES. WE TALKED ABOUT
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL EARLIER,
NEEDING TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH
OTHER AUDITOR POSITIONS IN THE
SAME WAY WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE CHP IS ABLE TO BE
COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, I THINK,
WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF THAT
FORMULA TO BEGIN WITH, SO I KNOW
THE CONVERSATION WILL CONTINUE,
BUT I WANT US TO, I THINK PAUSE
BEFORE WE THINK THAT'S AN EASY
SOLUTION TO SOLVING THIS
PROBLEM. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON
I'M JUST TAKING IT ALL IN AS IT
RELATES TO THE INSOLVENCY FACTOR
, I APPRECIATE SOME OF THE,
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE GIVEN
TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS,
I'M CONCERNED THAT EVEN WITH
THOSE, IT I'M CONCERNED IF WE
EVEN TAKE THOSE, WILL IT DO WHAT
IT NEEDS TO DO. BECAUSE IT'S
REALLY A LONG A LONG TERME ISSUE
, AND SO I DON'T HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO IT, BUT
JUST KNOW THAT IT'S SOMETHING
THAT I THINK IS OF GREAT
IMPORTANCE AND AS I CONSIDER IN
MY POLICY ROLE, CONSIDER BILLS.
IT'S TOP OF MIND, FOR EVERY BILL
THAT WANTS TO DRAW ON THAT OR
INADVERTENTLY, BECAUSE MOST OF
THE TIMES IT'S AN INADVERTENT
DRAW, AND SO, JUST KNOWING THAT
I RECOGNIZE IT AS, AS AN ISSUE,
I APPRECIATE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK SOME, I
SEE POLITICAL WILL WITHIN OUR
BODY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOME I
DON'T, BUT ALSO FEEL LIKE, WE
LIKELY NEED TO HAVE MORE DONE.
ONE OTHER ASSEMBLYMEMBERS. SO
ONE OTHER QUESTION. SO IT FEELS
LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN A SITUATION
WHERE WE APPEAR TO HAVE A
STRUCTURAL DEFICIT AND WE'RE
GOING TO NEED TO FIGURE OUT A
WAY TO CLOSE THIS GAP SOONER
RATHER THAN LATER, THIS IS
PERHAPS NOT THE TIME FOR US TO
ADD NEW SPENDING. I THINK OUR
CONSULTANT JUST HIGHLIGHTED, I
GUESS IT'S THERE'S A THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL INCLUDES 22
MILLION, ONE TIME, 14 MILLION
ONGOING NEW SPENDING. IS THAT
CORRECT? OR DO YOU WANT TO WALK
US THROUGH, I GUESS BOTH THE
DETAILS OF THOSE PROPOSALS AND
WHY YOU WOULD BE SUGGESTING THAT
WE ADD ADDITIONAL, EXPENDITURES
TO A FUND THAT IS HEADED TOWARDS
INSOLVENCY DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. YEAH. SO MOST OF THE
PROPOSALS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING
ARE TO FUND ONGOING EXISTING IT
PROJECTS THAT ARE ABLE TO
SUPPORT DMVS, MODERNIZE IZATION
EFFORTS. SO BY NOT FOLLOWING
THROUGH WITH THESE, WE WOULD
RESULT IN STOPPING THEM IN THE
MIDDLE OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION,
WHICH WE DID NOT FEEL
APPROPRIATE. AND THIS WOULD
ADDITIONALLY DELAY THE PROJECTS
RESULTING IN GREATER TOTAL
PROJECT COSTS DUE TO COST
ESCALATION. OKAY, SO WHILE IT
PRESENTS AS NEW YOUR. IF I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID
CORRECTLY, IT'S NOT SO MUCH A
NEW IT'S NOT A NEW PROJECT, IT'S
THE COMPLETION OF AN EXISTING
PROJECT. RIGHT. OKAY SO PULLING
BACK AND TRYING TO LOOK AT THE
BIG PICTURE AGAIN, WE IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRY TO FUND
THE SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH
WITH THE DMV AND THE CALIFORNIA
HIGHWAY PATROL, WITH THE USERS
THAT USE THE HIGHWAYS AND USE
THE ROADS OUT THERE IN TERMS OF
TRYING TO DO THAT, WE SIMPLY
HAVE A MISMATCH BETWEEN THOSE
TWO, THOSE WITH THAT GOAL. WE
HAVE A MISMATCH BETWEEN REVENUES
AND EXPENDITURES AND THE THIS
MISMATCH HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR A
LONG TIME IN THE LEGISLATURE.
AND WE AS YOU KNOW, WE KEEP
PATCHING TOGETHER SOME
SOLUTIONS. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST
THAT THE BEST GOAL FOR US IS TO
TRY TO NOT JUST PATCH A COUPLE
OF YEAR SOLUTION ON, BUT INSTEAD
ACTUALLY LOOK AT THIS
HOLISTICALLY AND GO, WHAT IS THE
SOLUTION? BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS
DIFFICULT, EVEN POLITICALLY
DIFFICULT, UNTIL IT'S NOT
EVERYTHING CAN'T BE DONE UNTIL
IT CAN BE DONE. AND THAT'S
REALLY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN KICK
THIS CAN DOWN THE ROAD BY COMING
UP WITH SOME PATCHWORK SOLUTIONS
. I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO
INSTEAD SAY, LET'S TRY, BUT TO
ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND REALLY
DO THAT WOULD REQUIRE BOTH THE
ASSEMBLY, THE SENATE AND THE
GOVERNOR TO BE ON BOARD BECAUSE
THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY REALLY
CHALLENGING ISSUES OR THEY WOULD
HAVE BEEN SOLVED, THEY WOULD
HAVE BEEN SOLVED BY NOW. SO THIS
IS THE INITIAL COMMENT THAT I'LL
MAKE ABOUT ABOUT, STARTING. I
REALIZE THAT'S A, THAT'S THAT'S
A BIG PROJECT TO SORT OF SAY,
HOW DO WE GET OURSELVES TO THE
SPOT WHERE WE HAVE A SUSTAINABLE
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE OUTLINE,
WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO TALK
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LOTS OF
DIFFICULT THINGS, WE WON'T GET
THAT ALL DONE FOR THIS BUDGET.
YOU KNOW, THIS TIME. BUT THIS IS
THIS IS, IN MY MIND, THE
BEGINNING OF ASKING TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION. AND I THINK IT'S
REALLY APPROPRIATE TO HAVE, THE
TRANSPORTATION CHAIR NODDING HER
HEAD, GOING, WE WOULD BE BETTER
OFF. PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA WOULD
BE BETTER OFF IF WE CAME UP WITH
A LONG TERME SOLUTION TO THIS
MISMATCH BETWEEN REVENUE AND
EXPENDITURES THAN IF WE JUST
COME UP WITH A PATCHWORK
SOLUTION POLITICALLY, IT'S MUCH
EASIER TO COME UP WITH A
PATCHWORK SOLUTION, RIGHT? AND
WE AND WE AND WE ALL WE ALL
RECOGNIZE THAT. SO WE WILL BE I
WILL BE TALKING TO THE ASSEMBLY
LEADERSHIP ABOUT THAT AND SEE TO
WHAT EXTENT THEY'RE INTERESTED.
AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUE WILL
JOIN ME AND SORT OF HAVING THAT
CONVERSATION AS WE GO FORWARD.
THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO
COMPLIMENT, LAO FOR ANALYZING,
PUTTING OUT ALL THE OPTIONS YOU
KNOW, THAT'S THOSE ARE OPTIONS
THAT ARE FUNDAMENTAL. IF WE ARE
GOING TO TRY TO DO ANYTHING MORE
THAN KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD
WITH WITH PATCHWORK SOLUTIONS,
WHETHER THAT ALL COMES TOGETHER
POLITICALLY OR NOT, BUT AT LEAST
IT'S BEEN OBJECTIVE PUT UP UP
FRONT. I DO HAVE THIS QUESTION
FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION, WE'RE RECOGNIZE
THAT IT'S GOING TO BE BECOME
INVOLVED. BUT WHAT IS THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN? SO WE
DON'T WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR WHEN
WE ARE LITERALLY IN THE CRISIS
OF INSOLVENCY. DOES THE
ADMINISTRATION HAVE A PLAN TO
DEAL WITH INSOLVENCY AT THIS
POINT IN TIME THAT YOU EVEN
THOUGH WE RECOGNIZE IT'S A SHORT
TERME, KICK THE CAN DOWN THE
ROAD, KIND OF WHAT IS THAT PLAN?
IS THERE ONE YET? YEAH. SO
WE'RE, CONSISTENTLY MONITORING,
MONITORING THE CONDITION OF THE
FUND AND EXPLORING OPTIONS TO
LOWER EXPENDITURES AND OR
INCREASE REVENUES. BUT I ALSO DO
WANT TO NOTE THAT THE VALUES WE
HAVE ARE CURRENTLY BASED OFF A
FORECAST THAT IN THE PAST, HAVE
BEEN TIGHTER BALANCES THAN WHAT
WAS EXPECTED. SO CURRENTLY WE
ARE PROJECTED TO BE INSOLVENT,
WITH THE -$141 MILLION IN 2526.
BUT THAT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
WITH FORECASTING. SO PART OF
WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS SEE IF
THE FORECAST ARE ACCURATE OR
NOT. AND BEFORE YOU MAKE BEFORE
YOU COME UP WITH ANY ADDITIONAL
PLANS WITH REGARD TO THIS. YES.
GREAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE
ALL KNOW THAT JUST BE UP FRONT.
WE JUST ALL ALL KNOW WHERE WE
ARE. WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE HOPING
THAT THE FORECASTS ARE WRONG AND
THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE MONEY
AND THAT IN FACT, REVENUES AND
EXPENDITURES ARE THERE. WE
REALISTICALLY ALL KNOW THAT
PROBABLY NOT VERY LIKELY TO BE
THE CASE. RIGHT. AND WE ALL HAVE
WORK TO DO. WE HAVE A YEAR
BASICALLY TO WORK ON IT. WE'RE
PROBABLY FAR BETTER OFF IF WE
START NOW THAN IF WE START NEXT
APRIL OR MAY TO SAY, WHAT ARE WE
GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS CRISIS?
SO THAT'S AN OPEN INVITATION AT
LEAST FROM, THIS COMMITTEE. I
HOPE WITH THIS COMMITTEE'S,
AUTHORIZATION TO BEGIN THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AND WE'LL HAVE TO
TALK TO THE ASSEMBLY LEADERSHIP
ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT, ISSUE
SEVEN, PORTS AND FREIGHT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM TRAILER
BILL. YEAH. YEAH. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR CARLOS COHEN AGAIN.
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION
AGENCY. I'LL BE PRESENTING THE
ADMINISTRATION'S TRAILER BILL
PROPOSAL FOR THE PORT AND
FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM,
OR, IN OTHER WORDS, THE FIT
PROGRAM. THE 2022 BUDGET
AGREEMENT INCLUDED $1.2 BILLION
FOR INVESTMENTS IN SUPPLY CHAIN
RESILIENCY AND PORT AND FREIGHT
INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH INCLUDED
600,000,000 IN 20 2223. WITH THE
REMAINING 600 MILLION PLANNED
FOR APPROPRIATION IN 20 2324.
HOWEVER, SINCE THAT TIME, THE
FIT BUDGET HAS BEEN MODIFIED AS
A RESULT OF BEING ONE OF MANY
SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE REVENUE
SHORTFALLS THAT WE'VE HAD OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS. SPECIFICALLY, THE
ANTICIPATED 2023 APPROPRIATION
HAS BEEN SPREAD ACROSS SEVERAL
FISCAL YEARS, AND HAVE ALIGNED
THE EXPECTED EXPENDITURE WITH
THE BUDGET ESSENTIALLY AS A
RESULT OF THE FIT BUDGET CHANGES
FOR GRANT AWARDEES HAVE STARTED
REQUESTING LETTERS OF NO
PREJUDICE. LETTERS OF NO
PREJUDICE FORMALLY NOTIFY GRANT
AWARDEES THAT THEY MAY USE THEIR
OWN FUNDING TO START WORK ON
THEIR FIT PROJECTS BEFORE GRANT
FUNDING IS AVAILABLE FOR
REIMBURSEMENT. THE LETTERS
PROVIDE GRANT AWARDEES WITH AN
ASSURANCE THAT COSTS THEY'VE
INCURRED ON THEIR FIT PROJECTS
WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FROM FUTURE MONIES
AVAILABLE FROM THE PROGRAM,
SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION FROM
THE LEGISLATURE. OF COURSE,
IMPORTANTLY, WE OH, EXCUSE ME,
GRANT AWARDEES THAT REQUEST A
LETTER OF NO PREJUDICE ARE
GENERALLY READY TO BEGIN WORK ON
THEIR PROJECTS AND ARE WILLING
TO ADVANCE THEIR OWN FUNDS
BEFORE GRANT FUNDING HAS BEEN
APPROPRIATED FOR COST
REIMBURSEMENT. IMPORTANTLY
LETTERS OF NO PREJUDICE ALSO
ALLOW GRANTEES. GRANT AWARDEES
TO BEGIN WORK ON THEIR PROJECTS
AT CURRENT MARKET COSTS INSTEAD
OF HAVING TO WAIT FOR THE GRANT
FUNDING TO START THEIR PROJECTS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE
PROJECT DELAYS USUALLY RESULT IN
HIGHER PROJECT COSTS, ESPECIALLY
IN AN INFLATIONARY ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT, WHICH COULD
JEOPARDIZE THE PROJECTS. THE
ADMINISTRATION'S TRAILER BILL
PROPOSAL WOULD AUTHORIZE KALSA
TO ISSUE LETTERS OF NO PREJUDICE
TO FIT GRANT AWARDEES, AND IS
NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET CASH
MANAGEMENT SOLUTION TO SHIFT THE
AVAILABILITY OF 100 MILLION IN
FUNDING FROM 2024 25 TO 20 2627,
WHICH WAS ALSO ADOPTED AS PART
OF THE EARLY BUDGET AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION. THE TRAILER BILL
ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR AN
EXEMPTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES ACT, WHICH IS
NECESSARY TO ALLOW KALISTA TO
MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY TO ISSUE
LETTERS OF NO PREJUDICE TO FIT
GRANT AWARDEES, TO AVOID PROJECT
DELAYS, TO THE EXTENT THE APA
EXEMPTION IS DENIED, THE LETTERS
OF NO PREJUDICE GUIDELINES WOULD
BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS
PROCESS, WHICH COULD BE LENGTHY
AND PROTRACTED, TAKING
APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR TO
COMPLETE. GRANT AWARDEES WOULD
HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE
REGULATIONS PROCESS WAS COMPLETE
TO RECEIVE A LETTER OF NO
PREJUDICE AND RISK INCREASED
COSTS FROM THIS DELAY. OTHER
STATUTES GRANTING THE ABILITY TO
ISSUE LETTERS OF NO PREJUDICE
PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF
GUIDELINES WITH A PUBLIC COMMENT
PROCESS. THIS METHOD BALANCES
THE NEED FOR AGILITY WITH PUBLIC
INPUT AND TRANSPARENCY. FOR
THESE REASONS, CASA REQUESTS
APPROVAL OF THE TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE AS SUBMITTED. MY
COLLEAGUES AND I ARE AVAILABLE
TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT
YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, TED
THOÁT, DEPARTMENT FINANCE, WE
DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENT, BUT READY FOR ANY
QUESTION. THANK YOU. WE HAVE NOT
RAISED CONCERNS WITH THIS
PROPOSAL. THANK YOU, SO,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, MY ONLY
QUESTION IS, IT FEELS LIKE
POLICY. AND, SO WHY NOT PUT THIS
FORWARD THROUGH POLICY THROUGH A
BILL OR AN AUTHOR? SURE. THANK
YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO
ESSENTIALLY, IF WE PUT IT
THROUGH THE POLICY BILL, IT'S
GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
POLICY PROCESS. SO IT'S GOING TO
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, LONGER THAN
BEING ABLE TO JUST ISSUE A
LETTER OF NO PREJUDICE. ONCE WE
GET THE REQUEST FROM THE
GRANTEES THAT ARE READY AND ABLE
AND WILLING TO USE THEIR OWN
FUNDING TO BEGIN COSTING THE
PROJECT. SO IN THE IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME, TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE CAN GET THE PROJECT
STARTED, AND AVOID ANY POTENTIAL
DELAYS AND INCREASED COSTS AS A
RESULT OF INFLATION. WE'VE
REQUESTED FOR THE EXEMPTION. AND
SO WHEN WE INITIALLY SET UP THIS
PROGRAM, IT WAS A ONE TIME
FUNDING FOR PORT AND FREIGHT
INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE WE HAD
MONEY AT THE TIME, WE DIDN'T
ANTICIPATE HAVING TO DELAY THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE FUNDING, AND
SO WE BASICALLY HAVE WE'VE COME
UP WITH THE, THE LANGUAGE REALLY
TO IMPLEMENT THE SOLUTIONS AND
TO BE ABLE TO, QUICKLY BE ABLE
TO GET THE, THE LETTERS OF NO
PREJUDICE OUT THERE TO THE GRANT
AWARDEES. SO, SO THE LEGISLATURE
LAST YEAR ADOPTED LANGUAGE WITH
THE INTENT TO SAY WE WANTED TO
TRY TO DECREASE THESE, APAS AND,
WHAT'S THE ADMINISTRATION'S
THOUGHT? DO YOU WANT TO JOIN THE
LEGISLATURE IN TRYING TO
DECREASE THE APAS? I WOULD SAY
THAT WE ARE SENSITIVE TO THE
LEGISLATURE'S, DESIRE TO REDUCE
THESE OCCURRENCES. HOWEVER, FOR
THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, WE FEEL
THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE
THE ABILITY TO MOVE, AS QUICKLY
AS THE GRANT AWARDEES ARE ABLE
TO MOVE. COULD COULD YOU DO IT
BY EMERGENCY REGULATION? SO I
BELIEVE THE EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS PROCESS, IT'S
ANYWHERE FROM SIX MONTHS TO A
YEAR, SO IT WOULD IT WOULD JUST
CAUSE A FURTHER DELAY. SO WE
CERTAINLY COULD. IT'S JUST THAT
IT COULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE
COSTS AS A RESULT OF THE DELAYS.
SO DO YOU THINK THIS IS MORE
LIKE AN ISOLATED SITUATION AND
ALSO THE CIRCUMSTANCES JUST CALL
FOR THIS. YES. I WOULD I WOULD
ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT, OUR
STAFF DOESN'T AND IS
RECOMMENDING THAT WE GO WITHOUT
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
EXEMPTION. AS YOU AS YOU KNOW,
THAT'S WHAT'S WRITTEN UP IN THE
REPORT. SO I THINK WE'LL WE WILL
WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU
ABOUT ABOUT THIS STAFF
RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF WHAT
WE SHOULD DO RIGHT. HAPPY TO
HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATIONS.
THANK YOU. YEAH. THROUGH THE
CHAIR, ONE FOLLOW UP. WE'LL HAVE
MORE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHETHER
THE FACT THAT THIS BILL WOULD GO
EFFECT IN JANUARY, AND IT'S NOT
UNTIL JULY. AND SO THE SIX
MONTHS YOU WOULD HAVE THE SIX
MONTHS TO BE ABLE TO, TO DO THIS
AND STUFF. SO WE WILL HAVE
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
THAT. ASSEMBLY MEMBER LAST
QUESTION, JUST TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTAND, YOU TALKED ABOUT
THINKING IT WAS ONE TIME FUNDING
AND YOU'VE HAD MULTIPLE
ITERATIONS OF THIS, THIS ALLOWS
IT FOREVER, RIGHT? IT'S NOT JUST
RELATED TO THIS YEAR ISSUE OF
100 MILLION. IT'S A PART OF THIS
PROGRAM. YOU ALWAYS WILL BE ABLE
TO DO THIS, RIGHT? YES. THAT'S
CORRECT. I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT
IT WAS ONE TIME FUNDING. SO WE
DON'T HAVE ANY MORE FUNDING.
THERE'S NO ONGOING FUNDING
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGRAM. SO
UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE
APPROPRIATED ADDITIONAL FUNDING,
THEN THE PROGRAM ENDS AS SOON AS
THE FUNDING RUNS OUT. SO YOU'RE
SAYING THE LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT
TALKS ABOUT THAT SPECIFIES YOU
CAN DO IT, THIS LETTER FOR THE
PORT AND FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM, IF IT'S NO, IF THE
FUNDS ARE EXHAUSTED, THEN THAT
AUTHORITY IS EXHAUSTED WITH THE
FUNDS. THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY
WOULD REMAIN SO TO THE EXTENT
THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING WAS
APPROPRIATED, THEN IT WOULD IT
WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THAT AS
WELL. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M
WONDERING. SO IT IS IN
PERPETUITY. SO WHENEVER THERE'S
FUNDING RELATED TO THIS, ANYTIME
THIS PROGRAM IS FUNDED, EVEN
THOUGH THERE WAS ONE TIME
FUNDING, NOW ANYTIME THIS
PROGRAM IS FUNDED, YOU WILL
ALWAYS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE THESE LETTERS. OKAY
THANKS. HEY, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WE APPRECIATE THE RESPONSE
. AS EVERYBODY AND WE ARE AT NON
PRESENTATION ITEMS. ANYTHING ON
NON PRESENTATION ITEMS. GREAT.
AND SO WE WILL NOW TURN THIS
OVER TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
THANKS FOR STICKING AROUND. I'LL
PUT UP A FINGER OF ONE WHICH
MEANS YOUR ONE MINUTE IS UP.
SPEAKERS. WHEN YOU SEE THAT IF
YOU'LL CONCLUDE PLEASE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR. JUST REAL
BRIEFLY, I WANT TO TALK OR
ADDRESS MYSELF TO THE ISSUE OF
POTENTIALLY BACKFILLING STATE
HIGHWAY ACCOUNT FUNDS FOR THE
DISPLACED ATP FUNDS I REPRESENT.
TRANSPORTATION CALIFORNIA. MY
NAME IS MARK WATTS, AND THE
ORGANIZATION I REPRESENT. WE'RE
SPONSORS OF SB ONE, ALONG WITH A
NUMBER OF OTHER FOLKS. AND WE
FEEL THAT THE MOVEMENT THIS YEAR
TO POTENTIALLY BACKFILL IS, KIND
OF AVOIDING A COMMITMENT WE
THINK WE MADE TO THE VOTERS WHEN
WE PUT SB ONE TOGETHER, WE
DEFEATED AND PASSED TWO
DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS IN THE ON
THE HEELS OF THE APPROVAL OF, SB
ONE. AND WE FEEL THAT THE VOTERS
WERE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
REHABILITATION RECONSTRUCTION
THAT WE NEEDED. AND I'LL GET
CLOSE TO IT, CALTRANS HAS DONE A
VERY GOOD JOB OF COMMITTING A
RESERVATION FOR ATP AND COMPLETE
STREETS WITHIN THEIR SHOP
PROGRAM. I REALIZE THAT DOESN'T
HELP LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OTHER
THAN THE CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAY
SEGMENTS, BUT IT IT IT IS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO, CHAIR.
JEANNIE WARD WALLER WITH
FEARLESS ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF
CAL BIKE TRANSFORM AND THE
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY, I WANT TO
ALSO SPEAK TO THE ATP ITEM, AND
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS AND
TO YOUR COMMENTS. EARLIER AND TO
THE ASSEMBLY FOR SUPPORTING THIS
PROGRAM. IT'S A HIGHLY POPULAR
PROGRAM. WE HAVE TEN YEARS OF
HISTORY OF GRANTS THAT ARE
MAKING A BIG DIFFERENCE IN
IMPROVING WALKING AND BICYCLING
IN THE STATE. WE RECOMMEND
BACKFILLING WITH STATE HIGHWAY
ACCOUNT FUNDS. WE THINK THAT'S
THE RIGHT SOLUTION. IT'S WHAT
YOU AGREED TO IN THE BUDGET LAST
YEAR. AND CONTRARY TO THE
PREVIOUS SPEAKER, THAT BUDGET IS
BIGGER THAN EVER BECAUSE OF
FEDERAL FORMULA FUNDS FROM THE
BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW.
THIS IS THE TIME TO DO THAT,
IT'S A SMALL PORTION OF THE
CALTRANS SHOP, BUT IT'S ALMOST A
FULL YEAR OF CONTINUOUS
APPROPRIATION THAT PROGRAM. SO
IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. YOU
RECOGNIZED IT'S AN IMPORTANT
CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM. AND ALSO
WE HAVE MORE FATALITIES ON OUR
SYSTEM FOR PEDESTRIANS AND
BICYCLES THAN EVER BEFORE. WE'RE
IN A CRISIS, SO WE NEED THESE
PROJECTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
DEAR CHAIR BENNETT, I'M. SOFIA
KHÎI, THE COALITION FOR CLEAN
AIR, AND I SPEAK ALONG WITH 21
OTHER HEALTH EQUITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE, LABOR AND FAITH GROUPS
WHO ALL JOINED IN A LETTER
ASKING YOU TO RESTORE FUNDING
FOR TRANSIT, ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION AND ZEV PROGRAMS
FOR THE SAKE OF OUR MOST
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES WHO
SUFFER FROM THE EFFECTS OF
WORSENING AIR QUALITY AND THE
CLIMATE CRISIS. AND WE
ESPECIALLY ALIGNED OUR COMMENTS
WITH THE COMMENTS HE MADE
EARLIER TODAY ON THE ATP PROGRAM
AND URGE YOU TO RESTORE THE 200
MILLION CUT TO THE ATP PROGRAM
IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. THIS
PROGRAM FUNDS MORE ACCESSIBLE
AND AFFORDABLE TRANSPORTATION
OPTIONS, MAKING IT VITAL FOR
CALIFORNIANS WHO CANNOT AFFORD
OR ARE UNABLE TO DRIVE. AND ONE
SOLUTION IS SUGGESTED IN YOUR
STAFF REPORT IS TO BACKFILL THE
PROPOSED CUT WITH A STATE
HIGHWAY ACCOUNT FUNDS, AS WAS
DONE LAST YEAR, AND THIS COULD
ALSO BE USED TO BACKFILL THE
COMPETITIVE FUNDING FOR THE TRC
PROGRAM. AND WHILE THE CURRENT
PROJECT PROPOSAL SUGGESTS
BACKFILLING SOME OF THAT FUNDING
USING GRF FUNDS, IF YOU USE THE
SRA INSTEAD, THOSE GRF FUNDS
WOULD BE FREED UP TO SERVE
DISADVANTAGED AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES WITH INVESTMENTS IN
HEAVY DUTY ZEV INFRASTRUCTURE
AND CLEANER MOBILITY OPTIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. STAFF, PLEASURE TO
BE HERE. AARON REED REPRESENTING
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
HIGHWAY PATROLMEN, WE'RE OPPOSED
VIGOROUSLY TO THE LÀ
RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY THE
SALARY FORMULA. THAT FORMULA HAS
BEEN IN LAW, NOT 40 YEARS, 50
YEARS, THIS YEAR, 50 YEARS,
1974. THAT BILL WAS SIGNED BY
GOVERNOR REAGAN. THE AUTHOR WAS
SPEAKER WILLIE BROWN. HE CARRIED
A SECOND BILL 20 YEARS LATER TO
MODIFY IT SLIGHTLY AGAIN WHEN
AUTHOR, ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND
SPEAKER WILLIE BROWN, IT HAS
HELPED US RECRUIT, BUT WE HAVE A
SERIOUS PROBLEM. WE HAVE ALMOST
1000 VACANCIES NOW, AND IT'S
BEEN PLAGUING US FOR THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS. YOU AUGMENTED THE
BUDGET OF CHP A YEAR AGO TO GIVE
THEM EXTRA MONEY FOR RECRUITMENT
. IT HASN'T REALLY HELPED ALL
THAT MUCH. WE STILL HAVE A
SERIOUS VACANCY PROBLEM. AND LET
ME ALSO ADD THAT THE FIVE
JURISDICTIONS THAT WERE TIED TO
DO NOT MAKE US THE HIGHEST PAID
IN THE STATE BY ANY MEANS. IF
YOU TAKE THE 100 TOP AGENCIES,
CITIES, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS,
PD'S, AND THE TOP 100, WE'RE
ABOUT IN THE MIDDLE. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
REED. GOOD AFTERNOON. AFTERNOON
GOOD MORNING. STILL, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. ALCHEMY. GRAHAM
WITH THE CALIFORNIA TRANSIT
ASSOCIATION ON ISSUES ONE AND
TWO. AND THEN NON PRESENTATION,
ISSUE NUMBER NINE. SO FIRST I'D
LIKE TO REGISTER THE ASSOCIATION
SUPPORT AND SINCERE THANKS FOR
THE LEGISLATURA. EXCUSE ME
ASSOCIATION SUPPORT AND SINCERE
THANKS FOR THE LEGISLATURE'S
SUPPORT OF THE TRC IN THE EARLY
ACTION BUDGET. THE EARLY ACTION
BUDGET HONORS THE COMMITMENT
MADE IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET AND
MAINTAINS THE $5.1 BILLION
INVESTMENT IN THE TRC WHILE
EXTENDING THE TIMELINE OF THE
FUNDING BY ONE YEAR. THIS
FUNDING WILL ENABLE TRANSIT
AGENCIES STATEWIDE TO KEEP
ESSENTIAL SERVICES RUNNING AND
DELIVER MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO TAKE A SECOND
TO PROVIDE A CORRECTION. JUST
FOR THE RECORD, THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS NOTES THAT THE FUNDS
HAVE NOT YET BEEN COMMITTED TO
AGENCIES BY THEIR RESPECTIVE
REGIONS. REGIONS HAVE ALL
DEVELOPED AND SUBMITTED PLANS TO
THE STATE THAT COMMIT THE
FUNDING TO AGENCIES, AND ARE
SIMPLY AWAITING APPROVAL OF
THESE PLANS. BY CAL ESTÁ. ON
ISSUE NUMBER TWO, WE ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT MANY AGENCIES WITHIN OUR
MEMBERSHIP HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE
OF CAL ITP. WE'RE STILL
AWAITING, STILL EVALUATING THE
PROPOSAL AND WILL FOLLOW UP IN
THE NEAR TIRM ON ISSUE NINE.
WE'D SIMPLY, SIMPLY LIKE TO
OFFER OUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. I'M
SO SORRY. SEEING THAT THERE'S NO
ONE ELSE, I HAVE ONE MORE FOR A
DIFFERENT CLIENT, IF THAT'S OKAY
. ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CITY TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE,
ECHOING PREVIOUS COMMENTS ON THE
ATP, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
WITH THAT, NO OTHER PUBLIC
TESTIMONY, WE'LL ADJOURN THIS
MEETING AND THANK EVERYBODY FOR
THEIR PARTICIPATION. APPRECIATE
IT. ALL RIGHTY