Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation, Wednesday, April 22, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Speaker 2
What happened with being able to draw down because of one time surplus dollars, we were able to get funding for the California Nutrition Incentive Program, which matches dollars with the federal program and the farm bill, to really do more local procurement to help people go to farmers markets and enjoy the healthy nutritious benefit of all that they can purchase directly from a farmer. Those are all hugely important investments. We also saw in the previous administration under secretary Vilsack significant investments that were made in resilient local food infrastructure and food business centers. I call those out because they all make up what we hope to transform as far as better access to local food systems that are equipped to be able to serve our farm to school program, hopefully with some of the new emphasis on food as medicine, health care institutions, and as our VA centers and other types of things. I cannot underscore how important the commitment of the legislature working in partnership with the administration on farm to school has been.
We have undertaken this pathway, I think, in a way that is a model for other states across the country. The interest of farm to school good morning. The interest of farm to school is very, very high because of the recognition If we can work with children from the youngest age to learn about healthy eating and what that means for their brain development as well as their physical development, we are we are making a difference in how they will eat for the rest of their life to avoid chronic disease. And we know from the estimates that at least fifty percent of chronic disease is directly related to diet and nutrition that's not matching up with avoiding those chronic diseases and the money that is spent on pharmaceuticals to address that at later stages of life. I'm going to take myself out of that category, but I could qualify, just so you know.
The program has had over 120,000,000 We are now reaching the school districts that serve almost fifty percent of our student population, kindergarten through twelfth grade. Just yesterday, I was part of a very meaningful conversation with the president at the University of California and the chancellor and several presidents of the CSU system who are all looking to go down a similar pathway. And I feel that we have the building blocks with the investment that we've made to really be able to move to the next phase of building out a local resilient food system with local procurement by institutions that really is important, especially now to small and mid sized farmers. It may not always be at the best price, but it will be hopefully a steady, reliable market, which makes a huge difference when you're planting for next year and you know that you have a market. You're gonna be willing because you can buy seed at that time or fertilizer at that time to know what the price is as opposed to the situation that many farmers are in now where they've already contracted out for this year's crop, but the investment for fertilizer and seed was made last year, so there's gonna be a mismatch there.
These these types of markets are really, I think, a salvation for our small and midsized farms When we think about just the number of regulations that happen to all small businesses, but in farming, it's literally hundreds of regulations across all of government. That that certainty of a market is what will really make a difference for them. So the governor's budget does propose continuous funding of almost $25,000,000 for the farm to school program. We've been able to capitalize on the investment that was made with a minimal amount of baseline funding for 16 regional navigators. What they are doing is matchmaking farms to schools and schools back to farms, helping to build that supply chain of understanding what's growing in season, at what volume do you need school nutrition director, it has already, in the five years that we've been running this program, has already helped small farms, some that are now the small farm aggregator for their neighbors, to help more farmers access the farm to school program.
We, from day one, built an extensive evaluation of this program to be able to evaluate initially economic benefit to small farms. We've been able to do that. And I have program people here who can go into some of those details, as well as understanding what's working and what else we need to do to make this job easier for school nutrition directors who do not have an easy job to do with the budgets that they have, and really thinking more holistically about small scale processing, as well as this program has already proven that it is pulling through products from farmers who are doing climate smart agriculture and or organic agriculture. It's good to do the practices. It's better to do the practices and know that there's a market for the way in which you are growing it.
And this is the most tangible way we have of knowing that. We know that we have the highest environmental standards. I'm very proud of our high labor standards that we have in this state. But it's important to also know we'll never have enough government dollars for incentive programs. We also need markets to work on rewarding that type of stewardship, that type of work with our farm workers are so important to our food system, and that we're getting it to people of all socioeconomic standing to be able to have access to this California grown food.
You gave me a few minutes to answer some specific questions. I do wanna touch on how important our work is with just our core programs, which is how do we protect the state of California, both our agricultural resources and our beautiful natural resources, from invasive pests? The invasive pest issue is something we're never going to get away from because as much as we love living in California, tourists like coming here, and we welcome them. We're a hospitality state. We welcome them.
But they can tend to transport stuff. We continue to have the ports of landing for about 50% of cargo that's going across the country. When we can stop stuff at our ports of entry, we're protecting other trees and landscapes from our invasive pests. And the investment that we make in our prevention program, as well as the ability to rapidly respond, is why we've been able to knock down every invasive pest infestation of exotic fruit flies. And we always do an analysis to know that it is a new form of that pest that we're knocking down.
We had a historic outbreak three years ago in Southern California. It was an all of government approach that included our friends from the Conservation Corps. We did everything from knockdown to mating disruption to tree stripping in Riverside County, which is the home to some of our earliest plantings of citrus orchards. And Conservation Corps was a hugely important partner of going door to door to take that food off the tree so we could disrupt that feeding resource to these pests, to double wrap it and unfortunately have to destroy it because you never know until you cut it open that there's a fruit fly in there. Very successful program.
Unfortunately, one of my questions is, what are we seeing from the federal government? And we have been told that there's about $7,500,000 less from what we did have for this type of program. And the number of pests and the variety of pests continue to change from different places of the world. Part of that is our climate is changing, so things can survive here longer. So that continues to be an important place to look at.
One of the things that we have just completed and should be released hopefully yet this month, but we're running out of April, is a three and onetwo year study taking a look at all the data points on the invasive pests that we have handled throughout the years to protect the state of California agricultural and natural resources to be able to do a deep dive analysis of the pathways that they're coming in on. And we have pathways that we didn't have twenty years ago when we did an analysis like this. One of those is e commerce, as just an example, in addition to all the cargo that moves up and down the state. We also last year had bird flu in a way that we've never seen. And this is one that keeps me up at nighttime when we think about zoonotic diseases that cross species.
We had bird flu, which traditionally is in birds. We now know that it's endemic in our wild bird population, and we're the home of the Pacific Flyway. We had a number of poultry farms that were impacted by this, but we had a crossover to dairy and then dairy back into the poultry herds. It is thanks to the investment that was made by you with the administration that we had the resources. I'm happy to say finally, after over 700 herds that had some level of infestation, we are now out of that situation.
But we have to be super vigilant. We have to make sure biosecurity on the farms is protective enough to be able to do that. I'm also pleased because of the investment that's happened in the last ten years. We have a new animal health laboratory that will be opening South of Modesto. I'm looking forward to that ribbon cutting and the new cutting edge technology that we'll have for improved diagnostics to help us find these things faster, respond immediately, and keep it from becoming a long term infestation.
I touched a little bit on changes that are happening at USDA under the new administration. In addition to ongoing budget cuts and just their proposed budget for this year, at the top line is about a 28% reduction at USDA. That includes not only cuts to some of our pest prevention programs, food safety programs, marketing programs, but also research. And the research program at USDA is over $1,000,000,000 a year. A lot of that is competitive funding that goes out to our universities, and part of it is also in house research.
I like to say, I know we don't grow as much corn as they do in the Midwest, but that's like eating our seed corn. Coast on the fumes of research that was done twenty five years ago and is still carrying us through. Now is not the time for research cuts. So that's one that we know. We have to watch very carefully what will happen with those AFIS programs that fund a lot of our cooperative work on the ground for pests as well as animal diseases.
One of the big ones that's not big in dollars but it's big in impact is what's being proposed for our National Agricultural Statistics Service. They have a lot of analysts that collect data on an ongoing basis throughout the growing season to give better crop forecasts, information that's very helpful for planning, for financing, for marketing, for everything that we do. And a lot of the cuts that are being proposed will affect a lot of our specialty crops because they're not grown in other states. It's part of a relocation effort that has been announced by USDA to put more people into field offices and not so many in Washington DC. That all sounds good, but most people won't fly to Salt Lake City to do a meeting with some of the branches that will be there.
Salt Lake City is a designated headquarters for the Western Region, and that that will take some getting used to, and we still haven't seen the final stages of that.
Speaker 2
I'll say, not to be a braggart, but it is thirty seventh in agricultural productivity. I'm just I'm just saying. That's all I'm saying. I love my friends from Utah. So that we're watching that very carefully because of some of the reports that would be probably eliminated if we're not able to pick that up.
We are hopeful that we'll be able to staff at least one or two positions while we make this transition to know what the final is going to be on that. There are other cuts happening in other agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, which we have a cooperative agreement for our Food Safety Modernization Act work for the 20,000 covered farms that are produce growers in this state. So far, that funding was increased last year with a lot of work by FDA. We feel that we're going to be Okay on that front, but there are other cuts that are happening at FDA. One of the other questions that I had was just about some of the pressures that we're seeing.
And I think I've covered that. You all know because of your constituencies in agriculture good morning, assemblyman the things that I've covered. We have had in recent years, because of the disruptions, the loss of the Chinese market where everybody's scrambling to build new markets in Southeast Asia, as well as South America, it takes years, if not decades, to build these markets, which we do through work through the USDA Market Access Program, which we're very fortunate that finally, after decades of being at a flat number, Congress did improve the funding for the MAP program. But those are dollars that can only be used for foreign market, marketing and emerging markets. And it will take us decades to rebuild new markets that can take the place of what China meant in the totality of what it was.
We also have to note that Canada and Mexico are two of our top five markets. They're also our neighbors, our friends, our business colleagues. And so we need to pay attention to what is happening there. Those global markets will continue to be crucial to the overall success of California agriculture. And being able to use our federal grants from USDA to do that marketing has given us expertise that we believe can also help us with the work that we have started to do on local resilient food systems, farm to school, more of that small scale processing of local goods to also get that into the school.
So the proposal that you'll see for the continuous funding for the farm to school program includes a couple of positions to really capitalize on the expertise we've built all with federal dollars, but being able to really use that expertise to better connect the entire food supply chain and the distribution systems that go with that. We also want to make sure that we're in a position to continue the technical assistance on climate smart agriculture to make sure that the foods we're pulling through that system are being produced with the types of practices that we know will help us draw down carbon and be a part of the climate solution, especially at a time where we're part of natural working lands and have targets for continuing this type of work for healthy soils and growing our organic production. I want to shift to the food safety risks because they are something that we spend a lot of time on in this state. Food safety is everybody's business. Like I said, we have 20,000 farms that are covered under the produce rule.
Natalie Kraut Greenberg here is from inspection services. With the funding in partnership with FDA, we've been able to build expertise to do the audits, the inspections, as well as on farm readiness reviews. We've had outbreaks. And when we have an outbreak, people do not distinguish what field, what county, or what state it came from. It can have not only a chilling effect on markets, more importantly, it's about people getting sick and people in the past who have died.
And this program is about preventing foodborne illnesses and understanding all of the factors that create the risk that we're about managing and creating this new way of looking three sixty degrees, where are the risks, including adjacent land uses, the water sources, both pre harvest and post harvest. It's very complicated, multiple decision making in that food chain. But the people of California that are in farming and also the packaging and getting that fresh produce to markets are very committed. We have great industry partners in being able to do this work. But being able to understand that microbial, that new pathogen that could be the one, have we really identified that risk and mitigated it as much as we can, is a lot of what this program is about.
And the ongoing need for research and education and partnership with our colleagues at the Cooperative Extension is going to be crucial to the total success of making sure when we put more local food into the food system, it's from farms that are practicing good food safety practices as well as what we're putting into national and international markets. I'm happy to answer questions about that. Lessons learned? There are so many. So many.
But when you have the privilege of working in agriculture in a state that is as productive, high quality, and diverse as Californians, that opportunity to connect us to our urban populations through urban farming, through our farm to school program, it's really critical to the health and well-being of every California citizen. So I would encourage people to look at the work that we have done to make sure that we are doing all that's possible to ensure the viability of small and large farms. 94% of our farms are still family owned. There's a misconception that they're not. 60% of our farms are less than 100 acres, and over 80% are less than 500 acres.
So what we do for small, medium, and large might be variations of the same types of things best practices on farms, ways to mitigate risk, ways to streamline and do smarter regulations, which we're trying to do with one small study that will be really soon, really taking a look at the Irrigated Ag Lands program and the Food Safety Modernization Act. These are two of the more recent big impact regulations that have also driven some of the increased costs for regulations on farms. And so trying to take a look at how there might be smarter ways to do more consolidated reporting, what could we do within the State Water Resources Control Board, which was a great partner for us on that, as well as in the Food Safety Modernization Program, to try to take a more integrated resource management approach on programs like this and really think about regulations in a smarter way that the 10 acre grower, the 10,000 acre grower can all feel comfortable and confident that they're in compliance with this multitude of regulations that are coming from so many different agencies. So with that, I'm open to questions. And I'm sorry there aren't more people here to ask them, but I know that the Assemblyman and you, Mr.
Chairman, probably have a few questions of things I didn't cover. I'm happy to go into more details about our budget, but I wanted to cover those big picture items that you were kind enough to give me the time to talk about.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much. And, again, we really have appreciated your leadership and and just your professionalism as we've worked with you with about the budget and about all things agriculture. I think I need to move closer after lecturing everybody else about getting closer to the microphone over the over the months. But we identified four questions for you, and you answered all four of them. And I really appreciate that because we don't have folk we don't have to spend that time on that.
But, you know, the things about what were the impacts from the from the federal administration cuts, what are the macro and structural supply chain pressures we have, the food safety question, and then your overall thoughts. So I'd like to take this time to engage you on one of the things and sort of invite, hopefully, a partnership for a unique approach that I'm I'm looking at. Number one, we in the legislature really value LAO's Yes. Recommendations to us and more so this year than in the past because we're we're moving into a real structural deficit and we have a real problem. So LAO is making a recommendation that we not fund the the food to school program.
It's a beloved program. It's a beloved program in my district. It's a beloved program in in in lots of places. But that's what they're they're recommending. And it's because they have a very clear standard that they put out there, and it's basically, all new dollars should be for absolutely urgent must, you know, not nice to have, but, must have.
And they've evaluated food to school as very valuable program, but doesn't meet the standard of must have like emergency room care or those kind those kinds of programs. At the same time, I know that the administration, the first partner, and the governor in particular are very very interested in the food to school program. I had the pleasure of visiting probably one of the most successful Yeah. Food to school programs in the state of California just last Friday. I don't think that the timing of that was a coincidence, but they they but it but it is a very successful program.
What's unique about that program or what stands out about that program is that they are an elementary school with a food production kitchen, and they received the funding for the food production kit kitchen from the farm to school program. The that's that's great, and it really shows. And you can see on that campus the impact of this program on exactly what we're trying to achieve, which is disadvantaged community, get them to have better eating habits, get them, really much more closely tied to the local agricultural industry that's around them. The challenge is not many of these elementary schools have food production kitchens. And so, consequently, I have a lot of local farmers that are talking to me about the food to school program doesn't help me very much.
Because if the school doesn't have a food production kitchen, they only want to buy my fruits. They don't want to buy my vegetables. And that that is that complicates our goal because our goal with Farm to School is not just to change young people's eating habits, but to also try to keep local farmers around urban centers. And I completely agree with you. As we saw with COVID, etcetera, the local food chain will become an increasingly valuable asset for any country to have, for any region to have, any community to have, if you can have locally grown food.
Just came back from, London and saw how during World War two, everybody planted a garden. Everybody. Every I mean, every the Buckingham Palace where all the flowers were got turned into a vegetable garden. You know? Every place, every every square inch of land.
That's what you do when you're in trouble. And there are lots of ways that we can be in trouble from a food production standpoint, and so having these local producers all there. So I'm interested in trying to resolve this recommendation from LAO, resolve this very good program, but nice to have program, and the fact that it's very good for some schools, but and some farmers, But it's not broad enough, and it it it we're we're gonna have difficulty trying to get it to be broad enough. The local food, purchase assistance program that I've been talking with farmers about actually connects the local farmer with not just the school, but also the food banks and the the these these other people. And that program seems to me to be a perfect one to marry with farm to school.
Speaker 33
So this is something that would take some real coordination between us and and this budget subcommittee and and your department and, hopefully, conversations, with the stakeholders, first partner and the governor's strong interest in this. But it seems like that program forces the local farmers to follow all of the food safety and and the the the good growing, requirements that you identified that are really important. And sort of is the feeder program so that those farms are ready to supply schools with, with these so you can have these local farmers around there survive with the local far local food purchase assistance program and be ready whenever we can get more of these elementary schools to have production kitchens. That's given how tight our budget is. Those two programs, I'm trying to find a way to marry them to some extent so we can maximize the impact for these farmers.
Speaker 1
Because when local farmers come to me and say, farm to school program doesn't help because they they're not buying our vegetables, only our fruits, I don't think that that's what we want to have in terms of our goals. So this is an invitation to work with you, and see if there is some kind of marriage between these two, that we could come up with. Now that's a very specific program, and we've got sort of the whole overview still ahead of us. And we'll talk about and I know that program comes up later.
Speaker 1
But while you're here Yeah. I wanted to make sure I extended this invitation to you and let you know that's one of the things that I want to try to work on and see if we can come up with some positive solution with that.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I appreciate that very much. And our part of the Farm to School program is part of the bigger picture because of what has happened at the Department of Education for investment in school kitchens as well as culinary training because you if you just put healthy food on a plate and it's not eye appealing or tasty and it's not consumed, it's not healthy. So I'm I'm very mindful of this. We're part of it because we were part of it specifically to make sure it was working with the farmers themselves.
And that's the regional navigators are part of building out that system to know who's got what capacity, what they need, and all of that. So I would say, had we not already been starting to make farm to school investment, that helped equip more people to be able to go into local food procurement because of the training. But also, we have three tracks for the grant program. One is specifically to farms to whether it's for food safety or other types of things on farm, in addition to supplementing work for the school nutrition program itself and then the experiential learning. So there are aspects to it.
And what we've done initially with our evaluation, knowing that measuring health outcomes is a longer term process and you're not going to get, you know, in year one, what was the health outcome? You can go to classrooms and talk to teachers and know immediately what the behavioral health aspects are for positivity. But we were measuring what we set out to do is measure is this actually helping small farms that have been the target of this? And the answer is yes, resoundingly. We've met and exceeded those targets.
And are they using the types of practices that we give an extra point on their application to? The answer is resoundingly yes. So we know that we've got this foundation in place to build out. The fact is that we have focused on Title I schools because we do understand the importance of serving historically underserved communities where maybe those children don't even have meals over the weekend. We know that's the important place to focus that attention.
And and our our if you see the map, and we've been able to provide maps to all of your offices of what's happening in your district, we are covering the state of California. I think we're over 40 counties of the 58 that have been recipients of this. And we continue to see growth of that as some districts take more time for planning. Some of our first ones are some of our smallest school districts in Modoc County as an example. So we're able to measure those things.
It's the longer term outcomes. We also know because of other programs that I've been involved with called Brighter Bites and others, when you're educating the children, you're educating the whole family. And when kids go home and say, we had broccoli today and it actually tasted good, that's not necessarily what my brothers would have said about their growing up experience with broccoli in the wintertime when it was a frozen block of mush. So I feel like there's more measurement to do, but we're committed to the evaluation to make sure the dollars are well spent. And this is the foundation to go to local food procurement, which is hugely important.
The food banks themselves are better equipped with some of the COVID dollars that have given them additional warehousing, cold storage, which is really important to the produce aspect of this and the fresh stuff, as well as being able to be potentially positioned. Some of them have incorporated commercial scale kitchens to teach people how to cook what's in that produce box. So they could themselves become part of the food hub system. We also, with funding from the legislature and the administration, we were able to let out almost $14,000,000 for a pilot program for food hubs. And we had 12 awards that we could make.
We had approximately $14,000,000 The demand for that was $140,000,000 So the momentum of actually investing in local communities to do this kind of work is there. We have to tie it all together. I would argue that having what we've started to do at the foundational part, meaning the farmers to the school districts, has given us a system. And with some of the proposal that is before you on a couple of additional staff members that have the expertise of connecting small scale processing, and there's a track to support that, we can really build out the system to make all of these programs work. But our priority is the farm to school program
Speaker 2
Yeah. I take nothing away from that. Of the $90,000,000 the state of California received for that program, we got a little over $11,000,000 to the to the Department of Food and Agriculture for local food procurement because DSS was putting it down into other forms. So we've had experience with that in the last couple of years when that program was available. And there's huge momentum at the federal level, bipartisan support, and across all my colleagues in all states who saw benefit from that, to get that included into the Farm Bill, because right now it does not have funding.
It's in a proposal in the Farm Bill for authorization so that they could use other funding if they have it. But any program that wasn't specifically authorized in the form bill has been discontinued at USDA.
Speaker 2
work with you till the last day. I turn out the lights in my office and welcome the new person.
Speaker 1
I I will look forward to doing that. I'm gonna jump on just a couple other quick things, and I know my colleagues have have some questions for you.
Speaker 1
your answer about both the impact of sort of the federal government and the macro side of things and stuff. Yeah. Help me, from your perspective, rank the the threats. How how much have the tariffs, and the international reaction to tariffs affected agriculture versus low prices, rising cost. Try to put if you could put those things and then just sort of international relations, you know, our international relations with Canada and Mexico are certainly Yeah.
In a different spot than they were. How much is that affecting and this mostly are larger producers. Could you could could you rank could you could you put in some kind of priority order what you see as Yeah. As risk? I'll I'll I'll I'll give you the things, you know, sort of water cost, tariff impacts, international sort of irritants, you know, that are out there.
Overall rising input cost and then low prices maybe due to more international competition or maybe due to some other things.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I'm gonna I'm going to be I'm gonna be candid from my my perspective, what I see as far as increased increased cost, whatever they may be. And and and all of the inputs, you know, every year, there's always an increase for everybody else in the food chain. The hard part is that the farmer oftentimes is not in a position to pass that on. So we all know that about agricultural economics and the elasticity of agricultural economics.
Obviously, right now, what has happened on fertilizer and fuel costs in particular fuel costs were most immediate and highest, but it takes a lot of energy to run a farm or processing plant, anything in the food system. And fertilizer prices as well as concerns now the longer the conflict goes on, the concern about fertilizer at all. You know, we're we have big goals for composting, but it's gonna take a while to get all those systems in place to actually supplement all that all that fertilizer. But they're you know, that's just a fact of life. I'm I'm proud of our environmental standards because it is something that I think sets us apart.
When we sell so much fresh, I think that's really that aligns with the values of consumers, not just here, but around the world, as well as for our labor standards. It is it is challenging, whether you're small or large, to pay an hourly rate that is more than many other states or many, many other countries for even daily wages. And that's just that's just a fact of trying to remain competitive. We also have you know, there's there's still even with the issues that are going on with the increases in pay that have happened, we still see huge vacancies. There's more farmers moving to an h two a program, which allows for temporary worker permits.
But the real need here is looking into the future, what what can be automated that would improve precision, efficiency, and over time lower input costs. And what I'm especially pleased about, and I didn't talk about it all today, is Jobs First, where agricultural productivity, technology, and innovation is embedded in eight the 13 regions that make up our Jobs First plan. And understanding the need for automation and new technologies and not leaving farm workers behind by not also focusing on current training now. So they're the ones that are operating the new technologies. And the X STEP program is a remarkable program.
They've already had hundreds of graduates from that, coming primarily from the farm worker community, the immigrant community, but not exclusively. And the new technology is attracting younger people to agriculture but at different places throughout our supply chain. So it's creating opportunity. But we we don't wanna leave anybody behind in this transition of automation and the need for automation to be competitive.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I'd I'd love to have a the whole rest of the morning talking with you, but I've gotta go to assembly member Conley, and then we'll go to assembly member Gallagher.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chair. Appreciate it. I have to actually leave in a minute. But really wanted to say always a pleasure to hear your perspectives. Thank you for the working relationship you have with our offices.
As you know, I'm particularly interested in the California Nutrition Incentive Program or CNIP market match and just had a few quick questions. Is the program gonna be funded for this fiscal year?
Speaker 2
It it will not. We would have needed state dollars to be able to draw down federal dollars.
Speaker 7
How much would it cost to fund all the markets in California that are are part of the Market Match program?
Speaker 2
All of the markets that are part of that? Yeah. I think at our peak, there because of a budget that was a multiyear budget a few years ago, there was a total amount that allowed us draw down dollars in two years. I have the person who manages that for us. But I think at our peak, it was $30,000,000, which was $15,000,000 from state dollars that we were able to draw down $15,000,000 from the feds.
Speaker 2
And I think that was at at its peak. Yep. And I'm sure I will be corrected.
Speaker 77
Maybe on a broader perspective, if you could answer there, how has the Market Match program helped farmers markets expand food access in their communities? And again, this is the program where effectively it's like
Speaker 7
yeah, healthy foods, kind of win win in terms of supporting economically our local markets.
Speaker 2
Yep. There's no there's no doubt. It is wildly popular, And it is joyful for farmers as well as the recipients to be able to go to market and buy what they want. There's nothing built into that program to evaluate actual consumption or behavior change as far as taking it home and preparing it and all the steps that go into that. So I wouldn't have a lot of additional information, but we know intuitively that access to those products is is those coupons are used as are the senior farmers market coupons.
So we know that there's there's benefit at least with a cash transaction directly to the farmer Right. And direct dollars to farmers. That's why farm to school is so important as well, is that it's dollars in the local economy directly to the farmers. So we know there's benefit to that. I just can't speak to down the chain.
Speaker 7
Right. And then more broadly speaking, how are prop $4 being deployed to further climate smart, sustainable agriculture?
Speaker 2
So with, we were able to because of what was in our statute for our SWEET program, our on farm water use efficiency program, we've already let those dollars out this year, and we are are in the process of letting out the healthy soils dollars. I have the list, if I can find it. We will we are proposing the tribal sovereignty program, the mobile farmers market program, and the year round farmers market will be funded this year. I don't have that piece of paper in front of me, but I know it's in my notes here somewhere. About $4.
I'm sorry. I should have that at the top, and I don't.
Speaker 2
Yeah. While I'm looking at I don't have the prop four page. Oh, thank you. I just wanted the list. Yeah, we were able to fund sweet healthy soils, Urban Ag, and Fairground Emergency Response.
Those are all in process this year, as well as the Invasive Species Fund. We have approximately $74,000,000 in our proposed budget. This is not giving me what I'm looking for. So these right here? I thought this was done or half of it was done.
Speaker 2
You would think after all these years I could do this better. Sorry, mister Gallagher.
Speaker 7
And, yeah, I've got it. I know there'll be some thoughts. I've gotta run. But, yeah, if you wanna get
Speaker 8
a quick I might say on Department of Finance. Yes. The climate bond allocates 300,000,000 for climate smart agriculture over the lifetime of the bond. The funding is allocated across programs administered by the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Department of Conservation, the Department of Community Services and Development, and the Department of Education. The Budget Act of 2025 appropriated 153,900,000 across these departments with significant investments in the Healthy Soils Program, the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program, urban agricultural projects, and invasive species work administered by CDFA, as well as farmland protection and restoration through the Department of Conservation.
Speaker 34
The governor's budget includes an additional 88,700,000 to support the continued delivery of these programs with notable new proposed investments in regional farm equipment sharing, tribal food sovereignty, and improving line access and tenure for socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers, or tribal producers. I'm joined by representatives from the department's allocations in this chapter, and we are available for any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Assembly member, we will be hearing this item later. I know you'll be gone.
Speaker 7
Yeah. That's why I brought it up now, but looking forward to a deeper dive. And I know that there will be some follow-up questions.
Speaker 4
Yeah. Thank you, mister chairman. So thank you, madam secretary, for being here today. Appreciate, your work over many years, and been happy to work with you on many items. I think on the on specifically to the to the farm to school, I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think we have macro and micro.
Right? I mean, our markets in agriculture are really set up for macro. Yeah. Exactly. And that's important because we do grow we grow food here in one of the unique places in the world that can grow a lot of variety of food for a world market.
And there are certain places in the world that they cannot grow nutritious food. So they need us. Right? So that's a good thing. Right?
We do need to be growing on a macro level, which is gets into one of my questions, which is you brought up China, and China has not been a good partner on this. I mean, we have China does not take California rice. Right? We've been trying to get in that market. Can't get in there.
Speaker 76
Right? They don't take a lot of our our nut of our nut product products. Right? So we do need to establish a better trade partnership there, and and largely, they've been excluding us. We're of the largest growing middle classes in the in the world, right, that want our that probably want our products, but we can't get them in there because of the exclusions.
Speaker 4
So what can we do to better open up that market, you know, from your perspective?
Speaker 2
Yeah. So this is where the market access program dollars that we've been able to access historically have made a big difference for us to do that work, and a lot of that work is regarding emerging markets. We view Vietnam and Thailand and Indonesia and Malaysia as emerging markets where we're starting to lay that groundwork in in cooperation with our other commodity groups. We spend a lot of time. A lot of these markets are initially opened by some of the basic commodities that you and I are both very familiar with, But dairy in particular is always one that's in that early phase of opening up markets to expose people to the quality and the diversity of what we can do.
And almonds, walnuts, pistachios in particular, because they're so unique and a center of excellence for California, have very robust programs paying attention to those things. India is a very important market, especially for our tree nuts and especially for walnuts in I have to call that one out because it's so important for them. The Middle East has
Speaker 2
I know. We were so we're still there. We're I I don't I never give up. Some of these markets just take a while
Speaker 2
And there are the geopolitical negotiations that I'm never privy to. But The Middle East has been becoming very important to us, Northern Africa, Southern Europe, but also South America. South America is not necessarily a place where we've seen as many opportunities, but some of the free trade agreements that have been put in place in the last decade are showing that if their economies are growing, they are able to source more products that they don't grow themselves. We take their coffee, hope that they take some of our tree nuts and other things. So those are the places to focus.
But we also do not want to walk away from two of our neighbors and most important markets. Canada, in particular, is our number one export market for ag crops, as well as Mexico continues to grow, not only as a competitor, but also as a home for year round production for some of our California families. I don't know that I'd answer that.
Speaker 4
No. I I think that's true. As long as they treat us fairly That's I the think that's
Speaker 4
So then moving to the micro, that's what that was the macro. The micro is something I think we need to develop a whole lot more. Right. And that is what we're talking about. Like, farm to school is one of those things.
It's one. Yes. Farm to local. We grow, you know, so much in California. Right.
And it's crazy to me that, like, those products aren't ending up in our schools. You know, those products aren't ending up in our places of higher learning. You know, that's another one. UC and CSU, very small budgets. Very small budgets for locally grown food that could be delivered straight to them.
And so here it is. It's right here. It's close.
Speaker 4
If we develop And what we're lacking, I think, really is not, like, more people administering a program. I think, actually, what we're lacking is the infrastructure. Infrastructure. And so we need hubs. And I think that you brought it up, like, how do we You know, I think the key here is gonna be how do we grow more food hubs.
I'm actually having to ask, make a budget request for a food hub in Marysville, right? But I just feel like that's where we should put Exactly. Because and this is the key. The hubs is where, like, farmers then could go, okay. I can take it there, and I'll get I'll get paid there.
There's the hub. And then they're the ones that distribute it Paid. Straight to the school, to the, you know, to the local consumer, to the different folks that might want it. So we gotta create those markets, and we gotta make it easy for the farmers. Of the
Speaker 4
Yeah. Is that certification sometimes can be cumbersome, especially for small farmers. Mhmm. So I think we gotta work on, you know, putting the investment into building out those hubs, having hubs all throughout the state of California. So maybe if you could just speak a little bit to
Speaker 2
that. Really appreciate that because we were blown away by just the demand when we did put out that $14,000,000 for the food hubs. So it shows that people have seen the wisdom of this, and they are ready to do that. And there is a track in our farm to school program that can provide some funding to food hubs, but that having that stand alone pilot really proved what the demand is for that. We are also in the process, because of these investments, including what happened with food banks who could be positioned to be a food hub, we are in the process of working with Roots of Change and the Public Health Institute to do a mapping of where our investments have been so that as dollars might come back into budgets, we can show where the gaps are and where we've been able to really follow success stories to show that this is a model that works.
So I'm very optimistic. I've been through really severe budget cuts my first three years in this position that I'm very optimistic that we'll have opportunities for new dollars to come into these programs, whether it's at the state or federal level because of how the rest of the country is also seeing some of this need and trying to get it into the farm bill. Okay.
Speaker 2
know that we funded a dozen. I don't know if we have that count here because it's being mapped out as we speak, but I think someone from the program might be able to supply some additional information.
Speaker 1
I I I think we're ready to move on. And thank you very much. We've we've spent an hour. Could've I'm spent
Speaker 1
Three hours, right, with this. Just just just so much so much in terms of value that we have. But I know that assembly member has two issues today that are important to her and she they're they're both items that are going to come up here later. So
Speaker 10
So I know we touched on them a little bit, but I'll hold until we get to those agenda items. But I do wanna thank you for your service and just being a wonderful partner, and I've enjoyed our conversations in our office. You're They're always very informed and always willing to be collaborative. So thank you.
Speaker 2
It's been a pleasure. It's been an honor and a pleasure. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you very much. And now we only have this room until 12:30. So we'll go back to our, please try to keep your answers. Get right to the point with your answers.
Try to keep those direct, as we move forward. And I'm now going to adjust the agenda again because, as as member Pete G. Norris, we had mentioned we were holding item one until she got here. So we said we were gonna do item six, but now we're not going to do item six next. We're gonna go to item one because I don't know how long we're gonna be able to keep you.
And so item one, if people would come up for item one, that's the elimination of the vacant positions, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Parks and Rec, and the Department of Food and Agriculture. And I missed a few things, but we will always ask the presenters to identify themselves when they begin to make their presentation. We won't be taking any votes on any agenda items today. After all the items are heard, we'll take public comment. For members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please limit your testimony to the items on the agenda.
Each member will have one minute to speak assuming we're not being thrown out of the room at 12:30, then we'll have to cut that down. And we have adjusted the agenda more than once already this morning. So with that, we're at item one and go ahead.
Speaker 1
I I think we want the LAO to go first. Right. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 12
Good morning, mister chair and members. I'm Sonia Pettig with the legislative analyst office. So I'm I'm here to talk about the issue of the proposed elimination of vacant positions. And if you could turn to page four in your agenda, there's a helpful chart in the agenda that helps us to walk through this issue. So I'd start by saying at the May revision last year, the governor had proposed eliminating 6,000 vacant positions across state departments as a cost savings measure.
This is the top row of the figure. However, because this was proposed in May, it didn't give the legislature a lot of time to think about the proposal or to consider the potential impacts of the proposal. So if you look at the next row, this reflects what was the final agreement in the 2526 budget. It effectively eliminated almost 5,000 positions and then allowed the legislature through the joint legislative budget committee to review about a thousand positions and indicate whether it concurred or whether indicate whether it did not concur with the elimination of those positions. So, specifically, the thousand positions included all of the proposed position eliminations in nine departments, including fish and wildlife, perks, and food and egg, the departments before you today, as well as positions associated with the implementation of legislation chaptered in 2022 and 2023.
If you look in the next row, after a thorough review, the JLBC did not concur with the elimination of 650 positions. And as shown in the final row, a 174 of these 650 positions are in the three departments before you today. So what does the governor's budget include? So in January, the governor had proposed eliminating all 6,000 positions, going back to the top of the figure. And for today's departments, this would mean annual savings of about $18,000,000, most of which is from the general fund, 15,000,000.
Next, I wanna talk about why the JLBC did not concur with eliminating 650 of these positions. The JLBC considered a variety of criteria across departments such as, were these positions originally authorized to improve program outcomes? Do they perform important public safety functions, etcetera? In addition, the JLBC considered factors unique to each department. So I'm gonna start with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The JLBC did not concur with the elimination of 77 of the proposed 164 position eliminations. These positions serve a number of important purposes at the department. They are game wardens, permitting staff, staff supporting the cutting the green tape initiative. The JLBC was also concerned that cutting these positions would affect efforts to close Fish and Wildlife's known service based budgeting gaps. And indeed, as shown on pages, six and seven of your agenda, if the full number of eliminations proposed by the governor took place, those would exacerbate many of those service based budgeting gaps.
Speaker 15
Moving on to the department's Department of Parks and Recreation, the JLBC did not concur with the elimination of 62 of the 85 proposed positions. The JLBC identified positions that if they were eliminated, they would negatively affect the department's ability to protect environmental, cultural, and historical resources, provide public safety, address deferred maintenance, or provide interpretive or educational services to park visitors. Moreover, the JLBC was concerned that cuts could negatively affect the 2018 fixing state parks initiative. Moving on to the Department of Food and Agriculture, the JLBC did not concur with 35 of the proposed 69 position eliminations. The JLBC identified positions associated with, fiscal and program oversight as well as with pest management and invasive invasive species programs, including seven positions to implement the broom rate program authorized by a b four zero two in 2023.
Speaker 12
So moving on, I'm going to provide a few comments about the LAO's assessment of the governor's proposal. So first, to the extent that the legislature wishes to retain rather than eliminate the positions identified by the joint legislative budget committee, this would erode savings built into the governor's budget, and the legislature likely would have to find a similar level of savings elsewhere in the budget. In the context of finding budget solutions, we would note that all of the positions proposed for elimination at parks at the Department of Parks and Recreation are funded by the general fund. This makes things especially challenging for the legislature because retaining them would erode close to 9,000,000 in general fund savings. For Department of Fish and Wildlife, we note that the governor's budget proposes retaining fish and wildlife's special funds even as it eliminates the positions supported by those funds.
Consequently, if the legislature wishes to retain the 77 positions identified by the JLBC, it would result in a loss of savings of about only on the general fund side of about 4,600,000. At food and egg, the assumed savings includes 3,000,000 special funds and 1,700,000 general fund. So if the goal of eliminating positions is to help address the structural budget deficit, eliminating the positions supported by food and eggs special funds wouldn't really help. Our second point is that eliminating positions could have undesirable program impacts. These positions were established to serve important functions as the JLBC found in its, pretty thorough review, and eliminating them would have trade offs.
Our third point is just that just because a position is vacant doesn't mean the position is not important. Positions can be vacant for any number of reasons, that have nothing to do with programmatic needs, such as the position may be hard to fill because it requires special skills or training. So at the end of the day, what our office would recommend is that the legislature keep the special funded positions identified by the JLBC at Department of Fish and Wildlife and at Department of Food and Agriculture. They serve important functions, and eliminating them could have negative program impacts. Moreover, eliminating them would not really help with the budget situation.
For the general fund positions, which includes all 62 at parks and about 40% at fish and wildlife and food and egg, we recommend that the legislature weigh the importance of these positions against other budget priorities. The same rationale for keeping them applies, but we understand that the state is in, you know, tough budget, times, and retaining and filling the positions would have an impact on the general fund.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Steven Benson, Department of Finance. I will do some context setting to help, I think, with the rest of the conversation and questions in the agenda, and then I'll try to address a few of the questions in the agenda upfront. So just setting context, this exercise started off with a realization that the state has about 40,000 vacant positions annually, and that number has been pretty consistent, pretty steady for several years. Obviously, the which positions are vacant sort of fluctuates from year to year, but the total number has been relatively steady statewide for several years.
And within departments individually, there's a fair amount of consistency as well. It varies a little bit from department to department, but there's a lot of consistency in terms of what those vacancy rates are. What that results in is you have a whole bunch of funding that is authorized for positions that's not being spent on those positions because the positions are vacant. Also, the work that that those positions were intended to do is not getting done because the vacant the positions are vacant. Funding is used by departments in a number of ways.
Sometimes there so we don't do annual cost of living adjustments for things like rent, utilities, fuel costs, things like that. So in some cases, have departments that in order to meet base operational needs, there's a there's a necessity to keep some positions vacant. They need that funding to meet those needs. Other cases, because you have positions that are hard to fill for a number of reasons, agree. Some of them are in remote locations.
There's housing challenges, all sorts of reasons. They can't be filled, they maybe have been vacant for a very long time. Sometimes there's opportunities to contract to fill some of that workload. Maybe it doesn't do all of it, but you can address some of the workload. There's a number of reasons that that we we maintain that flexibility for departments to meet their operational needs.
I think the other thing to note is by maintaining all of the vacant positions, we do annual employee compensation adjustments. If a position is vacant, that adjustment continues to happen, and so this pool of funding grows annually. And, you know, the again, the vacancy rates are maintained at a pretty high level. And so you've got this sort of ever growing pool of what ends up being flexible administrative funding. And so the idea behind this exercise was to say, we don't wanna take away all the flexibility, but there's a better, more transparent, efficient way to utilize some of this funding.
In our current budget situation, we should score some of that savings.
Speaker 11
that's really what this really gets to in terms of purpose. But the way that the drill was act was administered, we're also trying to well, getting some efficiencies there, maintain some of the administrative tools that we have so departments can operate their budget. So one of the questions in here is what was our criteria for deciding what positions to to eliminate? The at a at a high level from department of finance, we didn't really put a lot of criteria on it. There were some targets set, and we said the you should develop plans for how you can reach these targets, and you should try and minimize disruptions to public service.
And and we gave a lot of discretion to departments to work through how best to do that. So folks went and did that. There was all iterations of reviewing it, some reductions, changes, some things were excluded, some you know? So there's a number of things that were done as we went along the way to try and tailor that down, but with a overall criteria of minimizing impacts to public services. And each department can talk about how they went about their plans and and strategies for doing that, but that's sort of the overall guideline that was provided up top.
And then one of the and so in in no case, the original targets were, generally speaking, about 50% of vacancies. I would say that by and large, in most cases after the iterations of that, I don't know that many departments are actually at that at that original target amount. There was exclusions and things done that adjusted down from there. So, again, maintaining a lot of the flexibility. The other thing that I would note is that departments have the ability, especially in the positions piece of this, have the ability to reclass vacant positions.
So for example, I think we'll talk more about this later, but Department of Parks and Rec has 627 rangers. Of that number, there was a 147 vacancies at the point in time when this drill was being done, and 15 are scored as vase vacancy elimination. So that leaves a 132 Ranger positions that are still available to be filled as we can fill them. So there's still a lot of flexibility to fill those. If at some point we get a 132 filled and there's no others that come vacant to sort of backfill that, we can have conversations about whether or not 15 need to get restored, but there's there's still a lot of flexibility there.
And, even for departments where, certain classifications may be slated for elimination, they have the ability to reclass positions administratively. And so let's say you ran out of vacant positions in one classification, but you've got vacancies in another one. If this if this classification is the highest priority, well, then you can reclass, and you can still fill those to fill your priorities.
Speaker 11
Well, if you wanna, I can hit on a couple of the general questions upfront, or we can wait. Up to you.
Speaker 1
I think you should wait because we wanna try to make sure we're focused on the efficient use of our time here.
Speaker 1
Just just like we're going to focus on the efficient use of every dollar we give to to to this department. Excellent. And so we've been oh, I'm gonna turn this over to assembly member Pete Norris for the first question since we held this item for you. Great.
Speaker 13
a little closer. CDFW? Okay. Alright. So this is kind of an unusual line of questioning.
I think often we're asking you to justify why you wanna spend more money. In this case, I I think, building on some of the concerns raised in the LAO's analysis, my line of questioning is actually very much focused on, why we're cutting some of these positions, particularly at CDFW. Right now, California, we are trying to build record number of housing units across the state of California. We are transforming California's economy, from a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy economy. We're trying to site and build, like, just enormous quantities of transmission infrastructure and clean energy projects.
We're transforming our water infrastructure, our transportation infrastructure, and we're trying to do this stuff on timelines that we've actually never delivered anything on ever. In every single one of those examples, CDFW has to issue permits. And as we talk to housing developers, as we talk to, clean energy developers, and frankly, as I talk to the department themselves, they've said that a major bottleneck right now is understaffing for the folks that need to issue those permits to ensure that we can achieve all of those goals while protecting, our natural resources as well. So, I guess my question is and particularly given the LAO's, I think, very excellent analysis and explanation of the sort of minimal savings. I guess my first question is to Department of Finance.
Why do do you think that's a good idea for us to save, you know, such little money when the impact seems to be so great and so negative?
Speaker 14
Andrew Ho with Department of Finance. As we mentioned previously that the positions were part of the budget resiliency exercise, Departments were given flexibility to, prioritize those, and this this included both general fund positions and special funded positions. And sorry. Can you repeat the second part of that question? I was on my way up to
Speaker 13
Like, why does that it just it seems like the general fund savings are trivial and the policy cost is enormous. Why what are we what are we getting by making these cuts, really? It kind of I guess it sort of seems to me to be penny wise pound foolish. So curious if you have a different assessment and why.
Speaker 14
Yeah. I would say I would say that, you know, each department was required to participate in in meeting these savings. It was something that's needed to right size the the structural deficit, and Fish and Wildlife was no different than the other departments in that regard.
Speaker 13
Okay. Yeah. I guess I would just say I don't think the fiscal justification holds up on as we more closely inspect it. And if we're really looking I mean, how much are the savings even in Fish and Wildlife? It was, like, $4,600,000 or something like that.
I think if we need to find $4,600,000, I would be happy to identify other departments where maybe we could cut a few more folks. But, you know, even by I think CDFW, by your own assessment, the department is meeting 40%. Am I correct in this? Yes. 40% of its permitting and environmental protection mission.
So that feels like we need to be doing more, not less. And so if these cuts were to go through, what categories of permitting work will the department no longer be able to perform? Like, what falls off the list?
Speaker 16
Oh, still not close enough. Okay. Megan Hertel, director of California Department of Fish and Wildlife, thank you for the question. I'm actually gonna turn this over to our deputy director of fiscal services. He was integrally involved in both the assessment of what to prioritize for these cuts and can talk more about that.
Speaker 17
Chair, some members. Dan Reagan, deputy director of fiscal services division. Through the prioritization Closer.
Speaker 17
Okay. There we go. How's that? Alright. Sorry about that.
So through the prioritization, we looked at mission critical positions as well as the service of the public, including permitting. Through the reductions, the 04/2012 eliminated 70% of the department's eligible vacancies during that time, and it was 80% of the department's general fund vacancies. So prioritization came to a point things had to get, to your point. Through the permitting pieces, we are committed to continuing to meet our permitting obligations as well as CDFW maintaining the flexibility of maintaining all of our special funds does allow the department to reprioritize other vacancies as Department of Finance referenced as well as hire limited term. There is a challenge to hiring limited term staff, though.
Speaker 67
Government code stipulates that limited term staff are for temporary staffing needs and can't exceed twenty four months. So at that point in time, the time that went into training those staff, you lose, and you have to kind of start over if that workload still continues to be a concern.
Speaker 60
Okay. And I think the other I think it's the other really salient point for committee to consider, and the LAO, I think you did make this point, is that this is not even all or primarily general fund dollars. A lot of these positions are actually funded by fees that are paid by developers. So if we're we're talking about I think it's, like, $19,000,000 in general fund savings, but the remaining $25,000,000 is special fund money that fee payers have contributed to do this work. So I you know, I certainly appreciate the need to tighten our belts, identify opportunities for savings, but particularly with the CDFW cuts, I really do not think that this is the the right decision and, you know, certainly support, I think, the LEA's recommendation that we reject, reject those proposals.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. So I wanna start with what you just brought up, which is how how is it that CDFW gets to keep the $11,000,000 for the special fund positions even though we're eliminating the positions? No other department does that. This seems unusual. So I don't know if it's department of finance or who is the best person for me to ask that question of, but I'll let you guys decide that.
Speaker 14
Sure. And Andrew Hill with department of finance. As you noted, last year, we were going through this exercise of, you know, reductions in both general fund and special fund exercises. After enactment, we went back through. We listened to the feedback from the legislature.
Speaker 80
And in recognition of the service based budgeting gap, that it would the decision was to keep the special fund at the levels that they were previously. And then as mister Benson noted, this existing pool of vacancies, even after you do the vacancy reductions, can then be utilized to be shifted over to some of these other activities. I would say we were looking at this more at a macro level. It it's fair to look at a specific position and what its duties are right now. But if there's an equivalent position elsewhere and the department determines that, you know, permitting is a priority or that they need to move resources around, keeping that special fund allows a little extra headroom for them to move positions between activities.
Speaker 14
I think for CDFW, it was definitely in recognition of the service based budgeting. If you're talking about some of the other special funds in our areas, the water board would come to mind for that. Their fees each year are based on their level of appropriation. And so, you know, with the employee compensation adjustments each year, if there's budget change proposals that come through, they work through their board process and actually go through to raise their fees. In the case of the efficiency reductions, what we're seeing is that there's already offsetting reductions where if it was anticipated that a fee increase was gonna be 5%, it's coming down by a marginal amount.
In some cases, no fee increases are needed. And so it's actually having a different type of impact than it would for fish and wildlife.
Speaker 1
Okay. Interesting analysis. Overall, department of finance, I think you addressed quite a bit of of my concern about, you know, are we cutting a position that's really critical, but we just couldn't fill it for the last year because there was nobody qualified out there, and now we lose that critical position. But I want you I I believe what I've heard is you feel confident that there's still enough flexibility there that if this was position was really critical and it got cut, that position could still be filled. Correct?
Speaker 11
Yeah. Absolutely. There's the flexibility to fill it with whatever vacant positions are available. If we get to a point where those vacancy rates get really small and we need to look at restoring some positions again, we'll we have that conversation. But while we're maintaining high vacancy rates, we feel like it's more efficient to keep that a little bit narrower.
Speaker 1
Great. And then I'll just come back to my only other question here, and I wanna come back, I think, since you were addressing this. Cutting special funds could potentially mean that we're collecting funds from people who are paying fees for a service and we're not delivering the service because we cut those positions. So cutting general fund dollars clearly saves general fund dollars. Cutting special fund dollars may not if we're either not delivering the service or what we're doing is we're slowing down delivering the service and the service was tied directly to that.
So a lot of times, those funds aren't available for something else. They would only be building up reserves. So give us your rationale for why we should cut special funds that may not, as LAO points out, have that much of an impact on the general fund. Alright?
Speaker 11
So I think Yeah. The analysis for special funds is a lot trickier than the general fund itself. Special funds collect their revenues in a lot of different ways, and so the way that the reductions can impact a particular special fund varies. Sorry. Varies quite a bit.
But I think by and large, the way we looked at it is while the priority the highest priority was general fund savings, we were looking at overall budget resiliency going into the future. And in some cases, we have relied on, special funds to help out with general fund resiliency. I don't think it's a secret to anybody here that the the the state, through discussions with the legislature and administration, has used, loans from various funds and things like that to bolster the general fund resiliency. Don't love doing that, but that's a tool that has has come up from a lot of different areas, a lot of different times, and it's been relied on a lot of different times. So overall budget resiliency does need to look at special funds as well.
It's not just the general fund. Also, you know, just from the larger perspective of affordability, we're as mister Hall alluded to, we're sensitive to what sort of additional cost increases there are through all these different fees as well. So to the extent that you can do some things to control the rate at which fees need to increase, that helps overall affordability. It's so I think those are the few of the factors we took in into consideration when it which you know, these control sections are written so that they're not limited to general fund. They instructed finance to look at all of the budget items.
And so we looked at all of the budget items, and we believe that there are budget resiliency benefits that come from both special funds and the general fund.
Speaker 1
So I share semi member Petrie Norris' concerns about our desire to accelerate permitting and the impact. So I hope that that message has been heard loud and clear, particularly from our new administrator, in terms of making sure that this happens. Where we go with this, I think LEO has made some sound recommendations to us. So I think we'll have further conversations about the special fund cuts and when it comes to the permitting, even the the general fund cut there from that standpoint. So we appreciate that you've been able to hear that.
And now I see assembly member, Wilson has a question and comment.
Speaker 10
Thank you. And I do concur with my colleagues and the chair around, these positions and the need for them. We have a lot of challenges ahead, and I think that ensuring we have proper staffing, to help us meet those challenges in this particular area is key. I wanna, circle just deviate for a second to make sure I understood something that you said during your, remarks and make sure I understood that clearly that, this is centered around the flexibility and spending. And I wanted to make sure I understood that currently or pre this review of vacant positions and should they be eliminated or not, that they essentially were placeholders for budget, and and allowing the use of budget on outside of positions, whether it be contract contracting, increasing salary in other areas, or just using them in general.
And I wanna make sure that was that I understood that accurately. I didn't wanna walk away with the, the wrong assessment of your testimony.
Speaker 11
Yeah. So when the positions are vacant, that funding is still in the department's state operations budget, and it's available to them to use on, you know, valid state operations needs. And so in some cases, because we don't do, like I said, annual increases for things like rent and utilities and fuel costs and things like that, Some departments have maintained certain numbers of positions vacant because that funding is available to meet other priority operational needs.
Speaker 10
So that would mean across thank you. And so that would mean across the if there's a vacant position within your department, it is does not stay on the salary line. It could be used anywhere within the department. That's the current practice.
Speaker 11
So the the where it's allocated in the budget doesn't change. It's still an authorized position. So the funding still if you were to go and look at the, you know, the budget display that we put in there, the funding would still show up under personnel services because it's tied to that authorized position. But if that position is not filled, departments have the flexibility to sense to spend that money on other operational needs.
Speaker 10
Okay. So I just so I'm getting it real simple just to make sure I understood
Speaker 10
Is that so if you had a $100,000 budget, we're using weird numbers, and you had a position that was just $10, As long as they didn't exceed the $100,000, if that position was vacant, they can use that $10 anywhere they want if the position was vacant.
Speaker 11
And I guess, not to take up too much time, But in the past, we have done some budgetary exercises where what we've done is gone in in recognition of that and said, hey. To try to true up and try and make your budget more transparent, maybe we keep the dollars, switch it to OE and E costs, eliminate the positions. That way, you can show that you're spending the money on what you're spending the money on as opposed to there being a vacant position. So that we have done various exercises throughout the years to try and true some of that up.
Speaker 1
Thank thank you very much. I spent twenty years as a county supervisor, and I found, after a few years, that I couldn't go in and micromanage every change in every department as much as I'd like wanted to. Right? But I do believe in the concept of you just gradually squeeze down, let the managers figure out what to do, and then you gradually squeeze down, let the managers figure out how to do that. With the exception of the permitting thing, I think the concept here of eliminating vacant positions is a way for us to begin to deal with the structural deficit that we have coming forward.
And quite frankly, we're in agreement on out of 6,000 positions, we're in agreement on, you know, virtually all of them except for a small percentage. But the small percentage is important to us as as we go forward. I have a question for Park and Rex, but I think that we have a One related comment. So let's go ahead
Speaker 13
and Just one one additional comment. So, you know, I think that the, approach department of finance that you described in terms of sort of framing the conversation and framing choices, I think that makes sense to do kind of a, alright. Every department needs to take a haircut. What does that look like? But I I don't I think that's different than than getting dug into that as the final outcome because I feel like, you know, talking about doing that for a department that by its own assessment is meeting 40% of its very vital mission, that seems crazy to me.
So it seems like in the case of CDFW, particularly, we're, like, robbing Peter to pay Paul. So I think we need to identify other departments perhaps that could take an additional haircut when we're looking at those kinds of trade offs is what I would say.
Speaker 1
Great. I'll just, piggyback onto that, and that is what I found is that the smaller the department, the less you engaged in this whole everybody a 5% across cut across the board of a department that's very small is a huge impact versus a 5% cut across a department that is very large. And I think that's part of what you're talking about here also. So I think there are some specifics that we will definitely be be questioning. Just just for information purposes, Parks and Rec, my one question I have two questions, but one of them is, the loss of the Park Rangers, and the impact of the loss of the Park Rangers.
What do you what what do you see as the impact? We hear that you have a 136 positions, vacant. So will these 14 positions have a significant impact on on on parks?
Speaker 75
Yes. Thank you, mister chair. Liz McGurk, chief deputy director at, state parks. And, yes, for the peace officer, positions that are proposed for elimination, the department definitely took a, critical look because our goal with this exercise was to maintain visitor services, maintain critical public safety. So when we looked at our, existing vacancies, is roughly, you know, a 150, and then we looked at the, the time it takes from the exam to training to our academy process to actually filling the positions, and our ability to host those academies, which is roughly about up to 50 cadets per year.
Speaker 19
We looked at the time, and so those 15 positions would not have been filled in the near term. And so that is why they were, they're on this list of proposed elimination. Our goal right now is to up our recruitment rates, really look at ways to increase our academies so that we can fill those as existing vacancies that are critical for us.
Speaker 1
No. Thank thank you very much. How about the the loss of the maintenance and management positions? I'm particularly concerned about the deferred maintenance. We had a real crisis six years ago or so.
We've we've put some real energy into trying to decrease the deferred maintenance problem, which is a way to invest for future generations to have lower cost in the future. What's going to be the impact on deferred maintenance?
Speaker 19
Yes. So similar to the exercise with the peace officers, when we were looking across our maintenance positions, there are some that can be very hard to fill. We have remote locations. You know, labor markets are different. And so, the positions that are proposed here are ones that had historically been vacant or have been hard to fill over time.
That being said, I mean, the loss of the positions and funding over time could result in a slower regular maintenance schedule, and so things could fall into deferred. But immediately, I don't think there would be a an impact on deferred maintenance. It's that long term, you know, loss of funding and positions.
Speaker 1
The CDF CDFA. We we heard from your secretary about the whole pest threat that is out there, And it's ongoing and probably growing as international travel increases and the globe gets smaller and smaller. Concerns have been raised by the agricultural industry stakeholders that this is going to eliminating these positions will affect controlling invasive species, etcetera. Can you respond to that concern?
Speaker 21
I'll I'll do my best.
Approximately, 10 of the 35 sweat positions support early pest detection
Speaker 21
I apologize. Of the 35 and I should introduce myself. I'm Arma Cozzina. I'm the deputy secretary for finance and administration.
Speaker 21
Apologies. Yes. 10 of the 35 SWEP positions support early pest detection and eradication programs. We do, at CDA, recognize the importance of those functions. And as has been mentioned previously, we do have the authority to reclassify positions and ensure that critical functions are fulfilled, and our met legislative mandate is met, particularly when industry funding for those functions exists.
For functions such as these, we believe we are currently adequately staffed to meet our legislative mandate and are actively hiring for all of the positions for which we have funding.
Speaker 53
I will need to do look go program by program. It's really on a case by case basis. The process that we went through after the positions were were frozen or swept, but after they were identified for the sweep, was to be implemented an internal hiring process to ensure that as new positions became vacant, we were able to look at those new positions and the positions that we had swept and understand which ones that we needed to prioritize for for posting, particularly in light of the 8% budget reductions. There were some positions that became vacant that we could no longer afford. So we wanted to make sure that we prioritized hiring for critical functions.
Speaker 21
We can go through and see which of those functions is currently being fulfilled by other staff. Certainly, the positions that were harder to fill are still harder to fill, and so some of those functions are still not being done. We estimate that it's about 17 of those 35 positions that were really hard to fill positions that we were going to have difficulty hiring for either way.
Speaker 1
So just like we've identified with Park Rangers, you know, they have a 136 positions and we're talking about eliminating 14 of them. Right? You have 35 positions in the permitting area. How many of them are vacant today?
Speaker 21
Well, all of those all of the positions that were identified, those that position authority is all vacant. In terms of whether that or not there is someone fulfilling those functions at the department, I will have to get back to you because each program is specific.
Speaker 1
So you're you're eliminating all 10. The 10 positions being eliminated are all the vacant positions in the permitting department of the 35?
Speaker 21
No. I I I apologize. I misunderstood the question. Third all of those 35 positions are throughout the department, and they all serve different functions. I can go through I think as was mentioned, there were seven for the Broom Rate program.
There are auditors within our dairy marketing and our marketing services branch. We have environmental scientists throughout the department and then and then also within our animal health and food safety services. So they're throughout the department.
Speaker 21
it. Those 10 positions that are specifically related to the plant pests, the pest detection and eradication programs. Those are in our plant health division. I would have to check how how many total positions. There are about, I wanna say, close to a thousand positions within that division, And so these 10 positions are currently vacant.
How many p like, their total vacancy rate within that division, I can get back to you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. If you'll do that, we'd appreciate it. I'm gonna ask Department of Fish and Wildlife, to come back up, please. Right? Sorry.
I didn't get this one while while we had you. Late breaking late breaking news here. Right? But what do the game wardens do, and how does the eliminations affect the percentage of game warden positions that are filled, alright, that are out there? Can you help us with that?
Speaker 16
Well, we're lucky to have our chief of law enforcement division here. So chief Arnold, if you'd like to take this one.
Speaker 22
Sure. Thank you, mister chair. Nathaniel Arnold, chief of enforcement for the department. So to kinda break the question apart, what do the gang warns do? Simply, they're the oldest state law enforcement entity in California as a division.
They're responsible for patrolling a 159,000 square miles of California, more than 1,100 miles of coastal excuse me. Coastline including three nautical miles out to sea, all marine protected areas, 30,000 miles of river and streams, 4,800 lakes and reservoirs, and 80 major rivers.
Speaker 22
No. The the impact, as we stated, is fairly large. It it would be about 10% of the overall wildlife officer positions, which would equate to close to, 14% of the warden classification, which would be boots on the ground.
Speaker 22
So we would so for sworn staff, we have approximately 500 wildlife officers. So, you know, close to 15% of that. 10% of all wildlife officers, you would be looking at close to 50.
Speaker 41
Well, it's almost what you said earlier. Kind of the smaller the entities, the greater the impact. So when you look at other police agencies of California, you know, some have up to 7,000 to to cover the state. We have 500. So this type of impact would be from Northern California to Southern California, response to calls, human wildlife attacks, wildlife trafficking, the whole host of what we
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. Yeah. I I I note that, you know, with the highway patrol, we've exempted them because they're public safety officers. I know game wardens play an important role also in terms of public safety from that standpoint.
So thank you very much. I appreciate it. And with that, we will move now to item six. Yeah. We're move to item six so that we can get those people back to work.
And then we'll come to item three, and my apologies to everybody for moving the agenda around. But what about
Speaker 24
Great. Thank you, chair. Samuel Ossoffa. I'm the director of the governor's office of land use and climate innovation or LCI. So, thank you for having us go early.
Thank you more for not having me go right after sec secretary Ross. I'm joined here by, my chief deputy, senior deputy director, Ivy Edwards, and, Natalie Kraffel. We are here to, present an an overview of, LCI, but also present very specific aspects of the our budget. I'll start with going through an overview of the structure and just a little background, and then Abhi will go through the details.
Speaker 24
Thank you. So the LCI, the government's office of land use and climate innovation, formerly known as the governor's office of planning and research, was established by statute in 1970 right soon after the CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act was enacted. We celebrated fifty five years at the end of last year. From its inception, the office was tasked with implementing the CEQA and structured to serve as the statewide long range planning agency. LCI is primarily tasked with developing the initial draft of the CEQA guidelines, drafting technical advisories.
And as
Speaker 1
I'm sure we we've been able to read that that structure in advance. I'm gonna ask you to to move quicker
Speaker 1
To that part, to the background part. Yeah. So we can get to our questions.
Speaker 24
Certainly. So LCI has a a few other structures within LCI, climate programs, climate initiatives, as well as a few other ones. So I will send, this in writing Great. To you. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 38
Good morning, chair, Bennett, and member. Our I'll give an overview of our baseline request. So our three baseline requests this year really balance the need to maintain these essential services for California with the state's ongoing fiscal realities. So they represent functions and efforts that were previously funded on a limited term basis and do not represent any new programs, or an expansion of LCI scope. They are intended to maintain the minimum operational foundation needed as a state organization, ensuring that we can meet our statutory duties and maintain our core functions, like reliable technology, grant facilitation, and contract execution so that existing state staff can continue to deliver meaningful results for California.
Speaker 25
So for our IT baseline resource request, we are requesting $6,200,000 in general fund in 2026 and seven and ongoing to continue the implementation of the IT services following the establishment of the LCI IT office. For administrative and legislative baseline resources, We are requesting $3,400,000 in general fund in 2026 and '7 and ongoing to establish baseline support for core administrative and legislative functions. Permanent funding is necessary to ensure LCI maintains basic operational stability and compliance. And then for our land policy baseline resource request, we're requesting $900,000 in general fund in 2026 and ongoing to support existing positions within our land policy unit. These staff are foundational to, managing our core land use planning and CEQA workload, providing technical assistance, and ensuring the state can effectively implement its land use priorities.
Maintaining this capacity is critical to delivering timely, consistent, high quality outcomes across our whole portfolio. And additionally, as a part of this item, we're requesting 949,000 in general fund beginning 2027 and '28 through twenty thirty one to thirty two to continue supporting existing positions responsible for implementing the judicial streamlining provisions established under s p seven and s p one forty nine. These rules are essential to ensuring that the priority projects move forward efficiently while upholding the integrity of CEQA and meeting the program statutory requirements through its sunset. Happy to answer any questions regarding our baseline requests.
Speaker 1
Great. In fact, if we if I can go back. You you were you were do giving us the overview, and I just want can you can you hit the five major programs? I cut you off after two programs.
Speaker 43
So within LCI, we, have the climate program, which is ICARF, integrated climate adaptation in in the integrated climate resiliency adapt adaptation program. We also have the strategic growth council, which was formed by statue within LCI, and that is coordinated through seven agency secretaries. I serve as the chair, and we have a number of funding programs as well as policy programs through that. The racial equity commission, which was established by executive order, is also housed at LCI. Finally, we have a military affairs function, which is a statutory required function that, we part coordinate with department of defense on land use interface between installations and, communities throughout, throughout the state.
Speaker 1
So you you you mentioned the CEQA function, which was a major one that that was given to you. You mentioned the strategic growth council and the climate adaption initiatives. Land use planning information?
Speaker 24
So land use so the office is responsible for updating the general plan for the state. We do that every seven to eight ten years. The last one was, I believe, 2017. So the general plan guideline updates are a critical component. So we engage statewide with local jurisdictions.
Just to give you an example, since the last update, we've had over 250 new legislations that impact land use. So we are now in the midst of, the next updates. So we're engaging in that in that function so that local jurisdictions have their general plans updated to reflect.
Speaker 1
Who are the major stakeholders that get involved in that land use planning general plan update.
Speaker 35
Yes. Natalie Kuffel, deputy director of land policy. So the major stakeholders that we engage with are cities and counties, specifically the planners that work for cities and counties. Oftentimes, because cities and counties are short staffed and under resourced, they hire consultants to assist them with updating their general plans. So we also have been coordinating with the consultant community as well as the legal community because there is a big component with CEQA, and oftentimes outside attorneys are brought in for that purpose.
Speaker 1
So is the goal of this plan to identify for the state of California where we're going land use planning wise for the next seven years?
Speaker 26
So the purpose of these guidelines is to assist the cities and counties with updating their own general plans.
Speaker 1
Okay. And then statewide initiatives. Can what can you tell me about statewide initiatives effort?
Speaker 24
There are quite a number of most of them climate focused within ICARP, but there are also a number of them through strategic growth council, and we could go through it, to highlight a few of them. You start
Speaker 25
I think that I think you're referencing the the nice summary by the LAO. And under statewide initiatives under that category, what's represented is the racial equity commission and also the governor's military council Good. Okay. Coordination work.
Speaker 1
They fall into that. Okay. Excellent. That's what I was looking for. Okay.
Go on.
Speaker 27
Courtney Masemiro, Department of Finance. Nothing to add, but available for questions.
Speaker 5
Good morning. Gokt Shenzhen with the LAO. We have very brief remarks on the proposals. As the department presented, the governor the governor proposes to increase LCI's ongoing budget by $10,500,000 from the general fund. Excuse me.
Overall, our review find found that administration provided reasonable justification for these proposals. Some of the cost increases are associated with the OPR's restructuring into LCI and GoServ. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 1
While you're looking at me, you're not looking at that. So move the boot.
Speaker 1
Move the microphone to this side, and then you can look at me and talk to the microphone. There you go. Sure. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Some of the cost increases are associated with the OPR's restructuring into, LCI and GoServ as well as LCI's transition to civil service, both of which were approved by the legislature through previous budget change proposals. And some of the increase are also associated with LCI's increased workload, including CEQUA work, grant responsibilities, and new statutory requirements. If these requests are not fully funded, LCI will not be able to provide the same level of service that it currently offers. On the other hand, approving these proposals will mean taking on a new, general ongoing general fund commitment. In the context of the state's projected multi budget deficit, the this will inevitably require reductions elsewhere or revenue increases.
Speaker 5
And given this context, the legislature could consider whether maintaining LCI's responsibilities and staffing, is a higher priority than other general fund supported activities. If not, the legislature could consider downscaling LCI's, statutory and grant responsibilities, revisiting program implementation timelines, and readjusting the associated resource needs.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Overall, congratulations. You've got a reasonably good review from LAO from my perspective. Right? And to be identified as as coming up with reasonable justifications for for the positions.
I think there are reasonable justifications for the positions. I that doesn't mean that I can't I don't think that we you can't always squeeze and accomplish more with efficient and particularly with AI and the tremendous impact it has. I can see land use documents becoming much easier to create. I just watched literally the creation of a website in two minutes that would have taken a long time. And so I will I will be looking at this department to squeeze every dollar out, every dollar of value out of of any investment that, you know, that we end up agreeing to make here with this program.
The other thing I would like to get on the radar screen is, of all of these things, some of them I say are nice to have, right, rather than must have. But one that I think is a must have, and I think your might be the place for it to be located, is we are doing an atrocious job in California of implementing new technology in various departments. Because a department only introduces new technology maybe every twenty years. They have no experience at what the latest and greatest and and what's what are the right contracting things we should do. Meanwhile, the the people we're dealing with are dealing with this all the time.
It's like buying a it's like buying a car. You know? You're buying it from the car salesman who's selling cars all day. He's a professional, and you're going in there once every twenty years to buy a car. We need professionals in the state of California that do nothing except float from not float, but just go to apartment apartment and coordinate their efforts at IT implementations, IT upgrades.
I will be requesting that that be a a a significant part of the administration. And it seems like this is the department for that to be held in. You don't have that expertise right now, but you need some people with that expertise that ought to be, I think, put into this department or an appropriate department. We have some references to this department, but we don't. I mean, right now, just to give you an example, nine one one upgrades.
They did a 911 upgrade and then they turn around and say, it it it didn't work because the contractor that we contracted with, they didn't they didn't meet the terms of the contract. Well, they didn't have very many consequences for not meeting the terms of this bottom line is the taxpayers were stuck holding the bill, again, and this has not happened once. This has been more the standard rather than the, exception in terms of IT implementation. So I hope you'll take that back, have a conversation with the administration about that, and know we're coming with that kind of request. Not so much this year, but I hope you can embed it into the system so that you folks are thinking about that next year as we have a new administration coming in is where we will do this.
We made one run at this earlier, didn't get there a couple of years ago. We will make another run at that next year. I wanted to take this opportunity to say that. Thank you very much. Anybody else have any questions for this item six?
You made it back just in time, Assembly Member Wilson. Right? And let's see item
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Great. So we're gonna go to item three, and we will let you lead off with the questions of the the prized leadership interrogation questions when the time comes. So if people will come up for item three, please. No.
I gotta find my notes. It's I'll find it. What what page? Page 14. Good.
That's faster to just look at page 14. Okay. Okay. Good. Item 14.
Got it. Climate smart agriculture proposed spending plan.
Speaker 42
Hi. Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Virginia Jameson. I'm deputy secretary for climate and working lands at the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
Speaker 48
Brian Metzger, LAO. We find the administration's proposed plan for the climate bond, including this chapter, to be reasonable and consistent with bond requirements. We would just note that there are a number of new programs in this chapter, tribal food sovereignty, regional farm equipment sharing, and even initial allocations for some programs like improving land access and tenure that if the legislature has certain goals or preferences for that program, now is the time for the legislature to provide that direction.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. First thing I'd point out is we have done a health we've done a healthy amount of spending from the bond on the smart agricultural programs. We're down to only 19% left for future years, which is not a bad thing. If we've spent that 81% efficiently, it's a good thing.
And if we didn't, shame on us, right, in in terms of doing that. But we are down, so we have had a healthy amount of spending left. But there's a significant amount of spending this year, and we wanna make sure that we're doing that properly. The Healthy Soils program is one that I'm particularly interested in, in terms of the efficiency of the spending. But certainly, the vast majority of the money was spent in the last last program year as we as we go forward.
So, before I get into all of those things, I said I would let, assembly member Wilson be our first interrogator dealing with a b, five twenty four on land access.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Appreciate, the opportunity, to talk about something critically important. As we know, to date, very little has been done to address the farmland access crisis in California. Fundamentally, small, beginning, and underserved farmers have an uphill battle in trying to access secure land in California. It requires many tools and strategies, one being, creating a new and first of its kind program to provide vital resources.
Speaker 73
And considering how new and complex addressing this issue is, it's only appropriate for new and detailed legislation, with community engagement. And so after drafting language in my original bill, a b four zero eight, the agriculture bond, and integrating it into prop four with 30,000,000, secured for the program, we followed up with another bill, as was mentioned last year, a b five twenty four. So five twenty four was specifically derived to provide legislative direction and enact the land access program. The bill passed through the legislature with strong and overwhelmingly bipartisan support, which included a nine month democratic process with over a 150 stakeholders engaged to ensure the program included exactly what stakeholders and community members wanted to see. Given the legislative process and the clear direction from stakeholders, as I understand it, the administration is open to moving forward in this in this direction.
Speaker 10
And so I'm wondering, what involvement you your office or the offices, will have to work, with our office on budget trailer language and to implement the program in order to capture our legislative intent, particularly considering we do not know what administration will be in place this year. So we felt, as we did last year and even more so this year, that it is a time sensitive subject.
Speaker 11
Steven Benson, Department of Finance. So, first of all, I I think we're, open to engaging and having a conversation about the best way to handle that. Where we're looking at and have to make sure we sort of navigate carefully is once the bond act passes by the voters, we have some constraints in place in terms of how much we can impact or change the design and the scheme of how the bond act is laid out. And that's related to need it's really the the I'm not going into too much detail. It's really related to the the bond sale mechanism, the technique tech technicalities of that.
We require to get opinions from the attorney general's office as well as from bond counsel. And one of the things that's key to their opinions and our ability to sell the bonds is that we haven't done anything to change the design and the scheme substantially of the bond act. And so when it comes to legislation that would impact the Bond Act, we just have to be really careful with sort of how we how we navigate that. So we're happy to engage in conversations and what we think is reasonable to be done within those constraints. And I think one of the things that in particular to a b five twenty four, there there were other pieces of legislation that were utilizing prop four funding.
Speaker 78
And in some cases, those those pieces of legislation included sunset dates, and it was clear that the our peers very clear that the sunset date and the term of that program will be consistent with the funding available in proposition four to support it. And so it doesn't create sort of ongoing funding pressures. I think one of the things that we wanna make sure we navigate with this is is was mentioned in the administration's feedback last year, concerns about ongoing funding pressure. And so I think in terms of five twenty four, what we wanna make sure we navigate is making sure that we don't create pressures from other fund sources and that we sort of live within what prop four provides in terms of the setup and administration of that program. But, again, overall, just happy to engage in a conversation, what makes sense to set that up, but just wanted to to put out there that there are some constraints that we sort of have to live within given the bond sale mechanisms and our
Speaker 10
And so I make sure I understand you clearly because we did, enter we did work with the administration or tried to work with the administration to get feedback. We did not receive feedback from the administration in advance of the veto message of that that was the particular issue of concern. Also, in working with the Department of Finance, as we all do as legislators on our bills, there was no concern given that there was an issue that we needed to add additional language, which we would have been happy to provide. So I just wanna make sure I understand that this constraint that you're talking about as it relates to, the Budget Act I'm sorry, the Bond Act, and as it relates to a b 24 was, in particular, that we there was no sunset date in the bill.
Speaker 10
that you have? I know you mentioned we didn't have to get into detail, but that is the purpose of
Speaker 11
Sure. I'd be happy to whatever I'll do take on again to. Yeah. So for example, one the the five twenty four includes definitions of a variety of terms. Those terms are also defined in the bond act, but the definitions between the two are different.
So we wouldn't want to have a term defined differently than what the bond act says that could create a a sort of a design scheme challenge for us. And so aligning those definitions is something that'll be important. If we're putting in clear constraints or directing how funding has to be used that's beyond what the bond act contains. We have to be very careful about that. It's so for example, in this particular instance, that section of the bond act has a subdivision b that says, hey, you can do a loan program.
And then it's in in subdivision a, it kinda gives, here's the purpose of it, leaves that pretty pretty open in terms of what you use it for. If we come in subsequent with legislation that says you have to use it for a grant program and it has to be used in that way, that might be concerning because that's an additional constraint that wasn't in the bond act to change the design and scheme of the bond act. And so not that we can't use it for grants, we just need to be very careful in terms of how we go about impacting what the bond act says. So those are the things I think we need to work through just it's sort of an eye of a needle, I guess, to thread in a way in terms of sort of where we can go, but we do wanna be helpful in in trying to figure out how we can do that.
Speaker 10
I will hold you to being helpful. I will note, not just for my bill, but for all of the bills going through the legislature, that it is a painstaking process to go to the legislative process intentionally, because we wanna engage everyone, whether it be our colleagues from across the aisle or members of the public. And so a lot of resources go into doing that, not only resources from the administration, but from every single committee. And all of the things that you described are very technical in nature, and I think that's why technical assistance and as we navigate through this process is extremely important. And this is this administration's last, time to have an impact on, what the legislature is doing, and I would encourage not only, the Department of Finance, but every single department, to provide that level of technical assistance so we can get bills signed by the governor.
Because it was our intent to do something that was aligned with the bond act, that was aligned with the intent of going how we happened to be a part of the negotiating team with that, that was aligned and intent of having, the most ever spent on sustainable agriculture in line with the intent of our stakeholders. And so would have happy would have been happy to last year to marry in, these types of issues, to make that bill better and to get it to where it's something that the governor could assign so we could be a year ahead of where we are now. But I'm glad that you all are willing to be collaborative in nature to ensure that we have trailer language that matches the bond act as well as the legislative intent of of of this body. So I appreciate you doing that. A follow-up in this subject is, the governor's budget proposal allocates 5,000,000 for for this Lanex area.
Could you tell me what the rationale is for that figure and where it came from?
Speaker 11
So I'm gonna ask the Department of Conservation to come up and talk about that one.
Speaker 1
Use the you use the microphone right there, please. Good morning. There you go.
Speaker 61
Good morning. Jennifer Lukesi, the relatively new director of the Department of Conservation. Thank you for that question. We envision that the $5,000,000 would be used to help provide support to stand up the program, and our vision is to hit the ground running on July 1 with a very collaborative and transparent effort working with socially disadvantaged farmers to develop that program together beginning July 1.
Speaker 10
Okay. And so is the plan then to implement the intent and direction from the stakeholder process to ensure that the program aligns with voter intent that we've already had? So remember, we we last year, we went through this process. Yes. Of course.
So is that is that the plan, or you're coming up with a new plan?
Speaker 30
No. The our our plan is definitely to align the program with the voters' intent as outlined in proposition four.
Speaker 10
Yeah. But I'm talking about a b five twenty four and that and that process that we've outlined. So are you, because as I understand it, as the that there is I mean, the DOF, DOC, you
Speaker 10
Are amenable to allow language from 05/24 in the budget trailer language of that process already done. You noted that on July 1, you're having an starting implementing a plan that involves stakeholders that match the voter intent of prop four, but are you adjusting that to match legislative intent that was given last year?
Speaker 30
We will certainly, align the development of the program to match any legislative direction that is provided. That is our goal.
Speaker 1
First, I just wanna thank assembly member Wilson. She really, was one of the real champions in the legislature.
Speaker 1
At the time, we had people wanting to do a housing bond. We had people wanting to do all kinds of bonds, but only one bond that made it through the legislature, and that was this climate bond. And assembly member Wilson was one of the real champions that that that made that happen. So, with that, I'd also like to point out that the legislature pushed this, and we did not have support from the administration, for doing this climate bond. It was signed, but it was not with any support in terms of help trying to get it through.
So we have always asserted that this $10,000,000,000 is something we should be taking the lead on. And so with that, just imagine where we would be today if we didn't have the climate bond with as with the structural deficit we have, etcetera. We would really be hurting in terms of so many areas and stuff. So I think it was good leadership on the part of the legislature and some member Wilson, one one of those real champions again. So I'm really supportive of where senate bells senate member Wilson is trying to go.
This is the particular chapter of the bond that she specifically championed and and and focused on. And so I think many of us are very frustrated with the veto and the veto message. So I have this question for you with the veto message. And the veto message, the governor writes that the recent budget action by the legislature did not explicitly appropriate fund appropriate funding to support this program. There's no sustained funding to support the ongoing cost pressures this program would create.
What are the ongoing cost pressures that would be created? And I'll let Department of Finance answer that or you answer that. Okay. What are the ongoing cost pressures?
Speaker 11
So the way that the bill five twenty four is drafted right now, it's draft in a way that it sort of sets up an ongoing program. It creates it creates a a new fund. It, allows for prop four funding to transferred into that, but there's no, like, end to it. And so if you set up this program, all the prop four gets spent. There sort of then begs this question of, okay.
What Great. How are we gonna keep this ongoing program funded?
Speaker 1
So let me let me turn to assembly member Wilson and let you respond to that.
Speaker 10
Well, first of all, would have happy to put in a sunset if that would have got the bill not vetoed. Secondly, there's lots of programs that don't have funding, the program cease to exist even though they might be allowable. I mean, still on the books because you might have funding later. And so I think there was language, I remember correctly, I was getting ready to pull up the original bill language, that talked about upon appropriation by the legislature. And so there's this recognition that we all appropriate funds for a program.
And so are you saying that there are programs that exist today that don't have allocation and we're still doing those programs?
Speaker 11
I think there are a number of pilot programs that have been started. So there's there's a number of ways these things are created. So in some cases, we do pilot programs or provide limited term funding. You know, we just talked about the, farm to school funding. That's been started up over one time funding, and then we're we're here now talking about do we make this a permanent program with ongoing funding.
So that's one one route we take as you do one time funding with pilot programs, and you have these regular check ins. Are we gonna keep this going? Certainly, there have been instances where we've created programs through a lot of different routes that had limited term funding but ongoing authorizations. And so we found ourselves in similar situations where we're saying, hey. We have this program that we created and set up, and it had a shortened window of funding.
We've now run out of that funding, and so you find yourself again back in that situation of are we gonna keep this program going again? What's the fund source? That kind of thing. I think last year, what what we were looking at with some of these different situations in this particular budget context was limiting the amount to which we create some new cost pressures given the focus has been on trying to, address the ongoing budget deficit. So I think that's the framing that was behind that.
Speaker 10
So you're saying the adjustment was because there are programs on the books that don't have funding, and actively they're not active programs. They moved to be an inactive program because there's no funding for it. And people are looking and advocating every year. Well, can you put some money in there? Because we really like that program.
But they still are on the books. So I think I hear what you're saying is that the the governor made a conscious decision that if something didn't have ongoing program and there was no sunset date, that those programs, that those types of bills or initiation of programs would be beat up. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 11
Think the perspective is, in our current budget situation, not creating more programs that are ongoing without ongoing fund sources. Certainly, are programs that have been created in in the past that still exist
Speaker 11
That aren't funded. And I think we've had lots of conversations about we need to look at some of that stuff and decide whether or not they should stay on the books, and maybe they'll But
Speaker 10
I will note, once again, this is why technical assistance is extremely important, and I'll drive that home because I don't think this administration has done the best job in providing technical assistance consistently to legislators, for for legislation. But I will say, though, that, the purpose of the bill, was around prop four. The language of the bill was around prop four. So the intent of the bill was around prop four, and it was always looked at that prop four was the source of this, that we had this level of major investment that we're able to get in light of the budget circumstances that wasn't drawing on the general fund, that was from a dedicated funding source. And so that was allow that was, laid out throughout the bill, throughout every single conversation, which is why I got bipartisan support because I can bet you, my Republican colleagues, if they felt like it was an ongoing draw on the general fund, would not have supported that That that was part of it.
And so I think, I I recognize, though, that the intent of the governor at the time was if something is not explicit, even if it's implied, I'm not I'm I'm and I wanna be mindful. I'm nearing the end of my term. I don't wanna leave budget headaches for the next person, so I I do get that. But, that I I find that odd. But thank you.
I appreciate the great answer.
Speaker 11
Mhmm. I hear and accept that we didn't do a great job providing you technical assistance last year. And, sorry that that was the case. Will try and make sure that you get that this year.
Speaker 10
the last this is I will say this is his this is the administration's last year to have a stamp, and we don't wanna get to where we really good things that could be great things for him as a part of his legacy, get lost because of, you know, minor things that could easily be fixed that are technical in nature. I know our, the intent of the bill is aligned, especially given the the comments made, by our new director. The intent is there, but it is the devil is in the details, and I get that. You know? I haven't met an an auditor before.
The devil is absolutely in the details. And that's why I think it's important that we give that type of feedback so that the decision for the governor, any governor, is centered around whether this is a policy direction I wanna go in, not on some minor thing that could have been fixed. -Yeah. -And I think that's the the intent is we were always in the spirit of collaboration, which is why we worked heavily with our Republican colleagues to get them there with the community. And so I just wanna make sure that when when legislators put that level of effort to involve so many people that the administration, joins in that discussion as well.
But I do appreciate you and appreciate this governor. I'm a fan.
Speaker 1
I would like to just close this item, with these comments, which is, I completely understand why, the executive branch is concerned about getting out over their skis in terms of helping legislators with their legislation because it can imply the governor's now gonna support the legislation because you gave us some advice and we took it. And so, therefore, now you're obligated to, you know, sign the bill, etcetera. At the same time, that caution can go so far as to not be a positive in terms of good government. It's not good government for the governor's office to get out over their skis, right, in terms of too much too much optimism about this. But it's also not good government to get to the point where we go through the whole legislative process.
We never get one piece of advice about, you know, one of the things that that is a real concern is that there's no ongoing funding for this. That technical assistance because you heard the author say, hey, I would I would have put a sunset on that if that was the concern. Right? And that could have meant a year sooner because this is not like general fund. This prop four is something that there should be more advanced collaboration on because, again, it is the legislature that led on this, not the administration.
So I think the administration should have more deference in terms of working with the legislature as somebody who's been a champion comes up because I will assure you, we will, fight tooth and nail. We will not fund the $5,000,000 unless we get things worked out with assembly member Wilson, in terms of that. But I hope that that I I offer that in the spirit of what's good government. Recognize you can't go too far, but on prop four funding, we probably should have a a little bit different level of cooperation. And, certainly, before she gets to the finish line, say, this is really an issue with this.
You've gotten bipartisan support. You saw that bill moving. Certainly, close to the end would have been an opportunity to tell her this is this is gonna be important if that's really the reason this is being vetoed, if that's the the the significant reason. So with that, thank you very much. Really appreciate it.
Appreciate the the robust conversation we just had here. We'll go to item four, and that's the extreme heat. And speaking of extreme heat well, what's that?
Speaker 1
in this Yeah. While everybody's coming up, this is the only place in California where it gets colder as the day goes on. Yes. And that's sitting right here underneath these these air conditioners. So the extreme heat people well, the solution is we're going to release some of this cool air to those extreme heat places.
Yes. And with that, we will let the administration kick it off. Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 7
The climate bond allocates 450,000,000 for the extreme heat mitigation chapter over the lifetime of the bond. This funding is allocated across various programs within the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, the Natural Resources Agency, CAL FIRE, and the Department of Food and Agriculture. The budget act of 2025 appropriated a 110,000,000 across these departments with investments in programs such as urban greenings, extreme heat and community access program, and fairground updates. The governor's budget includes an additional 241,000,000 to support the delivery of these programs as well as investments in the transformative climate communities, extreme heat and community resilience centers, as well as the urban forest program that's administered by Cal Fire. I'm now gonna turn it over to the strategic growth council to provide an update on its programs.
Speaker 33
Thank you. Erin Curtis, executive director of the strategic growth council. I can provide an update on two programs that are, programmed in proposition four. The first is the transformative climate communities program. So far, we've, had four excuse me, five rounds of this program and awarded $424,000,000 in grants, to 37 of the most disadvantaged communities California through a competitive process.
That compares to a total of $917,000,000 that was requested through that competitive process. And, through the through those 37 grants, I can provide some statistics as far as what we've been able to achieve. C o two reductions equivalent to about 70,000 cars off the road for a year. The, construction of nearly 400 housing units. We've, passed out 17,000 transit passes, purchased 27 electric buses, 82 EV cars, and 92 charging stations, created 43 miles of bike lanes and pedestrian improvements, planted 18,200 trees.
And, the final guidelines for, the prop four funded round six for this program have been drafted. We have are asking for $98,400,000, and that will be up for approval by our strategic growth council at their meeting next month or next week rather. I have one other program to, provide information about. It's our community resilience centers grant program. We've had one round of this program so far, and we've award awarded 97,500,000.
Speaker 45
It has funded new construction and upgrades of neighborhood level resilience centers to provide shelter and resources during climate and other emergencies along with year round services and ongoing programming that build overall resilience in these communities. In round one, we awarded over 97 and a half million dollars. That includes more than 5,000,000 to 11 different planning grants, nearly $9,000,000 across four project development grants, and $83,000,000 across nine project implementation grants where we are, supporting the construction of a community resilience center. We, our strategic growth council is developing final guidelines for round two of this program in which we have $55,000,000 from proposition four, and those are also going to be up for approval next week at the council meeting.
Speaker 25
Abby Edwards. I'm the senior deputy director at LCI, and I'm gonna provide an update on the extreme heat and community resilience program. So this program launched in 2024 with $32,000,000 in awards for 45 grantees across 23 counties. So through this program, we're investing in a wide range of efforts to reduce the worst impacts of extreme heat for the most vulnerable Californians. That includes projects like heat action plans and awareness campaigns reaching farm workers and people experiencing homelessness from Imperial County to Ventura County to San Diego, Los Angeles, King, and Sonoma County.
We're also funding on the ground infrastructure projects, like cooling centers in places like Calaveras and Santa Rosa, park retrofits that age add shade and cooling features in Los Angeles, and home retrofits, in the most heat vulnerable communities in Lake County. Additionally, UCLA Luskin, is currently working on a strategy evaluation to help us understand what makes for the most effective investments, that will be sent to the legislature next year. Round two of the grant program, will be released this summer, with additional we're expecting addition, 15 to 20 implementation projects to be added to our portfolio, and we're requesting 24,000,000 for that.
Speaker 5
Go to Shenzhen with the LAO. This proposal did not raise any concerns for us. We would like to just highlight one point for the legislature's consideration. Some other areas of proposition four have leave room for more legislative discretion over how to direct the funds. However, the funding specified for LCI and the strategic growth council is for already established and existing programs, which leaves little room for legislative discretion other than the timing of appropriations.
Speaker 1
Thank you for thank you very much. The appreciate the updates, on these programs. Could you repeat for me again the number of houses that were were built you identified early in your presentation?
Speaker 33
This is just through the transformative climate communities program. Right. And it is, about 400 housing units.
Speaker 1
And so what was the determination of why those housing units were built? Who who received those housing units, etcetera?
Speaker 33
Certainly. The transformative climate communities program is very community driven. Mhmm. And often, there are a that it supports a partnership structure that then goes after other types of funding. So, for example, we have, a transformative climate community, one of the first in one of the first three, down in Watts, and it includes a revitalization from Jordan in Jordan Downs.
And, the partnership structure that was developed between local jurisdictions, community based organizations, went after, other grant funding to build affordable housing and, in fact, revitalize Jordan Downs entirely, and they've received several grants from AHSC to develop the those housing units. But the housing units that were built as a part of and specifically through TCC, are determined by the community.
Speaker 1
So are those 400 housing units, were they totally paid for by this program, or we were we just partial funders of the 400?
Speaker 33
Know, I believe that in this case, those 400 units were paid for through TCC entirely. If I'm incorrect, I do have a really smart person behind me who can help correct that answer.
Speaker 1
Nobody seems to be correcting. Well You might be corrected here. Right? We'll see. Right?
Speaker 37
Hi. Good morning, deputy director Ahmad Syed. For the transformative climate communities, there's a there's a mix of between which projects are funded under there. So some of them are entirely funded under TCC for affordable housing. Others couple it in leverage funding for development.
Speaker 34
So Erin did mention Watts Rising, but we have other programs. So Ontario had most of their structures funded in phases. Phase one was funded under TCC affordable housing. We have other projects online, like Coachella that's also doing FEED structures where portions are a 100% funded under TCC.
Speaker 1
So the four the four some of the 400 are were were just partial funders and
Speaker 1
Yes. Got it. Okay. Good. Thank you.
Overall, there's not much money left here, but I really appreciate that you spent the first year in the Transformative Climate Communities program before you came up with a $137,000,000 request for this year in terms of of trying to move forward with that. But in general, 22% of the money is going to be left as we go forward. I think much of this will fall under the category of nice to have, but won't be considered. I don't think you're gonna we're gonna find extreme heat being the absolute Could
Speaker 1
Yes. I oh, good. Thank you for reminding me. I appreciate it. Right?
Yeah. The the teacher learning from the student or the other way around. Right? And and stuff. But I I I said I appreciate this.
I think that in general, the extreme heat aspect will be identified as a nice to have, not an urgent to have when it comes to do we close emergency rooms, what do we do with health and safety cuts that are coming from the federal government. So that means we have to make sure we spend these dollars just as efficiently as possible, these props prop $4 that we have. It also means we need to start thinking about whether we have another climate bond before, for too long, also, as we go forward. So, anyway, the I encourage you guys to, make sure, that you really maximize these dollars because it'll be hard to come up with more of these dollars go going forward.
Speaker 25
Yeah. I would just I would just emphasize that, you know, extreme heat is the number one, threat that kills the most Californians, in terms of climate threats. And these programs really think comprehensively about how to target the funds to the most vulnerable Californians. So it's top of mind of how to really use the funds efficiently.
Speaker 1
It it really is for me also. I'm just talk realistically, in terms of trying to push new general fund programs in the general fund budget, this will LAO will have a difficult time, I think, making that determination. We don't I can't speak for them. But with the new standards coming up for the next couple of years, it's it just makes it incumbent for us Yeah. Realistically to try to sell.
Fact is we had trouble trying to sell the climate bond at all. Mhmm. But we've had great difficulty trying to sell climate spending at all out of the general fund. We're one of you know, we're the state that is identified as the, quote, progressive climate state, and yet we allocate very little general fund money to climate. We rely on climate bonds to try to do that and stuff.
So keep up the good work in in this program, folks. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. We will move on now to issue five.
Alrighty. Excellent. Okay. Advancing farm to school and local food systems and a budget change proposal and trailer bill language. So we've had the opportunity to to do an initial visit with this, during your testimony, but, now let's really dive into it.
Alright?
Speaker 2
So, because we've already touched on so much of this, I did wanna bring with me, our program director for the Farm to School Program, Nick Anasich, so that we could go straight to your questions in the process that you want, but I'm I'm respectful of time and
Speaker 32
Yeah. Thank you. I'm Nick Anasich, Farm to School Program Manager. I'm prepared for any questions that you guys have.
Speaker 1
Great. I've got some questions for you, but let's go. Anybody else? Department of finance and
Speaker 29
Brian Metzger, LAO. Thank you for summarizing our recommendations earlier in the hearing, so I won't repeat those. But I did wanna mention that state and federal governments provide a total of about $5,000,000,000 for school nutrition in other programs. And so the legislature could explore whether at least some of the farm to school activities could be potentially supported by monies that the state is required to provide to schools to comply with prop 98. And those could be allocated directly to schools through the incubator grant program and could be counted as prop 98 expenditures and happy to discuss further if you'd like.
Speaker 1
Well, that's one of the topics. So I'm gonna work backwards, and that's one of the topics I'd like to explore. We are doing a a good job of significantly increasing the per capita expenditures for students. I know we'll get tremendous resistance from school districts, etcetera. But this program has so much educational value to it that it seems that with us allocating constantly a steady percentage of this very rapidly increasing overall total revenue to prop 98 that we ought to be able to consider that.
So any any thoughts from the Department of Finance in terms of any conversations going on in the executive branch in terms of trying to say some of this stuff should be funded through that as Department of Finance or the secretary. I'll start with you, secretary Bass.
Speaker 2
Sure. So I won't speak to the Department of Finance issues, but I do wanna speak specifically to what is unique about this program, and that it is it can also be viewed as a farmer and rural community economic development program. It is that piece that CDFA is uniquely qualified to do, which is the connection of farms to the institute procurement, whether it's the school nutrition director, K-twelve, or if over time we're able to expand this to UC and CSU systems, veterinary affairs programs, and others. So I really want to point out what is unique to what CDFA does that I don't think would be covered as I understand it by Prop 98. But I just wanted to speak to that very specific issue.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Sure. It wouldn't certainly, it wouldn't be all the farm to school program, but some percentage of the farm to school program. Yes. Certainly, the educational aspects that I saw
Speaker 8
Yes. I would like to know that farmer school grants can be awarded to a variety of entities such as nonprofits, private schools, which cannot receive prop 98.
Speaker 1
Sure. Right. But the public schools could. Correct? Yeah.
I realized private schools don't receive prop 98, but could prop $98 be spent by public schools to support this program?
Speaker 54
Nate Williams, Department of Finance. So, when looking at the the prop 98 package Yeah. There's kind of comp there's some complexities with that. So the fact that the the program is an existing program, if we were to look at doing prop 98 funding, it might require a prop 98 rebench, which would then, eliminate any sort of general fund savings that would occur for whatever portion we were we were to put into the package. My follow-up.
Speaker 35
You you're saying we we would have to rematch? Essentially, since since we're already, this is an existing program that we've already had funding for, we can't simply just transfer it into, the prop 98 package, as a way to save money in general.
Speaker 1
If if we had a new program that dealt with food and schools and and that aspect of it I would
Speaker 35
have to defer to my colleagues on the education side to to speak more about the specifics of the prop 98 package. But my understanding as as it relates to this proposal is that we Sure.
Speaker 1
If we just try to transfer the proposal overall. I I think the conversation I'm looking forward to having, least tentatively, is some kind of new combination here where we get the benefits of the farm to school program, but we also get get greater bang for our buck in terms of we've lost the federal funding for the local producer local purchase program. But I keep hearing over and over again, and you keep doing a good job of that, and that is we need identified markets, particularly for these small people. Trying to come up with identified markets. It could be UCs and CSUs, and it could be k through 12 schools, and it could be food banks, and it could be lots of different programs, which would then allow us to have part of it carved out as the implementation of the farm to school program in the schools could potentially be carved out as a school function.
And schools there there I could see us having some incentive programs. We're talking about title one schools and trying to focus on those schools. And there could be different incentives that we could come up with for schools to decide to do this. If we, as a state, believe this is really a valuable educational aspect, I'm trying I'm trying to find a way to fund the most and get the most bang out, you know, for our for our bucks in terms of doing this. And I'm concerned when farm to school dollars are being used to purchase only fruits from farmers because they don't have the kitchen to be able to do anything with the salads and the fruit the vegetable side of it, we're losing because if they don't have that if they don't have that kitchen, then they're less likely to have those programs because part of the part of the educational programs come from the fact that they have the kitchen, they serve the foods, and they talk about serving those foods.
And if instead it's just more like, you know, we're just getting USDA food, you know, we're getting you get the butter in. Yeah. You don't build a program about the reduced cost or almost free butter that that that you get. I I'm concerned that part of the farm school program is only only doing that. You talked about the attractiveness of the presentation of the broccoli is important if we want this to happen.
But we've got to get the schools not all the farm school programs are buying the broccoli.
Speaker 2
Yeah. And I can't speak to the other agencies, but we have close collaboration in particular with the Department of Education on some of the infrastructure issues that are involved there. So I can't speak to the totality of the reach of where farm to school is. But we've also been very fortunate with workforce development dollars on culinary education as well. So there's a lot of cross agency work going into this, and it's in all of our best interest to find the most efficient way to serve the most children and the most farmers at the same time with this kind of a program, as well as upscaling for for the culinary arts for our farm to school
Speaker 1
So let me let me drill down now with you. I appreciate you being here. Number one, what percentage of our students, are getting programs as robust as the Rio Vista school that I saw on Friday?
Speaker 32
As robust as well, Nick Anasich, former school program manager. As robust as Rio Vista, that's a very special program, but it is something that we think it's the first domino of of many. So what's happening there is they've used grant they've been a two time grantee. So in the first year of grant funds, they established the program. They established the 10 acre regenerative organic farm at the district.
And in the second year of the program, they expanded that into the classrooms, because they covered the cafeteria with that farm. Now what they're doing is they've increased revenue through the increased participation in education and kids actually consuming those healthy foods that they're seeing grown. With that increased revenue, they're now reinvesting that into their school meal, into the educators that you met with. So Rio Vista started that. The next week, we had another school district in the same county ask us, how'd they get that in their spend down plan?
And then we had Mount Diablo Unified School District reach out to us asking the same questions about how they could invest their revenue in similar ways. So we see the grant program as the opportunity to take school districts on this journey. And then once they have the revenue cycles themselves, they can maintain that effort moving forward.
Speaker 1
So is the Rio Vista project the only project in the state that that like like that? Is it the most advanced project in the state?
Speaker 32
It's not the most advanced, I would say, but it it's one of many that are making this effort.
Speaker 1
And so my question is, how many are many? How how my question was, how many are as good as the Rio Vista project?
Speaker 32
I'd have to work with our evaluation team to pull a specific number because it's so what's the word? You know, it's so it's based on feel when you're there on how great it is and invested. Every project that we fund has a procurement and education component. So that's in this most recent round, a 199 school district and earned school entities. Alright.
So all of them have procurement and education together.
Speaker 32
In this most recent cohort, there's a 199 educational entities that are being funded. Okay.
Speaker 1
So a 199 school districts give us 37% of all of I knew the number was 37% in terms of doing that. Right? So the schools without the prep kitchens, what percentage of the schools don't have prep kitchens?
Speaker 32
We'd have to work with our partners at the Department of Education to see how far the kitchen infrastructure and training funds have reached.
Speaker 32
They've invested $900,000,000 in the kits program, as they call it, to support these investments in school kitchen and culinary program.
Speaker 1
Do you share the concern that I'm expressing that schools that don't have the kitchens are Definitely. Not buying all of the products? Definitely, yes. So it's very important for me to get the answer to the question, of the 199 schools, how many of them have prep kitchens or else we're losing a lot of the value of the program, both in the purchase side of it, that we don't we're not getting a we're not creating guaranteed market for the vegetables, and on the education side of it because of that. So how how long do you think it would take roughly to get that piece of information?
Speaker 32
I'd have to work with the Department of Education by one to two weeks for them to analyze the full data.
Speaker 1
Great. Okay. Thanks. And how much was the federal funding that we were getting to help complement this? And how much has that been cut?
Speaker 32
Yeah. The USDA Farm to School grant, it's also known as the Patrick Leahy Farm to School grant. Uh-huh. I believe it is around $14,000,000 annually.
Speaker 32
whole 14,000,000 for the entire nation. Yeah. And then in the most recent round of grant funds, there were three California projects funded totaling 800,000 $862,000 in funds.
Speaker 1
So we're down to $800,000 coming from the federal government to help us with
Speaker 1
Okay. Good. And then we have the school nutrition program. And the the school nutrition program is different from this, but how different? How much do we have requirements in the school nutrition program?
How much do we have requirements in school nutrition program that there be an educational component? That the foods, assume the foods have to meet these these same criteria and stuff. So what can you tell me about the distinction between the money that goes for the the school nutrition program versus the farm to school program?
Speaker 32
Yeah. The school nutrition program requires it to be domestic product through the Buy American provision. So schools are able through the National School Lunch Program and those programs to say if it's domestic or if it's nondomestic, they get special waivers for that. Mhmm. So that's pretty much it on the local food procurement front.
And then, you know, providing education to students, that's a best practice, but it's not a requirement of the program.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Alrighty. And what are the differences between the administration's trailer bill and Aguilar Curry's a b 675?
Speaker 32
The trailer bill is guided by our farm to school road map, which was published through a big strategic planning process a few years ago. So the trailer bill language just incorporates all the elements of that road map into the language.
Speaker 32
It didn't in it didn't incorporate every element that was possible in the road map. So we wanted to be more all encompassing. Can you
Speaker 1
She she incorporated 85 to 90, just not a 100%. Yeah. So you have 15% more of the road map than she does. Okay. Great.
Hey. Thank you very much. Yeah. Anything else? Assembly member Wilson.
Speaker 10
Thank you so much. I believe the Farm to School and Food Hub program has had a strong impact, and I support the continued funding for both. And thank you so much for shouting out Rio Vista
Speaker 10
Within my district. And they are definitely a model that should be followed, and I know other districts within the county are looking at that. You
Speaker 10
Now they have a farm program. I was thinking, Boy, I gotta go see the 10 Acres. Because I haven't seen the 10 Acres. I just saw their farm program. But I didn't I mean, they're who did this, but I didn't see the 10 Acres.
So I was,
Speaker 10
Too bad. But see, was trying to steal it. Mhmm. There you go. Right.
It is a beautiful program. And both I guess now I gotta go to your district
Speaker 10
not But I was like, they got 10 acres? Yeah. But they do have a program, and thank you for shouting out any district that's doing amazing Yeah. And any school that's doing amazing because it it it's an extremely important program. I have a few questions, but I also have a comment.
I'm gonna start because I'm a follow-up to to my chair. But just on I have a comment around because we have a bill right now, and it's we're gonna do the Laurie Show with bills today. But a b seventeen thirty one. And so this builds on the CDFA's valuable farm to school efforts by creating a statewide ongoing structure that facilitates purchasing between any school thank you. Between any school and any eligible California farmer food business through an improved vendor program.
And so this structure helps schools that have received farm to school grant, translate those investments into consistent transparent purchasing from local producers. And at the same time, it supports the hundreds of schools that have not received grants but are still working to comply with my colleague's bill, assembly member Gabriel's AB twelve sixty four and that transition away from ultra processed foods. And so this transition away from those types of foods create a significant market opportunity, I believe, to support our California farmers. And the goal of a b seventeen thirty one is to provide a structure and support that supports schools to buy minimally processed foods locally. That is navigating its way, through the legislature, and I hope that there isn't any issues with that bill.
You all will let me know, so we can adjust those and hopefully get something of quality on the governor's desk, so that he could just address it on policy or the direction he wants to head into or not. So my follow-up questions, the the chair was talking about the shift of being away from ultra processed foods. Also, you had the conversation about the loss of the federal local foods for schools funding. What what else are the biggest gaps that you're seeing when it comes to purchasing from local climate smart farms?
Speaker 23
The biggest purchase is the biggest challenge is definitely on the school side of things. It's school staff capacity, school infrastructure, and then truly school connection to farms. So that's why our grant program is structured in a way that it gets the school districts to come up with a plan for all three of those elements, then it's flexible funding so they can basically just say, hey. Actually, if I could just hire those two staff, now I have the capacity to go fix my procurement process so that I can work with that farm. And it and we're very grateful to be able to provide that flexibility to our districts.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Might I add, we mentioned technical assistance earlier, and that's there's inclusion here of, several positions on climate smart agriculture because as our incentive dollars at the state level decline, we wanna make sure that we're we're providing the education about what climate smart ag is, how to do it, and where our other grant programs. USDA still has conservation title that would have programs that could be of assistance if we don't already have a a farmer that wants to go into the school program that doesn't know about those. So we're providing that technical assistance for the long term to make sure more farmers know what the practices are. And if we don't have a state program for incentive dollars, we can provide some additional directional support to them to get into some other incentive programs through USDA.
Speaker 10
The technical assistant side of it. And so given the fact that, you know, our farmers need stability. Right? Do we see an issue with this volatility and funding from the feds, including the state, prop 98, and all that stuff where, our schools will have the resources that they need to consistently purchase from our farmers if they are able to get into these type of programs. I know you I think you talked a little bit about with RioVISSA and that revenue part, but can you explain?
Can you dig a little deeper on that?
Speaker 32
Yeah. I'm happy to share. I think the best example in our program is Los Angeles Unified School District. They used our grant funds to hire a team of consultants to come in and revamp their procurement processes. So in this upcoming school in this current school year, they're gonna spend $4,700,000 on local food direct from food hubs throughout California.
So there are these examples of districts that have invested really strategically and have the capacity where they're gonna be able to sustain this effort. Then there's also grantees who are just starting this for the first time. Yeah. And so we're I wish I had a clearer percentage for you on the number of them that that were at those early stages.
Speaker 32
But, it's definitely a concern. They've lost the Local Foods for Schools was $23,000,000. School food best practices funds from the California Department of Education was a $100,000,000. So and then they've lost the USDA Patrick Leahy Farm to School grant opportunity. So there's definitely gonna be a, I don't wanna call it.
I don't wanna be too dramatic about it, but there's definitely gonna be school districts that lose capacity.
Speaker 10
Right. That's a that's a big deal. Thank you for noting. I wasn't fully aware of that. I didn't wasn't fully aware to quantify the 123,000,000 Yeah.
Like, and the significant impact that would have.
Speaker 10
Yeah. Okay. Last last thing. And so, any other you've noted the revenue issues. I just wanna make sure that for those that have received the Farm to School grant programs or support, is there any other issue that we should be aware of of of where they're getting stuck as it relates to buying from a local farm?
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. We'll go to thank you very much. Look forward to having some more conversations with you. We're going to go to issue eight because we have one of the witnesses has a tough departure deadline here and stuff.
So we'll move to that. Thank you. And we appreciate the people from Exhibition Park and issue seven waiting, but we will do the California Science Center.
Speaker 36
Thank you very much. You're welcome. Jeff Rudolph, director of the California Science Center.
Speaker 36
Good. Jeff Rudolph, director of the California Science Center. Thank you. I will try to keep it really brief.
Speaker 36
California Science Center is a science learning institution focused on education, inspiration of young people, particularly, but people all ages to learn science. We are now in the third phase of a twenty five, almost thirty year now master plan, which actually started in this committee, I believe in this room, when the chair was now congresswoman Maxine Waters, and she directed us to do a master plan and gave us the funding to do it. And we're still working on it, but we've made enormous progress with the completion of construction this year of the third phase of that master plan, which is the last major phase, this Ambulation Air and Space Center. We've taken over the building and are finishing the installation of the exhibits and artifacts in that building and are ready to open it. The budget includes funding for the state's portion of the operating expenses necessary to open it.
I'll note that Science Center operates with strong support from nonprofit California Science Center Foundation, which in next year's operating budget is almost the same. It's very close. I think this is total about 35,000,000 for the state. The foundation's about 30,000,000, so we work very hard to bring in philanthropic and private dollars and grant funds as well as earned income through our foundation. We are ready to open.
As soon as we get the funding, we'll hire all the people and be ready to open what is an absolutely fantastic new facility that will impact millions of young people. Great.
Speaker 29
Brian Metzger, LAO. We find this proposal has merit as a way of adequately staffing the facility when it opens. However, in light of the budget condition, one option would be for the legislature to consider at least some of the funding to operate the museum could come from alternative funding sources, such as admission fees, which the museum does not currently charge, higher parking fees, and or private funds.
Speaker 19
I think I I led with talking about our private funding and that almost half of our budget actually comes through our nonprofit foundation, not in the state budget, but those are private private philanthropy. It's earned income from things that we do charge for, although don't charge general admission because we don't wanna create a barrier to those traditionally underserved black and brown kids, I'll put it that way, from our immediate communities that would not come. We did a study at the quite a few years ago now, a couple years ago, like a couple decades ago, legislative analysts brought the same issue, asked for a study. We took a year and did that, analyzed museums around the world that had gone from free to a fee and found that you lose between 30 and 70 percent of the attendance, and who you actually lose is mostly those that can't afford it. We we do, as I said, find ways to get money from our guests and others that have the money, and we'll continue to do that.
Speaker 36
Parking in Expedition Park now, our guests pay $20 to park. That is actually, I believe, the highest of any state park in the state, and we'd kind of ask why should South LA have higher costs than anywhere else in the state.
Speaker 1
What purse do you do you have a demographic break breakdown of your attendance?
Speaker 36
Our attendance? Ethnic background ethnically, we're about 40% Latino, about 12 or 13% African American, similar amount Asian American. We look a lot like the population of
Speaker 1
the state. And do you have a breakdown of locals versus outside of the area in terms of
Speaker 36
Our our current attendance is about 85 to 90% Californians. The the largest number of those, of course, are the five county region that's closer to Los Angeles, but we do get guests from around the state, and we actually do some of our educational programming around the state as well. We, in addition to our exhibit based programs, we do educational program including teacher professional development all over.
Speaker 1
Any idea of what percentage of locals within five miles of the science center?
Speaker 1
Thank you. That's good. I don't expect you in terms of doing that. So right now your policy is no fees and you guys feel
Speaker 37
I would also just note, chair, that the Science Center has historically relied upon general fund for its core operations and maintenance, so this proposal is consistent with that precedent.
Speaker 1
Sure. Great. Thank you. Alright. Nobody else here to ask questions.
And so Well, thank relieved to make your
Speaker 36
Hope you'll be able to come see our new Air and Space Center. So it's amazing.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We're gonna go to issue seven at Exposition Park. Hello. I've seen that before. Right?
Yeah. Right. Alright. Go ahead.
Speaker 38
Good morning, mister chair, and all of the other members that I'm sure will be very excited to hear about
Speaker 38
in return. We will make it very brief. We presented and passed around a PowerPoint for you, but we're we're gonna skip that for the sake of time and and just summarize what is in the governor's proposed budget on behalf of Exposition Park. You're familiar with it. We've we've spoken about the park and its needs previously.
We are averaging up to around 8,000,000 annual visitors from the public annually, and we are expecting tremendous growth from not only our colleagues from the California Science Center when they open their, new wing, but also the new Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, which will be opening in September. So we are anticipating an additional 2,000,000 more visitors to the park. And with that, it is our focus for, the park to be accessible, the park to ensure the safety of its park patrons, and also to ensure that, we are, in we are moving toward as much modernization as possible with, all of the different visitors that are coming. I say that because while we have four museums, four sports and recreation venues, two schools, multiple green spaces, we really do serve the local community as well as global tourists. We are excited that about fifty days from today, we will be hosting the official World Cup fan festival in Los Angeles.
And about three hundred or so, eight hundred days from now, we're also hosting the LA twenty eight Olympics and the Paralympic Games. It will be the first time that the, state will host the Paralympic Games, and we're very excited about that. We're also excited that we're gonna be making history as the only site in modern, history to be, the third site for the Olympiad. So, you know, with that, we have in front of you for your consideration the governor's proposed budget for us to ensure that, again, we have safety and accessibility at the park. The request is for 96,500,000 in addition to some operational adjustments.
Happy to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 37
Department of finance. Just wanted to note that our colleagues at the Department of General Services worked hand in hand with Exposition Park on doing these the park wide assessment that informed the proposal today. They've been patiently awaiting all morning any, the more technical questions that they can help answer.
Speaker 29
Great. Thank you. LAO. Brian Metzger, LAO. This proposal has merit as a way of addressing safety risks in the park and consequently litigation against the state.
It also prioritizes improvements in high traffic areas, particularly with new events coming to the park. But given the budget condition, one option the legislature could consider is whether to downscale at least some of the proposed work to save general fund. We're not recommending any specific changes to the proposal at this time, but just providing it as an option should it be needed.
Speaker 1
Great. Okay. Good. I have a number of questions, so I wanna try to get to them. If you can give me your prompt or as as direct answers as you can.
The first thing I'm really concerned with, we listed all these questions for you, but there's question four, that is help me understand you're going to be doing some undergrounding, you know, the underground parking, but we're we're doing stuff on the surface before we're doing the underground parking. Are we gonna be removing things when we go to do the underground parking structure as a result? Help help
Speaker 38
It's a great question, chair. The the proposal that you have in front of you for the 96,500,000 will focus on high trafficked areas that are outside of the area and the scope for the underground parking project that you all, helped us approve in advance in, the previous cycle. That project will begin construction following the Olympics. So there will be two distinct areas. So we will not be duplicating any efforts.
We're gonna be as judicious and efficient with the the dollars and also our timeline as well with various different projects at the park.
Speaker 1
Takes me to the next question, which was the fifth question that we had there, and that is, you know, we have progressive design build people out there, but they're getting pushed to do a lot of design build. What kind of confidence do we have that we have the partners that the partners that we need will be available, to do these and to keep two sets of projects, you know, or multiple projects moving on the time schedule that we want them to move on?
Speaker 38
Thank you for answering asking that question. With me is our deputy general manager who, actually worked with a workforce organization that had been working really closely with various, groups in Los Angeles. We are confident that we will be able to meet this moment and ensure that we meet the timeline of construction. So I welcome any comments as well as from our colleagues over the Department of General Services.
Speaker 47
I would add that, through previous efforts before landing in this current role, there were training, efforts underway with multiple partners with the LAOC building construction trades to ensure that there is a strong pipeline of workforce available, for these two phases and all the other projects that are aligned, not to compete with all the others that are already taking place in the county.
Speaker 22
Sure. Anna Lasser, director of Department of General Services. So when general services is involved in projects such as this and any of the larger projects that we typically manage and help support our client departments, we gauge the industry to ensure that there's expressed interest, Being that the state is consistently working on a myriad of projects throughout the state, industry leaders are always eager to work with us despite there's a lot of interest in the Olympics, and the Olympics are a one time, very large effort, but the state is always, engaged in projects. So we know that there is a very strong and interested pipeline of not only workforce, but actual, construction management firms and industry leaders who are willing to bid on these kind of projects.
Speaker 1
So we feel confident we would be a treasured partner that we may get more likely a contractor will choose us over a one time project contract. Great. Alright. Thank you. How many projects do you expect to complete within the infrastructure timeline and how did you determine the timeline?
Speaker 38
We determined the scope based upon the amount of funding, and we were able to prioritize the most high trafficked areas for both pedestrians and vehicles. So depending on on the funding, once we finalize that in the the budget, we will be able to complete the the full list. We will say that the areas that we really wanna prioritize are those that will be around the main entrance of the park. And, again, with 8,000,000 upwards of 10,000,000 visitors in this next year and change, we do, foresee this helping, mitigate a lot of risk for the state and, helping address some of the liabilities that we've been absorbing for these past few years.
Speaker 38
We did and also, we sought to ensure that these were surface level projects. Those can be completed much more quickly, and we worked in coordination with our colleagues at the Department of General Services so
Speaker 1
And we have the first question that we asked, and that is, you know, clarifying that are these projects prerequisite for the Olympics and the Paralympics? And if we weren't involved, would we still be sitting here having this conversation?
Speaker 38
Thank you for asking that. This park has been in this community for over a hundred years, and it will be here for another hundred years. The work that we're doing now will be a legacy investment for the state of California on a long term basis. We are seeking to ensure the completion of these projects before the 28 games given the number of people that we will see. But these investments for the state are for a long term basis and for the state of California at large.
Speaker 1
Great. The the concept of free admissions is one that I completely embrace for sort of public benefits, the the science museum that we have. You want these these things to be sort of assets that are provided to to everybody. But this park has some unique aspects and that there are people making profits off of some of the leases of this. To the extent that you're leasing out property to people who are actually making a profit off of that lease or bear some gain even if it's a nonprofit organization, it's not a profit, but they are they are benefiting.
They are paying themselves, large salaries, or executive officers, etcetera. It seems that those lease rates ought to be sufficient to cover the deferred maintenance of the facility. If I build a building and I lease that building out, I want to make sure I cover the deferred maintenance of cost when I lease that building out. When the state builds a great facility like this and then leases some of it out, the state ought to be charging lease rates that re recover the deferred maintenance cost. Tell me where we are in terms of the lease rates and why we're not covering deferred maintenance with those lease rates.
Speaker 4
Thank you for that question. We have multiple leases on property, many of which, will expire in anywhere from 50 to 100 years. We work as closely as possible with our park partners and the colleagues on campus to find ways to create not only efficiencies within our resources, but also shared costs. As an example, we continue to work very closely around some minor improvements around the park in partnership with some of those others that would be benefiting from these improvements. I also, you know, share your sentiment around the need to reassess some of our, arrangements to ensure that the state is in the best position, to protect the public resources for the public good.
Speaker 38
So we will take that back and and consider as much as possible what we can do.
Speaker 1
What how do the Coliseum lease rates compare with other stadium lease rates?
Speaker 38
I'm not familiar with the other rates in in the local area, but given that those are long established, we do know we have a set rate for the next hundred years. I should say at this point, it's about ninety two years left.
Speaker 1
So I appreciate you saying you'll take that back and consider it. I would like to have you give us more information about the leases and the lease rates that we're charging and how they compare with other lease rates. Is that something you can do in the next three weeks?
Speaker 74
Department of Finance. Wanted to to note that the governor's budget proposes a new attorney position at CNRA specifically to provide dedicated legal support to Exposition Park given the complexities of some of the arrangements that Expo Park has with the park partners.
Speaker 1
Thought we thought we would try. Alright. Great. We would appreciate that. That would that would help us as we do our evaluation in terms of some of the options that, LEO has recommended for us and stuff.
I'll turn to my colleagues and see if they have any questions. Oh, they don't have any questions. Great. Now we're done we're done with this, and we'll now open this up to, public comment. Thank you very much.
Really appreciate you being here.
Speaker 1
Oh. Yeah. I'm gonna ask the sergeant to give me an estimate of how many people are in line to speak. Could you do that? And because we have to be out of here in about twenty five minutes.
I think I'm gonna have to cut everybody down to thirty seconds, please. I'm sorry. But we have to be out here. Right. Okay.
Speaker 42
Kim Delfino, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Cal Trout, Mojave Desert Land Trust, Sonoma Land Trust, Resources Renewal Institute, Pacific Forest Trust, and Power oh, sorry. You're you're already here. Power Nature. Happy Earth Day. I know I'm taking up my time.
Appreciate the hearing on the staffing cuts. We, appreciate the work by the joint legislative budget committee. However, we would recommend that all the positions be restored to, Department of Fish and Wildlife and state parks. We believe that, those because you're cutting bone and muscle and not fat, and that it would benefit our state greatly. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Kara Martinson with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Large Scale Solar Association would like to re reiterate the comments of Kim Delfino from Defenders of Wildlife. We support maintaining staffing levels at CDFW to advance clean energy projects and capture those remaining clean energy tax credits.
Speaker 28
extra time. California Wildlife Officers Foundation and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association strongly urging retention of and funding for the 45 wildlife officer and 12 park peace officer positions. I'll just remind you of the essential work that these officers do increasingly so, thanks to the federal budget cuts that are requiring them to patrol federal lands as well. Reducing these positions to 29% of services needed by the state, I just think, reinforce there are only compelling reasons to retain these positions and none to support removing them. Thank you.
Speaker 49
My name's Martin Bork. I'm here on behalf of the Save Market Match campaign. Market Match is the largest program funded by the California Nutrition Incentive Program. We're here to support, assembly member Connolly's budget request. This is a critical, safety net program that both helps, snap CalFresh shoppers access fresh healthy foods and, avoid ultra processed foods.
Speaker 44
And considering the cuts to HR one, which will affect both health care coverage as well as nearly half a million shoppers.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon, chair. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. The proposal to sweep the 6,000 position vacant positions is a very blunt tool. Last year, the legislature appropriately said we need a little more nuance there directed to the joint legislative budget committee, which said we wanna retain around 11% of these. Strongly recommend that you do that, that you follow the recommendations.
Speaker 2
Hi. My name is Erin Toromey. I'm a farmer, was farmer of the year for San Mateo County, and I'm here to support the restoration of the, funding for CNIP, which is a program that supports farmers like myself. There are thousands of us up and down the state from as far north as Alturas all down to Riverside, San Diego that have become that really benefit greatly from that program and really wanna see that money put back where
Speaker 41
Abby Helpbrin with the Center for Ecoliteracy and on behalf of over 225 members of the School Meals for All Coalition in strong support of Farm to School. Thank you for taking the time to visit Rio and your great questions about kitchen infrastructure and training. We will follow-up with some more details on that in the interests of time. I just wanna say that farm to school is the only program that directly funds food education, the infrastructure that farmers need to supply to schools, and that regional support staff. And in a tight budget year, this is so important.
Thank you.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon. Lizzie Guanzona here on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor and Tom Camp Kat Ranch LLC on a number of issues briefly. On On issue one, we support reestablishing positions at CDFW to reconstitute the statewide wildlife coexistence program. On issues three and four, we support the proposed prop four investments on climate smart ag. On issue five, we also support ongoing funding for the farm to school program.
I wanna echo the comments of my colleague before me. And finally, alongside 250 farming and food organizations, we support 45,000,000 for the local food purchase assistance program and 15,000,000 for the California underserved and small producer program.
Speaker 63
Carla Guerreba Garcia here on behalf of Mara Bay Aquarium and nearly two dozen of the state's leading marine conservation organizations urging the retention of CDFW positions supporting marine and environmental protection programs. CDFW continuously operates with staffing levels far below what is necessary to meet its statutory rep responsibilities, consistently doing the best they can with roughly one third of the personnel needed to meet mandated obligations. Please reject the elimination of these CDFW positions.
Speaker 68
Good afternoon. Julianna Tetlow for San Diego Humane Society and Occidental Arts and Ecology Center echoing the comments of the committee members and my colleagues' concerns regarding the hundred and sixty four Department of Fish and Wild life positions proposed to be swept. We are particularly concerned about the adverse impacts to the environmental protection and public safety associated with the loss of these critically important wildlife officers. We also wanna flag among the proposed cuts, one is a position that was just established three years ago by the administration's ECP creating the beaver restoration program. We support that.
Speaker 24
Good afternoon, chair and, staff. Rico Mastrodonato with the Trust for Public Land. Affiliate my comments about the staffing cuts, minuscule budget savings for potentially devastating on the ground impacts. With regard to investing in, extreme heat, prioritize nature based solutions. You get so many more, byproducts and co benefits that impact people's health, air, water, habitat, the way they feel about their life.
Speaker 50
Hi there, mister chair. Mark Henley, California Waterfowl Association. We're really concerned about any, loss of positions at Department of Fish and Wildlife, particularly for the wardens. As you know, science is a cornerstone of wildlife conservation. It's used by our California Fish and Game Commission to set our hunting and fishing, regulations.
But without enough wardens in the field, those regulations really are meaningless and ineffective. So we urge you to restore those positions. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you.
Chair, Kathy Mossberg, behalf of the California Association of Food Bank, support the local food purchase assistance program. Appreciate your comments. Hope you can fund that in this year's budget. On behalf of the Public Health Institute and its program, Roots of Change, wanna align ourselves with our colleagues in support of the California Nutrition Incentive Program, incredibly important program. Hope it's funded this year as well.
Speaker 51
In addition to that, they support the LFPA program, CUS program, and the farm to school request by the administration. Thank you.
Speaker 62
the Association of California Water Agencies. Just wanna comment on issue number one. We're very concerned about the proposed position cuts, particularly the special fund positions. These are not general fund supportive positions. They're funded through fees paid in part by public water agencies through permitting and other related fees.
Speaker 52
Specific to water agencies, I know we're talking about CDFW, but also the state water board. Those are our top concerns. We really urge you to reconsider those cuts. Thank you so much.
Speaker 25
Good afternoon, chair. This is Megan Cleveland with The Nature Conservancy. We'd like echo to the comments from Kim Delfino and other speakers regarding the, open positions being cut at CDFW. More than half of these positions are permitting positions, which would help move forward habitat restoration projects, and a number of the positions are intended to fulfill commitments made by the governor to better conserve and protect salmon. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon. Michael Chan on behalf of Audubon, California. I appear to ask the legislature to reject the, proposed legislative decisions as CFW.
Speaker 54
Some of these positions that are being, proposed for vital environmental protection work, especially at the Salton Sea. Thank you so much.
Speaker 9
Mister chair, Anthony Molina, on behalf of Sunrise Fresh, a premier dry fruit company, we wanna express our strong support for the ongoing funding for issue five, the Farm to School Grants program. We also wanna express our support for your colleagues, Bill, Assembly Member Wilson, AB seventeen thirty one, the Healthy Food Procurement Program. Thank you.
Speaker 69
Mister chairman, I'm Mark Watts. I'm here today on behalf of the Western, Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. We're urging you to reject the administration's proposed elimination of 164 positions as CDFW vacant positions. These positions are critical to support the conservation activities of NCCPs. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network. We support the 14,800,000,000 for CDFA's tribal food sovereignty program funded by prop four. And thank you to the assembly, particularly member Wilson and chair Bennett for lifting up the importance of A B 524 as a structure for land access prop four funding. Its language intentionally ensures tribes are not excluded and was developed with meaningful stakeholder input, including through the land equity collective, which I am a part of and which incorporates multiple tribal voices. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Good afternoon, chair. I'm McKenna Mestaza with Nextgen California in support of the 25,200,000 in ongoing funding for the office of Farm and Fork and the Farm to School incubator grant program as proposed in the January budget. Farm to School prioritizes students in underserved communities, ensuring those who rely mostly on school meals have access to fresh, healthy food, and it's working. In 2024, 80% of participating schools were title one. Because of the lack of access to healthy food in the most acute low income communities in the state, this program plays a key role in addressing long standing equities while schools move away from a heat and serve model towards a preparing nutritious food.
Thank you.
Speaker 57
Good afternoon. Maria LaRacha with the, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. This was not an, item in the schedule hearing, but I wanted to comment on the budget proposal includes an appropriation of 23,000,000 from the general funds for a CDFA program called the enteric methane reduction incentive program for methane emissions from the state's dairy and livestock industry. We support the LEO's recommendation to reject the proposal. The program will provide will not provide true emission reductions in communities where we work with, experience air water pollution on
Speaker 6
Good afternoon. Alamoy Pacific Coast Farmers Market Association, operating 35 farmers markets in San Francisco Bay Area. We strongly support the California nutrition incentive program. Markets including an assembly member's, Wilson's District that we directly serve families while supporting California small farmers. We have over 202, 202 farmers and 227 other small businesses that all benefit directly from this program by supporting farmers markets and ask you to continue to support CNET.
Speaker 1
Michael Holenthal, local, business owner in support of the California Nutritional Incentive Program. It needs to be back in the budget. It's healthy for all the people. It's healthy for the economy of the state. Put it in the budget.
Thank you. Thank you. Nice job.
Speaker 12
Hi. My name is Javier Toscano. I, I ask you to prioritize in bet know, in investing in the program, the SINA program. We are a small farmer from Malorda, California. There's a lot of small farmers like myself, and it really benefits small farmers like myself and also benefits the people who actually can afford healthy food.
Speaker 72
Good afternoon. My name is Ambundizi. I am a farmer. I farm in Solano and Sutter County. I am here to advocate for Market Match, part of the senior group, because I know it is a nice to have for our consumers to be able to buy fruits and vegetables at the farmer's market, but I also think it is a must have for us farmers because 100% of those funds come to me and to my workers.
Speaker 28
Thank you, chair. Portia Bramble. I'm the chair of CDFA's certified farmers market advisory committee, and I'm also providing leadership for the California Alliance Farmers Markets here representing all of California's farmers markets. We ask you to urgently prioritize assembly member Connolly's request to fund the CNIP program. CNIP, the California nutrition incentive program, not only funds market match at California's farmers markets, but also funds the WIC and senior farmers market nutrition program and provides critical income to California farmers across the state.
And we thank you.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon, chairman members. My name is Yamila Perez Aragon with Community Alliance of Family Farmers, your cap, representing more than 8,000 small and underserved family farmers across the state. First, I'd to thank assembly member Wilson and the assembly for making sure that prop four land access funding is implemented with clear legislative direction. Next, the local food purchase assistance program, LPA, has lost federal funding. And this year, more than 800 farmers will lose market access and partnerships that feed our local communities.
Speaker 46
We respectfully request a 45,000,000 state investment to keep this program going. Second, the California underserved and small producer program or CUSP. This is the state's only climate disaster program for small farmers. We request a $15,000,000 allocation to keep this program ready for the next
Speaker 8
Hello. Acacia Lynch with Fresh Approach, and we work with CAF as well as CAFB to administer the LFPA program in California. And I wanna emphasize that this program has overlapping solutions to the overlapping problems that we're facing, serving over a 100 850 farms across California and 45 food hubs, building resilience in every corner of California. Thank you.
Speaker 58
Hi. I am Yadira Mendiola, the queen of vegetables organic farm in Santa Cruz County in the Pajaro Valley. I am here to raising my voice to representing all the small farmers in the Central Coast. We have benefit from the LFPA program, but not only us, the entire community, local families, the local the low income, and farm workers. We work the land with a great passion, but we need to support the 45 million's budget to request for saving LFPA.
Speaker 62
LFPA have given us the opportunity to feel stable and support all farm workers and more farmers.
Speaker 60
afternoon. Griselda Chavez on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and California State Parks Foundation, echoing similar sentiments expressed by Kim Defino on issue one and urging the retention of CDFW and state parks, positions. And on behalf of the California Compost Coalition regarding issue five, we urge the legislature to support the Farm to School program as the program invests in local economies and expands climate, smart agriculture practices while benefiting our students and local farms. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Barry Nelson with the Golden State Salmon Association representing California salmon fishing industry, urging you to retain the CDFW position specifically for salmon restoration. Our industry is literally fighting for survival. We have salmon runs in the brink of extinction. We've been shut down for three consecutive years. Governor has a broadly supported salmon restoration strategy.
Speaker 63
Without salmon restoration jobs, salmon restoration won't happen. Thank you.
Speaker 30
My name is Eric. I'm a farmer. I get CDFA farm to school, urban ag, CNIB specialty crop grants, and CNIB is the most effective one, for my bottom line. I love them all. Don't cut any of them.
Speaker 38
afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Katie Hawkins from Trout Unlimited. Just echoing the comments of my colleagues too, please do not eliminate roles at CDFW, and happy Earth Day.
Speaker 26
Hi there. I'm Jennifer Bantley, avocado and citrus farmer and beekeeper in San Diego County, where we're losing a farm every three days over the highest cost to farm in the nation, imports flooding our market, and extreme weather events, the drought, and the drought. We can't continue farming without disaster relief funding. CUSP saved my farm from total collapse last year and many others near me. We have no chance to survive without it.
Speaker 65
And once our farms are gone, that's it. They're gone, and they won't be brought back. Please help save our farms. Vote yes on CUSP. Thank you very much.
Speaker 36
Hi. I'm Gloria Harrison. I'm Mendocino County Farmers Market Association and the manager of the Laytonville And Ukiah Farmers Markets. EBT Market Match, is approximately 40% of Laytonville's total sales. This income is vital to the survivor survival of our farmers and producers.
Speaker 66
Nearly every CNIP dollar feeds a food insecure person while also helping a farmer continue to farm.
Speaker 6
My name is Ian Stake. I'm oh, thank you. Thank you. My name is Ian Stake. I'm coming from Feed Cooperative in Sonoma County, California.
We represent a network of small farmers in Lake, Napa, Marin, and Sonoma Counties. All of these farms are typically under 10 acres in size and reside in one of the most expensive areas in California. The LFPA is absolutely vital. It allows them to sell their products at a fair price. It guarantees sales and allows for a lot less loss in the fields.
Speaker 66
It also allows for stability, crop planning, and keeping small scale agriculture alive in California. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon. My name is Christine Farrin. I'm an executive director for a nonprofit in San Francisco. We run farmers markets and food education programs. I'm here to advocate for CNIP.
Speaker 67
I see firsthand shoppers literally who would not be able to feed themselves fresh fruits and vegetables without this program. It has this triple bottom effect that you really can't capture adequately. Small family farmers benefit. People really living close to the bone benefit, their health, improves, and the money stays in the local economy. It just seems like the best money well spent, and we spent ten years building this program.
Please keep it going.
Speaker 13
Good afternoon. My name is Adam X. I'm CEO of Origin Manufacturing, and I'm working in partnership with the JUM Farmer Collective and l f LA Food Policy Council to build farm distribution and retail infrastructure from LA to Sacramento. I drove up today because it matters. So thank you to the budget committee for discussing AB five twenty four in relation to prop four because it gives the missing how eligible uses, long term pathways, and technical assistance for land access.
Speaker 68
So prop four set aside 30,000,000 for land access. We're asking to appropriate this money now with trail your trailer bill language that mirrors AB five twenty four so this money gets to work.
Speaker 9
Hi. I'm Paula. I'm a small farmer in San Diego County. We are in crisis mode in San Diego. We used to be home to the highest number of small farms in the state of California, and we need to keep ag in California and in San Diego.
Speaker 69
We need CUSP, and we need LFPA. We, farm all organically. We are sustainable, ethical, cleanly, and, we are good for the local economy as well. We provide a refuge for wildlife. We sit at the urban wildlife interface.
We cohabitate with mountain lions, bobcats, snakes, and hawks. They all keep our vermin down and our rodent population under control. We're a carbon sink for greenhouse gases.
Speaker 44
Hello. My name is Anjali Ranadevam, the founder of Woman for Wolves, here to urge you not to cut the CDFW positions. We lost four endangered wolves already due to limited resources, so we should be doubling down on positions, not taking them away. Happy Earth Day also. We belong to the Earth.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon. My name is Rena Hatchimy. I'm the cofounder of Women for Wolves. We must protect funding for CDFW positions. I work with youth every single day on wildlife coexistence education.
Speaker 71
And in order to secure a safe, healthy future for them, we need to department positions safeguarding our wild spaces. And I have a signature petition over there with a 150 signatures from our youth and a thousand more coming in the next two weeks along. So please fund those positions. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Hi. My name is Tara Daddari, and I'm the director of technology at Women for Wolves. California's wildlife is already under pressure, and I know that firsthand that cutting CDFW positions we can coexistence work when we need it most. Please fully fund CDFW and protect wildlife.
Speaker 11
Greetings, chair. My name is Marquis King Mason with Natural Resources Defense Council. Given the volatility with gas prices and the need to intensify green hydrogen production, we're asking for a million dollars from the climate innovation fund to do a have the CEC do a study with CDFA for low carbon fertilizers in California given we wanna have a circular economy. Additionally, we align with our colleagues in asking for the CDFW cuts to not be swept. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Hello. My name is Juan Sovio. I'm here to urge you and ask you to please support the LFPA program as it directly helps support small farms like me. It helps us supplies a food base with local fresh produce, but also helps us continue our our operation by supplying produce to local schools for the kids. Thank you.
Speaker 64
Hello, assembly members and chair Bennett. Thank you for uplifting LFPA during this hearing. I'm Sierra Doerr. I'm the founder of Sataquay Food Hub in Ventura County. And through LFPA, we've invested over $900,000 into 24 small hyper local farms.
Speaker 74
Our farmers have been able to increase their sales and operations to provide for their children and elders. I have witnessed tears of joy come to farmers' eyes when they've received a paycheck. This program is lifesaving. Please don't make their businesses and their families suffer. I urge you to fund LFPA with 45,000,000 in the general budget.
Speaker 59
Hello. Thank you, chair Bennett, for, again, bringing up LFPA. My name is Daniel Chavez. I'm a board member for Saticoy Food Hub, and I'm just here to reinforce what my, colleagues are saying. We need, 45,000,000 out of the general fund to support this critical program.
Speaker 75
It has a lot of secondary benefits like workforce development, even social and emotional health, and, public health outcomes, for food insecurity. So thank you.
Speaker 70
Good afternoon. My name is Sakai Jones with Sweet Valley Produce in Merced. We're a food hub connecting over six small farms to local markets collectively hit by the federal budget cuts. The LFPA program expanded our outreach to food banks directly, and as a byproduct of its ending, by June 2026, we will lose the ability to provide fresh produce boxes for more than 1,200 families a week. We work with farmers from six counties in California and serve Modesto and Stockton Food Bank, so we're asking the state for a 45,000,001 time bridge for the twenty twenty six, twenty seven fiscal year.
Speaker 76
Hi, chair and members. Judith Gutierrez with the American Heart Association. We are in support of saving in support of saving market match by renewing funding for the California Nutrition Incentive Program. CNIB remains one of the state's most effective strategies to strengthen not only local agriculture, but improving health and nutrition outcomes for low income Californians. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon, chair Rebecca Marcus. On behalf of the California certified organic farmers or c c o CCOF the and California Climate and Ag Network in support of continued funding for farm to school and the allocation of prop four funds. On behalf of CCOF, I also, urge $15,000,000 funding for the CUSP program as well as requesting 15,000,000, to fund the health food procurement program at CDFA as outlined in assembly member Wilson's, a b seventeen thirty one. Thank you.
Speaker 32
We come as the Filipino Farmers Cooperative to voice our strong support for the CDFA cost program. We why are Filipino farmers essential to the California economy? Today, Filipinos are the second largest immigrant group. We are the fastest growing Asian population in this state. Los Angeles is home to the largest settlement of Filipinos outside The Philippines.
Speaker 77
Yet our tiny Filipino community is the nation's last surviving Filipino farming community. How can we continue to supply California with fresh Filipino fruits and vegetables? Don't act. Don't think twice.
Speaker 3
My name is Jason Melesch. I'm here as the director of FarmCard Organics. We're a food hub cooperative aggregator located in Carpinteria, California on the border between Santa Barbara and Ventura County. We service we were founded in 2011 by Katherine Shepherd, a second generation female organic farmer. Currently, we service 47 small, mid scale climate smart farms, And we work with the Santa Barbara Food Bank, Ventura Food Chair, Los Angeles Regional Food Bank through the LFPA project.
Speaker 78
And we work with Rio School District and 12 other school districts in Ventura County through the Farm to School program. These programs work symbiotically and are a very beneficial bridge.
Speaker 71
Good afternoon. My name is Bridget Myers, and I am here to advocate for fully funding the CNET program, the California Nutrition Incentives Program. This is a very high priority and need for us in the small farm and farmers market industry from, especially in San Diego where I run the largest, farmers market there. The market match program funding has made a significant difference in providing not only food for our insecure community members, but also in supporting farms while they navigate writing rising costs during these times so they can remain on their land, providing Californians with the freshest and healthiest food with the shortest food chain supply. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Mister chairman, Austin here with only on behalf of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, we we encourage restorement of the wildlife officer positions, with federal cuts. 48,000,000 acres of federal land have been shifted towards state jurisdiction. The Warrens are only at 31% full capacity, which is straining coverage. As you know, these these, these aren't real vacancies. These are all filled through academy pipelines, and the uncertainty in the budget is really harmed the ability to retain and recruit quality staff.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And with that, we will adjourn this meeting. Thank you. So tell me.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.