Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
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
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
This is my ninth year as a legislator, and while I've experienced frustrations along the way when I was in the assembly years ago and my now almost three years in the Senate, The process this week is frankly developing to be the most frustrating I've ever experienced. And I would commend to your attention an article in CalMatters yesterday that provides a very good description of what's going on, the issues that I'm highlighting. So again, I'll listen to the presentations. I suppose I'll have some questions, but I don't know anywhere near enough at this time to cast any votes. And as I said, I've never experienced that before.
Thank
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. I will just note a lot of this was aired at budget subcommittees, but I appreciate your comments. With that, we'll now go to Department of Finance. Theresa Kalbert, the program budget manager from DOF is here.
The LAO is here if questions arise. And then after the presentation, we'll go to member comments and then public comment, and then we will vote on each of the bills. Ms. Calvert.
Speaker 4
Great. Thank you. Good afternoon evening, Chair Weiner, Vice Chair Nilo, and members of the Budget Committee. My name is Theresa Calvert with the Department of Finance, and today, will be presenting on a Budget Bill Junior, which amends the 2025 Budget Act and associated budget trailer bills. As noted, many of the items are technical or clarifying or were items that were delayed to the end of session as part of the June budget agreement.
Some items are in response to changes that have occurred at the state and or federal levels since the 2025 Budget Act was passed and require a budget response in the current year. I will present on each bill briefly, and I'm joined by my colleagues to respond to the questions the committee may have. The first bill is AB 105, the Budget Bill Junior, which makes changes to various 2025 Budget Act items, which the Chair summarized, so including the House Resolution one, response, the greenhouse gas reduction funds discretionary allocations, and the climate bond allocations. I would add that the bill also requires the Department of Finance, in consultation with the California State Transportation Agency, to examine loans or other financing options to support Bay Area local transit agencies. Similarly, the bill requires the Department of Finance to examine loan or financing options that might be used to provide state financial assistance for Los Angeles entities.
The bill also includes other changes, including technical revisions. Moving on to the first of the trailer bills is AB 144. This bill makes various changes to statewide immunization policies to prepare the state for changes in federal guidance with flexibility for the California Department of Public Health to supplement or modify requirements for specified populations. This bill also exempts foster youth and former foster youth with unsatisfactory immigration status until the age of 26 from being impacted by the Medi Cal solutions included in the 2025 Budget Act related to individuals with unsatisfactory immigration status. This bill establishes the Abortion Access Fund to provide funding for abortion services in a gender affirming care program to provide funding to health plans to provide coverage for gender affirming care services.
Finally, the bill authorizes exemptions for certain medical providers and clinics to support the twenty twenty eight Los Angeles Olympics and Paralympics games. Moving on to AB146. This bill makes various changes to the CalFresh program to prepare the state for the impacts of the federal House Resolution one, including providing the Department of Social Services with flexibility to make immediate information technology changes to quickly advance efforts that aim to reduce the state's payment error rate and avoid costs associated with the benefit cost sharing provisions in H. R. One.
The bill would also establish a complaint resolution process for counties that opt to receive, social Department of Social Services administered housing and homeless pro program funds. Finally, the bill includes technical cleanup for legislation adopted as part of the 2025 budget act to, one, streamline the CalWORKS program and, two, for out of state placements in the adoption assistance program. Moving on to AB 147. This bill is largely technical and amends the 2025 TK-twelve education trailer bill. Among other things, the bill amends the accrual schedule for Proposition 98 through, fiscal year February.
It also allows the Department of Education to assess fees for private developers of literacy professional development that submit their products for review and approval. The next trailer bill is related to higher education. It's AB 148. This bill is largely technical and amends provisions related to higher education, including the following: For the twenty twenty six-twenty seven and twenty seventwenty eight budget years, it allows community college classified employees to access food pantry services offered by campus basic need centers and adds intent language to shift unutilized funding from the classified community college employee summer assistance program to CCC basic need centers to accommodate the change. For community colleges flexible emergency aid, the bill adds reporting requirements for the awarding of emergency financial assistance grants as agreed to in the 2025 budget act.
It also adds language that enables the chancellor's office to reallocate funds to ensure that all eligible California Dream Act application filers receive an award. The bill also enables a community college chancellor's office to allocate unallocated resources appropriated for the zero cost textbook program as of 06/30/2025, to a community college district to contract for the establishment of statewide open educational resources infrastructure and its maintenance. The next bill is AB149, which would enact various changes related to resources programs. Most notably, the bill includes statutory changes that expand an existing CEQA exemption for activities or approvals for the bidding, hosting, or staging and funding in Olympic Games, except for the construction of necessary facilities, to also include Paralympic Games. It adds an exemption from the requirements for a coastal development permit for temporary development associated with holding the twenty twenty eight Olympic and Paralympic Games.
It authorizes regulations for the purpose of developing and adopting program guidelines and selection criteria needed to effectuate or implement the programs included in the climate bond to be adopted as emergency regulations. It also expands muscle prevention activities to include all invasive muscles, including golden muscles, and increases the invasive muscle fee. The following bill is AB 151, and this bill would implement the Memorandum of Understanding with Child Care Providers United, or CCPU, as well as parity proposals for non represented child care providers. The MOU and parity package include one time stabilization payments for represented and non represented child care providers, a one time cost of living adjustment catch up payment for represented providers, it maintains funding for health retirement and training benefit trusts, and it also specifies that MOU would be in effect through 07/01/2028. The following measure is AB 153.
This bill would enact various changes related to transportation and climate programs. Most notably, the bill grants local transit operators the authority to operate charter bus service for the twenty twenty six World Cup. It raises the number of licensed drivers allowed to participate in the Mobile Driver License App Pilot Program, and it also authorizes the Air Resources Board to assess regulatory fees associated with transportation refrigeration units. AB one one hundred fifty four. This bill provides a CEQA exemption for climate reporting regulations adopted by the Air Resources Board.
AB one fifty five, is a bill that establishes a California Civic Media Program under the governor's office of business and economic development to support journalism, promote civic engagement, and address inequalities among underserved communities. And the bill, includes $10,000,000 general fund to establish the California Civic Media Fund, which will be used to expand the number of journalists in the state and to support local and community news organizations. This fund may also accept private donations, gifts, grants for the intended purpose of supporting media in the state. It also creates a related advisory board. AB 156 would enact various changes related to labor programs.
Most notably, the bill would make various changes related to unions' dues deductions, Fair Labor Standards Act requirements for home care workers, and collective bargaining for home care workers. The bill also makes changes to local government firefighter employment provisions for purposes of permanent career civilian firefighters employed by the federal government or contracted to serve at any federal installation and firefighters in Humboldt County related to retirement benefits. The bill also makes, an appropriation for a supplemental pension payment to CalPERS system towards the state's unfunded liability. AB 157 would enact various changes related to law enforcement and correctional programs. Most notably, that bill includes an appropriation as part of the modification to the Community Corrections Performance Incentive Grant Program and includes other, technical changes.
AB 158 is related to housing programs. Most notably, the bill clarifies the intent of the Governor's reorganization plan regarding the duties of the Housing Development and Finance Executive Committee. It restores provisions that were, chaptered out by prior legislation. It clarifies the administration of funding for round seven of the homeless housing assistance and prevention program and makes other various modifications to effectuate changes intended in AB 130. AB one fifty nine is a cleanup to the wildfire settlement tax exclusion in SB one thirty two enacted in the 2025 Budget Act and is necessary to ensure that tax relief is provided as intended.
This bill additionally clarifies that wildfire settlements qualifying for relief must be related to federally declared or state declared disasters. AME 160, this bill includes changes that are necessary to continue the authority for specified departments to access background check information for their employees, prospective employees, volunteers, contractors, subcontractors, and licensees as specified. AB 161, is a Memorandum of Understanding Trailer Bill. This bill ratifies the agreements entered into by the state with the California Association of Professional Scientists, which is bargaining unit ten, and the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, bargaining unit eighteen. The bill also approves agreements between the state and various bargaining units related to salary adjustments for special school employees.
The last of the trailer bills here is AB one sixty two. This bill makes changes for the special election to be held on November 4, 2025 by establishing the timeline to certify the election results by the twenty eighth day following the election, consolidating elections that were scheduled on or before 08/08/2025 by local governments to be held on 11/04/2025, clarifying that resources for special election costs can be distributed directly to counties without an appropriation being made to the state controller, and appropriating funding to the Secretary of State to develop the final report on the final costs of the special election due on 04/01/2026. Those are brief overviews of each of the trailer bills. I am joined by a number of colleagues from the Department of Finance to help in answering questions that you may have.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, and thank you to the LAAO for being here. Colleagues, are there any questions or comments on any of the yes, Senator Blake Spear.
Speaker 5
I just have a comment about one of them, SB 158. Is this the right time for that chair? It is. Okay. So thank you for the presentation.
I'm concerned about SB 158, and I don't plan to support that tonight and I wanted to just briefly explain why. So, many of you know that we've had a lot of conversation about SB 131, which passed off the Senate floor with commitments for further cleanup to address the outstanding bill the outstanding issues in the bill. And those outstanding issues include fixing the overly broad definition of advanced manufacturing and ensuring that projects that are located in habitat for protected species are still subject to full environmental review under CEQA. There were also labor related concerns and there were tribal consultation concerns, and all of these were brought up by various members. And we were assured that there would be a fix to that.
So, it's very disappointing to see such an anemic response with SB 158, which essentially does none of those things. I appreciate that there's been some very minor effort toward talking about protecting natural areas that are in already designated conservation areas, but that is just admittedly a very small part of the state and areas where we would not be likely to be seeing development anyway. So the language that is in 158 does not include habitat for protected species that was discussed on the floor at the time SB 131 was passed and was also specifically called for in a letter that I signed along with 34 other legislators. So SB 158, as it's before us today, does not include environmental protections for Habitat for Protected Species, despite the fact that Habitat for Protected Species language is the standard protection that's been added to CEQA exemptions and ministerial processes that waive CEQA review. So, the language is essential to ensuring that we protect endangered species, and also that we maintain the opportunity to bring species back from the brink of extinction.
So I won't be voting in support of SB one fifty eight today, and I urge my colleagues to support legislation next year to address this outstanding concern in a meaningful way. And I'm happy to see that the senate has introduced something, which I have not had the chance to review yet, but you did announce it, and I forget the number that you said.
Speaker 5
And and I look forward to reviewing that and addressing this in a meaningful way. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, senator. Thank you for those comments. Before we proceed, I we do have a quorum, so we'll call the roll.
Speaker 1
We do have a quorum. Thank you, colleagues. Okay. Additional comments? Senator Dorado?
Speaker 13
Is there what what is the thinking behind helping Californians comply with the work requirements of HR one? Is there some thought as to how we are going to help Californians who are going to be facing that situation?
Speaker 4
Hi. I'm going to, I think, need assistance from one of my colleagues on the work requirements related to HR1 question.
Speaker 14
Good evening. Nick Mills, Department of Finance. So included in the August budget is resources to implement eligibility requirements that are included in HR1. So there's one time technical assistance resources and one time resources to support staff equivalent to eight positions to begin planning for the Department of Health Care Services to begin implementing these requirements, which go into effect on 12/31/2026.
Speaker 13
I was thinking more along the lines as to what we're going to do to provide support for the Californians who are gonna be impacted by HR one. And I appreciate that resources will go into staffing issues or planning. I'm not sure exactly what you said. But what about the actual support to those Californians who could lose through HR one the kind of resources they've they've had?
Speaker 14
That that's something that the administration is continuing to evaluate. And, you know, we're still awaiting federal guidance and interpretation on many of the provisions in HR1, which could, you know, inform courses of action and next steps.
Speaker 13
Okay. So right now, we don't have specific ways that we were planning to help.
Speaker 15
Laura Yala, Department of Finance. Just like my colleague stated, we the resources included in this budget bill are only for current year, for fiscal year 'twenty five, 'twenty six, but the administration is evaluating what resources are necessary to assist Medi Cal members in meeting those work requirements.
Speaker 13
Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. So we do have obviously, in this budget, we have the assistance, but we're thinking about also how to do that in next year.
Speaker 15
Yeah, that's correct. Right now, the resources that we're requesting are for the Department of Health Care Services to begin those planning efforts and preparing to meet the federal requirements.
Speaker 13
Okay, thank you. I have another question. This is through AB149 Public Resources. And there was efforts or steps were being taken to make improvements at Expo Park in Los Angeles through DGS. And I'd just like to know what's the time frame for making those improvements.
I'm particularly concerned because that was part that's going to be really needed. Accessibility is going be really needed for the Olympics and Paralympics.
Speaker 16
Steven Benson, Department of Finance. So, yeah, we're continuing to work with Expo Park and the Secretary or the Natural Resources Agency on the level of improvements that are needed there. The initial assessment of needed improvements was sort of broader than just as what's focused on Olympic, like immediate Olympic related things. So, we're trying to narrow that scope down and get a better handle on what needs to get done and timeline to get it done. So, those are things we're going to be continuing to work on in near future.
Okay.
Speaker 13
That the time frame of, you know, is pushing us Yep. To think about accessibility for the Olympics. So that's why and is there particular issues or anything that you're facing or that you're confronting? Think just
Speaker 16
the The timeframe. Yeah. Time frame wise, I think as they develop, like, specific project scopes that need to get done, trying to address the most critical things, given the state's current fiscal situation. It's identifying what those most critical improvements are. And then, I think, you know, we need to get more developed project cost estimates and schedules.
But I think, for a lot of those types of things, the idea will be to try and develop projects in a way that they can move relatively quickly. Because, to me, to your point, we don't have a lot of time before the Olympics. You know, we'll need to get going.
Speaker 13
Okay. Thank you. Mister chair, I'm sorry. I came a little bit late, but you made some reference, I think, to some of the labor issues that had been raised.
Speaker 1
Sure. Happy to. What I'd indicated was that when we passed SB 131, we the pro tem and I both expressed our desire, which reflects a lot of members' desires to do follow-up legislation to deal with the definition of advanced manufacturing, to make sure it's not too broad, to protect natural habitat, and also to address labor standards. We the Senate produced a proposal. The Assembly preferred to just address specific issues and to have further conversations over the fall.
And so the bill that's moving is that narrow bill, and we will, of course, participate with the assembly and the governor and stakeholders in that conversation. But the Senate, about half hour or so ago, we put in print AB 145, which we do not have a three party agreement on, so it will not move, but it does reflect the Senate's proposal on SB 101 follow-up legislation, and we thought it was important to put that into the public domain so people know where we stand, and that addresses various wild habitat issues, definition manufacturing, buffer zone around advanced manufacturing, consistent with warehouse rules, and labor standards. So that's in print now, and we welcome people to review it, and it'll help inform conversations in the fall.
Speaker 1
What? No, the assembly We always Sometimes we have full agreement with our siblings in the assembly. Sometimes we have different approaches, and it's all good. And we will we'll work on it.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Okay. Senator Menjevar, then senator Kismolu Cuevas, then senator McNerney and Sarto.
Speaker 18
Okay. Well, mister chair, I'd to come back on other topics. I'll state my comments on just on this topic on the cleanup for S B 131 and, you know, share some of the the concerns as well, maybe copy and paste some the concerns that we're voting or expected to vote on s b one forty one one fifty eight on a b one fifty eight with funding $2,100,000 to fund a bill that's supposed to have cleanup in it or to fund a bill that we were promised was gonna look completely different. So it's a little difficult to fund a bill that's supposed to look different or how are we supposed to implement something that shouldn't be implemented. And and the 300 feet setback, even in the senate proposal now matching the warehouse, the EJ community despised the 300 feet setbacks in the warehouse deal.
And that deal was jammed through last minute as well, and I don't think that should be the poll we should look at as a appropriate setback within our e j communities. I would ask that our proposal further expand that. That's something that the e j groups have been asking for. And, also, you can imagine the frustration of committee members to be asked to be voting on a bill with the hope, a second promise now, that there's gonna be additional additional cleanup based on what just came into print now. So sharing some still outstanding commitment or frustration on that and how advanced manufacturing, if I'm not mistaken, I still don't see our proposal in January either.
It is I'm wondering, mister Sher, if you
Speaker 18
If you could indulge me or or my committee members on what our proposal is for advanced manufacturing.
Speaker 1
The pro the proposal for advanced manufacturing is it takes the definition and limits it to three specific items, which is clean energy, components, components for clean transportation, and semiconductor. And then it has a 300 foot buffer, and I know there are folks who want a different buffer, and those are fair topics of conversation. And then we propose habitat exclusion aligned with SB four twenty three. So, I also just to be clear, the Senate did make that commitment that we're going to do follow-up legislation. Of course, we can't act on our own.
It takes a three party agreement, and the Assembly preferred to enact the two specific items now and then to work on it over the fall.
Speaker 1
Well, there are items in the in the that I don't think are particularly controversial, but items in there. And so that's typical to pair the trailer bill with with the funding.
Speaker 18
I would just say if the promise was made for cleanup, that the funding should fund a trailer bill that addresses the concerns of the caucus as much as closely as possible. It doesn't fund a bill that a lot of members voted on only on the contingency. So
Speaker 1
I so just to be clear, I share your frustration. I would like in the senate proposal, my preference and the pro tem's preference would be for that to be what moves. And that's obviously a much broader proposal than 158. We did not have a three party agreement to do that. And, you know, that so that's why the more limited item is before us, and we're we're the the assembly has been very clear with us that they wanna work with us and the governor over the fall and with stakeholders so that we can produce something to do the follow-up legislation on those items that we, committed to work on, which, which the pro tem and I continue to support.
So I'm not I'm not in any I I understand, and I share your frustration. Senator Smolokuyevos followed by senator Vignerney.
Speaker 9
And I I'm doubling down on the frustration as with respect to s b one thirty one. You know, I I represent South Central Los Angeles, and I and I share this story often because I spent a good chunk of my life working with chronicallyunemployedcom communities from neighborhoods with compounded poverty, that are barely holding on in and around what is essentially, the industrial arm and muscle, of Los Angeles of old. And I and I say that because we have spent the last thirty years trying to build wages, workplace protection, opportunities for workers who all lost their jobs in and around that industrial corridor in the nineteen seventies and eighties. And we've been trying to get those wages, trying to get those protections up as the service economy has come in. And, you know, it's taken us about thirty years to try to finally get to a fair minimum wage and living wage.
And, again, communities have been dying on the vines since we deindustrialized that neighborhood, deregulated that neighborhood, offshored those jobs. So as we're talking about advanced manufacturing and how we're going to build the green economy and we're at the cusp of launching this opportunity to lead out advanced manufacturing sets us up to do exactly what has happened to South Central. We are going to end up fifty, forty years from now trying to come back and raise standards in this industry. We're gonna have to come back and figure out how do we create good jobs. We're gonna have to come back and figure out how do we ensure that women and people of color can have fair access to good, advanced manufacturing jobs in the green sector.
We don't have to do that. We can do it right now. We have the power right now, and it is so disappointing to hear that we couldn't get a three party agreement to say one simple thing, and that is to say that these jobs should be good careers and that all communities should have access to them through community benefits agreements. It's often talked about when we looked at 01/2031 from an environmental perspective, but this is an economic perspective that is going to leave so many communities behind. And when do we learn the damn lessons of the past?
We have to envision the industry. We have to envision the workforce. We have to begin with the end in mind. And here, we've missed yet, you know, another opportunity. I understand what is embedded inside of this cleanup bill, but unfortunately, it makes it very hard to vote for because the key components that are a lifeline for communities like mine are absent.
The key pathways for communities to see themselves in this green commute this green industry is missing. The key components for folks to be able to access quality union jobs and that have a future workforce that looks like California, again, missed opportunity. So it makes it really tough for me to support this bill because like so many of our, community members, particularly those in our union community that have been challenging us to do the right thing in 01/31 are walking away severely disappointed. This is not about streamlining. This is about abandoning our opportunity in far too many communities of color by making sure that our advanced manufacturing, our semiconductor fabrication, our battery plants, our lithium processing, that these industries that have been well documented for creating potential opportunities in our communities are now not going to see real workers have an opportunity for good jobs and a good future.
I, you know, hope that we do have commitment from the other house to see this through. I'm going to be vigilant in making sure that, we demand advanced manufacturing labor standards and community benefits agreements and that we create the future of work that includes all of us and that these are good jobs. It makes it very hard for me to vote on AB 151 today, and I agree with my colleagues and their thoughts on that.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Smolokuyevos. I do just want to I'm just looking at the language of AB 145 to make sure it was consistent with my memory. It does have requirements for high road jobs in it. That was something that the Senate felt important both for the construction of these facilities, but also for the employment within these facilities. Please do look at the language when you had it, and then maybe you and I can have a conversation.
That is something that, again, for both the pro tem and for me was very important to make sure that we are creating good jobs. And so there is a high roads jobs requirement in here, and that will also be a topic of conversation over this fall. But the the senate, again, we're we've expressed through this bill that we would that we want that to be in there. So just to clarify and I know this just came out forty five minutes ago, so but we did put that in there. I just want to point that I appreciate your comment because there's a lot of validity to what you said.
Speaker 9
And I appreciate my colleagues in the Senate taking that step. We need others to step up too.
Speaker 1
And then, I also just in terms of the $2,000,000 appropriation that Senator Mengevar mentioned in 158, my read of it is that that applies to the entire trailer bill, the $2,000,000
Speaker 4
Correct. The $2,100,000 is being allocated to the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and that's to update existing sequiturian guidelines for infill projects and to create a statewide map of eligible urban infill sites by 07/01/2027, with input from local governments. And that's been a bit of a proposal that's been around for a little bit and was associated with the SB 131 So,
Speaker 1
to clarify that, Senator Menjivar, that $2,000,000 was not for the two pieces of SB 131 cleanup, I would agree with you that would be an excessive amount of money for that. It's for, as part of SG 131, one of the, I think, not controversial pieces of it was we have the existing class 32 CEQA infill exemption that's been in existence for a long time, and it's very difficult to use. And one of the reasons is there's never been an official mapping of what is infill and what isn't. So for cities, for people building things, they don't know. And so that bill directed the agency to do that mapping statewide and have that database, which will help both cities and builders.
And so that's what the funding is for. It's not for the or not just for those two things, just to clarify that. So I hope that's helpful. Great. McDonerney, my apologies, and then followed by Senator Cerrito and Senator Cabaldon.
Was there anyone else that and then Senator Allen. Okay.
Speaker 19
Well, first of all, I wanna thank the chair and the and the subcommittee chairs for your hard work and the staff that put so much into this. Was a difficult year, and you guys did an early job. There's two happy things. The $25,000,000 for clean cars for all, it makes a big difference in the valley. And secondly, the $5,000,000 to see that California develops fusion energy, That's going to make a big difference in our state's future.
So thank you for those two things. My third thing is a question about the bill one sixty one. Now, is the intent of this bill to build up scientific expertise in California, or is it to stabilize scientists in the face of what they're fearing from Washington? Or what's the that was the memorandum of understanding between the state and the science I think it's a professional scientist.
Speaker 1
Simply the MOU, but Department of Finance can comment on that. MOU with the bargaining bargaining unit. Although, I think you and I both agree we need to beef
Speaker 19
Well, mean, there's a real opportunity of scientists that might be looking for something besides Washington right now.
Speaker 21
Hanyao Ming, Department of Finance. For the it's part of the BU10 set letter agreement between the state and the California Association of Professional Scientists.
Speaker 19
So was the intent to build up scientific expertise in California Or to stabilize it?
Speaker 1
Yeah. I don't think this is not even though I know you and I are, I think, going to be probably working together next year to try to beef up our science capacity given the disaster that's unfolding. This is about collective bargaining with our state scientists. Okay.
Speaker 23
Thank you. Well, good evening, everybody, and thank you for taking some of our questions. I hope I have some easier questions to handle because I think a lot of what we've been talking about is policy. When we closed our budget hearings, when we thought we were done with budget hearings a little bit ago, like last month I believe it was, we had arrived at essentially what our expenditures were going be and what our revenues were going to be and how much money we had to borrow. And I believe it was $19,000,000 that we had to borrow or move around and general fund expenditures close to $226,000,000,000 and I thought our revenues were about $2.00 $7,000,000,000 somewhere in there.
So anyway, are those figures accurate still? Do we have any updates on those?
Speaker 4
No updates. Think, as the Chair mentioned, the update would be just kind of the addition of about $70,000,000 general fund above the June budget and expenditures for general fund, and mostly primarily related to response and federal policy changes and HR1 implementation. So that would be the only update I can offer.
Speaker 23
And with regard to all of these budget trailer bills, is there a dollar amount that these add up to that is going to add additional cost pressures to our expenditure side of what we're doing in California?
Speaker 4
And some I think some of not all of them are general fund. And so, what I'm tracking is the kind of the general fund addition is related to the Budget Bill Junior, which is that $70,000,000 I don't have a figure of kind of the sum of the appropriations that might be in trailer bills, some of which might have been planned for at June budget and are just It's now being
Speaker 23
now actually my next question. Were these expenditures, were they already included in the amount that we had looked at initially and when we did our fake budget in June? And I'm sorry, it's not the fake budget. When we did the estimated budget that we get done in June and it has more of an umbrella amount and then we do our trailer bills process. That's when we kind of ferret out where that money is going to be actually appropriated, but we had planned for it before.
Speaker 4
I don't know if that's the case with some of the special fund appropriations that are in the trailer bill, so I can't speak to that. But on the Budget Bill Junior, again, the figure I'm tracking is a $70,000,000 ish of general fund. And the rest would have been planned and allocated and already figured into those larger totals at time of June.
Speaker 23
Yeah. Because I struggle when we start adding especially when we have such lengthy discussions about policy issues and that are coming up when the bill was printed. How long ago was this in print? When did this go in print?
Speaker 23
Yeah. Within. For us to go over all of those policy implications, which aren't really a budget. Those should be worked out in regular committees, in regular bills, and then we apply the budget to them. It just seems like we're using a lot of the budget process to pass a bunch of policy that's really not really the process that we're supposed to be using for that.
And so one of the other expenditures that I was looking at, the very few that I was able to brush through and find, district spending. Looked like we had $60,000,000 of district project spending. Is that additional? Or is that in addition to what we were planning on before? Or is that all new?
Speaker 4
Depending on what the district spending at, there are different allocations of funds that were already accounted for at the June 2025 budget. But so, again, the net general fund change from June that I'm tracking is the 70 ish million. So, there are different, again, allocations of previously planned expenditures, if that's helpful.
Speaker 23
Because those are some of the things that we had talked about when we're trying to tighten our belts or give a haircut or whatever it is, is that if we're running a $19,000,000,000 deficit, we probably shouldn't be adding on all these other different expenditures that are not critically necessary for California to move forward. They're nice. New parks are nice for whoever's district that money goes to. But it's not something critical. I feel like, especially when we're doing a process like this at 07:00 on the third day.
Well, now it's going be four or five days before we get done with this first part of the session. But this is the first year of a two year session. And there is no reason for us to be rushing through some of this stuff, especially the policy stuff, and then applying dollar amounts to it and committing to spending those kind of dollars when we haven't even had the real policy discussion on whether we should be doing these things or not in California. So those are my concerns about process. I align my concerns with my colleague from Fair Oaks there that this process is ridiculous.
It is absolutely ridiculous. I've never seen a budget or not just a budget, a process like this that we start going backwards and waiving not just one or two rules. It's like we're waving the entire book of laws to be able to fit this stuff in. And nobody's aware of it. Nobody sees what it is until just a few hours before we get it.
And so I am with my colleague. I can't responsibly vote on any of these because we don't really know what these are. We haven't been able to study them. We haven't had them long enough. We've been sitting in committee all mean not committee.
We've been sitting in session all day long and, we're spending a lot of money that we don't have frankly on programs that we can't afford frankly. They are nice. They are very kind and generous But frankly, we can't afford them and we keep going down that path. And I don't know how we're going to get better when we're losing revenues, not gaining revenues or our revenues are not certainly not keeping up with our expenditures. So those are my comments.
It looks like you wanted to add. Yeah.
Speaker 24
Senator Sarto, Gabe Pettig, legislative analyst. I was just going to say you brought up the budget. I thought I would just take this opportunity to say, on the one hand, there is some net addition to the general fund of around $70,000,000 So far this year, in the budget year, revenues have come in a bit above what the budget assumed, but that's been very much tied to stock market performance and volatile sources. So we don't know. And there's risks risks out there in the economy, plus we have the effects of HR1, which could add to our expenditure baseline.
And I would just take this opportunity to point out, too, that the state still does face this structural deficit. And so even though we're focusing on, this year's budget right now, I think raising some of these broader fiscal concerns is appropriate to keep in mind.
Speaker 23
I'm pretty fiscally conservative. And so, this kind of spending and this type process makes me a little nervous. And I've shuddered to think how much the taxpayers wind up being on the hook for poorly thought out and rushed policy matters. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you. I appreciate it's always a good conversation about what, if any, policy should go on the budget. I will note that the unquote one big beautiful bill, also known as the one ring to bind them all, included various significant policy items, including banning gender affirming care for young people and also banning states from regulating AI. Those were removed only because it was determined they would need 60 votes in the Senate, but they were part of that bill. So, definitely a broad topic of conversation.
Speaker 1
No, do. But I'm just saying California is not an outlier. Banning all states from doing it, regulating AI is definitely not super budget related. But it is a it's a it's an important topic of conversation. Senator Cavaldan.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Dreib. A question and then a few hot takes. So the question is for AB 105 and particularly for the climate bond allocations. Well, I guess there's two questions.
One, how do we determine how much to spend out of that bond in this particular cycle? And then second, can you describe for us the sort of the knowing that this, like nothing else in this bill, went to any subcommittee and that none of the subcommittee chairs were consulted about these items, Can you describe for the public and for us what the framework or the guidelines or the policy for how we ended up with these particular allocations? Because this is the first time either we or the public are seeing them. First question is, how do we determine how much of the climate bond from the future are we going to spend now? And then, secondly, what is the basis for this expenditure plan for all these specific projects?
Speaker 25
Sure. So, in 'twenty five-'twenty six, the bill includes $3,300,000,000 in spending, and there are a lot of discussions between departments, legislature, and the administration on how much departments could allocate and, you know, provide funding for certain programs in 'twenty five-'twenty six. So, I would just say it's conversations between legislature, staff, admin, and programs.
Speaker 10
So that's is that for the total? Is and then is that also the answer to because no RFP was issued, no request to any city or county or community or anyone else who has climate supportive projects in water or parks or the other components of the bond. Where do these come from? And how do we determine that these are the right projects? And maybe as a sub question, then, is there a reason why they're so heavily geographically concentrated?
Speaker 16
Steven Benson, Department of Finance. So, I guess I'll start with the basis of this was in the governor's budget back in January. The administration had proposed about $2,700,000,000 of spending from Proposition four. And that was based on going through and working with we only really had two months between the time when the bond was enacted by voters and when the governor's budget was. So, over that two month period of time, we spent a lot of time having conversations with departments about what would be needed to get, you know, guideline updates, selection criteria updates, like update programs, and then what their capacity was for delivering on some of that.
So the 2.7, the basis of that was conversations within the administration about what our departments thought was reasonable to be able to deliver on the first year. And then, of course, that was proposed. We had subcommittee hearings about Prop four, priorities, you know, different entities had regarding what should be and what shouldn't be and how much for different programs, that kind of thing. As you're aware, when the June budget was passed, there wasn't very much included for Prop four. Just there was some early action stuff related to wildfire.
And then we included a couple million dollars to support the implementation of that early action stuff. So, very little was done before this. The bulk of this was done in convert based on conversations that happened in subcommittees, but then further conversations with the legislature through staff at our level, and ongoing expressions of the priorities for the different houses, as well as administration. And so it's a result of that you know, those discussions.
Speaker 10
All right. Will just say, and here, this is an area where I think I agree with our vice chair and with Senator Saliardo and with others, that I find this to be deeply disturbing. The allocations mainly in the climate bond, although it is endemic throughout this particular bill. There are more than just a handful of disadvantaged communities plus the North Coast in California. And there's no basis for that I've been able to determine or that you've been able to identify for why the projects are what they are and why we couldn't ask Californians through their elected representatives at the local or this legislative level to submit projects and to judge them competitively as we put these resources out.
And I think the comparison of the big beautiful bill is a good one. I have been to several no kings rallies myself. And the concentration of decision making power that has emerged through this process this year is very disturbing. And our longstanding tradition of conference committees and subcommittee hearings throughout this process to be able to give light to decisions that will certainly always involve politics and last minute deadlines and all of this, that's a natural part of this domain. But this has been a disturbing process.
AB 105, I think, in particular shows that in its most clear way. Second, for me, for AB 158, just to note, I think it was three months ago that we heard this bill that we heard the 130 one-one 132 package in this committee, which were in which we met for hours and hours and hours and hours, and most members of this committee expressed very severe reservations about that bill and only agreed to vote for it because of the commitments that changes were coming. Not that we would be asking for them, but that the changes would be coming. I will say I was one of the members of the committee that was the most likely to vote for the bill in its original form. I was a supporter, but I heard those commitments being made and they were real.
And those issues around advanced manufacturing and habitat and tribal consultation and everything else have not been adequately dealt with. And this bill doesn't get there. And there's nothing in this bill. And I recognize there is some language about HAP that I would love to have, the Housing and Homeless Assistance Program that would be nice to have, and the other programs in LCI. But I am prepared to join Senator Blake's speaker in not supporting AB 158 today because I think we need to get back to we need to get to work on an actual bill.
And I don't want to signal if this is just me personally, AB 145 does not represent my policy priorities at this stage, so that's not. I just saw it too, just like everybody else a few minutes ago, and that we need to engage the Senate and the administration in a real way to make good on the good faith votes that were cast in this committee and on the floor and the budget in the first time. So I'm not prepared to vote for AB 158 today. I also have very serious reservations about the allocations that are in AB 105.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Senator. The first thing I wanted to say is somewhat of a I haven't been so involved with SPC eight fifty seven and Prop four, Prop four is not a list of projects. It's mainly money for programs. And then the programs have grant processes that they carry out. I think that most of the earmarks that you're objecting to were actually not Prop four.
They're from the regular budget. But I just want to make sure that that's clarified there. Because basically all of those things got bunched in together into the same bill, even though they're actually coming from very different sources. But the broader concern about equity and balance in those earmarks is certainly a really a point really well taken, as is your I just appreciate the comments you just made on NAB 158, which I share those concerns having been having had those very promises made to me that are not unfortunately being kept in this budget. So I share the concerns about AB 158 as well.
And I want to also echo and associate myself with Senator Blakespeare's comments on the measure. So those are all kind of deep concerns that I have, many of which have been expressed by a lot of folks here. I also I think Senator D'Arrazzo's comments about the challenges at EXPO are really well taken. We for some reason, the governor wouldn't allow Expo to work with parks instead of DGS. I don't understand that.
I've actually got a bill that's helping to streamline issues associated with DGS, but there's some bigger issues, I think, that are at play here that I appreciate my colleagues bringing up. A couple some good things to mention. I want to shout out our former colleague, Senator Glaser, who worked closely with Senator Wicks and others on local journalism. That was a major issue, a passion for him. And there is some good stuff in AB 155, which is an important step addressing the decline of local journalism in California.
But we know it was not strong enough. It can't be the last. We're going to really need a sustained effort if we want to restore trusted local sources of information. We know that our local newsrooms are cratering. And across the nation, there's been something like a 75% decline in local journalists since 2002.
This is feeding misinformation. It, weakens civic engagement. We also know that, literally, those towns that don't have a local paper pay a higher rate on their bonds and other forms of borrowing because the market recognizes that strong local journalism makes it much less likely that decisions will be that there'll be poor decision making. The the decision makers know that the press is watching. The staff knows the press is watching and asking questions.
So it literally costs the public more money for borrowing for projects if they don't have a strong local journalism. This is a massive problem here in California. Think we're ranked forty first in local journalists per capita. Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin Counties are among the 10 lowest in the country in per capita journalism. And so I don't understand why this local journalism program was placed in go biz.
It seemed to me that the state librarian was the right place to go for this, and there's some strange backstory behind that. But do I am happy that this money is coming. I will say to my colleagues that we're going to have to ensure the the implementation is being monitored closely. I think we have to be ready to act if funding or oversight is ever subject to political pressure. It's one of the many reasons why I thought it would be better for it to be in the office of the state librarian.
And I also think as the program grows, and I certainly hope it will, because it has to in order to have real impact, we should codify some strong safeguards that protect journalism from political influence and preserve editorial independence. But I'm certainly really excited about what the bill represents. And again, I want to thank Senator Glaser and others who worked so hard on making this happen over the years. The other thing I just want to say is that there's a lot to I just want to thank my colleagues and I want to thank the voters for effectively taking a stand in spite of disinterest from various folks for Prop four. This really important climate bond that was passed last year was overwhelmingly supported by the voters in November.
About a third of the money is coming out in this year. Of course, more will come out in the next few years. But that's you know, this is money that's going to go toward drinking water in disadvantaged communities, restoring watersheds, habitat threatened by drought, almost half 1,000,000 for projects to protect communities from wildfire, including money for brush clearance and home hardening and new technology and more money for coastal resilience projects that are going to protect vulnerable communities from the threat of sea level rise over $100,000,000 to safeguard communities and help us better prepare for extreme heat events almost $400,000,000 for nature based climate solutions that going to help the state reach our 30x30 goals, 153,000,000 for climate smart agriculture, over $400,000,000 for parks and outdoor access, $275,000,000 in clean air and energy funding. And again, the vast majority of this funding is not earmarked. It is these are these are programs funding that go through largely the National Resources Agency that our various local projects can apply to and there's a fair formula that's applied based on needs.
And of course, we know that the needs are incredibly high. Our communities right now are battling wildfires, extreme events, biodiversity loss, and as has been mentioned, all at the same time that federal funding is being eviscerated for so many of these types of important environmental programs. So this plan, can quibble with all sorts of individual elements, just as I did with the language of the bond, quite frankly. But it really does represent an ambitious effort to move quickly to invest these funds in communities up and down the state, especially in this moment where we're seeing such a rollback in federal investment. When we passed the bond last year, we committed when we passed SB eight sixty seven, which, of course, facilitated the bond, we committed to ensuring that this investment in climate resiliency would provide results in every corner of the state and no one will be left behind.
This is a down payment on that commitment. And I just want to personally express my excitement about this particular element of our budget plan. And it's, I think, a reflection of a lot of hard work. I see my chief staff team here who was so involved with writing the bond. And I just want to thank my colleagues and the voters for helping to make this happen.
So with that, I I I end on a on a positive note.
Speaker 1
Thank you. It's always positive to look at too. Not everything is not everything is bad. Spoken like a true budget chair. Budgets are about trying to get as much as you can.
You don't get everything, though. Okay. We'll now go to senator Laird, followed by senator Richardson and then senator Menjivar and then senator oh, Grove. I'm sorry. I totally skipped you, and you were before Laird.
My apologies, senator Laird. I skipped over senator Grove. Senator Grove, my apologies.
Speaker 6
It's okay. I'm used to it, sir. I have some questions for somebody who can answer questions on prop four. So prop four, there was $2,000,000 that were applied to subsidence in the Central Valley, where the land is sinking, and we have to protect the infrastructure that brings water from north to south. There was a request for the state water contractors.
They asked for $33,000,000 You gave us $2,000,000 Somebody explained to me why is that? Because $75,000,000 is in a bond fund that should be issued. And without the subsidence fixing the structure, there's not a water delivery purpose from Northern California to Southern California, and you have to have it. So who made the decision to only give us $2,000,000? I'd like a name too.
I mean, all these people that say, Well, it was a decision by one of the three parties,
Speaker 28
Good evening. Andrew Hall with Department of Finance. Hi. I believe that the regional conveyance you're talking about is something that was not proposed in the January 10 budget. It's something that was added as part of the three party agreement.
We included the $2,000,000 to get the program started, but I couldn't tell you who, you know, added it or what the discussions were. It was just
Speaker 6
Well, I asked the budget chair and he said it was leadership. What leadership?
Speaker 28
Well, a lot of this, you know, the bond itself is something that we're just beginning to roll out. This was based on department's ability where they thought they were at to be able to deliver project funding in the first year. So there's more funding available. It's also something that we could continue to discuss, you know, in January. But it's not the last bite of the apple.
We are just getting this program up and running.
Speaker 29
Senator Grove, Rachel Ehlers with the Legislative Analyst's Office. Within the bond, Proposition four, there is a line item that provides $75,000,000 total available for regional conveyance, projects, and repairs. The bond language is not specific about what projects those would be for. Defers to either the department or the legislature to allocate those funds for specific projects. But you're correct that the bond contains $75,000,000 for that category of expenditure.
Speaker 6
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I just wanted to confirm that it has $75,000,000 for conveyance, and and if we don't we have a sinking valley floor. It's adjusting the conveyance system that we have.
And if the conveyance system can't let us deliver water, then Los Angeles is not going to have water, and they have less water than they had a few years ago. So that's my one beef with that. I appreciate that the $3,000,000,000 out of prop four went to I think it was 3,000,000,000 went to fire prevention. That's something we all desperately need in every one of our communities and for appreciate that. I do wanna say thank you for, although I I'm not gonna support the overall thing, I do wanna say thank you for, $2,000,000.
What a day. $2,000,000 for Kern County to get child protection services money because their explanation to why they did not respond to 20 complaints for little Genesis Mata who was tortured to death, her hands were slammed in a door where her fingers came off, and they boiled her in water. The excuse for not responding to the 20 complaints is they are understaffed. And please forgive me for this, but that is the biggest line of bullshit I've ever heard in my life. So thank you for the $2,000,000 in the budget trailer bill to address the situation of understaffing or under resourced, individuals that should be investigating claims that come into the Department of Child Protective Services.
You for Tony Atkins and I worked on the Imagination Librarian. You know, the state librarians kind of in our way trying to expand that program, and you guys are making a way. It was opened up in Orange County, Los Angeles, a lot of Northern California counties, so I appreciate that fix in the budget. But I mainly wanted to comment about the $75,000,000 that should be available from conveyance even though it doesn't offer specific projects. The subsidence issue in the Central Valley, again, is the only way you're going to transport water to Los Angeles, and you should focus on that, in my opinion.
And then the Child Protective Services. So thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Grove, and my apologies for almost skipping over you. Senator Laird.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the staff for all the work in getting us here. And I know some of the staff members related to various things didn't even go home last night. So I am very grateful for the time that has been committed.
A few things. First, in AB 105 I want to thank finance for fixing the housing financing problem for 600 units that are in Santa Cruz County because a year and a half ago they didn't understand the way it was going to be financed and that groundbreaking is happening in a couple of weeks. AB 105 is the fix that will allow that to go ahead. Secondly, on proposition four, where there's been an animated discussion, I know there was a lot of concern by stakeholders that we weren't appropriating things. And this is a very good and healthy amount.
And when you look at what it actually does, I mean, I have a farmworker disadvantaged community, San Lucas, that is about to completely run out of clean water. This appropriation will unleash the project that will really help them get to clean water. There's a major dam in that same area in Southern Monterey County that has a broken spillway and in the atmospheric rivers they can't fill it up more than half. The dam safety money here will get to a point that water is done. And we were ground zero for the atmospheric rivers two years ago and the coastal resiliency money will deal with some of the leftover issues that exist there.
There is not money here from the pot from the San Andreas Corridor. And I really look forward to that moving ahead at the right time. The state librarian fits in the education budget subcommittee and we heard the journalism item and there's two. We heard it and the real issue was is that part of it was an ask of Senator Glaser and it's really being institutionalized in the budget. That is a great thing for all the reasons that were outlined.
And then maybe I'm going to do the reverse of ending on a positive note. And that is, is I did not vote for 131, the budget trailer bill. I had voted against some of the policy in it in a policy committee. And yet it was being placed in the budget bill with limited input, not the way it would happen in the policy project. That was the reason there had to be a commitment to clean up three different items.
And it's just hard to understand why we can do that bill in a matter of days and don't have much choice and you can have six to eight weeks to make good on the three commitments that were made to try to fix it and not have it ready here to do it. That is very difficult. And one issue, the tribal issue, seems to have fallen off the table completely. And I know I was sitting right about here going back and forth with the chair on that bill and committee. And it's we just really need to do it.
And so I would associate myself with the comments of Senator Cabaldo. And I didn't want to be in this position. I don't want to have to debate whether or not to approve this bill because it doesn't make good the three commitments that were made by the Senate president on the floor when this bill moved ahead. And we have I mean, that's the reason that we should not do monumental policy in the budget. We should do it through the process so that we have a chance to have those give and takes.
We have a chance to fix it before it just goes in a big thing and then we have to make commitments to fix it because it didn't go through the process where you can have give and take and witnesses when you can amend it and try to deal with it. And it puts us in this exact position. So it's really sad that we just don't have that fully done the way the bill was in front of us. So just that as a comment. And I just once again, as a former legislative budget committee chair, I appreciate the thing that drove me crazy when I was a cabinet secretary was that the governor would sign the budget and I think it was three days later we had to submit our request for the next year.
We didn't even know how anything would be happening and it would just regenerate. And so here we are. I imagine all the requests have been made already and here we are in the trailer bills adopting things that will reflect on what those should be. So, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chance to comment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Land. Thank you for acknowledging that SP six zero seven did move through two committees. And thank you, Senator Blakesford, for working with us on that bill. Sometimes announcements are made and all of a sudden it becomes a budget issue. So it was
Speaker 30
definitely a Yes. But then all of a sudden it becomes a budget bill where we are obligated to vote for it. When I voted against six zero seven because I thought it was flawed, I was not obligated to vote for it because it was a budget bill.
Speaker 1
I'm not criticizing you. I'm saying what happened, which I did very much try to move it as a policy bill, and it was moving along. So thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Richardson?
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got a few questions here that I'm going to run through as fast as I can. And since we've gotten some of this information fairly recently, I would just ask for the record that members will be able to submit questions and get more detailed answers during the recess about some of this stuff, because, you know, this is my first year back, so I'm not familiar with some of these projects and programs, and I think it might be helpful. So hopefully we'll be allowed that opportunity even though we're going to be voting on this in the next couple days.
Is that correct?
Speaker 31
Okay. So that being said, I have a couple questions. Number one, on regarding and I'm just in AB 105. Under resources, it says that 90,000,000 for regional projects, 30,000,000 for Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Cal Fire, 45,000,000 for Sierra Nevada Conservancy, 15,000,000 for Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. And, my question is, you have further back in this these conservancies two pages later, page four, additional money allocated in some cases to the same conservancies.
And so I'm trying to understand, is this in addition to, are these numbers in addition to or cumulative? Or, I'll give you one, for example. Santa Monica receives $25,400,000 And then on here, you have $15,000,000 So does that mean they're getting $40,000,000 Or what's the numbers?
Speaker 16
Steven Benson, Department of Finance. Yeah, those are cumulative. The way these have things structured is there's as you were, Prop four has a number of sections in it, and they authorize different amounts of bond financing for different purposes. We've set it up so those budget items sort of go along with different sections of the Bond Act. So, they're cumulative.
They're appropriations for funding out of different sections of the Bond Act.
Speaker 31
So, help me define cumulative. Does that mean they're separate line items, or they're one item one line item that the two numbers are combined?
Speaker 16
They're separate line items. So, like, there's like for Santa Monica, there's the $15,000,000 for regional projects, and there's later on, there's another item with a different dollar amount. Santa Monica has both of those dollar amounts. They have a it's a total of 30,000,000 or whatever. I don't forget what the second number is.
But you add them together, that's the total amount authorized, but they're for different purposes. The 15 is reasonable.
Speaker 31
So, not to cause problems with the gentleman from Santa Monica here to my right. I'd like to when we first had the wildfire situation, we were told that certain conservancies were gonna qualify for wildfire, home hardening and things like that. And I brought up the question that not all the conservancies were noted. And I was told, well, because that's because in the past, that's where the fireworks were. Well, we soon found out that with Altadena and Palisades, there are other communities that can have fire issues just like any other.
So if you could help me understand then on page four, this has to do with the climate change impacts on communities, fish, wildlife, and natural resources. But again, you have some of the same conservancies. Are all of the conservancies listed on here?
Speaker 16
So, let me try and clarify a little bit. So, what you're seeing on page four, those allocations aren't to do with wildfire. Those are to do with biodiversity and nature based solutions. And so, in the Bond Act, there are sections that specify certain amounts for each of these conservancies. They have to go to those conservancies.
That's how the Bond Act is written. And so, we're making some appropriations to each of those conservancies for them to start implementing their programs.
Speaker 16
think that is I'm not seeing any that are missing off the top of my head, but I wouldn't swear an affidavit right now saying that there's none missing.
Speaker 31
Okay. Which conservancy is the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy in?
Speaker 16
I'm not certain. We don't have conservancies that cover the entire state. So, I would have to look up where that location is and see if there's a conservancy that has jurisdiction in that area or not.
Speaker 31
Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, if I could get further information about the conservancies and how this funding works. But my point is, is you have some conservancies who are getting money with CAL FIRE, some of the same conservancies that are getting them for risks of climate change, impacts on community, and so on. And they're not all covering all of the areas that also have needs.
So, I would just like additional information on how the conservancy programs work, how money is determined, that goes to which ones, and so on.
Speaker 16
Sure. I help clarify a little bit that there are some conservancies that are a bit more statewide. So, for example, the Wildlife Conservation Board, while not conservancy in its name, does a lot of the similar types of things, and it has statewide jurisdiction. And so there would be grant programs and stuff like that that would serve pretty much all communities. And then you like the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, for example, covers something like a third of the state.
And then you have things like Baldwin Hills Conservancy or Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, Santa Monica Conservancy that have smaller geographical areas. And so conservancies, I guess, aren't created equally in the sense of, like, the regions that they cover. But from, like, say, a wildfire, like the first bucket you were talking about was regional projects. The reason it's split across those three different departments is that so Santa Monica, of course, covers that conservancy covers a smaller geographical area. CAL FIRE, of course, covers the entire state.
Sierra Nevada Conservancy also covers about a third of the state, or actually probably more than that. And so those departments will sort of work together in terms of how the money rolls out so that, really, the whole state has access to funding from that regional project regional projects pot. Sorry. It's just being administered through different departments because their various jurisdictions cover all of the state.
Speaker 31
Okay, so I'm going to preface my comment by saying, This isn't your fault. I'm not saying it's your fault. However, I'm going give you a little math explanation. If Santa Monica is getting 25,000,000 and wildfire has the entire state, and they're all fighting for this little bit here, And you've got some areas that get all of it from their area. But you have other funds where you've got several groups that are fighting, right?
Not fighting, attempting to have access to resources. I'm gonna step back. That's So my point is and again, it's not your fault. I recognize that. And that's why we're here, and I hope to work with you going forward.
But my point is is that from a from an equitable perspective, it may sound good, oh, wildlife, whatever, has the whole state. But think about what that means. So that means the whole state is competing for this one pool where certain areas get the whole apple.
Speaker 31
just And that's a problem, because we have communities all over the state that need to utilize the resources.
Speaker 16
I completely understand that, and we take that into account while these conversations are going on. I would clarify, though, that, like, for example, that regional projects pot, it's 127,000,000 total authorized. We're not appropriating all of that this year. So while Santa Monica Conservancy does have 15,000,000 in there, I think that's reflecting some priorities that folks expressed in regards to responding to the recent fires in January. I think the vast majority of the funding in Prop four for the regional projects will be administered on a more statewide basis, so that there is the ability for all areas of the state to benefit from those projects.
Speaker 31
Okay. Asked and answered and understood, but we'll live to fight another day. You'll see me in a couple months.
Speaker 31
Okay. Well, I not only want to explain, I want to make sure all communities are getting access to the money. My next question has to do with I'll try again to be, okay. Under energy, utilities, and air quality, you have $368,000,000 to the California State Transportation Agency for competitive and formula transit and intercity rail capital programs. Do you have any details on, more specifically, what would fall under that?
So, like, for example, metro funding and things like that, does it fall in these categories?
Speaker 32
Sorry. James Moore with the Department of Finance. So this pot of funds was part of the original SB 125 transit funding that included $5,100,000,000 a couple of years ago. Part of it was general fund through a series of budget solutions. Some of it was shifted to the greenhouse gas reduction fund and then spread out over multiple years.
This restores some of the discretionary greenhouse gas reduction fund that was used. And so one of the programs here is given to trades agencies on a formula basis, and the other one is given to capital projects that have already been selected by the transportation agency. And so METRO, I'm sure, is a recipient of some of these funds. But it's statewide.
Speaker 31
And then my next question is on page six, number 17. It says this is under health, and it says appropriate expenditure authority of $11,300,000 And it breaks it down to support the development of DHCS of a comprehensive hospital value strategy. So can someone help? What do we mean by spending $11,300,000 for strategy? And I ask that question because in my community and some of the other members here, we have hospitals that are on the verge of closing because they don't have size they can't meet the seismic requirements.
And I'm just curious, has there been a discussion about any funding regarding seismic capabilities versus hospital value strategies?
Speaker 31
Laura's are tough. It's the Loris that are the weakest. What about Laura's? Those are good. Hopefully, no Loris in the audience.
Speaker 15
I can speak to the hospital value strategy that's under the Medi Cal program. And so, the $11,000,000 includes three different funding sources, none of which are general fund. These are funded partly by fees and intergovernmental transfers and then some federal funds. But the idea is for the Department of Health Care Services to really take a holistic look at all of the payments that are provided to hospitals, if they're state directed payments, and to figure out a way to get the most value out of those payments and provide improved access for Medi Cal members and improve care delivery. So I can't speak to
Speaker 31
the comparison between this Hospital Valley strategy proposal and CIC. So I would just say, the record, with our chair to spend I mean, I get it. Everything that you said, it seems very reasonable. I just don't know why we spent $11,300,000 to do that. So just for the record, I'll I'll make that statement, and I I stand open, to hearing differently.
I'm definitely open to that. On page nine, number 37, general government, there's money appropriated 20,000,000 one time for economic development. Does this assist with FIFA and the Olympics?
Speaker 4
This isn't specific to my knowledge, is not specific to FIFA and Olympics. There was Olympics funding in the June budget related to transportation, and there are a number of components in the trailer bills related to Olympics. I don't know if some if one of my colleagues has more information, but I believe it's broader than FIFA and Olympics. Okay.
Speaker 31
Could you direct me in here where we do allocate money for FIFA and or Olympics?
Speaker 4
There's, in the AB one zero five, there's no funding for Olympics, but we did have, money in the transportation area and in the June budget. And then if you can find me one moment, we do have Olympics in various trailer bills. Not funding, but provisions. There's a provision in AB 144 related to exemptions for certain medical providers. In AB149, there is an expansion of an existing CEQA exemption and also an additional exemption for coastal development permits related to the twenty twenty eight Olympic and Paralympic Games.
And then, in AB 153, there's an authorization for local transit operators to operate charter bus service for the twenty twenty six World Cup in both the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles area. So, we have Olympics efforts underway. The dollar, funding, again, was in the June budget related to transportation specifically.
Speaker 31
Okay. And then regarding transportation, I see that we're taking out, same page, we're taking out 10,000,000 from the motor vehicle account. Don't we also take out money for car out of the motor vehicle account?
Speaker 4
Right. There's a number of entities spend out of the motor vehicle account, and definitely the Air Resources Board is also one of those entities that spends out of motor vehicle account.
Speaker 31
Okay. So, if you could give me the total of that account and then how much is being taken out?
Speaker 4
Oh, fund balance on motor vehicle account as of budget enactment. I'll turn it over to Matt Mesado, one of my colleagues.
Speaker 31
Thank you. Even though I had some rapid fire questions there, thank you for all of your work. I know you guys have been working so hard to meet this deadline and to give us a balanced budget. So, thank you for all the hours that you've put in, and we look forward to working with you. I look forward to working with you.
Thank you.
Speaker 18
Thank you so much, mister vice chair. I wanna do a follow-up because senator Allen mentioned a response to senator Cabalton regarding some heavy geographic investments that perhaps they weren't prop four investments. And I guess I'm also asking, if they're not Prop four investments, where did we get additional money for specific geographic investments? To Senator Sierto's point, we were told that, you know, we had to cut Medi Cal for undocumented individuals or cease to provide funding for that and other things because there was no funding. But now we have additional funding for special projects, district spot projects in specific geographic areas.
If they're not prop four, how much money is for specific projects that are outside of Prop four? From the general fund.
Speaker 4
From general fund. So I don't have that figure. I know that this was the notion of future allocations was contemplated at the time of June budget. I don't know that the specifics were developed. If we're talking about new general fund that wasn't contemplated at the time of enactment, my notes show that it's, again, approximately $70,000,000 that's above the June budget net general fund, and a lot of that was related to the costs related to the response to federal policy changes and the H.
R. One implementation. So, the net change from the June budget is $70,000,000
Speaker 18
So $70,000,000 those are program related investments. Right. Not those are program versus geographic investments. So 70 they're not earmarks. 70,000,000 that you're talking about is the only money you can account for from general fund for additional investments that weren't in the June budget that we voted on.
Speaker 18
Then then I would say, senator Allen, it sounds like every other earmark investment is coming off from prop four.
Speaker 4
I do not believe that. I believe that there was a plan at the June budget for future allocation for dollars. I don't believe and I don't have how many specific geographic investments are related to Prop four. So, don't know that all the geographic investments you're referring to are Prop four. I don't think I would say that.
Speaker 18
Do we know how much do we know how much specific line item earmarks to projects are in Prop four? Not pots.
Speaker 4
Not pots. I don't know that it's considered like on an earmark basis. I think it's, you know, you start with the bond language and then from there, there's probably certain or different levels of specificity within the bond. So, I don't know that we could provide that.
Speaker 16
Stephen? With Stephen Mentz, Department of Finance. We can go through the budget bill language, and there are some Prop four appropriations that are for specific projects. I don't have the total off the top of my head of what that is, but we could certainly go through and total that up and provide that information if that's something that's of interest.
Speaker 18
If we're going to be here for a little while, I would love that math to happen so we can have those numbers for the public to understand. Prop four was passed by Californians. I think it'd be really important for California voters to know where their vote investment is going in the state of California and if it was equitably distributed across California. I would like that number.
Speaker 4
I don't know that we can commit to it this time frame. We absolutely commit to working with committee staff to see what we can provide. And then, I would just note that this is a partial allocation of the bond funding. It's not a total allocation. It's kind point and 2,000,000,000.
Speaker 16
The total amount of the appropriations is $3,300,000,000 of the $10,000,000,000 authorized.
Speaker 18
So, that's one third, approximately, right? That's a huge chunk. You know, this is going to be the only hearing on this. This is the only hearing on Prop four. And this is the only time we can hold us accountable for how we're utilizing the money that voters asked us to utilize to invest into their communities.
I I I can't have an email two weeks from now giving me those numbers. I need to either talk about it here or talk about it on the Senate floor so that the public knows how much money is going into specific projects.
Speaker 16
We can certainly get you the math before the Senate floor. I can't say for sure that I can get it before this hearing ends, but I will certainly go do some math. And I will say, though, that of the $3,300,000,000 being appropriated, the vast majority of it is going to competitive grant type programs where there'll be solicitations, there will be awards being made, you know, based on a competitive application process.
Speaker 18
And maybe that is the best route to take for all kind of allocations, to ensure that it's a fair approach, depending on the need. Because I see some line allocations where I see studies, plans. And I'm like, in a time where a lot of areas are park poor, children are in schools with no ACs, seniors are dying from heat, exhaustion, and so forth. I don't think Californians want us to invest tens of thousands, millions of dollars on studies and master plans. I think it'd be really important for us to ensure that we're investing on actual things that are gonna change people's lives in the in the now versus doing another study that oftentimes sits on our desk or on the department's desk for years to come.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Was that thank you. Senator Niello, followed by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. And I believe that's what I have for now. Thank
Speaker 2
you, Mr. Chair. A couple of specific questions. I've heard that there have been additional revenues, revenues coming out a little bit stronger than expected, the structural deficit notwithstanding, which I'll come back to. But is there again, I just don't have the detail Is there any additional funding to supplement the initial allocate or budget for Proposition 36?
Speaker 20
Justin Edelman, Department of Finance. There is no additional funding for Proposition 36, but one of the trailer bills does include modifications to a Community Corrections Performance Incentive Grant, which is a public safety related funding mechanism.
Speaker 20
Sure. So, is from 02/2011 realignment. It's a program to fund and promote probation departments to keeping individuals out of prison sentences and providing funding to assist probation departments in doing that and various evidence based practices. We had been working throughout the year on developing modifications to this formula, which had its faults, and so there is funding for that, but nothing specific to Proposition 36.
Speaker 2
Is that at all, excuse me, is that at all related to Proposition 36 activities?
Speaker 20
In the sense that it includes public safety, yes, but not specific to Proposition 36.
Speaker 2
The other one is we, as you know, we have a $20,000,000,000 unemployment insurance debt. And because it's not being paid, the employers are paying increased amounts per employee. I think it goes up by $24 per employee every year, maxes out at somewhere around $450 per employee additional. Frankly, I think that that is absolutely abhorrent, that the state is not paying that off, whereas every other state in the union did initially. New York didn't fully pay it off, but eventually my understanding is it did.
Is there any funding in here to pay the UI debt down?
Speaker 2
So, are going to continue I realize this is not your decision, so the comment is not directed at you. But we are going to continue to foist upon employers higher and higher costs per employee, which is going to feed into affordability issues. The higher cost businesses have, the higher prices are eventually going to be. And it just absolutely slaves me that we are the only state in the union that refuses to allocate I think we can say anything because there have been some budget funding for this inconsequential amounts given the $20,000,000,000 debt. I think that's totally inexcusable.
LAO mentioned the structural deficit, which we continue to have irrespective of everything that we're talking about here. We have a structural imbalance between programs that have been excuse me, I know you know what that means just so everybody is on the same page. It means we have a structural ongoing imbalance between the cost of programs to which we have committed over the last several years versus the revenues that we expect to be receiving over the next few years. That means that in order to balance future budgets, we're either going to have to raise taxes or reduce programs or reduce spending on various programs. What has the Department of Defense that's become the partner of Department of War what has the Department of Finance done to begin working on that structural deficit for the next projecting out two, three, four years?
Speaker 4
So, I think it's a continued effort, right? It's a continued effort every year. The dynamics of revenue levels change, which influences that. So, that will be part of just our fall process of evaluating where we are with expenditures, seeing where workload expenditures come in, if there's other outside changes or outside factors, seeing where revenues come in later during the fall. And then, we propose the budget at January 10 using the best information we have and the best approach that, you know, the administration has at that time, taking into account a lot of dynamic factors, including, as you said, increasing expenditures perhaps on the natural via workload or revenue changes and the projections of those revenues for the multiyear window.
So, a continued effort by the Department of Finance, and we're launching into it right now for the next turn for the January 10 budget.
Speaker 4
We're I mean, it's continued effort. It's, you know, always, always happening as far as looking at what the factors are that could affect our budget and the budget development. The heaviest budget development cycle is in this fall now, and the January 10 document's the most detailed version of that with, of course, changes that come through the spring, again, as factors change both on the expenditures and revenue side. Well,
Speaker 2
we do have we do know what we know now, and we know now that there is ongoing program expenditures for the next few years exceed by significant billions of dollars the revenues that we expect to have coming in. Now, it sounds like what you're saying is, well, revenues will change and so we can maybe make some adjustments. But I would like to see and this is probably coping too much for a legislative minority member but I would hope to see the Department of Finance, in the context of the upcoming budget, some projections relative to what you think needs to be done to cure the structural deficit, to handle the structural deficit over the next few years. It's going to make our budgeting process more and more difficult as time goes by.
Speaker 24
Senator Nilo? Yes. If I may just weigh in here. You know, our office at the legislative analyst office is beginning the work to prepare our fiscal outlook, which will come out in November. And in that, we will be providing updated estimates of revenues expenditures.
And in this exercise, we'll be trying to build in adjustments to the baseline of our expenditures that will be affected by this HR1 bill in Washington, which probably add to the burden facing the state. And I guess I would just put on, you know, out there that with the structural deficit in the range of 15,000,000,000 to $20,000,000,000 a year, looking ahead in the forecast period that we had back in May, And given that the legislature already took the actions to pull back a lot of the one time spending that had been allocated in the surplus years, a lot of the choices that the legislature will face will just be even more difficult going forward. There will be difficult choices before this body. And so, there's nothing right now that I look at when I look across the landscape that gives me a lot of comfort that we're going to grow our way out of this with revenues. In fact, the economy seems to be slowing down.
The jobs reports have been coming in weaker. Inflation is higher. And, you know, if anything, California has historically kind of been at the leading edge of the trends. And so, we've seen a slowdown in job growth in California for a little while now, and now, the most recent jobs reports have been showing that nationally. And so, you know, I'm not predicting the recession, but we have to always be prepared for that possibility.
And some of the warning signs are out there for that. And so, I guess I'm just saying that some of the fiscal challenges that the state faces right now will continue to be there. And the choices that have already been made kind of took the low hanging fruit that was available from a fiscal standpoint. And so, I think the choices will be even harder as we go into the next year.
Speaker 2
And that's potentially exacerbated by the imbalance that we had for a few years relative to out migration and in migration, meaning that for a couple of years. And we haven't talked about that since and I don't know if this is continuing, but we need to wait for IRS dated IRS data. But we had a situation for a few years where it wasn't just a matter of more people moving out than moving into California, but the people that were moving out of California were of a higher educated and higher income level than were the people moving in. Whereas in prior years, it was that particular demographic was a bit of a wash. That has significant impacts, obviously, on public revenues.
But with regard to the question that I asked Department of Finance, I've asked you this question before and you have answered it. And the reason, it just occurred to me, the Department of Finance should be working on this also. And between the two of you, you probably come up with some different data. But and I'm not presuming that the Department of Finance wasn't working on it, I've never asked the Department of Finance. I've asked you about this probably two or three times.
And so that's why I wanted to get it on Department of Finance's radar and hopefully we can see some additional information as you're working on future budgets, as I know we will from the LAO also. Now, want to welcome those that have expressed frustration relative to what is going on. I welcome you with open arms to my club frustration. And I have to say, I'm just wondering if my other colleagues from the other side of the aisle are feeling as uninformed and rushed on this as I am and my Republican colleagues are, I have a feeling that the answer to that question is yes. I'm not trying to engage a conversation, but just bringing up the same sort of challenge we have of transparency and appropriate involvement in the processes that we're pursuing this week.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And now I will go to, I believe, Senator Manchur. Actually, yes, Senator Suvamacuevos. My apologies.
Thank Mr. Chair.
Speaker 1
After I skipped over Senator Grove, I'm not very sensitive to going in the road.
Speaker 9
Long, long, long day. You know, I just wanted to in my exuberance over disappointment in 01/2031 and the cleanup of 01/1958, I neglected to ask a question about a couple of items in Trailer Bill 105 and in one sixty. I wanted to ask about the the firefighter transition technical program language that's in AB 149. Can you say more? Does that increase the number of firefighters?
And the question, more specifically, I'm asking is, does that include hand crews across the state?
Speaker 9
you tell me what does it what is being increased? I know it's the hours, but I'm curious in terms of the numbers.
Speaker 16
Steve Mentz with the Department of Finance again. So, in 01/1949, the amendment related to firefighters is back in the June budget, there was language that indicated was put in statute that indicated that upon appropriation of funding for this particular purpose, CAL FIRE would begin hiring a sufficient number of permanent firefighters to replace what we currently have as existing seasonal firefighters. The budget included $39,000,000 in 'twenty five, 'twenty six to start doing that and then $78,000,000 ongoing for that purpose. That will allow for the transition of a portion of the current seasonal firefighters, call them Firefighter Is, into permanent classifications, but not all of them. The language in here where they're amending is, right now, the statute indicates it was referring to firefighters that were assigned to hand crews.
This amendment just strikes the word hand crews and basically says the intent now is to transition all seasonal fire all existing seasonal firefighters to permanent firefighters. That's the clarification.
Speaker 9
And can you confirm for me how many hand crews are exist per county? And what does that number mean, whether firefighters or hand crews, how many will be in L. A. County, in particular?
Speaker 16
So, is specific to the firefighters that CAL FIRE employs. Got it. And so, it doesn't necessarily have hand crews that are permanently stationed in every county. What we would do in an incident is if, you know, say, L. A.
Happened in January, obviously, we bring hand crews in from all over the state to help address that issue. Don't they're actually stationed there. Turns out, L. A. County actually is one of the contract counties, so CAL FIRE doesn't have hand crews in L.
A. County itself. The county has hand crews, it does. And I don't know off the top my head exactly how many hand crews the county has on staff.
Speaker 9
So, it's my understanding that there's only two in all of L. A. County hand crews, and that there is no state funded hand crew that is in L. A. County.
And I just want to point out, with over 200,000 folks evacuated, over 17,000 structures burned, I think Senator Richardson was alluding to this point. LA is officially a wildfire zone. And as we are in making this investment, and I absolutely agree that we need to increase the number of full time firefighters and begin to move a transition. I also think we need to look at ways to ensure that those areas that are urban, those areas that are dense, and those areas that we now know are prone to burn, that we have adequate investment in those hand crews. Not to mention that there are, you know, thousands of formerly incarcerated firefighters who are looking for an opportunity to be able to put their skills to use.
And I did see that there obviously are some investments that are being made with the California Conservation Corps and the Cal Fire local fire prevention grants. Do you know if any of those, the Cal Fire local fire prevention grants, are going to increase the hiring of formerly incarcerated fire camp members to be able to step into some of these CAL FIRE hand crews or firefighting teams?
Speaker 16
So, the local fire prevention grant program that this funding goes through doesn't actually go towards hiring firefighters. They're grants out to local entities. So, any entity in the state, like fire safe councils apply, counties, cities, different fire districts apply. They apply for these grants to go in and do various types of fire prevention work. It could be, you know, fuel breaks, it could be community hardening type of improvements.
That's what that grant program supports. There are programs in the state. So, CAL FIRE and the Conservation Corps and CDCR co operate a Ventura training center that is specifically geared towards bringing in folks who recently left the conservation camp program, you know, who were released, and they're kind of back out, they can come in and get trained and receive the training they need to be competitive to apply for firefighting positions. And CAL FIRE does hire folks from that program quite regularly. CAL FIRE also hires a lot of folks directly out of the conservation corps into their ranks and positions, as well.
So, there's a number of pathways that are being used, and there is work that's funding in Prop four and other places that's going towards workforce development type of programs that will help support And bolstering that effort.
Speaker 9
I would love to hear more about how many folks are coming out of that Ventura training program, which is a remarkable program,
Speaker 9
actually get an opportunity to come down into the opportunity unfortunately, to hand crews, but come into an opportunity to work in their own communities doing the fire prevention, mitigation, fire all of the training that they've gotten, while in the camps that they have an opportunity to come into their own communities and do that work. Do we track is there is part of this funding to track some of those numbers in terms of how many of the firefighters who are going to be hired as a result of this money, how many are coming from the Ventura fire camp? How many are actual how many of those graduates are actually moving into full time jobs?
Speaker 16
So, this funding in here doesn't go towards tracking that, or really, this isn't specifically going towards Ventura Training Center, either. That funding has ongoing funding to run the program. We could definitely find data in terms of how many of the graduates from that program are being hired by Cal Fire. That you know, that much I definitely know we could get. Whether or not I could Cal Fire, frankly, I guess the Conservation Corps could help me identify whether they're going back to, like, the community they came from, don't know if they track that level of data or not.
That's something you could certainly ask about, though.
Speaker 9
Thank you. And then, my final point, and I know my good colleague from Los Angeles raised this, and this is about Expo Park. And I understand that, you know, obviously, there is some funding or some language in the trailer bill regarding the Olympics and preparing Expo Park for the Olympics. We also are going to be preparing for some future monuments. There were some allocations made in the budget in that regard.
I just want to point out that the security funding for the park is a real challenge. We had one child killed inside of the park recently. We've had some challenges with some bike gangs, essentially, that have attacked folks inside of the park. We, you know, obviously know that we are inviting millions of visitors to the park, and the CHP allocation is such that it just isn't adequate to ensure, the safety needs, that exist, at Expo Park. I recognize that in this budget, there's nothing here reflecting that.
I don't know if there may be some other pots in terms of investments that are being made at Expo Park that can address that need. But I just, you know, want to point out that we this is a beacon of California in the heart of a community that has a lot of disparity. And we want everyone to be safe, both the residents in and around the park and as well as those who come and visit. Just wondering, is there additional allocations that maybe reflected here to address some of those needs?
Speaker 16
So, I agree that the security in the park has been a tricky situation to try and resolve. A few years ago, there was funding done through the budget to set up, essentially, a park specific police force, And it's been very challenging trying to recruit, hire, and retain folks into those classifications. And so, a lot of the security concerns that the park has is a result of an inability to retain those folks. What's been happening is many of them get recruited, hired, trained. And then once they're trained, they leave and go work for the city police department or the county sheriff's office, something like that, because they're higher paying jobs that are more appealing to them once they've received all that training.
So keeping that, like, actual authorized unit within the park filled has been incredibly challenging. And so we have continued to be reliant on contracts with CHP, and they're also doing some private security. And so that those are ongoing conversations that we're having with Exposition Park and with the Natural Resources Agency in terms of how to sort of stabilize and solve that problem sort of ongoing. But right now, what's happening is that they within their existing budget, what was in the June budget, they've got some funding to be able to continue and increase their contract with CHP to a certain extent, and also to do some funding for private security. And then, of course, they will continue to try and, you know, fill and retain the actual positions they have, but that has been very challenging.
Speaker 9
Yeah. Well, as we move closer to L. A. '28 and the Olympics and, obviously, the World Cup, which is happening in a few months, you know, I think addressing the needs of security but also the overall safety, you know, making sure there's accessibility at the park, and also making sure that it's fully open. All of the amazing assets that are at the park, including the Air and Space Center, would be critically important as we get ready to welcome the world and hopefully generate the revenues that the state so desperately needs at this time.
And I'm not
Speaker 16
involved in all the conversation, but certainly, as they gear up for the Olympics and for the World Cup and stuff, there are groups that are discussing venue security and things like that that are multi agency. They include, you know, federal agencies and state agencies and OESs involved and a lot of those types of things. So obviously, I mean, Expo Park's not going to be on its own, I guess, in terms of security for those major events.
Speaker 18
I just wanna clarify a question I had just to make sure I was talking to my colleagues here. The question I originally had asked is Do want me to give you And you said 70,000,000 is the only general fund additional investments that we're voting on. The total only $70,000,000 is coming from general fund of everything we're voting on.
Speaker 1
There are allocations in this budget that were in the June budget, but they weren't they were not differentiated, and now they're spelled out more. So, that was already appropriated money, but it's now more itemized.
Speaker 10
On that part, how could they have been in the June budget if they were not itemized? How could we have especially these geographic earmarks or these project specific earmarks, how could they have been implicitly included in the June budget without us voting on that at that time?
Speaker 4
Yeah. They might have been carried in a central and the items here. So, these are being allocated specifically to, like, the budget, the departments that have them. So, they're itemized by department. So, I don't I don't have information on how they reflected in June.
They are now allocated out to the departments.
Speaker 10
Yeah, okay. So, for the climate bond money, the general fund money, the medical money, the Department of Education money, across the transit money, in almost every one there is at least one, sometimes 40 specific allocations that are in the schedules. Appropriations are still what they were at the program level for transit capital planning, for mental health services or whatever. But now they include of that amount, sometimes 100% of that amount is for this specific earmarked project, which we have not heard or seen up until the bill since the bill went in print. I think that's what we're trying to understand is and I guess so they're not all climate, of course, but they're all and they're not all general fund, they're across a wide variety of these budget areas.
Speaker 4
Yeah, I'm not I think because the question's fairly broad, I'd maybe work with your budget committee staff to see kind of if we can narrow down kind of the areas of interest and get back to you all as soon as possible, recognizing that we are we don't have much time, but we will work with your budget committee staff to kind of see if we can help give more detail, if that's acceptable.
Speaker 1
Seeing no other indications, we'll now proceed to public comment. We'll ask we'll ask folks to come up, and if you could please please attempt to keep public comments in one minute, that would be appreciated. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Evening, Mr. Chair. Chris McAiley here on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority in support of AB 53, particularly the charter bus language that will assist us in delivering proper transportation service for next summer's FIFA World Cup. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 35
Mr. Chair and members, Brendan Tugge, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, we appreciate the AB 617 Community Air Protection funding that's included in AB 105, as well as the Clean Cars For All funding. And I did want to take this opportunity to say we're very appreciative of the continuous appropriation for the AB617 Community Air Protection Program that's identified in SB840. Thank you.
Speaker 36
You, Mr. Chair and Senators. Doug Subers, behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, we appreciate the committee and the staff and the administration for working with us on a handful of items in AB 105, the Prop four spending plan, specifically sections seventy three and seventy four, the CAL FIRE movement, full time staffing for the firefighter one positions. Same in AB149, that language that facilitates the movement to permanent staffing. We'd like to thank the committee for AB156 and section four, expanding the displaced firefighter list and lastly, the changes to the MOU for Bargaining Unit eight and AB161.
Thank you.
Speaker 37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. Aaron Reed, representing CAL FIRE, Local two thousand hundred eighty one. I'll let Doug go first because we are in the same position so ditto what Doug just said. Won't repeat any of it.
Perhaps I want to say one thing about the MOU. We are one of the last of 21 units to get a deal where we give back money to help the state out of the deficit that they're facing. So that took a lot of work and I want to thank the staff here and particularly Hans Herman, who's in the audience, who kept me advised daily. So I appreciate that kind of staff work. It's amazing.
So I appreciate your your help with CAL FIRE. Many of you have had fires in your districts, and I know senator Laird had his house get real close to a fire. The largest fire department in California and probably the second largest fire department in The United States. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Evening, chair and members. Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League. We are deeply disappointed to see that despite commitments from legislative leadership, public outcry, the urging of many legislators, including senators on this committee, Californians will see no relief from the incredible harms of the endangered species rollbacks and advanced manufacturing exemption this year, even as projects with extreme damages to workers, families, culturally important resources, and endangered species are already moving forward without public transparency or mitigation. We have sent information to your offices already on the many ways that the so called Senate proposal, AB145, fails to uphold the commitments by legislative leadership to communities, workers, ecosystems, tribes, and fellow legislators, including the continued reliance on more broad, vague, catch all definitions that will continue to harm Californians to the benefit of mega polluters. These projects, including the ones exempt under AB one forty five, have extreme and fatal histories of explosion, fire, groundwater contamination, hazardous waste mishandling, gas leaks, air pollution, including benzene, lead, arsenic, and more.
To be clear, Californians will not be protected under s b one thirty one, s b one fifty eight, or a b one forty five. These cleanup bills do not fulfill the promises made by leadership for endangered species protections, safety from hazardous industrial projects, or tribal consultation. We implore the legislature to do better for their constituents and hold leadership accountable to their commitments. Thank you so much.
Speaker 39
You, Chair members. Asha Sharma, on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. We are also extremely disappointed that there is no cleanup on the advanced manufacturing exemption in SB 131. Thanks to California Democratic leaders and the failure to clean up SB 131, corporations can now build extremely hazardous manufacturing facilities that handle explosive gases and toxic materials next door to homes and schools with no environmental review or public notification. The Senate proposal in AB 145 is egregiously deficient, with heavy industrial facilities handling PFAS and explosive gases being able to be built as close as 300 feet from homes and schools with no environmental review or community notice.
300 feet is a distance from this hearing room to Hearing Room 1100 across the hall. This legislative session, we've seen legislative leadership turn their back on their constituents, values like environmental stewardship and equity, and concerns from fellow legislators, which we greatly appreciate being raised today, to side instead with mega polluters. It's incredibly disappointing to see such a sudden shift. We urge immediate action to clean up SB 131 and the legislature to put real guardrails in place, not more false promises like those in SB one fifty eight and AB one forty five. Thank you.
Speaker 40
Good evening, chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Surfrider Foundation, and the National Wildlife Federation. Concur with my previous two colleagues. I also wanna thank the members of this committee, particularly senator Blake Spear and senator Kobolden for their strong comments about, the lack of protections, and commitment to the cleanup on one thirty one. We're very disappointed about that and just broadly disappointed, as senator Kobolden said, about the degradation of the policy making process over the twenty years I've been here.
This is the least transparent process I've experienced, and I hope in the future, this body will do better. Thank you.
Speaker 41
Good evening. Mister Chair members, Brian White, here to speak on two items. First, on behalf of offshore wind California, we wholeheartedly support and appreciate your efforts in moving the 225,000,000 to help upgrade ports for offshore wind. I want to give a special shout out to senator Allen and his staff for helping, move that money. Prop four voters voted for it, and so we think that's gonna be helpful in getting these projects built.
Second, on behalf of General Atomics, we support the 5,000,000 for the, fusion research and investment program. Appreciate the administration and the two houses to help move that money to the table. Thank you.
Speaker 42
Ms. Evening. Alex Lumer on behalf of Pacific Forest Trust and the Environmental Protection Information Center. Greatly appreciate the comments by Senator Blake Spears, Ben Jevar, and others on the committee tonight. And I want to echo the same disappointment that's already been echoed by a number of folks this evening.
The fact that 131 was jammed through in a few days, and now we're having to wait months for meaningful cleanup while meaningful communities and ecosystems are gonna suffer is really disappointing. The voices of tribes are already being silenced while projects are being built atop cultural resources. And for what? Advanced manufacturing? It's incredibly disappointing.
I hope we can do better next year. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Amy Costa with Full Moon Strategies on behalf of Alameda County, here in strong support of the health trailer bill AB 144, specifically the provisions related to gender affirming care, the safeguards for vaccinations and immunizations, as well as the Abortion Access Fund. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Evening. Dan Chaw, representative of the Port Of Long Beach, here to support the offshore wind allocation. Am greatly appreciative of Senator Allen, Senator Weiner, especially budget staff. I think implicit in this funding is the recognition that no offshore wind will happen in California without ports that are capable of supporting the weight and the height of these turbines, some of which are the size of the Statue Of Liberty. So, greatly appreciate your support.
Speaker 44
Ms. Good evening. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. I want to thank you for your partnership in determining our state's response to the crisis created by h r one in regard to the devastating cuts to SNAP or CalFresh in California. We are grateful for the investments outlined in s b one zero five and s b one forty six, but we do remain concerned about the 74,000 legally present immigrants in our state who are here on humanitarian grounds who are no longer able to access food benefits.
We hope that we can continue to look at ways to aid this population, but we do appreciate the increase in funding to the food banks. In addition, we are concerned about the upwards of 600,000 people, which now includes those experiencing homelessness, veterans, former foster youth, parents and caregivers of children over 14, and adults ages 55 to 64 who will now be subject to the strict three month time limit on CalFresh benefits unless they can prove compliance with work requirements. This group, formerly known as able-bodied adults without dependent children, now includes many populations that face additional barriers to employment. We also want to pledge our partnership to bring down the CalFresh payment error, and also supportive of the language included in the budget around the housing complaint resolution process with due process protections for HHS HHSD programs. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Evening. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance. I want to align my comments with the folks who spoke before me from Planning and Conservation League and Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. I especially want to appreciate your comments, Senator Menjivar, for reminding us about the warehouse conversation that we had last year. Was a similar process where this was dropped on us last minute, and we were kind of forced to accept a 300 foot setback, and so it's deeply disappointing to see that double down in AB 145.
300 feet is never what environmental justice communities called for, said was sufficient, said was protective. And it's deeply disappointing, again, that the fixes that were promised to you all in SB 131 were not accomplished here. And, yeah, we invite all members of this committee to come to our communities and see what 300 feet really looks like, what it feels like to be near these facilities, and why we do not think that 300 feet, as proposed in AB145, comes at all close to what our communities deserve. Thank you.
Speaker 46
Good evening. Jordan Curley, behalf of American Clean Power, echoing my two colleagues before me on the support of the offshore wind funds. Just a thank you and support for those funds, and we're very excited to see the potential for the economic growth here in the state that they'll provide. Want to also add on from my colleague at Environment California in support of that funding.
Speaker 47
Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty. While we appreciate the budget does not subject foster youth or former foster youth to Medi Cal premiums and specifies the grace period for nonpayment of premiums, we remain deeply disappointed that the budget maintains Medi Cal exclusions that will result in immigrants losing access to health care. In addition, we support the budget pieces that maintain access to vaccines, gender affirming care, and abortion services. And finally, we appreciate funding for legal immigration services, as well as the Bureau of Descendants of Slavery. Thank you.
Speaker 48
Thank you. Mark Farooq, on behalf of the California Hospital Association. I want to say we are in support of the revisions and clarifications related to immunizations that are contained in 144. Also, I want to thank the budget staff and members, as well as the administration for the revisions and the language related to the hospital fee value strategy proposal. I also want to thank the senators for their questions related to that proposal.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the County Of San Mateo in support of the health trailer bill SB 144, specifically the provisions related to the immunization safeguards. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Yesenia Jimenez with End Child Poverty in California, also including C RAC in my comment. First, I want to thank Senator Weiner, Senator Ashby, and legislative budget leaders for securing $90,000,000 to address the urgent needs created by the federal administration's h r one bill. This federal administration has continued to use every tool in their kit to strip food from refugees, trafficking survivors, and asylees just like my mother who came to this country as a youth fleeing a civil war. The inclusion of 20,000,000 in cow food to support these newly excluded CalFresh families sends a clear message that California will fight for a food for all future. The money invested for our counties will give workers the tools to fight back as they are forced to implement new federal time limits that impact families with children, veterans, foster youth, and more.
The 30,000,000 invested to prevent California from being subject to a $2,000,000,000 federal penalty is a start to ensure our entire anti hunger safety net is not put into jeopardy due to HR one. Our immigrant families and children face daily kidnappings and are disappeared, so any investments that this state makes helps keep our families together. So we appreciate for the additional investments. And we celebrate the child care package included in AP 151 that secures benefits for our workers, child care workers. And lastly, sharing the comments of a Western Center colleague, while we wish discriminatory Medi Cal premiums targeting immigrant adults and the new asset limit tests were not included in this budget, We know your latest commitments show you don't wish to remain in a health care system that discriminates.
We hope to work with you to ensure health care for all really becomes a reality in the state of California again. Thank you.
Speaker 49
Hello. Kat Deberg with the Health Officers Association of California, here in support of the AB 144 provisions that allow California to make science based recommendations vaccines and other preventative medicine. Thank you.
Speaker 50
Kim Delfino. On behalf of Audubon California, the California Native Plant Society, and the Power Nature Coalition, I'll start with a positive comment, which is we are appreciative that proposition for climate bond funding is finally being appropriated. That funding is desperately needed, particularly as we see cutbacks from the federal funding for a lot of conservation, habitat, and other important projects around the state of California. My other comments, though, would align with the concerns that have been raised by numerous other environmental justice and environmental groups about the deep disappointment in not seeing a cleanup for SB 131. Many of you have already made up here on the dais very good comments.
Thank you, Senator Blakespeare, Senator Menjivar, Senator Laird, and others for raising the concerns about SB the threat of SB 131 to habitat and communities. We're deeply disappointed that commitments were made to try to clean that up. SB one forty five is, as already commented, not nearly enough. And frankly, SB one fifty eight is really doesn't do anything. It doesn't protect habitat.
It doesn't protect communities. And, it's really sad to see that California seems to be walking away from its leadership role in protecting communities, particularly overburdened communities. We're talking about putting advanced manufacturing projects right next to schools, homes, soccer fields. These are communities that have already borne the brunt of extreme pollution. And now we're moving these types of projects with no environmental review.
Frankly, I'm shocked by it. And I'm super disappointed not to see the fact that commitments made were not commitments followed through. Thank you.
Speaker 51
Michelle Gibbons with CHEAC, representing local health departments across the state. Here in support of the provisions in AB 144 to ensure access to vaccines preventive services. It's an important step to protect the health of Californians. Thank you.
Speaker 52
Mr. Chair members, Steve Baker with Aaron Reed and Associates for the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. We just want to thank the committee and staff for including the golden muscle provisions in AB 149. It's critical to keep delivering water to Southern California, so thank you for everything you've done.
Speaker 53
Good evening, Chair members. My name is Sedalia King with UDW, ASNY Local three thousand nine hundred thirty. On behalf of child care providers united, AB 151 will not only ratify the tentative agreement with the state, but ultimately move the state toward expanding affordable child care for working families and a step closer to respecting the profession. As for IHSS, we want to thank you for protecting overtime pay from the tax from the Trump administration embodied in AB 156. Your leadership on this will make a significant difference to thousands of providers, their recipients, and the availability of home care services.
We also appreciate the effort to prioritize streamlining and county bargaining. AB 156 also streamlines the mediation fact finding process in IHSS collective bargaining to make sure their contacts are reached in a reasonable timeline. In conclusion, thank you for standing with care providers, and we urge your eye vote. Thank you.
Speaker 54
Good evening. Angela Hill, California Medical Association. We want to thank staff, committee, and the administration for your leadership on protecting access to lifesaving vaccines. CMA is in strong support in the provisions within AB 144 that ensure California remains and retains access to coverage for vaccines that are known to be safe and effective. And we are really grateful for the state's leadership on this issue.
Thank you.
Speaker 55
Chair and members, Kathy Viatella with East Bay Municipal Utility District. I want to align my comments with the previous speaker regarding the Golden Muscle provisions in AB149. These will also, in addition to help moving water, they will protect water infrastructure and also our freshwater ecosystem. So thank you.
Speaker 56
Kelly Brooks here on behalf of several clients. First, on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association, we appreciate the set aside funds for counties to assist clients with federal CalFresh work requirements and the $20,000,000 for CalFood. CWDA supports the funding for CalFresh payment error rate reduction and the Housing and Homelessness Dispute Resolution language on behalf of the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems and the urban counties of California, I'm here to voice our support for the vaccine provisions and AB 144. We thank the legislature and the administration for their collaboration on that. And finally, on behalf of the urban counties, we're in support of the provisions in the elections trailer bill.
Thank you.
Speaker 57
Thank you very much. Vanessa Cahina, on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians, Vicioni Compromiso, the statewide network of promotoras and community health workers, and CALPACE, the statewide PACE Association, here in support of the provisions in ABSB 144 to keep immunizations affordable and accessible.
Speaker 58
Good evening. Christine Smith with Health Access California. Health Access, as the co chair of the Health For All Coalition, appreciates the legislature's exemption of immigrant foster youth and former foster youth from provisions related to the freeze on Medi Cal enrollment, payments of premiums, and elimination of adult dental adopted in the 'twenty five-'twenty six budget. This is a good first step. However, the majority of health cuts for undocumented Californians remain the same, with about a million Californians set to either lose their coverage or face higher Medi Cal costs.
The legislature can and should do more, especially at a time when our undocumented community needs our state to stand up and fight back against the Trump administration's cruel attacks. We do appreciate the legislature's work to authorize Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund for covered California health plans to defray the cost of offering gender affirming care and the establishment of Abortion Access Fund to provide funding for abortion services and also the guidance related to provision of immunizations and coverage and delivery of critical preventive health care services. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Evening. Erin Evans, Futom representing Santa Clara County. The County Of Santa Clara supports the vaccine protection access provisions of of AB one forty four as well as important provisions that are unique to Santa Clara County in SB one sixty two and AB one sixty two, excuse me, that resolves some conflict conflicts in state law related to our own special election. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good evening, Keira Ross, on behalf of the city of Burbank here in appreciation for the language on golden muscles in a b one forty nine. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Senators. Kobe Pizzati on behalf of the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. We are the largest direct level of care providers for mentally ill inmates, patients, and individuals with developmental disabilities. AB 161 is the MOU ratification of our contract.
Hopefully I can win Mr. Nilo's support on this one by saying it's very similar to many of the, MOU ratification bills that you, voted on and approved this this, year earlier. The reason for the delay in getting this ratified is we don't have the ability to do a work from home provision, so we had to find other ways to negotiate for something. And what we came on was, a reduction in the days in which we, were forced to work overtime per month. So we went from four days to three days, and from five days to three days in DDS.
So with that, we strongly urge your support for AB 161. Thank you.
Speaker 59
Hi. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. We're grateful for several items in the budget trailer bills. First, we want to highlight the augmentation for county CalFresh funding for county workload to manage the increased workload that will result from HR1, and counties are committed to working together on whatever else is needed to support the increased costs from HR1 and protect safety net services. Also grateful for the goal for HAP7 funding to get out the door by 09/01/2026.
Counties are committed to working together to ensure this funding, which is critically needed for homelessness efforts, can get out as quickly as possible. Also grateful for the Proposition four appropriations, as well as the clarifying changes in the election trailer bill that will allow counties to effectively administer the statewide special election. Finally, CSAC is opposed to the changes to the IHS fact finding process. These shortened timelines could actually be detrimental to reaching agreements, and so we don't think they're needed at this time. Thank you very much.
Speaker 60
Good evening, Mr. Vice Chair members. Beth Olasso, on behalf of Water Reuse California. Here to say thank you for getting Prop four allocated, as Senator Allen did. Thank you, Ms.
Andalina, for all her hard work. We were a little disappointed to see the APA language. We had been talking all year about exemptions for existing programs. At the very least, the water recycling funding program is adopted by guideline, not by regulation. So projects that have gone through the competitive process in LA, Irvine, Paris, Carpinteria, Sacramento, and I'm missing one and San Francisco are all going be delayed in getting those water recycling projects going because this whole new process, when we already have something that we do in public, it's adopted guidelines, it's just not gone through APA.
So it's a little frustrating that this got dropped on us. But we appreciate the Prop four allocations. On behalf of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, really appreciate Golden Mussels Trailer Bill. Thank you.
Speaker 61
Good evening. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. Just want to express our gratitude for the appropriation for Proposition four. We look forward to continuing to work with the legislature since there's more money there that we need to get out, and we heard some of that conversation today about the conveyance funding. We also really appreciate the authority for state agencies to use the emergency regulatory process, which is what my colleague was just talking about.
But I think all of the discussions in the subcommittee were about an APA exemption, and we would support that moving forward. So, we hope to continue to have that conversation. And then, finally, just to support AB149 and the Golden Muscle Solution. Thank you very much.
Speaker 62
Brent Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs, District 9, and California Podiatric Medical Association, in support of the provisions in AB 144, the Health Trailer Bill, specific to California's policies on immunizations, basically to ensure the administrations of vaccines are evidence based and follow science. Thank you.
Speaker 63
Brian Chubb, on behalf of the California Climate and Agriculture Network. We support the Prop four allocations for the Ag chapter and the Trailer Bill language in AB149 for the new cooperative equipment sharing program at CDFA. And on the topic of mysterious Prop four earmarks, we oppose and want to flag for your attention the Prop four earmark for lab grown meat research at the UC Davis Center for Alternative Meat. The legislature rejected a similar proposal last year in SB eight sixty seven, and it's unclear how this is remotely bond eligible under the Natural Resources Agency. Thanks.
Speaker 64
Good evening, Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the California Certified Organic Farmers as well as American Farmland Trust, speaking in support of several Prop four allocations, specifically CDFA's Farmers Market Program, Healthy Soils and SWEAP. We also want to thank you for the work done in SB149 to create the farm equipment sharing program. We also share the same concerns that were just voiced by the last speaker on the alternative meat program. Thank you.
Speaker 65
Thank you, Mr. Vice chair, members. Mark Fenstermaker here for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, supporting AV one zero five, particularly the investments from the GGRF and six seventeen implementation as well as for the Clean Cars for All program through the air districts. Our program has been very successful, which is why we've exhausted those funds. In addition here, on behalf of the Salinas Valley Basin, Petaluma Valley, and Sonoma Valley groundwater sustainability agencies, I want to express gratitude for the funding from Prop four for small GSAs pumping less than 10,000 acre feet.
They struggle financially to implement the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, and this will really help small GSAs across the state. And lastly, on behalf of Sonoma Water, I wanna express our gratitude for support, for funding in the Potter Valley project. That is a very complicated project up on the Eel River, as well as, express support for AB one forty nine, the trailer bill on golden mussels. Thank you so much.
Speaker 45
Good evening. Brittany Barsai on behalf of the California News Publishers Association. Just very grateful for the funding allocations in AB 155, and we look forward to the funds going to support journalists serving their communities across the state. Thank you.
Speaker 66
Tim Lynch, on behalf of the News Media Alliance, representing 2,200 publications in the country, and support the efforts in AB 155, and to echo Senator Allen's comments that we hope this is just the beginning of investment in local journalism. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Thank you. Julie Malinoski, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, saying thank you for allocating additional resources, GGRF resources in particular, to lower carbon transportation programs, in particular the Clean Transportation Program at the Energy Commission, which will fund medium and heavy duty zero emission infrastructure, and the Clean Cars for All program at CARB. We need you to double down on this, triple down on this next year. The need for low carbon transportation program is far greater. So when you spend discretionary dollars for GGRF next year, as outlined in SB eight forty, we hope you put more money into low carbon transportation.
Speaker 67
Chair and members, Vice Chair and members, Kathy Mossberg, on behalf of a few clients, on behalf of Essential Access Health, want to thank you very much for your leadership on establishing the Abortion Access Fund and putting dollars in there. On behalf of the Public Health Institute and First Five Association, I'd like to thank you for the proactive approach on the immunization language. And lastly, on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks, appreciate the additional funding for CalFood in wake of the deep cuts to food support and H. R. One.
This will be more important than ever. Thank you.
Speaker 68
Evening, Ryan Souza, on behalf of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and APLA Health. We just want to thank the legislature and the governor for taking a proactive and thoughtful approach in protecting health care access and affordability related to the foundational anchors that were originally recommended by the USPSTF, and also taking into account how future recommendations can still occur. We'd like to second our comments as it relates to the appropriation for the UC Davis Research and Development on Alternative Proteins. We believe with the state's limited resources, these are better directed at programs benefiting domestic agricultural producers and advancing the state's climate and biodiversity goals. Thank you.
Speaker 69
Evening. I'm Meg Snyder with Acxiom Advisors, sharing comments today on behalf of multiple clients. On behalf of Invenergy, we're grateful to see funding in Prop four for port infrastructure for the development of offshore wind. On behalf of PearlEx, unfortunately, sad to see that there's no funding for the demand side grid support program, but look forward to continued conversations on that. And then lastly, on behalf of Rewiring America, again, forward to continued conversations to fund the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program at the CEC.
Thank you.
Speaker 55
Evening. Audra Hartman on behalf of Contra Costa Water District. We wanted to thank you for your support in putting the golden muscles in AB149, and ask for your support of the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Good evening. Dennis Cuevas Cuevas Romero, on behalf of the California Primary Care Association Statewide Association of Community Health Centers Clinics in support of AB 144 and the provisions related to immunization, hoping we continue trusting the science. So thank you for all your work.
Speaker 70
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of Ed Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California in support of AB 105. The chiefs and the fire district support the Prop four climate bond expenditures and the wildfire and forest resilience provisions. In particular, we're pleased to see investments going to the locals to reduce community risk and increase local community preparedness for regional projects to improve local fire prevention capacity. We look forward to the agency getting this money out the door as quickly as possible.
Thank you.
Speaker 71
Good evening, Jonathan Clay, on behalf of Alameda County Water District, thanking for the inclusion of the Golden Mussels in AB149. And then on behalf of the County Of San Diego, the inclusion of funding for Border Rivers, that was an important thing to include as part of the Prop four allocation. Thank you.
Speaker 72
Gabriel Tolson, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. I reiterate the frustration voiced by members and other advocates today in regard to SB131, SB158, and AB145. Not only can endangered species habitat and community health be destroyed without mitigation as a result of SB131 and the failure of legislative leadership to land on cleanup, but the Senate proposal published just minutes before this committee hearing began, is still deceptively broad and will significantly impact disadvantaged communities and critical habitat across the state. AB 145, or the Senate proposal, could exempt from CEQA products involving uranium enrichment, which poses risks of radiation exposure lithium processing and recovery, which is known to draw significant quantities of freshwater and release toxic hydrogen chloride gas metalworking, which can release dangerous levels of lead, hexavalent chromium, benzene gas, and other carcinogens and chemical manufacturing for semiconductor production, particularly of sulfuric acid, which can release lethal sulfur dioxide gas. The public must be allowed to protect themselves from these harms, yet AB 145 removes even our right to know the impacts of hazardous projects proposed half a block from homes and schools.
I implore the legislature to prioritize the health of constituents and ecosystems and uphold the commitments it has made to Californians. Thank you.
Speaker 73
Good evening. Chloe Armacillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center, and I'm here today to urge you to continue to prioritize the health care of immigrant Californians. We're disappointed to see Medi Cal premiums still being imposed on the vast majority of immigrant adults ages 19 to 59. It is another unnecessary barrier to health care for families already being targeted by federal attacks on immigrants. According to a recent study by the Rent Brigade in Los Angeles, immigrant renters average weekly earnings dropped from $799 to just $3.00 $5 after recent raids, which is a 62% loss.
It's also reported that those same families are spending as much as 91% of their income on rent, putting them at a severe risk of eviction. Adding premiums on top of this economic reality pushes families further into crisis. While we recognize and appreciate the adjustments made in SB 144, such as allowing a three month reenrollment window after missed payments and exempting foster youth, These changes don't represent progress. They are merely clawing back ground that was lost in the first place. Families should never have been put in that position.
California has long led the nation in advancing equity in health care, but these policies risk reversing that leadership. We urge you to move forward with real progress by restoring the full investment in the Medi Cal expansion for immigrant families to access health care without punitive premiums or restrictions. Thank you.
Speaker 74
Evening. Aneelie Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center. I want to thank the legislature for further investing state funds to expand deportation defense services and strengthen our rapid response infrastructure in response to the ongoing mass immigration raids and arrests across our state. We must continue expanding these programs to defend children, workers, and families from mass deportations and detentions, and ensure our immigrant communities have access to justice, safety, and due process. While we support the legislature's further allocation of 20,000,000 to Cal Foods to support our immigrant communities, we urge the legislature and budget leaders to invest in greater emergency food relief food relief directly to the 74,000 lawfully present immigrants, refugees, asylees, survivors of trafficking, and other humanitarian immigrants that no longer have access to CalFresh.
This is not enough to meet the anticipated need when the HR1 effects HR1 cuts go into effect. Losing access to food benefits for this population not only means increased food insecurity but severs and undermines public trust, cuts up vital support, and abandons them while under attack by our federal government. Thank you.
Speaker 75
Good evening. Cathy Sunderling McDonald for the California Pan Ethnic Health Network. CPEN appreciates the fix for the current and former immigrant foster youth to ensure that they are not affected by the Medi Cal freeze and eligibility changes. We believe other fixes will be needed moving forward, given that implementation is expected to impact many immigration statuses in a broad way, taking away access that has been in place for decades. We were disappointed that the funds DHCS is getting for technical assistance to implement these immigrant exclusions are not connected to more oversight or a transparent stakeholder process.
From what we've seen so far, these changes are really complex, and they would benefit from participating with stakeholders to work together moving forward to make sure that these are implemented in the most transparent and least impactful way possible. We do appreciate the trailer bill language on vaccines that ensures science continues to remain our North Star as it relates to protecting public health. And finally, we support the investments to defray the qualified health plan costs for providing gender affirming care and also support maintaining maximum flexibility for abortion access in the state. Thank you.
Speaker 76
Good evening. Jacob Jacob Evans with Serial California. We are extremely disappointed to not see the glaring issues of SB 131 be resolved this year and for SB 158 to be what's on the table. I really appreciate comments tonight from Senator Blake Spear and others who voiced concerns with SB 158 as the trailer bill does not include the cleanup requested by 35 legislators and should not be acknowledged as a response to those requests. Just want to emphasize some of the deficiencies in the cleanup that is included in AB 145 that was published at 05:55 p.
M. One, the protections for native species and habitat in the bill must be expanded to apply to the definition of protected lands that was used in SB 131. As it is in AB 145 right now, those predictions only apply to projects under the advanced manufacturing assumption, not the many other prototypes that were exempted under the lengthy SB131. And second, like others have said, the changes to advanced manufacturing exemptions still leave it incredibly broad, and it would exempt many polluting projects like those listed. The 300 foot buffer zone to disqualify advanced projects from the exemption is just not adequate to ensure that communities will be protected and can protect themselves.
So again, very disappointed that this is how we're ending this year on this and eager to continue the conversation next year. Thank you.
Speaker 77
Jeff Neal, representative of the County Contra Costa Board of Supervisors here in support of the vaccine related provisions of AB 144. I appreciate California maintaining the flexibility to respond to emerging health emergencies. Thank you.
Speaker 78
Mikhail Skibarli here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition. I want to extend our support in, for the zero emission infrastructure and technology neutrality in that, as well as our appreciation to the staff who's been responsible over last two days.
Speaker 79
Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Ross Buckley on behalf of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. We're in support of the AB six seventeen funding that's being included in the budget. This is valuable resources to help protect some of most vulnerable communities.
Thank you.
Speaker 17
Evening. Dylan Elliott here on behalf of Placer County, and by extension, our partners with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Appreciate the funding in 01/1949 for golden mussel protections in our state waterways. We do, however, have a concern with a drafting provision that would eliminate an existing reciprocity between the State of California and the State of Nevada. In essence, the current drafting provisions would mean that ships from Nevada would no longer benefit from having their qualifications for being avoided in the golden muscles, the same way that, right now, California voters excuse me, California residents would benefit in not having to pay that in Nevada.
Just concerned, provided language to the committee, understand where we're at in the legislative cycle, look forward to working with the committee to get that remedied in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 80
Good evening, Vice Chair members. Beth Malnowski of SEIU California. On child care, EB151 will ratify the agreement between the Child Care Providers Union, CCPU, the State of California. The providers on the Bargainite team and our leaders are proud of the final agreement made in August, believe the trailer bill in print accurately reflects the agreement. So, on behalf of both SDIU and CCPU, request your I vote.
On public health and health care, we stand the coalition of public health voices in supporting the immunization provisions contained within AB 144. We also second the remarks made by Health Access, our Fight for Health allies, on Medicaid provisions, gender affirming care funds, and abortion care as well. We also support an AB 156, the labor TBL, the protections for IHSS providers related to overtime and avoiding disruptions to payroll. Lastly, I do want us to acknowledge, obviously, the incredible fight SEIU played in fighting against HR1. I know many of you on this day as was part of that fight back work as well.
And with that, we support the budget funding and process for updating legislature quarterly on multiyear activities intended to reduce harm on HR1. So, thank you.
Speaker 81
Chair members, Brandon Chiu on behalf of SEIU California. First, on the topic of transit funding, Budget Bill Junior AB 105 includes language that requires the Department of Finance and Transit Agencies to meet through the fall and arrive on a funding solution to meet the needs of Bay Area transit agencies and prevent cuts to staffing or service levels. We are in support of that provision, and we are grateful for its inclusion. Secondly, on CalFresh, we support the budget investments on CalFresh to prepare for the significant and harmful cuts in H. R.
One, which was passed by the Congress and signed up by President Trump. We will not be able to prevent hunger for veterans, foster youth, children, and others as a result of those cuts, but these investments will help us prepare for will help us prevent hunger for many and may help to save our state budget from unnecessary related cuts in the future. On CalWORKS, we support the CalWORKS Housing and Homelessness Assistance Program changes. And lastly, SEIU supports and is grateful for additional investments in immigrant services. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Good evening. Marie Lu on behalf of NRDC and the Central California Environmental Justice Network. We are expressing extreme disappointment that these final budget actions do not include cleanup of the abundance of pollution that was created with the CEQA exemption, particularly for the advanced manufacturing, which is not protective of workers, tribes, disadvantaged communities, as well as the environment. It is a dis it's a disappointingly small improvement to have, the, the senate's proposal in put in print in January, as the commitments for for actions, in January, as the commitment was to clean up these provisions, by the end of session. We appreciate Senator Smallwood Cuevas' comments, in recognition that the mistakes that are created by the ESAQA exemption will have decades of impacts on communities.
So thank you for your comments, Senator, as well as Senator Laird and Senator Blakespeare. Neither SAB 158 or 145 will protect the public. We ask members over the fall to use this time to take tours of communities to show, so you can see for yourself, the impacts of having heavy industrial facilities adjacent to communities. We note that Senator the Chair's own bill in SB4, in 2020, they recognized that we should not be building housing within 1,600 feet of heavy industrial facilities. And so, we ask you to see these communities with your own eyes over the fall, and hope for better actions next year.
Thank you.
Speaker 34
FRAZZ Firaz Rizvi, and I'm representing APN, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, where we organize Asian immigrant and refugee communities in Oakland, Richmond, and Wilmington, echoing statements from other environmental justice and environmental advocates who expressed extreme disappointment around the lack of cleanup for SB 131. Our regions have a significant amount of industrial operations and advanced manufacturing. And, similar to what Marie Lou just stated, I would like to invite the senators here on a tour of our communities so that you can see how close these industrial facilities are to homes, schools, parks, fields, sometimes barely separated by a single wall. This blanket advanced manufacturing exemption is how you end up with Xi two point zero, which need I remind is still impacting folks in Southeast LA. Our communities are going to be paying for this with adverse health impacts and reduced life expectancy for decades, and we are deeply disappointed in the leadership we're nudging on their own promises to clean up SB 131.
I also want to thank Senator Small Huevas, Senator Laird, Senator Blakespeare, Kabal Don, and Mengevar for their comments about the lack of transparency this session. You know, this is really frustrating because we've been engaging throughout this entire process trying to ensure that our communities are at least heard and not having these promises fulfilled is very frustrating and leads to a lack of trust. Thank you.
Speaker 82
Evening. Craig Polser on behalf of Equality California. I just want to express our support for the provisions in AB 105 and AB 144 to protect access to gender affirming care, abortion, immunizations, and preventive health care. And just appreciate the work of the chair and this committee to protect access to health care for LGBTQ and all Californians. Thank you.
Speaker 83
Chair and members, Alex Torres, on behalf of the Bay Area Council representing over three fifty employers in the nine county Bay Area. We were strong supporters of the advanced manufacturing CEQA exemption in the initial enabling language, which would incentivize a significant amount of economic activity, namely companies that do want manufacture in California. According to the LAO, manufacturing jobs have been declining for twenty one months. Onshore manufacturing was a priority for the Biden administration and remains a priority for the current administration. We've also strong concerns to repealing that or further amending that at this time without a thoughtful conversation On the provisions and the impact to California's economy, we look forward to being a partner to make sure we retain middle class jobs here in California and capitalize on the initiative to ensure manufacturing here in California.
Also want to note alignment here for the California Manufacturing and Technology Association and Los Angeles County BizFed. Thank you.
Speaker 84
Chair and members, Samantha Corbyn here tonight on behalf of a few items and clients. First, on behalf of clients who are partners in fighting wildfires, Perimeter Solutions and Aurora Tech, strong support of the Prop four allocations contained in AB 105. Perimeter Solutions is Cal Fire's premier partner in aerial firefighting solutions and the only qualified product listed with the US Fire Service for wildfire mitigation. Looking forward to working with agencies and local governments to ensure we can partner in the use of ground applied retardant to prevent and reduce the impact of fires on communities. On behalf of Aurora Tech, who's already in partnership with countries significantly impacted by fire like Greece and Canada, utilizing innovative technologies like satellite thermal imaging to detect and respond to fires more quickly is essential.
Separately, while the budget proposals do include some funding for recidivism and workforce programming for those impacted by the justice system. There's much more work to be done here, in particular for the state's innovative pilot programs in these spaces, like our client, the nonprofit Crop, who's operating in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, as well as statewide, providing housing and workforce solutions with a 0% recidivism rate. In particular, they partnered with the state to provide accountability and tracking in these spaces and guide the legislature through their data platform with the goal of coordinated services and feedback to you. However, the current budget doesn't provide the continued necessary funding to do this work, and we hope that you will spend time on this over the fall. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And I know that folks or sergeants are calling offices, but for members and staff, we're going to be voting shortly. I know that three of the members of this committee are in the education committee, which I think is probably close to voting at this moment. So, we'll of course put items on call, but now is a good time for members to come down.
Speaker 85
Great. Chair and members, Jay Jefferson with the Metropolitan Water District. Just really want to thank this committee and your staff for the trailer bill language addressing golden muscles in AB and s b one forty nine. And so since these mussels emerge, they've spread rapidly throughout California's water bodies and really present major risks to native aquatic wildlife as well as water system infrastructure. So, we think this is absolutely critical to make sure we can keep delivering safe, reliable drinking water while also protecting against the spread of this invasive species.
Thank you.
Speaker 63
Brendan Rapicke with the California Transit Association. Just want to express our appreciation for the $368,000,000 in previously committed TIRCP Cycle six and SB 125 TIRCP transit monies. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Kathryn Good evening. Kathryn Flores, Executive Director of the California Immunization Coalition, in strong support of the provisions of AB 144, especially those immunization provisions to help protect access to vaccines in California and elsewhere. As a longtime health profession public health professional, I know we can rebuild the structures that are being damaged and deconstructed at the federal level. But we cannot get lives back. And so, it's really incumbent upon us to keep the protections that we have to protect all of our communities.
So, thank you. Thank you for all the work.
Speaker 1
Okay. Is there any additional public comment? We'll bring it back to the committee. And I appreciate all the comments and public comments today. I also I do want to just say one thing.
I meant to I was going to reserve my comments for last, but then we went to public comment. In terms of public transportation to the Department of Finance. And I've met with Mr. Seffenshaw about this, and I've met with senior administration staff. I do just want to express my disappointment and appreciation, my disappointment that we right now in this committee should be voting on authorizing a $750,000,000 loan to Bay Area Public Transportation agencies.
Because if nothing happens, BART will collapse, muni will eliminate literally 50% of its service, and AC Transit and Caltrain will also unravel. I'm not being a drama queen. This is reality. And the Bay Area, which generates enormous disproportionate tax revenue for the state of California, I think the state should be interested in actually making sure that people in the Bay Area can go to work and go to school and do all the things that we need for a high functioning economy. And the state of California has done a even though we have made some significant capital investments in recent years, and I commend the governor and the legislature for doing that, The state does not do enough to support and stabilize the operational needs of transit systems compared to New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois.
It's a long standing problem. And so this loan was supposed to come through. It didn't. And I appreciate that the governor has indicated his interest in figuring something out over the fall. And there is promise to do so in the budget trailer language.
Though it's not specific, and so I'm appreciative that the governor, has, expressed that, and I look forward to all of us working, together. But I do just want to express that if these transit systems do not have confidence that the money is coming through, if this lingers on, then they will start ramping down service. Because even though the fiscal cliff hits the middle of next year, it's not an on switch, off switch. They have to plan in advance. And if they do not have confidence that the funding is coming through, they will, later this year, start ramping down service, and that would be terrible for the Bay Area and for the state.
So I just want to express that on the record, and I really look forward to working with Department of Finance, with the administration, colleagues, stakeholders over the interim to quickly come up with something. And I want to support LA Transit too, will just say for the record. LA has done a lot of great work on transit. So anyway, with that said, thank you, everyone. I think we will vote now.
Again, we do have colleagues in education, so we'll keep the role open. Do we have anyone who is, like, imminently on their way down? One, two, (356), 789-1011. We're good. We're gonna vote.
Don't look so excited, senator O'Leary. You very excited right now. He's giving me the look. Okay. We will start.
And I'm gonna note item 13, AB 158. We're not gonna be voting on that tonight. I'm gonna be holding that in committee. So, item one, AB 105, can I please get a motion?
Speaker 30
Mr. Chair? Yes. Could I just make a motion for all of them and you could just note that when we get to them?
Speaker 1
AB one fifty eight. Okay. There clearly there's there's clearly a yeah. Yes. Okay.
Great. So I listen. We've heard we're not gonna vote on AB one fifty eight tonight. I will note for the record there are a number of things in 01/1958 that have nothing to do with SB 131, but we are where we are. So, we're removing item 13 from consideration tonight.
So, item one, AB 105, motion by Senator Laird, and we'll call the roll.
Speaker 3
AB 105, the motion is due pass. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Nilo?
Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Blake's fear?
Aye. Blake's fear aye. Cabaldon? Joy? D'Araso?
D'Araso aye. Grove? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
McNurney? Aye. McNurney, aye. Benjivar? Aye.
Benjivar, aye. Ochoa Bogg? Aye. Aye. Richardson, aye.
Sajerto? Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Wahhab?
Aye. Wahhab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye.
11 to seven.
Speaker 1
11 to seven. We will put that on call. Item number two. Senator Laird moves AB 144. Please call the roll.
Speaker 3
AB 144, the motion is due passed. Senator Zweiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Nilo?
Speaker 3
Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon aye. Choi?
Doraso? Aye. Doraso aye. Grove? Laird?
Aye. Laird aye. McNerney Magnerney aye. Menjivar? Aye.
Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogg? Perez? Richardson? Aye.
Richardson aye. Sayerto? Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas aye.
Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson aye. 12 to
Speaker 3
A b one forty six, the motion is due passed. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Blake Spear?
Aye. Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon aye.
Choi? Teraso? Aye. Teraso aye. Grove?
Laird? Aye. Laird aye. McNerney? Aye.
McNerney aye. Benjovar? Aye. Benjovar aye. Ochoa Bogg?
Perez? Richardson? Aye. Richardson aye. Sayorto?
Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas aye. Wahab? Aye.
Wahab aye. Weber Pearson aye. Weber Pearson aye. Twelve six.
Speaker 1
126. We'll put that on call. I move number 4. Senator Laird moves a B147.
Speaker 1
Sorry. 12 that was 120. We're putting on call. Senator Laird moves a B147. Please call the roll.
Speaker 3
AB147, the motion is due pass. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Scott Voting. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Blake Spear?
Aye. Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon aye.
Choi? Teraso? Aye. Teraso aye. Grove?
Laird. Aye. Laird I. McNerney. Aye.
McNerney I. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar I. Ochoa Bogg.
Perez. Richardson. Aye. Richardson I. Sayorto.
Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Wab.
Aye. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson?
Speaker 1
120. We'll put that on call. Okay. Now, that was item 5. We did with item That was 4.
That was 4. Sorry. Item 5. 148, AB 148 moved by Senator Laird. Please call the roll.
Speaker 3
AB one forty eight, the motion is due pass. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Speaker 3
Blakespeare aye. Cabaldin? Aye. Cabaldin aye. Choi?
Dorasso? Aye. Dorasso aye. Grove? Laird?
Speaker 3
Laird I. Mignerney? Aye. Mignerney aye. Mignerney aye.
Ochoa Bogg? Perez? Richardson? Aye. Richardson aye.
Sajarto? Smallwood Cuevas? We're talking about it. Smallwood Cuevas aye. Wahab?
Aye. Wahhab aye. Weber Pearson aye. Twelve-zero.
Speaker 1
Twelve-zero. Twelve-zero. Twelve-zero. Put her on call. Item 6AB149 moved by Senator Laird.
Call the roll please.
Speaker 3
AB 149, the motion is due passed. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Aye. Aye. Blake Spear?
Speaker 3
Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Baldon aye. Choi?
Dorasso? Aye. Dorasso aye. Grove? Laird?
Aye. Laird aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney aye.
Menjivar?
Speaker 3
Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogg? Perez? Richardson? Aye.
Richardson aye. Sayorto? Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas aye.
Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson? Aye.
Weber Pearson aye. Pull. Also 12, sir.
Speaker 1
12O. We'll put it on call. Item 7AB151. Move it. Moved by senator Mengev wow.
That was aggressive. Senator Mengevar aces out senator Laird. Somebody does. We'll call the roll.
Speaker 3
AB one fifty one, the motion is do pass. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Nilo?
Speaker 3
Allen? Aye. Allen, Blake Spear? Aye. Blake Spear, aye.
Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Thurasso, aye.
Oh, Choi? Sorry. Grove? Laird?
Speaker 3
Laird aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney aye. Menjivar?
Aye. Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogg? Perez? Richardson?
Aye. Richardson aye. Sayerto? Smallwood Cuevas? Aye.
Smallwood Cuevas aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson aye.
120. 120.
Speaker 1
Put it on call. Item 8ABy one AB one five three. Please. Senator Manjivar moves. Please call the roll.
Speaker 3
Yes. AB one fifty three, the motion is due passed. Senators Wiener? Aye. Wiener aye.
Nilo? Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen aye.
Blake Spear? Aye. Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye.
Cobaldan aye. Choi? No. Choi no. Doraso?
Oh, not voting. Sorry. Choi not voting. Doraso? Aye.
Doraso aye. Grove? Laird? Aye. Laird aye.
McNerney? Aye. McNerney aye. Menjivar? Aye.
Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogh? Perez? Aye. Perez aye.
Richardson aye. Sajarto? Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas aye.
Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson aye. Weber Pearson aye.
13 0. 130. Okay.
Speaker 1
So a b one five three, the motion passes. I move number nine. Okay. Item nine, AB 154, Senator Lair moves. Please call the roll.
Speaker 3
AB 154, the motion is due pass. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Blake Spear?
Aye. Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon aye.
Joy?
Speaker 3
Menjivar aye. Achoova Bogue? Perez? Aye. Perez aye.
Richardson? Aye. Richardson aye. Sajarto? Smallwood Cuevas?
Aye. Smallwood Cuevas aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye.
Weber Pearson aye. 120. Am I missing? Oh, sorry. 130.
Speaker 1
130. That bill is out. We'll now go to item number 10, AB 155, moved by Senator Laird. Please call the roll.
Speaker 3
Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Blakespeare? Aye.
Blakespeare aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon aye. Choi?
The state. Terrazzo? Aye. Teraso aye. Grove?
Laird? Aye. Laird I. McNerney? Aye.
McNerney aye. Menjivar?
Speaker 3
Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogg? Perez? Aye. Perez aye.
Richardson aye. Sajarto? Smallwood Cuevas? Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Wahab?
Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. How many bills are? Thirteen zero.
Speaker 1
Thirteen zero. Bill is out. Item 11, AB 156, moved by Senator Laird. Please call the roll.
Speaker 3
A b one fifty six, the motion is due passed. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen, Blakespeare? Aye.
Blakespeare aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi?
No states. Dorado? Aye. Verrazo aye. Grove?
Laird? Aye. Laird aye. McNerney? Aye.
McNerney aye. Menjivar Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogg? Perez? Aye.
Perez aye. Richardson Richardson aye. Sajarto? Smaller Cuevas? Aye.
Smaller Cuevas? Aye. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab aye.
Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson aye. Thirteen zero.
Speaker 1
Thirteen zero. The bill is out. Item 12, a b one five seven, moved by Senator Laird.
Speaker 3
AB 157, the motion is due passed. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Blake Spear?
Aye. Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon aye.
Choi? Aye. Tarrasso? Aye. Tarrasso aye.
Grove? Laird?
Speaker 3
Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogg? Perez? Aye. Perez aye.
Richardson? Aye. Richardson aye. Sajerto? Smallwood Cuevas?
Aye. Smallwood Cuevas aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye.
Weber Pearson aye. Zero.
Speaker 1
Thirteen zero. The bill is out. Item 14, a b one five nine, moved by Senator Laird. Please call the roll.
Speaker 3
A b one fifty nine, the motion is due passed. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Blake Spear?
Aye. Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon aye.
Joint? Dorasso? You got it. Dorasso aye. Grove?
Laird? Aye. Laird aye. McNerney? Aye.
McNerney aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogg?
Benrez? Aye. Benrez aye. And Richardson? Aye.
Richardson aye. Sajerto?
Speaker 3
Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas aye. Wahab? Aye.
Wahab aye. Weber Pearson aye. Thirteen zero.
Speaker 1
Thirteen zero. The bill is out. Item 15 a b one sixty moved by senator Menjivar. Please call the roll. A
Speaker 3
b one sixty, the motion is due passed. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Speaker 3
Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Blakespeare? Aye.
Blakespeare aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Baldon aye. Choi?
Aye. Teraso aye. Grove? Laird? Aye.
Laird aye. McNurney aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar aye.
Ochoa Bogg? Benrez? Aye. Benrez aye. Richardson?
Aye. Richardson aye. Sajarito? Smallwood Cuevas? Aye.
Smallwood Cuevas aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson aye.
Weber aye. Thirteen zero.
Speaker 1
Thirteen zero. The bill is out. Item 16, a b one sixty one, moved by Senator Laird. Please call the roll.
Speaker 3
A b one sixty one, the motion is due passed. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. Nilo?
Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Blake Spear?
Aye. Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon aye.
Choi? Aye. Taraso aye. Grove? Aye.
Laird aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney aye. Menjivar?
Speaker 3
Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogg? Perez? Aye. Perez aye.
Richardson aye. Sierto? Smallwood Cuevas? Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Wahhab?
Aye. Wahhab, Wahhab, Pearson, aye. Thirteen zero.
Speaker 1
Thirteen zero, the bill is out. And item 17, a b one sixty two, moved by senator McNerity. Sorry. He beat you. We'll call the roll.
Speaker 3
A b one sixty two, the motion is due passed. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Nilo?
Speaker 3
Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Blakespeare? Aye.
Blake Spear aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon aye. Choi?
Speaker 3
Thurasso? Aye. Thurasso aye. Grove? Laird?
Laird aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney aye. Menjivar?
Aye. Ochoa Bogue? Petters? Aye. Petters aye.
Rich Richardson? Aye. Richardson aye. Siarto? I'm not doing Smallwood Cuevas?
Aye. Smallwood Cuevas aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye.
Weber Pearson aye. Weber aye. 130.
Speaker 1
130, the bill is out. We'll now go back to the first seven items which are on call. Item one, please call item one, AB one zero five, please call the absent members.
Speaker 3
Nilo? Kabalden. Kabalden. I. I.
Choi. Grove. Sticking around. Ochoa Bogue. Yeah.
Penrose. Penrose I.
Speaker 1
You state 130. 0. That bill is out. Item 2AB144. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 3
playing Nilo? Yeah. Choi? Grove? Achua Bogue?
Perez? Perez? Perez? Serrato? 130.
Speaker 1
130, the bill is out. Item number 4AB147. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
130. Zero. Bill is out. Next, we'll go to item number five, AB one forty eight. Please call the absent
Speaker 1
130. The bill is out. Item number six, AB one forty nine. Please call the absent
Speaker 3
members. Nilo. Choi. Grove. You'll take order.
Ochoa Bogg. Perez. Hi. Perez. Sarto.
170. 130.
Speaker 1
The bill is out. And finally, item seven, AB one five one. Please call the opposite
Speaker 1
Okay. So I'm sorry. What was the vote on number seven? 130. 130.
The bill is out. That's everything?
Speaker 1
right. We've now completed our votes on everything. I want to thank everyone for coming out today. Our members, I want to first of all also thank our budget staff for working incredibly hard during what's fairly tumultuous end of session, and so we very much appreciate it. Thank you to members of the public.
And the committee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.