Senate Budget And Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 On Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor And Transportation
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Speaker 5
So, the last few years, how much money has been devoted to this program? About $1,400,000,000
Speaker 5
You know, in some of our report. Talks about the goal of being the greenest Greenest fleet in the nation. That's an awesome goal except for the goal for caltrans need to provide us with transportation quarters And other transportation methods Whether it's road rail bus whatever the heck it is With roads. That are adequate. Not forty ninth out of 50 in the nation and that's where we're at right now These vehicles cost about three times two to three times as much as another vehicle can that can do exactly the same thing And with the cleaner burning fuels that we do have and I know that because we we were using those in the fire service There's a compromise there but we're not compromising instead we're creating goals.
To make us the greenest fleet in the whole nation. I would rather us change our goals to meeting some of those some of the efforts. To address the environmental concerns and this is on our part this is something that the legislature needs to do too and- get back to doing what caltrans and the department of transportation is supposed to do. Which is deprived provide us with a transportation system in California. And roads that are reflective of the amount of investment that us taxpayers are putting into it and we are not getting that we're not even getting close to that.
This is the iron angst of so many of my constituents and other constituents all over the state. We have an interchange down there it's not even a it's not even an overpass it it's the underpasses already there. It's been in the works for twelve years now. And it's gone from. 25,000,000 to over $60,000,000.
With delays because we just don't have the efforts to be able to put into it, and we don't have the personnel to get these things through. We're done with excuses. We need some damn roads. Our district is being forced to accept a bunch of, growth through more housing and things like that. We don't have road infrastructure.
We don't have road infrastructure to handle that. For the few jobs that California is creating, we don't have roads where people can drive to those those jobs if they can get them. So I I don't wanna put another dime into this replacement stuff. What I want is efficiency. Not to be the greenest we can be how about if we're the tenth the the fifteenth or twentieth greenest.
And we spend more money on roads. That's what I would like to see. This this, as you can see, my passion is the passion of my constituents. Every time they take a teeth rattling ride down the 215 because I can't get it resurfaced. So, I'm not a big fan of of spending this much money and trying to move that process so fast that we're replacing per perfectly good vehicles with other vehicles that cost three times as much.
Putting those other ones, I don't know where the heck those go, but we're just putting them in the boneyard when they have plenty of life left in them. And, and then and and at what cost? It's a cost to us. It's a cost to our road infrastructure that we would desperately need. And in the meanwhile, some of the and this is directly from that fund.
This money comes directly from that fund that builds the state highways. So I don't think it's a good trade off. I would like to see us do something much different. Adjust our mandates so that they can adjust their goals to better reflect what Californians need. That's it.
No great questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your comments and statements, Mr. Ciardo. I have a few questions, sir. The first one is, in the last couple of years, Caltrans has focused on transitioning its medium and heavy duty vehicle fleet. Stakeholders have said that these types of vehicles can be extremely expensive.
Stakeholders including the senator, Mr. Ciardo here, and difficult to implement giving the charging capabilities. What has the department experienced in this area? And how does the department balance the function and the cost in the fleet replacement?
Speaker 2
Thank you senator. So first let me say that our budget request reflects the need to account for these higher costs when we go to purchase these vehicles. So in terms of balancing what we're buying, what we are asking for budget augmentation will fund that. Second, we're seeing offsets with the maintenance of these vehicles compared to a traditional gasoline fueled vehicle, these are actually much cheaper to maintain. We've only been doing this replacement for about five years, so we don't have long term data yet, but so far we're seeing savings in terms of the maintenance of vehicles as they move forward.
Regarding the charging infrastructure, this last probably two years, we've seen a huge change in what's available out there to charge these larger vehicles. I think I read this morning that we're able to charge some of these big ones now in a matter of hours instead of the eight to ten hours it used to take with the newer equipment out there. So we've really come a long way since we began doing this project initially with smaller passenger vehicles and now with the larger fleet vehicles. And it's fair to say too that, you know, the 1,100 vehicles that we're looking to purchase with this money, not all of them will be electric because electric vehicles are not necessarily available in every category that we need to replace. I don't have the exact numbers in terms of what we hope to be able to do electric versus traditional fuel, but it will be a trade off between the two depending on availability in the industry.
Speaker 1
Okay. My second question is in 2024, the legislature included a reporting requirement, which you referred to, you apologize for, to provide information on the zero emission vehicles that the department purchases, owns, and leases. It was due 10/01/2025. Did you say in your statement you expected it to be ready in May?
Speaker 2
I said by May, so I don't have an exact date for you, but I am hopeful that it will be done as soon as early May.
Speaker 2
Yeah, so there are some complications with creating and compiling the data and putting it into a usable format. Beyond that, I do not have a reasonable explanation for the lateness of this report.
Speaker 1
Okay. I would have to think with the state of California and Caltrans, given the size of your department, that you would have a basic Excel spreadsheet that had your vehicle information. Since I'm the chair, I'm gonna step out a little bit and say you got thirty days. And in order for me to support, I'm not saying I'm even gonna support this request, but for us to even consider it, I think you need to give us the report. And half a year is just not acceptable.
And the questions we're asking you, if you had your report, would actually answer some of them. How old the vehicles are, what the mileage is, typically how often do you replace them, what other ones have been replaced, what happens to the ones that are being replaced. These are basic, our job is oversight. That's what we're supposed to do. So I'm going to say you have thirty days from today, which is April 19, and we're not going to wait anymore.
If we don't get the report, I can't effectively review the information to then make a recommendation from my subcommittee to support your request.
Speaker 1
Okay, so let's see, April 19, does that fall on a weekend by any chance? April 19 is a Sunday. So if you want to make me smile, you would turn it in by Friday the seventeenth. But definitely by Monday the twentieth, we need to have your report. So we have enough time to properly evaluate it, and to hopefully concur with your recommendation.
Speaker 8
Thank you. I I have a question. I've worked really hard and brought up to Caltrans and other departments and agencies about labor standards in our procurement process. So my question is, does this procurement for these vehicles include labor standards for the manufacturing and the maintenance jobs? And if so, could you explain what that is.
Speaker 6
That Keith Duncan Caltrans budget officer we do we do. Working with our department general services we do have standard boilerplate that does. Meet. Statutory requirements as well as ensuring that we have the the the labor standards that have been. Expressed to us to include.
We would be happy to provide you the terms and conditions that we include there. I don't have the specific language though.
Speaker 8
Yeah. I mean, I don't want it to be a, you know, companies that pay minimum wage. You know, that that's that's a labor standard. That that's just not acceptable for for the investment that we put in, you know, with our tax dollars. We ought to be able to count on some good paying jobs.
Affordability is a big issue right now, and it has been, and I'm sure it will continue to be for a while. We need people to be able to earn what and these are I'm talking about jobs here. Manufacturing, maintenance. There's so many different ways in which we could. So if you would let me know, and I will respond further after getting that information.
And I really expect I'm raising and asking you the question because I really expect, that this would we would prioritize contracts that do provide the highest labor standards, available. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Yeah. I did. You know, obviously, Caltrans with this many vehicles, doesn't replace them all at once. And usually when you have large fleets you have a A.
Might an an amount of money that you put side For equipment replacement reserves. And and those get put aside every year so that when a when a vehicle needs to be purchased The money is there to purchase it. Have you guys adjusted. Your reserve maintenance accounts that we need to put in there every year in the budget to reflect what these new vehicles cost?
Speaker 2
So senator, do have a base budget that we use to replace our fleet. It has not been sufficient to meet the replacement timelines that we needed, which is why over the last five years now we've come forward with budget requests. This request is for just one year and we are actually transitioning to looking at where we are, where we need to be in the future and assessing what we want to do in the future. So instead of a two year VCP like we have been doing, we're doing one year this time and we're going to be coming back next year with a request that more incorporates the long term needs instead of this big push that we've been through for the last five years we're looking at what we're going to be doing.
Speaker 5
In the report that we're going to get back on April 20 does that have the the costs of the Replacement for the vehicles they did individual vehicle costs
Speaker 5
okay In the last question and follow-up To senator derazes Request Are all the vehicles California made vehicles Because most of the large Equipment vehicles I see here are made in the Midwest. Nebraska Iowa.
Speaker 5
I can't because I drive by them once in a while so Yeah some of those equipment a lot of the heavy equipment isn't even made in California anymore. So we don't have control over their labor laws. Outs outside of the state. So I can understand why. And and that would impede getting vehicles until we were able to get somebody here to build them and then hire a workforce.
That that kind of would work in detriment to to trying to accomplish my goal, which is building more roads.
Speaker 1
Thank you, sir. My last follow-up comment would be in your report you just mentioned that if I understood you correctly, we might be a little behind because of the funds that were available to do your replacement. If you could give us an idea how many more years do you think you're going to need this amount? And obviously replacing vehicles, it just kind of repeats itself. So if you expect, for example, in the next two years, or if this is the last year that you would have replaced everything it's first time, when do you think you're gonna need to keep replacing?
Kind of give us a little schedule so we, this is the budget committee. So if we could kind of get an idea of what is gonna be happening. The reason why I say that is we're anticipating a structural deficit for the next four years approximately. So we're gonna have to be able to determine, are we gonna be able to do $225,000,000 per year? Is that what you're anticipating asking?
So we need to know those kinds of things so we can plan ahead. So just a rough idea of, I would imagine you have this schedule, so.
Speaker 2
Yeah, we'll be happy to provide some information. I don't know if I was clear in what I was trying to convey. This request is a one year request as opposed to the prior two requests that have been multiple year requests. Yes. And that's because we are undertaking that review and reassessing where we are now and where we need to be to develop a long term budgetary need for the department.
So at this point I can't give you a number, but that is why this is only a one year request is so that we can complete that analysis and come back to you with solid information.
Speaker 1
Okay, that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is to get a rough number, not necessarily the budget number, but to understand. I'll give you an example. Caltrans has 1,000 vehicles. Okay, we'll just use that as an example.
50% have been replaced thus far. So we still have another 50% to go. That's what I'm trying to get an understanding of, not are you gonna need 50,000,000 or 200,000,000 or 300,000,000. I'm trying to understand the problem as a whole. How many vehicles do we have?
What's been replaced? What do we need to replace to go? And then when is the schedule gonna restart again? So we understand going into this, what are the potential liabilities or expenses that we're going to have to incur. That's what I'm trying to understand.
Okay, understood. Just general timeline understanding.
Speaker 2
Yeah, thank you. And we'll get you some more detailed information, but just for reference, we have about 12,250 pieces of vehicles and pieces of equipment. We have already replaced nearing 6,000 or will by the end of this year, so that's almost half. But these are vehicles that all have different replacement cycles. Some of our vehicles are already twenty years old and that's okay for the type of work that they do.
But yeah, we can certainly provide that information.
Speaker 2
Yeah, absolutely, which is always my goal. That may not be included in the report, but it will be supplementary information that we will provide.
Speaker 1
Yes, sir. All right. Seeing no further questions. Okay, that concludes issue number one. Thank you very much for your participation.
Issue number two is regarding SB 150, which is related to trailer bill language. First, we're going to hear from Caltrans, Mr. Keck, and also Mr. Duncan. And then we have the same representatives from LAO and Department of Finance.
Who's gonna go first. You're batting up yes all right Sir
Speaker 6
because thank you thank you madam chair senators Keith Duncan Caltrans budget officer Issue to on today's agenda as mentioned is a proposal by Caltrans the California department of transportation to amend government code. One zero one four zero one seven which- was enacted in 2023 authored by senator Drazo. Annually caltrans are on behalf of the state of California receives federal formula funds to the federal highway administration For investment and benefits to our state and local transportation systems. Government code one four zero one seven required that caltrans transfer a portion of those federal formula funds to the California workforce development board for investment into the state's high road construction careers program. That creates reliable career pathways for the through the delivery of structured high quality training throughout the state The challenge was and is.
That the use of these federal formula funds for training purposes must meet specific federal eligibility requirements as specified in federal statutes such as having a direct nexus between. Between training and the specific benefits to the national highway and national transportation systems. Unfortunately unfortunately due to the federal eligibility requirements we are unable to receive the necessary federal authorization to use these federal funds as the state law intended. And instead of just throwing up our hands and due to this limitation This proposal for your consideration is to amend the government code to swap out those federal funds and replace it with $30,000,000 in state funds Redirected from the state highway account so the state funds can must be transferred from caltrans to the California workforce development board for investment into the high road constructions Careers program to meet the original intent of the law I am joined today by members Representatives from the California workforce development boards well as our friends from the department of finance and we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 3
Again Rachel Eilers with the LAO this really just represents a policy choice for the legislature whether to use state funds to continue to implement this program As the administration has determined that federal funds can't be used for it as as originally intended. So it is at the discretion of the legislature whether this continues to be a high priority for state funds as well.
Speaker 5
question is on what's the track record for the existing program? Do we have a we have any statistics indicating the success of this program? Or is this brand new and we don't have a track record at all and we're just hopefully.
Speaker 9
you. So the track the complete data that we have is from SB one, which was another partnership with Caltrans.
Speaker 9
That occurred between 2020 and 2023. So as you as you know, construction is very vulnerable to recessions, and at that time, there was a pandemic induced recession. But that being said, were still 700 participants from that program connected to apprenticeship opportunities in the building and construction trades, and a further 500 connected to employment, mainly construction related employment, but not necessarily apprenticeship. It could have
Speaker 5
So I I believe heavily in our workforce development efforts and and what the the the good work of the workforce development boards. One of my concerns is that as we try to fund this from a federal standpoint for it if it's federal funding and and our workers get trained here and they go out throughout The United States I you know it's federal money but wherever they work probably benefits the federal government but when it's state money I I'd kind of like to know if after we're training and if they're taking the high road out of the state. And and not benefiting our workforce at all. And that that's what that's one of my concerns so is there any way of tracking that to make sure that. The investment that we're making are actually producing workers here in California as opposed to helping the rest of the nation get some Very high skilled labor In their in their words where they will not be benefiting from whatever it is that California does to.
To make them productive because without Housing in with without. With the affordability issues that California is offering right now A lot of sectors out there are are going away and I would imagine the construction sector is no different. And in fact I know construction people that are left the state. To go do business.
Speaker 9
That's a great question, senator. So the goal of the program is to connect individuals to local apprenticeship opportunities. So for example, speaking in the context of a Caltrans project, an individual who goes through one of these programs, after being recruited into it, may wish to become a laborer. And to do that, they would go up to the laborers hiring hall, local to them, it could be in Benicia or wherever, in Riverside, wherever. And and they're given a book of contractors that are signatory to Launa, and they can go out and receive sponsorship from them and work on local projects, you know, heavy highway and civil construction projects here in California.
So that is the intent. And when people join these local programs, they tend to stay affiliated with that the local that they signed up with. As far as I know, it's unusual to disaffiliate from your local union and move to another part of state. It's not unheard of, but they tend to stay local.
Speaker 5
Right. Some of the experience I've had with some of our union workers out there is they have a tendency to try to get some work on the side because they're not getting offered enough work through their union. And And so They kind of branch out a little bit and then they eventually move Out of the state and that's We need to get a We need to be able to have some statistics that what the money that we're putting into programs like this that we're producing people for here. And, so every once in a while I do come up with a good question. So thank you for that.
And, and I'll pass it along to, mister Roussel.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Sigardo. How ironic that we would have the actual author here. Perfect. Senator D'Arrazzo.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. I know a little bit about this. So, the bill that I authored, signed by the governor, July 2023, it was part of the the governor's infrastructure streamlining package. The bill was required Caltrans to work in partnership with the California Workforce Development Board to support the high road construction careers and reserve a minimum of $50,000,000 of the federal dollars that we were receiving to be allocated over forty years in support of the program.
Three years later, today, that $50,000,000 has not been transferred, as I understand it. SB one fifty, in fact, was passed with an urgency statute. So not only was did it require the transferring of the $50 $50,000,000, it also took effect immediately because the legislature determined that maximizing those the federal funding for California workers could not wait. Three years of administrative inaction appeared to have squandered that urgency. The Workforce Development Board's High Road Construction Careers Program has a strong track record.
They prepare thousands of low paid Californians for construction careers, as my colleague was talking about. This program, the program is being penalized for agency in action, not for any failure of the program itself. I've spent years trying to build the kind of interagency coordination that would have prevented this. Years, year after year after year, this trailer bill validates the concern but does nothing to fix the underlying problem. So my question to you is why was no interagency agreement or MOU executed between Caltrans and the Workforce Development Board?
Speaker 6
The the primary driver was the lack the inability for us to get the federal authorization to to transfer or to utilize that $50,000,000 to be able to use for this training program. We are in the process of executing we actually have the energy agreement. That's been signed by the workforce development board is being signed by caltrans next week. To be able to transfer the state funds assuming that's what that would be an acceptable. Solution as we ran into so many.
Limitations trying to use federal funds for this effort.
Speaker 8
I'm sorry, I don't understand. You're now you're you're you're saying the problem was the federal?
Speaker 6
Obtaining federal authorization because the federal funds that we received through the Federal Highway Administration through those formula funds, They're required to meet those federal eligibility requirements they're not funds that are transferred to the state to spend as a within our state policies. We actually have to submit a request for authorization. And then we whenever we then spend the funds we then build the federal highway administration for reimbursement So there's there's That statutory processes that we have to follow through and then when we requested the request for the scope of work for the original Interagency agreement between caltrans and the California workforce development board. We were unable to get federal authorization for it so that's been the challenge.
Speaker 6
But we we did we've been working with the federal highway administration. Both the California as well as the headquarter divisions over the last couple years. Going through different iterations of the scope of work to try to see what we can do to whether massage it, redesign it to try to meet those federal eligibility requirements and we were unable to.
Speaker 6
We'll be able to invest those that monies into the into transportation projects, state and local transportation projects.
Speaker 8
But you're talking about dropping it from 50,000,000 to 30,000,000, right? Yes. And then there's no timeline. There's no four year timeline for allocating the funds?
Speaker 8
So that's the new timeline that you're talking about of transferring? Was 50,000,000, now it's 30,000,000? Yes. And it's 30,000,000 is state funds, it's not federal funds. So I I I'm sorry.
I don't I don't get it. We started out with $50,000,000 in federal dollars that would have been used for here, and now it's dropped down to 30, and it's not even federal dollars. It's state dollars.
Speaker 6
Correct. Yes. And we were because it in order for us to use those federal funds, we first have to get that authorization from the feds. So, we when we submitted the request a couple years ago, we were unable to get their approval or their authorization. So without that authorization, we would not be able to spend those funds in the first place.
Speaker 8
What was what were the problems that you encountered? Because the Biden mystery the reason that we had this urgency bill was because we knew that under the Biden administration standards, we met those standards. We could have met those standards.
Speaker 6
We we've submitted that like I said out with when when the bill was passed when the bill is enacted we immediately. Collaboratively with the California workforce development board and caltrans we developed the scope of work and we immediately submitted it to. Federal highway administration to receive their authorization so we can then execute the interagency agreement.
Speaker 8
Do you did you include is there an MOU or interagency agreement? Did you do that between yourselves?
Speaker 6
We had to submit that scope of work so we can get the authorization so we could execute that interagency agreement. That's the precursor, like a prerequisite for that interagency agreement. We could have executed an interagency agreement or an MOU between the two departments, but because where there was no authorization from the federal government, we would there would be no funding associated with it. So we needed to first get the authorization before we can execute an agreement that actually had funding associated to it.
Speaker 8
Well, that's not that's not what my understanding is. But with the Workforce Development Board, has the Workforce Development Board been consulted on this change?
Speaker 8
It has? Okay. And do you support the switch from federal to state funds and the reduction to 30,000,000?
Speaker 8
What what do you how do you work do you work off of a definition of high road jobs?
Speaker 9
Yeah. The way it's I forget the code exactly, but the way it's defined in statute. One that provides a living wage, opportunities for advancement, and worker voice.
Speaker 8
Okay. Living wage doesn't doesn't cut it. Living wage is barely above minimum wage, so I'm not I don't think that's that's part of the high road jobs. And then how do you what what are the elements that you include in high road training?
Speaker 9
Opportunities for advancement. So knowing that in the next few years, you'll get paid more than you're currently being paid. And then worker voice, which can look like union representation. And
Speaker 8
This is doesn't you don't you're not giving much confidence here in terms of your your definition. So, can you please give me a written explanation to the
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator D'Irazo. I have a few questions here to ask. SB one fifty originally set aside 50,000,000 for the high road careers program, which is what the senator just reviewed. But the administration is proposing to cut that down to 30,000,000. If the administration is getting the use of still 50,000,000 from the federal government, right, why wouldn't we allocate then the true 50,000,000 towards this program of state funds?
Speaker 4
Benjamin Pollock, Department of Finance. So, I can speak to that. SB 150 designated the 50,000,000 federal funding, and when it was determined, as Caltrans noted, we didn't have the authorization. We basically were back square one. We recognized the priority and the significance of the program and wanted to put you know something towards that which we landed after analyzing The many different calls on transportation funds caltrans priorities Because the shift to state funds were evaluating the key work that caltrans does to manage the state highway system.
And when comparing those priorities, that's where we evaluate, determine that 30,000,000 was the correct number, the available funds that we could designate to this priority program.
Speaker 1
Okay, let me say this in a different way. Didn't you receive $50,000,000 from the federal government?
Speaker 4
The federal $50,000,000 is, as Caltrans noted, there are many different requirements that they
Speaker 1
I understand that. I'm just saying, did you or did you not receive 50,000,000?
Speaker 1
Okay. So what I'm saying is, if the state received 50,000,000, and now we're going to use 30,000,000 of our dollars from a different pot, there's still $20,000,000 that you received, right? And what I'm saying is the state then is gonna have the use of that $20,000,000 for projects or something, right? That's what the gentleman said. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
Okay. So what I'm saying is, so as I see it, the state got an extra $20,000,000 that it wasn't anticipating to go towards some projects, right?
Speaker 4
Correct, the federal, 50,000,000 federal funds as Caltrans noted has those requirements for what specifically can get spent on.
Speaker 1
Okay, so what I'm not getting and what I think the senator was alluding to is where's the money? So if you got 50,000,000, right, the state got $50,000,000 and to substitute it, we're kind of moving money from accounts is what it sounds like to me. So the $50,000,000 is going to go towards projects that the federal government will approve. But we normally have had that $50,000,000 right? Because we were going to direct it towards $50,000,000 towards this program, correct?
Speaker 1
Okay. So what I'm saying is now that the state is using, okay, you got $50,000,000 that we, the state, didn't have to pay $50,000,000 towards these other projects because now we have that money for it. So what I'm saying is now that the state didn't have to pay the 50,000,000 for those projects, you're now giving 30,000,000 here and I'm saying where's the other 20,000,000? You're using it for other projects. Right?
That's what he said. That's what he testified. So if we're using the 20,000,000 for other projects that the state would have normally paid for, that we knew we were gonna have to pay for these projects. Now that the state doesn't have to pay that other 20,000,000 for these other projects, what are we gonna use that 20,000,000 for?
Speaker 4
That would be directed to projects that specifically meet the federal requirements that Caltrans would be following to complete projects with federal dollars, which have those specific requirements that this particular program didn't meet.
Speaker 1
Okay. So are there additional projects that are maximizing the use of workforce of the apprenticeship program? Aren't there other state projects where we're identified and we focus on bringing more and more workers in?
Speaker 1
Okay. So is it possible potentially to help some of those additional projects go to help with those projects where, as it was stated in the original legislation, was supposed to maximize benefits to the disadvantaged communities? You're not following me. So what I'm saying is, if you can bring back to the committee this other $20,000,000 that's out there that we anticipated was gonna go towards this workforce program, Can you share with us, provide to us, this other $20,000,000 where is it going to go? What projects?
And if potentially, is it possible that those projects that might be worked on is feeding into maybe some of the organizations we work with, the workforce labor organizations? Maybe we can feed and get more people working. So we're still kind of getting at it in some way. Is that possible versus just 20,000,000 going to who knows where and to what projects?
Speaker 4
Yes, the Caltrans in the state do have transportation programs that are directly working to impact, have positive impacts to underserved, underdeveloped communities. And I can definitely work with Caltrans to get back to your office on what those projects include.
Speaker 1
Okay. So not just to my office, to the committee. So that that way maybe we can help to still get at our overall goals of where we were trying to go. Now, sir, if you could share with us a little bit more about the timeline. So now that we're going to allocate the $30,000,000 for this program, when is it going to start, you know, how are we going to do this?
Speaker 6
The intention, oh, I wasn't sure if it was financial myself. The intentions are to start the funds flowing as early as May it's a matter of now that the energy agreement has been signed by both entities we now. Bureaucracies we now send it department general services so they can officially executed. And then we can begin the the process is to get the funds flowing but the goal right now is looking at a at a May timeline.
Speaker 1
Okay. So we'd like to know which potential projects are these student apprentice basically going to be going towards. So if you could just provide us a little more timeline. We're going to start in May. The money is going to go to what workforce centers?
How can we potentially notify people in the community and say, hey, this program is kicking off. You can take advantage of it and potentially apply. So we want to make sure that we're getting people in at the right place, at the right time, at the right projects, so that the original intention of the program can be upheld.
Speaker 6
Yeah, we'd be happy to work with the California Workforce Board on the first tranche of funds to get that laid out for you, no problem.
Speaker 1
Okay, and we're asking where is that going to be, is what we're trying to understand. So we can do the best that we can to make sure the original intent of helping this workforce to have this opportunity to get into this very important job area. Because these are very good paying jobs, and when a person has an opportunity to start working, you know this better than I do. If someone can get their foot in the door at Caltrans, I mean the door is open to work for all, not only continuing to work at Caltrans, but potentially to work for other companies as well. Okay, thank you sir.
My last question is, it's been three years, you explained the delay, and if you could just provide more of how long you think this program is gonna last and all that, so we can maximize it as much as possible.
Speaker 6
The intentions are to start spreading the funds over the next two to three years if we can be begin execute the energy agreement begin working with the workforce development board to start getting the funds start flowing in May we're looking at over the next two to three years were funds are then transferred to the necessary work centers and going through the the HRCC processes But that can definitely get that layout of what the timelines are for the. Rolling of the funds no problem.
Speaker 8
Just a final question is the $30,000,000 that you're proposing from our state funds. Which should have been 50 from this from the federal. Is that money already identified and reserved? Or is this some future commitment subject to some other future appropriation? We've already lost out here with tens of millions of dollars.
What's to say it's not gonna we're not gonna lose out again. So what what's the certainty here?
Speaker 6
The the 30,000,000 is set aside over the next two years. That's part of the execution of the energy interagency agreement so we can lock in the funds for this specific effort That it is funded the state highway council with the state funds and they are set aside for this specific effort.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no further questions no further comments that concludes issue number two thank you very much we're now going to move to issue number three which is equipment and operating cost budget augmentation This is related to the California highway patrol. We're going to have with us Great to have our commissioner Sean do re and captain tie mix and also Kathy McLeod all from the California Highway Patrol. And we have the same representatives for LAO but a couple new folks with the Department of Finance. Mister commissioner would you like to lead us off it's good to see you sir.
Speaker 11
Thank you ma'am. Madam chair members of the committee Chaudhry and the commissioner for the California highway patrol. It's good to see you I just want to say we're grateful for the opportunity to be here to discuss a couple proposals that. Are in the governor's budget and personally I want to say thank you to the legislature for the support the department's felt in the past few years. The first proposal let me introduce Ty Meeks, he's our captain, you know him, he's the special representative, he's my wingman here today.
The first proposal regard to equipment and operating cost right now the California highway patrol respectfully is requesting. An augmentation of 15,700,000.0 from the motor vehicle account in the current fiscal year 2526. And 44,400,000.0 from the MBA in twenty six-twenty seven. Historically, the CHP has been able to absorb these costs for equipment and operations within our base budget often relying on salary savings from vacancies that we've had. The department does not typically come forward with specific budget requests for these kinds of expenses even when the cost have risen due to inflation.
We're at a critical point that our salary savings have decreased and we simply can no longer offset these costs. I want to talk just a little bit about budget augmentations we've gotten over the past two decades. In this space in since 2006 the department has received 34,500,000.0 in budget augmentations for offices vehicle replacement air fleet replacement automobile insurance and fuel cost. Since 2020 like all state agencies we've done our part we've participated in the reduction drills To help relieve the pressure on the state budget. For us those reductions equal 29,100,000.0.
The difference between the two a 5,300,000.0 augmentation since 2006. Inflation and cost increase of the consumables that we have have outpaced that augmentation significantly. Two things that I wanna just highlight that were known for using fuel and patrol cars. Fuel has gone up since 2000 and six fifty seven percent and even more alarming the cost of a patrol car. It has gone up back in 2006 we could buy a fully out equipped patrol car for $26,000.
Today that cost to us is just north of a $100,000 per vehicle. That's nearly a 300% increase. We respect the LAO analysis and they correctly point out. The state's average inflation rate of 2.8% up to the year 2019. We respectfully request they include the two higher years that followed that '21 and twenty two six point six and five point seven.
Inflation respectively A quick Google search this morning on the consumer price index shows since 2006 the two decades I'm referencing we've experienced somewhere between 6070% inflation. As previously noted the department's ability to absorb these increases was through salary savings or position vacancies why is that no longer. A possibility it's a good thing and it's something that we did together and when I say we the administration the department the legislature. We're no longer able to use salary savings due to in my opinion one of the most successful recruitment campaigns. In the in the country as every law enforcement agency was struggling to recruit the CHP was no.
Different. When I first was appointed in 2023 we were embarking on an ambitious recruitment campaign called join the 1,000. The 1,000 was not a number that we just pulled out of the sky the 1,000 referred to the estimate of vacancies that we had at the time. A thousand uniform vacancies. That was a team effort, like I said, supported by this body, supported by governor Newsom and his team.
The campaign worked. I'm here to tell you, mission accomplished. It it was, undeniably successful. This year we received a record number of applications, 30,000 applications. Recently the LA Times published a story, the title of the story I quote, how the CHP has drawn a flood of new recruits when the LAPD and other agencies struggle to hire, close quote.
In 2425, the department had 861 uniform vacancies trending down from that thousand. As of 02/01/2026 we reduce that number to 418 uniform vacancies. There are currently a 143 cadets training in West Sacramento they're going to graduate in April by the end of this fiscal year We estimate our vacancies will be down to 388. And if we continue to train in our projections in retirements and graduations, plan to have four classes next year, that number of vacancies will be down to 236 and I would just note that is the lowest number vacancies in my twenty eight years with the department. These aren't just numbers these When you talk about staffing and putting officers on the road that is making California safer.
There is a direct correlation between the number of police officers on our streets and how safe our communities are I want to highlight just a couple. I pulled this information from the attorney general's website directly. Into a reduction in violent crime 5.9% across the state from 23 to 24 Property crime down 8.2% in the time frame particularly note noteworthy auto theft which the CHP is the lead on auto theft in the state down 15%. In that our bread and butter what we're known for traffic safety. Four thousand people a year on average die in California since 2023 as we've driven the number of officers up on the roads the number of fatalities have come down.
2023 we estimate around three hundred and forty less fatalities in California from the year prior. 2024 down an additional eighty twenty twenty five down an additional proximate two hundred the total number six hundred and fifteen lives saved over those past few years. In closing, this proposal is not vague and open ended. It's not a discretionary expansion of our mission. It's a specific request to maintain the course that we embarked on together back in '22 and '23 to reduce those number of vacancies, and we respectfully request your support now.
Speaker 12
Good morning, madam chair, senators. Gokja Senjang with the LAO. As the department presented, CHP's augmentation request totaled $60,000,000 on a one time basis from the motor vehicle account for the years twenty twenty five-twenty six and twenty twenty -twenty seven for a variety of operational equipment costs. Our office recommends that the legislature reject this proposal. We identified three issues that led to this recommendation.
One is that these expenses are not new. It's unclear why the department requires funding now when it has not needed these types of augmentations in the past. Inflation's always been present. Vehicles and equipment have always needed replacement, and the department already has an existing budget of $95,000,000 for the expenses listed in this budget request. The second issue is CHP's vacancy rate.
The department explained to us that in the past, they were able to use salary savings from vacancies to cover the equipment and operating costs, but because of the declining vacancy rate, this is no longer enough, hence the budget request. However, the data does not support this claim. CHP's vacancy rate is still above pre pandemic levels, which raises the question of if the salary savings from the vacancies was enough to cover these expenses in 2019 when the vacancy rate was 3%, Why is it not enough when the vacancy rate is above 6% as of 2024? The third issue is the fiscal condition of the motor vehicle account. The account has been experiencing a persistent structural imbalance and is currently projected to become insolvent by twenty twenty eight, twenty nine budget year.
This means that the account will not have adequate funding to cover core baseline expenses such as salaries. In order to not worsen this problem, we think that the legislature should apply a very high bar for approving any new requests, including one time expenses. Considering the issues we identified with this proposal, we do not believe that this proposal clears this high bar. For these three reasons, we recommend that the legislature reject this proposal. We understand that CHP disagrees with our recommendation and has new information that they believe bolsters their argument for why the legislature should approve this request.
We reached our conclusions, based on the information that was available to us at the time of publication and have not had a chance to review this new new information yet. So we can only speak in the context of what was available to us at the time. We are currently working with the department and will review any new information that they will provide to us, and we will share any updates to you, with you and our to our analysis to your staff to the degree that it affects our conclusions. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3
Nothing to add. Just to reaffirm that we are in conversation with the department. And as your staff, are our objective is to give you the best information we have whenever we have it so as new information comes forth we will continue to do that.
Speaker 13
Yeah bone Peterson department finance I would just like to reiterate the commissioners comments that given the reduction of vacancies and those projected vacancy volumes at the 2526 CHP's expenditures are currently going to be outpacing its appropriation so therefore the historic vacancy savings that were able to fund these operations in the past are not able to any longer. And we wouldn't be proposing this request to compensate for that.
Speaker 5
Everybody. Hey Question on the vacancies. So the vacancies are actually the human being part of it But there are other Assets that each one of those human beings needs. Like a vehicle Like other equipment That. Has that always bit as I just stored in a closet somewhere or as we ramp back up.
Because through attrition that the vehicles go off and if you don't have a person to fill it because your vacancies. You don't fill. But then when you get those vacancies back. Something there we're gonna have a rate arise in in cost for all that that equipment is that. Kind of what what's going on with.
Some of this request.
Speaker 11
There is some of that for sure it's it's complicated depends on to your. Point, do we keep it in the closet? Well, yes, for some things. Weapons, duty gear Horses. That will have on supply.
No. The horses, we don't keep in the closet. Vehicles are a little different. Very few of our officers have vehicles assigned to them and the vehicles are, rotated throughout personnel and so a reduction in staffing doesn't necessarily correlate to a reduction in vehicles. You still need so many people to go out on graveyard and then whether or not somebody drives it three times a day or twice a day so vehicles are a little different.
Speaker 5
My question is if you're increasing staffing though in addition to what you used to have a graveyard instead of having four vehicles out a graveyard now you have enough personnel to send seven to 10 people out in graveyard. You would need more vehicles and if they've been sitting around for six or seven years they probably just need to get replaced and since they don't cost $25,000. And cost a $100,000 there's an expense that I think is unexpected. Yet the DMV fund does not necessarily fund.
Speaker 11
Yeah you're absolutely right senator and it goes across the board reusing vehicles as example but yeah 500 more officers on patrol think of the fuel consumption just in that alone and so it it goes across the board
Speaker 5
All right so I think one of our problems is this the DMV fund being the fund. That that is. Not going up commensurate with the cost of providing the services that that DMV fund is supposed to and it's been going on. It's a structural problem with DMV fund for the last few years. Is that correct?
And I think the legislature, if we're going to look at the levels of public safety that we need and want, we're gonna have to look at ways of augmenting that DMV fund. Because otherwise, we're either not gonna have a DMV or we're not gonna have a CHP. And I don't think we can do with either of those. Although some people might think we can do without the other, not the CHP. We need our tickets.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Agreed. Thank you, Senator Ciardo. We're also finding that there are other things that are being paid for out of the DMV fund other than CHP and DMV, and that's also one of the issues as well. Thank you. Senator D'Arazo.
Speaker 8
Just one quick question for CHP. Given the account's projected insolvency in 'twenty eight or 'twenty nine, how are you going to prioritize against other core obligations funded by the account?
Speaker 11
Is that better for finance? I mean, our our priorities are to make California the safest place to live, work, and travel. It's hard to pick one of our priorities over the other, and and very few of our budget is discretionary when you really comes down to the discretion I have is how many people I put in that academy to even though I have the positions allocated. So I would defer to my colleague here at finance if he has something further.
Speaker 13
Yeah, I would just go ahead to add that, you know, given the insolvency that is projected out of the motor vehicle account 2829, we're just going to need to continue to evaluate the priorities for all of us at those points in times in order to figure out how to best allocate the resources that we have.
Speaker 8
Right, I mean, that's why I pointed to you, sir, about what would you use, right? How would you prioritize, given that situation?
Speaker 11
Yeah. And the only discretion I have, like I said, is reducing vacancies or increasing vacancies by slowing down the number of people that I put into the academy in an attempt to fill those. It feels counterproductive to do this at a time where every law enforcement agency in the country was struggling to hire people. We have 33,000 applicants this year. It would seem a shame to close that valve off.
I hope that answers your question.
Speaker 3
If I may, Madam Chair. Just to build on Senator Sayarto's comment, we assume that these costs cannot be accommodated within the budget because the vacancies have gone down as department is indicating. You know, this is a one time funding request before you now, but the types of costs represented really are ongoing costs, utilities, fuel, insurance, those types of costs so. It does highlight an ongoing an exacerbation of the ongoing structural problem with the funding source here if we assume You know the budget could accommodate these costs this year on a one time basis but if they truly are. Ongoing costs that cannot be accommodated this year raises the question of how will these be accommodated on an ongoing basis.
Speaker 1
right. I just had really a comment and then a question. A comment Sir, you made an excellent presentation as always. The only thing I would add is you didn't mention that the CHP had to come in and provide support to help us with some of the other activities that were happening in the state. And I believe this CHP, the way that you approach the situation helped to minimize some of the additional conflict that could have in fact occurred.
So you also had that on your plate. And then you have upcoming the Super Bowl again, you have FIFA that's coming up, and you also have the Olympics. So that all tells me that this is something we're not going to be able to avoid. Your vehicles have to be able to run and run quickly. Just inherent in the work that you do, it's not like the previous presentation where if a Caltrans truck, maybe if it can't go 100 miles an hour, well that's probably a good thing.
But in your case, we need the vehicles to operate at their utmost maximum. Hence, I think, obviously, the Department of Finance supporting this request. The only thing I would add, which I think was what Senator D'Arrazzo was getting at and what LAO was just saying, is I think there's kind of a philosophy in government. Well we'll just ask for this now and we'll deal with it later. We really need to begin to have a better understanding of what's coming.
And so I realize administration may not necessarily want us to know that you're gonna come back in eight months and ask us for this amount or larger again. But we really do need to know. So maybe in a future overview that you'll provide to the committee, give us a sense with the full amount of people that you have. What do you really think the needs are going to be? Because we also then have to look at the DMV budget.
And maybe we say, we can't take x out of this DMV budget to pay for high speed rail or whatever it is. And we need to make sure that those dollars are going to remain there for the anticipated increases that we're going to have. So I would just say, give us an idea of what's coming, so then we can begin to make those longer term decisions and say, no, this other priority that's been indicated is not gonna be able to come out of that area.
Speaker 1
okay all right seeing no further questions of that complete issue number three we're going to move to issue number four of which- still has our CHP- team officers here. Issue four is our Highway Violence Task Force. We're gonna hear again from the commissioner, also our captain, and we have the same representatives for the LEO and finance. So with that, go ahead, sir.
Speaker 11
Thank you, ma'am. For this proposal, we're respectfully requesting $885,000 for a permanent budget augmentation from the MVA to fund seven analyst positions. These are crime analysts to support our continued efforts in reducing highway violence in California. With the support of the legislature the CHP created the highway violence task force in '22 and '23 in response to the rise in violent crimes committed that we were seeing on our state highways. The year prior to the team's establishment, Californian experienced an alarming 477 freeway shootings.
The task force was designed to produce a focused, multi pronged approach to solving this problem through investigating reducing freeway violence through concentrated high visibility enforcement, advanced technology, comprehensive investigation, and collaborating with our allied agency partners. The task force has been successful. Last year, there were 179 freeway shootings. That's a 62.5% reduction from the high in 2021. A critical component of these task force are crime analyst positions that we've been funding on a temporary basis.
The crime analysts assist the detectives and the investigators by processing evidence. They review trends. They do complete tedious analytical work of data. And they are an integral part of the success that we've experienced and the team's success. Freeway shootings, road rage assaults, and quarter based retaliatory violence follows long term patterns and we do not believe are tied to short term effects like the pandemic.
This investigative and intelligence workload to solve cases is continuous. Long term funding enables the department to retain these trained crime analysts who frankly have built this expertise in a niche that doesn't exist anywhere else. Nowhere else are there crime scenes that are rolling down a freeway at freeway speeds and spread over that distance. They truly are one of a kind. As California state police, realize the freeways are our responsibility, part of the state infrastructure.
We recognize freeways also serve as California's backbone for transportation of goods and movements of our people. Highway violence incidents caused closures. There are statewide economic disruption. A permanent task force and permanent analysts will help protect the state's transportation network and everybody that uses it. We're respectfully requesting the committee support.
Speaker 12
Madam Chair and Senators, this proposal did not raise any concerns for us, but we would like to highlight that this year's proposal is a smaller amount for a more limited set of activities compared to the past years which range from 3 to $5,000,000. However, this request is for permanent augmentation compared to the past proposals which have been limited terms so the decision before the legislature is Whether to make an ongoing funding commitment to this activity.
Speaker 5
To comment I think this is really important program and you guys have been more effective I think out there And I see it on the just on the 50 here. And You know we need to give you the tools to be able to get it done. And A lot of people don't realize that the analytical part Is is almost as important as the tools that you see on the on the roadway Because that way they they know kind of where to focus their energies and And so and I I've actually put those focus points all along the freeway so I know So I'll slow down but but no I'm just kidding I I I'm not the egregious driver okay. So anyway Yeah I don't have any problems with this this one and I think it's really important and we Ensure the funding is done to make sure that the program stays successful because I I know down in my area where I I live We're gonna need more help down there And, and I think this analytics will probably show that. So thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Senator Terrazzo? Thank you, madam chair. The task force reducing highway violence?
Speaker 11
Yeah. The reduction is over 65% since the highest year we experienced in 2021. They're solving cases. To the senator's point, these cases are solved through analytics. Otherwise, you're just kinda going out and trying to look into it.
And so the data and the analytics and going in with criminal intelligence is helping us solve these cases and drive the freeway shootings and the violent behavior down.
Speaker 8
Because I I see here from the materials that says the prevalence of highway violence has increased, and that's except for the firearms. That's that's I I see the reduction. But every other category, homicide, non shooting, brandishing, violent crimes, pellet guns, homicide shootings, object throwing, they all have increased over every year. So if you could explain that because you were pretty confident about saying that it Has reduced highway violence.
Speaker 15
The center thank you for your question. The chart that you're looking at right there we did make some adjustments in what we were tracking as far as highway violence goes. Initially we were looking at freeway shootings and those shootings. We establish this this highway violence task force. Since then we've incorporated other items to to address brandishing domestic violence is committed on a freeway Objects are thrown from the overpass on to the freeway.
Those items have increased Those call outs and the way that we track that has has changed since 2023 which you also see in there. A significant climb From 2023 moving forward We did have a meeting with our crime analysts and we adjusted what that measurement looked like so that we can have a better picture and other objects and other things that we need to address through this highway violence task force.
Speaker 11
So in other words, the violence isn't increasing the way we were data. We changed to get a better picture, so the data that we had available would would show an increase. But just because the way we're kind of digging into the weeds to collect the different types of issues that we're seeing on the highways.
Speaker 8
Okay. Well, it it doesn't it's not something that I could pick up if the Yeah. Numbers shown here show increase year after year after year. That's all we have in in front of us, except for that one one category. So, in your prior funding, you had, included over time license plate recognition cameras.
This is analytics only. So, what makes you think that, or what brings you to that conclusion that analytics alone will will be effective?
Speaker 11
Well, it won't be alone. We're going to continue the other efforts to the license plate reader technology is out there, and we're going to continue that. But we're we're to be frank, we're trying to do our part and be frugal, and this is a need what we need, and the other things we're going to continue and absorb within existing resources.
Speaker 8
And then just finally, just one more question. What, if the legislature approved this as an ongoing funding, what metrics and and reporting will you provide to demonstrate that you are in fact being effective?
Speaker 11
Yeah. Great question. And that's our goal in trying to dig deeper into the data that we collect so that long term the data will show a clearer picture. And so we are positioning ourselves to be able to tell that story at a future time. And so that's why the changes that we've made in the data collection, so that is our goal, to be able to tell that story accurately.
Speaker 8
Well, would, it would help to tell us, you know, get to us information as to what metrics and reporting you'll you'll you'll provide to us. What metrics and reporting you will use.
Speaker 1
I don't have any specific questions. I'm glad to see I'd rather see, you know, you telling us, as I said in the previous issue, I'd rather see you tell us what we're gonna need ongoing to be effective than this one time here, one time there. At least we can plan. I have had the opportunity to see this in operation. I was on the 110 Freeway going north, and apparently there had been a reported shooting, and they literally shut the freeway down all the lanes.
We didn't move for almost an hour and multiple, you know, deputies folks came out and they were walking the freeway trying to find the bullets and the different things that might have been used. So I have seen this in operation and I could imagine if you'd find something and you have the same bullet here on the 110 Freeway that you had on the 10 and you know, connecting the dots. So I actually have seen this in operation. So thank you for being here and for the presentation today. Seeing no further questions, we're gonna go to the next issue.
But before we leave, Mr. Commissioner, do you have something that you promised?
Speaker 1
Okay. So for the public, if you've never seen a challenge coin exchange, you're getting ready to see one.
Speaker 1
know. When someone gives you a challenge coin, don't just hand it to you, they've got to give it to you. Because it's the challenge that you're working together and you're in one fight. And you understand what they do and they understand what we do. So that's what a challenge coin exchange is.
Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1
No, it's supposed to have the impact. That's a part of it. Yeah, if you don't feel it, you didn't get it. That's what that means.
Speaker 1
No, I didn't. But I think they felt I was safe. All right, with that we're going to go on to issue number five, which is the state to state verification system, S2S project, and trailer bill language that's being requested. We have before us, speaking of DMV and DMV funding, we first will hear from our director, Steve Gordon, and also Lee Scott from the Department of Motor Vehicles. And it looks like we have the same representatives from the LAO and the Department of Finance.
No, we have someone new with the Department of Finance here with us. Please go ahead, Mr. Gordon.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon, chair and members. Nice to see you. My name is Lee Scott, Chief Budget Officer for here for the California Department of Motor Here with me today as director Gordon. So thank you for the opportunity to be here. At the polls before you state to state and DXP are focused on maintaining core DMV operations while improving service delivery for Californians.
State to state is a federal compliance requirement tied to the real ID act of 2005 ensuring Californians can continue to use their identification for air travel and access to federal facilities. DXP is our modernization effort to replace aging legacy systems that support the DMV's core business functions. The vehicle registration phase is on track to be completed by the end of the calendar year which is critical as it supports the collection of roughly $15,000,000,000 annually. That flows to state and local programs. I'll be understand the committee's focus on cost control privacy and accountability and we are committed to delivering both proposals and responsible transparent and results driven manner.
Happy to walk through each also and answer any questions thank you.
Speaker 12
So we reviewed the DXP proposal and it did not raise any concerns for us. ISS project also did not raise any concerns for us. The DMV explained that it plans to only share the federally required data to ensure California's compliance with the REAL ID Act.
Speaker 5
The state to state verification system is is not a a optional item. It's a must have, right?
Speaker 5
So, okay and you're you're anticipating what kind of cushion are we going to have when we think we're going to have it done?
Speaker 14
So, we're going to do live testing this summer. That that's the plan. We were able to secure funding in the current year. I think we got it approved in Budget Bill Junior around September. That was allowed us to get us off the ground and have it built.
CDT worked very closely with us to make sure that we're ensuring exactly all the correct modifications are right. Only ensuring what the federal requirements are, what the five pointers we're going use, and how we're going to interact with other states. And so the goal is to have it done and have our positions onboarded in the budget year, and attack as many duplicate records as we possibly can, and make sure that we are communicating with every state as quickly as possible not to create any backlog and so the amount of funding that we have requested should ensure a successful project.
Speaker 10
Well, I think you have to go back. Steve Gordon, director of California Department of Motor Vehicles. Good to see you again, Senator. The, you know, this act, the REAL ID Act was in twenty in two thousand five. So, state to state is an offshoot of that investment.
REAL ID started rolling out in 2015. So it's been alive for about a decade and state to state has always been a requirement. We signed an agreement with federal government in 2018, the state of California did and to be able to go on the state to state system. So it's been around for a while. So a couple of decades of the program, Real ID has been around for at least a decade since 2015 as I mentioned.
California now has 22,000,000 and some change Real ID holders today, Two thirds of our driver's license and ID card holders are holders of REAL IDs. While as Mr. Scott mentioned, this is a compliance act for the federal government, two thirds of our people rely on that to get into federal facilities, airports and so on. People of course rely on their driver's license to rent a car and so on to make sure the identities are valid and the veracity is high.
Speaker 10
questions. Oh, this like a couple of them the same day, congratulations. Look, it's complicated, it's technical, the approach. We're the largest state. So there is some push and pull going on at the federal level and of course we belong to not of course, but we belong to an association called AMVA, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, a very exciting group.
But part of that is, we're the largest state of course with 40,000,000 inhabitants, many of those residents having some sort of credential. So in some sense, there's been a caution amongst the association to make sure California went last, because you can imagine as we dump 40,000,000 people in the state into the system, there'll be duplicates as Mr. Scott mentioned, and other states are going have to deal with those. So there's been this push and pull about should we go earlier, should we go later. But the point is that we're at the very end of the implementation date.
So we need to go, we need to go now, we are the last state to enter. But it is that bow wave as California enters is going to cause challenges for Texas, for Arizona, for Nevada, all of our neighboring states maybe where there's some migration in or out. So there's again some push from the association to push us out a little bit. But the fact of the matter is that we're out of room and we need to make sure that we go now. And it's
Speaker 5
I completely agree that we have go now I just. Things that are this complex I get a little concerned because frankly the state hasn't been and not just the DMV with the state in general isn't very good at. At a complex type issues and and getting them done in a compressed time frame. And so we've compressed the time frame as much as we can. And so I'm hoping that we can get some updates along the way that we are on track and that a bunch of us aren't going to be able to fly after February 18 next year.
Speaker 14
Fair statement. And I would even add to that. Yeah. Coming out last, know a lot of other states that we worked with, a little nervous that California was going to come on board. I mean, we're dumping millions and millions of records.
And So we've seen the automation working in other states we're trying to see like a minimal amount of touching as much as possible and what worked and what didn't work and so being the last state does have a little bit of a benefit to seeing that. We get to gather all the information implement what is truly successful from the state that went one versus the one that went 50.
Speaker 5
Yeah, I'm glad about that part. Just Mhmm. I just get a little nervous when we're that close to the end. We're nervous. Thank you.
All right.
Speaker 8
Okay. Says that the federal government does not have access to state to state data through the state to state process. Has AMBA ever provided access to real ID information to any federal agency?
Speaker 10
Not to my knowledge, senator. It's, you know, it's meant it's in it's in the name, state to state. So it's it's meant for a neighboring jurisdiction when somebody comes in to apply for a license to be able to reach out when there's a conflict, when there is a concern that maybe there are multiple Steve Gordons and they're trying to de duplicate the system and cause the state to reach out to another state to de duplicate the process. AMVA is really just the pass through. They're the holder of this connector.
They call it a pointer system for me to know that the other Steve Gordon's in another state. Federal government's not involved in any way, shape, form other than this is a federal requirement for REAL ID certification.
Speaker 8
So that kind of leads me to my next question, is do federal agencies have access to that through some other means? Do they have access to your data?
Speaker 8
And the REAL ID Act requires a state to bulk upload all driver's licenses and ID records. How will the AB60 IDs be accounted for in this system? And is it possible, based on the information that is uploaded, to determine what type of driver's license or ID someone has?
Speaker 10
In California's let me answer them in reverse order. In California's data, there's no differentiation for a federally non compliant card from somebody who has legal presence and somebody who does not. So there's no differentiation in the data. So there's no way to be able to tell by just looking at the data that it is a particular type of card if you're in a federally non compliant card, which would be somebody in the AB 60 camp. So that's the first part.
There's no way of noticing that by just casually looking at the data. So as the data gets uploaded, there's no way to differentiate in that system which is which. And just to add to that, since we know people with an AB 60 categories often do not have a Social Security number. Some do, as you know. Some people had legal presence or didn't or obtained it, so they're still in that particular card.
But as that information is uploaded, we're only loading the last five digits of the Social Security number, not the full. So you're going to need first name, last name, date of birth, and other criteria in addition to social security would be a tiebreaker if you can't determine if there's a duplicate based on the other criteria. So it is going to be safeguarded, of course it's transmitted encrypted in transit, encrypted at rest. It's restricted about who has access to this to your federal government question. So very limited access even to the states, and it's a one by one basis.
So if another state is trying to determine if there's a duplicate Steve Gordon, that they'll have to do it one at a time. And that's not a way that you would expect anybody who is trying to do anything nefarious to do it one at a time. It's not a super effective way. So it's intentionally made to go slow. It's intentionally made to be careful.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you sir for being here. Why are social security numbers included in DMV information anyway?
Speaker 10
That's a great question. It's, Social Security number, as you know, is included in a lot of things, including when I got hired on the state. I've never written my Social Security number down as many times as I did on state forms. So it is a common.
Speaker 10
It has nothing to do with your ability to drive. But it is a common element across the states long before, you know, we got to this point, to the Senator's point, that decisions were made about the information that was available twenty years ago. Social Security number was in the mix because it was a common element. As much as we want to get Social Security number out of these systems and want to use an alternative strategy, the rest of the nation is not there yet today.
Speaker 1
Okay, and why would you provide five digit numbers? Because it's pretty common that if you call, you're going to buy something or whatever, they'll typically ask you what are your last four digits of your social security number. So given the fact that hacking does occur, hacking does occur of government systems, why would we include even more numbers that could put people in a vulnerable position that those numbers could then be taken to be used to be hacked and used in another way.
Speaker 10
There are many design choices that were made with the system. I'm not quite sure why the architectural decision about using five versus four versus three. I agree with you, most of us use when we're inquired about Social Security, give us your last four of your SOC, very common. My guess is they were trying to reduce the amount of duplication by using five digits versus four, give you a greater level of precision so you can continue to deduplicate without actually being rejected into a manual process. So I think they're trying to reduce cost, reduce the labor of deduplicating the transactions, meaning that they can match more because there's more precision in the numbers in front of them.
That's as best as I can deduce from a
Speaker 1
But if no other entity is requiring five digits, why would we? This is the first I've ever heard of someone requiring five.
Speaker 10
I don't have an answer for that, how the system was architected, ma'am.
Speaker 10
This is the association that we belong to. So it's 50 states, DC, various protectorates are part of the system and part of the governing body for AMFA.
Speaker 1
Okay. So a non governing authority is requesting that we provide five digits?
Speaker 10
Member states who run the association architected the system. And they've agreed that the best way to reduce duplicates and reduce manual processing is to have an architecture that includes those five digits and many other facets. So we were at that table as well. As I mentioned, 2018 is when we signed the agreement. California agreed to this in 2018.
That is how
Speaker 1
Okay. Can you let us know whether the legislature actually agreed or the governor agreed or just I the head of DMV
Speaker 1
What authority does California have to audit how the information will be uploaded and how it will be used and who will have access?
Speaker 10
We have full contractual rights to do all of those things including alerts and notices when, you know, incidents occur where there may be something occurs that appears to be atypical require, request of particular data, maybe a request pattern, all of those things are opportunities for us to trigger and alert on interesting activities. As you would do with, you know, looking at a if you were a bank, you'd be doing something very similar. You're looking for fraud signatures to make sure that if something bad has happened, you can get notification earlier. So we've been working with AMVA on making sure those are identified and those are effectuated by the time we get onto the system.
Speaker 10
Well, in the broadest sense, most of the resources here are actually to de duplicate the data and they're in the first couple of years. As I mentioned, as California enters our 40,000,000, 30,000,000 of us have credentials. As they enter that system, there's going be a large de duplication effort. Technology will do a number of those de duplications, but other states that have gone through this process see about ten percent failure rate of people that have moved to another jurisdiction or people from another jurisdiction that moved here, and we have to be able to then figure out which one is the right Steve Gordon, my example, and which one is the last which state has the last license for that. So the plan is there are several there's a 100 I don't have the exact number in front of me, but I actually do have it in front of me.
But there's, you know, a 100 or so people in the first year, then another 100 or so folks in the second year to make sure we actually get through the deduplication process, then we're on a regular ongoing run basis. We're going to learn a lot in that first year based on the number of people that were based on what we've learned in that first year about how much work we're going to have in the out years. So there is some investment.
Speaker 1
What options does California have for enforcing violations of any agreement or contract we make with AAMVA regarding uploading wholesale of the information of millions of Californians?
Speaker 10
There's contractual obligations and legal options to hold AMVA accountable as well as our peer states accountable if those were to occur. But there's no way to download or upload other than a state uploading our data into the system. I have probed that point many times with the Chief Technology Officer of AMBA, because I I too am concerned that we want to make sure this system is robust, it's protected, to make sure that there are no back doors that people can get information that they should not have.
Speaker 14
fact, I mean, I think it's important to note too, madam chair, that it's not optional. You know, so it's it's part of the Real ID Act and the consequences are that, You Your real ID wouldn't be compliant that. Californians would be able to board a plane or be able to go into federal facilities. We're also the fiftieth state like we were sharing earlier so we have asked all not all but many other states in our. In our process in the current year.
So far we haven't seen any problems but you have to participate in order to have your real ID be compliant. As a tier point if any other state ever heard of any misuse or problems you know we would definitely collectively be talking to each other and then evaluated or contract a pullback from there.
Speaker 1
a question here. Is the administration considering this option or suing to obtain it as legislators are doing in Oklahoma?
Speaker 10
I'm unaware of the lawsuit. Oklahoma is on the system. I mean 44 jurisdictions plus DC, so 45 jurisdictions are on the system today. Oklahoma is one of them. I'm unaware of any legal action by Oklahoma or what that legal action would be based on.
But I will follow-up and find out.
Speaker 1
Alright. My next question is, who governs the AAMVA and what decision making authority do they have?
Speaker 10
So, AMVA is member driven. So, we are a voting member as part of AMVA. We are a funder of AMVA as are 50 other jurisdictions plus the District Of Columbia.
Speaker 1
So could you potentially as a member go back and say, you know our legislature has a concern of releasing social security information of Californians would you be able to make a motion and gain support to potentially either avoid providing social security information or minimizing the number of digits that are provided.
Speaker 10
Senator, we have made various suggestions to the ANVA board as well as the state to state operating committee regarding different strategies so you can improve privacy preservation. But we have been ineffective in actually being able to convince the other jurisdictions that changes such as you're suggesting would be the right approach. We're going to continue to try though because we think it's the right approach. We don't believe social security numbers should be as pervasive as they are, but they are pervasive for multitude of reasons. But we're trying to do our best to make sure that in fact that over time that we'll continue to remove those as unique identifiers in American society.
Speaker 10
I think anybody who has a social security number that's sharing information, of course would have a concern.
Speaker 10
not here as a denier. I'm here to make sure that we can do the best we can, but we also, this is a compliance matter. And we need to make sure I can keep both of those hats and hold both of those thoughts, trying to improve for the future, but also making sure that we stay compliant today.
Speaker 1
Well, it's a compliance matter, but I think it's debatable of whether an average California driver was under the assumption that by providing this information it would be provided nationally for use of a non governing body that we really don't know how could be utilized.
Speaker 14
Yeah, and in addition to that, I mean, the goal is to try to have only one real ID as well. And so when you're moving across other states, the goal is not to have multiple IDs in your pocket. And so as many as the five pointer information can identify immediately that you are who you say you are then States are communicating with each other to say. I moved to New York and I'm going to become a resident of New York and I go into DMV office and I say hey I'm one need to get my real ID here in New York It's allowing your to think communicate California to say that my driver history all my information will now be house in New York and not in California anymore. And up you know it all these was lot of states were talking to each other It wasn't kind of like an auto base system.
So the goal is to make sure that we can get that information to New York as an example. And that we will not have two IDs that you're not boarding a plane with two different identifications. And that your information, I might be a little bit repetitive, but your information should flow with you to the next state.
Speaker 1
Is this the first time you've informed the legislature of an attempt to provide all Californians social security numbers to this organization?
Speaker 14
No, because we proposed to start building the system in the current year, when the budget passed in September and budget bill junior, this was a topic of conversation and the goal at that moment was to
Speaker 1
Okay. Last question. We're hearing a lot about a deadline of 02/16/2027, which is now less than a year from today. Is this date backed by any federal statute or regulation or just this member body that's asking for it? And what happens if states don't comply or they're a little slow to
Speaker 10
the federal statute is, let's say, vague with respect to a particular date. I have personally spoken with
Speaker 10
Vague with respect to the date you mentioned. Is there a particular hard date? But as I mentioned, California signed an agreement back in 2018 to effectuate the REAL ID Act and make sure that in fact we're compliant including state to state. So the agreement we have with the Department of Homeland Security as well as the Transportation Security Administration is we have agreed upon that date which is the February date that you mentioned. And we're working with AMBA to actually be able to go through the structured testing and all the steps it takes so we can go live on that date.
So it's a multiparty thing that we've agreed to. Is there a particular statute that says you have to be live on this particular date? No. But that is the date we've been agreed on, we've agreed to, and the question you ask, well, what would happen if we didn't? There's the risk of being out of compliance with with with the federal with the federal law and we could potentially, as the senator mentioned, we could have chaos at airports and so on.
As you know, REAL ID is the primary identification used at an airport just for most common people to get in and out of a transit authority. Well,
Speaker 1
you can also use passports, and I believe passports aren't providing on your passport your social security number.
Speaker 1
That's not my point. My point is you can also travel with That your can be a means of identification, and the passport is not, I don't believe, providing your social security number. My questions aren't regarded to travel, safety, all of that, I'm with you. My questions, if you notice, have been all directed specifically to providing Californians social security information to a nationwide database that they're not aware of, and there's no official governing body that's managing this other than an organization which you and other DMVs happen to be a member of. That's what I'm saying.
And I think Californians are entitled to at least know where their information is going and why, and whether they anticipated that at the point of completing a REAL ID. Because they're not anticipating that, for example, with a passport to travel. And a passport can equally be used to travel. So that's why my questions are very direct, specific to providing personal social security information.
Speaker 8
I I I'm sure from last year and previous times that you're aware that some of us have a big sensitivity towards sharing information, whether it's social security number or if you have an 8060 driver's license. There's over the years, we've built up a lot of trust on that front. And now there's issues even with voter ID requirements. So this trust is really important, fundamentally at its core, important to us. And we need we may be coming at you with different questions.
We also need you to be proactive with us. If you think there's an issue that would, jeopardize the privacy and the information and the trust that we built up, then we expect you and we need you to be to put that on the table. We we we can't well, we didn't ask that question or we didn't ask the right question. Fundamentally, what we're getting at is how to protect the privacy of the Californians, and it's either Social Security or it's eighty sixty. It's voter IDs.
There's a number of ways. And some of us are very I won't say nervous, but we're looking out for a federal administration that has a very aggressive deportation agenda. We're not gonna we we can't participate in something like that. So we expect you and need you to be, you know, fully cooperative and proactive on this issue.
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator D'Rozo. We're gonna this will conclude this issue. We would like to follow-up with you probably a little bit more. Please do follow-up with the attorney general to make sure they're aware of this request and what's happening. And before we go to the last issue, I want to establish a quorum.
So we didn't do that in the beginning. So let's make sure to do that while everyone is still here. With that, our consultant, would you please call the roll, Eunice? Senator Richardson? Here.
Senator Richardson's here. Senator D'Arzo? Here. Senator D'Arzo here. Senator Sarto?
Senator Sarto is here. Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes that section. We're now going to go to our last one, which also includes the DMV.
First, we're again going to hear from director Steve Gordon and Mr. Scott from the DMV. And then we have The representatives from the LAO and department of finance please go ahead.
Speaker 14
Yeah so like as I entered into my my opening remarks. Break her to discuss any questions that you have on DXP it's a continuation of our replacing our old legacy system. We are finishing up VR by the end of the calendar year and we hope to have DL up and working as well. Any questions that you may have, go ahead and ask them. So I'm yeah so as as I kind of say that it may have been more to X.
Because our modernization effort to replace aging legacy systems that support the D. B. Score business functions. Other vehicle registration phase is on track to be completed by the end of this calendar year. Which is Critical as it supports the collection of roughly $15,000,000,000 annually that flows to state and local programs.
We understand the committee's focus on cost controls privacy and accountability. We're here to answer any questions that you have.
Speaker 12
Thank you madam chair. We reviewed this proposal and it did not raise any concerns with us. The DXP project is essential to improving the quality of service that DMV provides to Californians. The old system is very outdated and in danger of losing functionality. However, the project has also experienced significant cost overruns and delays since its beginning.
For this reason, the legislature's oversight over the progress of the DXP project will be essential in the next few years.
Speaker 1
Okay. Department of Finance? No more comments all right thank you with that senators C. Arto.
Speaker 5
Thank you. The other day we had a hearing I think you remember the hearing there were some concerns expressed about efficiencies At the DMV and they This project once completed That address a lot of those type of concerns.
Speaker 10
I think This project once completed does address stitching systems together so you don't have as I was explaining system A trying to talk with system B via paper. So yes, it does unify many of the systems that are today very disconnected.
Speaker 10
Everything we've been working on since I've been at the department is to make our lives easier, keep things on a mobile device, keep you in at your house, in your car, on your couch, so that you don't you can do anything you want to do with the DMV from where you are. That's been our objective. Some things are harder than others, but that's the objective.
Speaker 8
Speaking of service, how will this actually help improve that customer service?
Speaker 10
Oh, good. Well, I mean, everything we're focused on today, mean, we're measuring customer satisfaction on every transaction and every facet of the business. So we have a really good baseline about how people engage with us and how satisfied they are. And surprisingly, despite us being a tax collector and the DMV fame, people are very happy when they engage with us. We have a five point scale, we're seeing in excess of 4.4, tending towards 4.5 satisfaction on a five point scale.
So that's good. That's a good baseline, we have a good benchmark. But everything we're trying to do now is to better anticipate. When you come to us for service, we want to make sure we know who you are, what vehicles you have, a driver's license if you need, what is up for renewal. And today, the systems are isolated and siloed, and sometimes we have a hard time connecting the left hand with the right hand.
Sorry, should have said it this way. But the idea would be to make sure when you do engage with your constituents engage with my parents, whatever who engage with the system, we want to make sure that we can best anticipate why they're there, anticipate what the next thing they need to do, and make sure they don't have to do a number of data entry steps to be able to do something or fill out a form, God forbid, to give us information we already have in the system. So this will help unify those systems, help simplify the transaction, and hopefully be able to actually reduce the cycle time of when our staff needs to do things and of course reduce the cycle time that you might want to spend on D and B task. Many people don't want to spend any time doing D and B task. We want to make sure it's just easy for you and be effective.
I think we have a lot of really good accomplishments over the past five years where we've really driven cycle time and efficiency and effectiveness of the product line so that our processes work and serve constituents. This is the next building block. But as Elio mentioned, I mean, the systems are dated. The systems we're talking about here are in excess of 60 years old. There are very few people that know anything about them.
They're the people that actually helped design them have all passed many of them passed away, so it's very hard to get advice about what were you thinking back in 1970 or 1975. So it's critical that we get them onto a standard platform, get them on a modern platform, so we can build and hopefully create the agility that you're looking for as legislators, so we can be able to do things in a new way and do them quickly.
Speaker 14
I'd even add on to that too. Know a lot of the focus is on how it's gonna impact our customers or even our employees, you know, more transactions online or having things more simpler, also any type of legislation wants to introduce a bill that's gonna have a fiscal impact and that that eventually would turn into alleged BCP. With having it tied to the legacy systems very expensive you know that it sometimes it becomes. Kind of a serial back and forth why really wanted to fix this part however it's gonna cost X amount. With the new system we're hoping to have cost be a lot more minimal if we can and then have it be that much more efficient so it should be a better release on the MVA as well you know when we're looking at the MVA we're not going to add a high cost on a legacy system whereas if you work on a DXP system it could be half even, you know, 80% less.
Speaker 8
And the cost is almost doubled, right, from the original estimate? Short answers to what what happened here and
Speaker 14
what yeah so when we started the cost was back like twenty nineteen twenty twenty COVID hit that we had like sixty percent increase in IT market costs. Inflation vendor pricing I mean things have just astronomically gotten more expensive The cost of living for even most Californians you could tell, you know, things are a lot more expensive than they were even seven, eight years ago. But when you're dealing with large scale project of this size, cost to get a lot more expensive.
Speaker 10
But I think what Lee also shared, I think, with advisory committee here is that the way the state does contracting, it's a you have a prime contractor and they do a fixed price and you have things that are 60 years old. It's like bringing your car that hasn't been looked at by anybody or even yourself into a doctor, you haven't had any medical treatment or have no medical records. It's very hard to have a fixed price contract with a relatively low risk profile. So we do see that when we go to bid and we seek a prime, you sometimes get inflated prices because of the fear of the unknown. They're afraid when they open that door to see what's in there that they may not like what they're going to see.
So that's why I think there's been some challenges with price escalations because the way the state does contracting business. So there's work we're doing with GovOps and others to see are there alternatives we can use as we modernize these systems to reduce that multiple that we've seen in cost growth. So we can actually still get things done and we can reduce the risk for the marketplace, but at the same time, get more done with less dollars at stake.
Speaker 8
Yeah, I ask that because if we approve something like what it was originally five years ago, March, it's it's a different decision.
Speaker 8
And the the budget and to look at it and then turn around saying, now it's $767,000,000. So there's gotta be a better way of all those things that you said are pretty normal, I mean, except for the pandemic, but everything else is pretty normal. So when you come up with your request for for funding this project or that project, it's gotta be closer than half of what, or double the amount that you originally requested. We can't function like that, as a state, to fear that it's gonna be double what you're asking for.
Speaker 10
Completely agree. And again, we're working with GovOps and others to make sure that we think about the PAL process, the project approval life cycle, reducing those steps, and making sure that in fact we can streamline the steps that are value added, I mean that are non value added and focus on the things that are value added. And part of that is the way that we actually procure these services where they are fixed price. Again, fixed price, old systems, lot of risk, People are going to be very cautious about how they bid on those and there's going to be a risk multiple that will be higher than we want to do. So I take your point and it's an opportunity I think for the state and it's an opportunity for us to make sure we can derisk.
As a matter of fact, as we've moved into this next phase, we've actually broken into smaller modules. So the risk is much lower. So people can see very discrete components that we're building, so they know exactly what they're bidding on and there isn't the fear of what's necessarily hiding in the closet. So we're going to try to break it into smaller pieces. We believe that will reduce risk and reduce cost and also increase speed.
Speaker 10
I've watched the first one and after that it was like, I don't know. But thank you for asking. Not a lot of technical insight there, but thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator D'Razzo. Just one question for me. Last year, the DMV, you requested a delay in implementing several pieces of legislation in large part due to this ongoing IT project. How will the DXP improve the department's ability to implement legislation that you have on the table and allow you to be more agile and responsive to potential improvements in the DMV process.
Speaker 10
Don't have a scientific algorithm for you, but the intent of actually getting as a platform as a service using commercial off the shelf technology and configuring versus building from scratch gives you that agility. Today, you can the system we're talking about here that we're replacing is in the assembly language. The assembly language is something if you Google it, right, goes back to kind of the early days of the mainframe. This is what people used to code bit by bit because they're trying to conserve memory utilization. So now that we're past that, there's all these layers of extraction that are built on top of there.
It makes it very easy for us now to add a configuration and add a new thing. We have to make sure we change our processes and our policies and our approach so we take full advantage of those configurations. And you add some of the advanced tools on top of that, we believe we can go much, much faster. So it doesn't mean we would not advise to have a rapid expansion of maybe questionable legislation, not lane, but the idea would be for the things that need to get done, we want to have the agility, you want to have the agility to do, we want to be able to respond quickly. You can have an estimate, it's reasonable, things can get done in your term, you can see the results in your term, That's really one of the design goals of DXP.
Speaker 1
Thank you. My last question for you. I did sit on the Transportation Committee a couple weeks ago, and we were talking about the ignition lock breathing in with the DUI driving, And the the person representing the federal group that funds it said that sometimes they do include it if they're asked. And I said, have they been asked? And they said no.
So I just want you to know you have a letter forthcoming to you requesting that you ask. So then now maybe they'll consider, so we could help with reducing that cost and getting some of their support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes the sixth issue. We're now going to move to public comment. To ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard, please limit your comments to one minute.
Thank you very much for everyone participating and for the public for your patience. Having so with that, we'll have you come over here to the mic to your right, my left. Yes, sir.
Speaker 18
My name is Edward Hasbrooke, I'm with the Identity Project, a national human rights project focused on identity requirements. The point of this budget proposal is to for so called S2S, is to upload information about every Californian's driver's license to the specs national ID database operated by AMVA. And the rationale for that is a rationale of preemptive capitulation to a lawless overreaching DHS ultimatum and threat. As with other lawless or suspect DHS threats, it's important not to make that choice without looking first at the implications of both sides. The threat is that the DHS will retaliate against Californians by interfering with their right to travel if California doesn't comply with some set of requirements, which are actually optional in the REAL ID Act.
I my many of the specific questions asked by the senators are addressed in our detailed written submission. We'd be happy to discuss those in more detail. But I wanna highlight a couple of key issues of either compliance or noncompliance.
Speaker 1
Sir, your time has expired. If you could summarize, and then you can always submit your comments to the committee, which we will review.
Speaker 18
I'm sorry. Very briefly, compliance would require uploading all information about all licenses, including AB 60 licenses the plain language of the statute, and that information would be and might already have been accessed by federal agencies without the state's knowledge. On the noncompliance side, there's no evidence that there's been any investigation of the possibilities of pushing back as California has successfully pushed back against other lawless DHS threats. Thank you very much.
Speaker 19
Becca Kramer, on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF is likewise extremely concerned about the DMV's plan to participate in the state to state verification service pursuant to the federal real ID program. Of the very many reasons for concern, I'll focus today on the fact that DMV's plan requires that California's information be uploaded to a database specs that is not governed by California or by California laws that protect individual privacy. The DMV's plan is fundamentally flawed because it depends on sharing information with AMVA, a private non government entity. AMVA is a five zero one c three organization.
Government actors are bound by constitutions governed by due process and other rule of law norms. AMVA is not. AMVA is carrying out a government task of identification verification, but is not meaningfully transparent. Many documents about specs database and the s two s system are not available for the public in the first place. We therefore do not know who will have access to California's information or driver histories.
What restrictions, if any, bind those who participate in the S2S system as to how they can use California's personal information?
Speaker 19
Thank you. How often federal agencies have received the information and what risks California information faces once it's uploaded and we lose control of it. We respectfully urge you to obtain complete and public answers to these and other questions before beginning to even consider embarking on this one way journey of transferring our information to other states.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon chair members. Symphony Barbie on behalf of the ACLU California action. I'm here to respectfully oppose the budget change proposal in issue five to implement the state to state verification system for REAL ID. The disclosure of personal information that will be shared with federal authorities goes against the very protections California has worked so hard to ensure. The state to state system is not immune to breach.
This information is shared with non state actors, creating an opportunity for massive harm as other states that are participating will also have access to this information, including states that are hostile to California's robust protections. For these reasons, we urge the committee to reject this budget change proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon, committee. Mark Fuksevich on behalf of Streets for All. First and foremost, we're supportive of the DMV systems upgrades. We think they're long overdue. Wanted to say so as an LA based organization, we've been really alarmed by the street safety crisis that we're experiencing across California that Talamatters is only just highlighting.
At the DUI hearing, Senator Archuleta looked dead in the eye of the first panel and asked, what would you do if you waved a magic wand? And at least two of the three panel members said, we need better infrastructure. We need safer infrastructure. Our active transportation fund, which I think has a terrible name, by the way. This is our premier pot of money in California, is underfunded.
It funded about 25 or 30 of two seventy applications last year. This is a premier pot of funding that will save human lives in the state of California that we need to be funding. And you have two reports, by the way, that came to the legislature this last year that recommend more money for it. But the Transit Transformation Task Force see it as more first last mile money, and the Mineta Transportation Report on e bikes are recommending more money on this. We desperately need more infrastructure money in addition to DMV changes.
We can't fix this through the penal code. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good afternoon, committee members. Sofia Fekola, Coalition for Clean Air, echoing, my colleague's comments that investments in active transportation can save over 200 lives, reduce GHG emissions by almost a 100 metric tons, and improve public health accessibility and reduce transportation cost burdens for all Californians. And thus, we requested that legislature allocate an additional 200,000,000 to the active transportation program over the next five years. The ETP program has funded over 800 projects since its inception, 85% of which go to directly benefit disadvantaged communities. At the same time, this program was cut last cycle and had only slightly above a 150,000,000 to spend on almost 300 applications that it received.
And this is why the Sacramento Bee article recently described the ATP program as being just a hair less competitive than mission rates University. And we ask for additional funds for the program to ensure it provides long term benefits for Californians, such as improving air quality, reducing climate emissions, reducing vehicle collisions, reducing traffic, and providing transportation alternatives for those who cannot drive or cannot afford vehicle. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Christopher Sanchez, the Massive Weather Group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, Cardesan, on issue five. First, I wanna thank the madam chair and members for the comments that they made related to the privacy. For us, we represent a lot of Central American communities who have different immigration statuses, some that are legal today and not legal tomorrow, unfortunately, because administration has pulled some of those back. We share our concerns related to issue five, and we would love to work with the committee and other stakeholders to make sure that we get it right for all Californians.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon. Linda Way with Western Center, Amman Poverty excuse me would like to align my comments with the previous speaker as well as expressed appreciation for both the chair and senator D'Rozlo's questions related to the protection of this very sensitive information we know that the that this federal government has been hostile, and so any opening up of of of data sharing is something that we are concerned about and look forward to working with the the committee as well as the administration to to ensure that there are guardrails.
Speaker 16
Good afternoon chair and members. Aniele Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center. Also want to align my comments with the previous two colleagues. California has taken important steps to protect the privacy of DMV information and prevent it from falling into the hands of ICE. However, California's entry into the state to state verification services puts this progress in jeopardy.
We have strong concerns about the sharing of personal information such as such as social security numbers. The Department of Homeland Security or federal agencies could attempt to access this information that could identify individuals as immigrants and be used for immigration enforcement purposes. We have seen recently many attempts by DHS seeking information held by CMS, the IRS, and other agencies in order to execute their mass deportation agenda. We need protections in place now and we look forward to working with the committee. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Mike Sherif with Fanslaw Government Affairs on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition, respectfully requesting the committee and legislature to fully fund the all offender IID program as the corresponding bill AB eighteen thirty by Petrie Norris moves through the process. Thank you very much.
Speaker 24
Good afternoon, Chair members. Kelly Larue here with the SteerSafe partnership. I'm here to highlight the important role Active Intelligent Speed Assistance, or Active ISA, can play as a traffic safety tool. We appreciate the discussion today regarding the motor vehicle account solvency and making it more feasible for the DMV to add functionality and tracking for drivers who consistently choose to drive dangerously. Speeding dramatically increases both the likelihood of a crash and the severity of injuries when collisions occur.
ISA offers an evidence based tool that uses location and speed limit data to detect the posted speed limit and prevent a vehicle from exceeding it. Thank you for the opportunity to share this information and for your continued commitment to keeping California's roads safe.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. I lost my script there. Having heard from all members of the public, members are there any additional questions or comments? All right.
Seeing none, thank you to all the individuals who participated today in the public testimony. If you were not able to testify or if you have any additional information you wanted to submit, please do so in writing to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you everyone for your participation we have concluded the agenda for today's hearing. The Senate budget subcommittee number five on corrections public safety judiciary labor and transportation is now adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.