Senate Local Government Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Local Government Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
Since both the bills on consent are Dirazzo bills, I'm sure you would be happy if I moved the consent agenda. Yes.
Speaker 2
The consent calendar the motion is to adopt the consent calendar, which consists of file item number eight, s b eleven eighty seven, file item 10, s b thirteen eighty eight. Senators Dirazzo?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Okay. That, consent bill will remain on call. That bill. Okay.
Well, now yes. Senator Weber Pearson, s b nine eighty three, if you could come forward, please. Good morning, and you can start whenever you're ready.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm here to present SB nine eighty three, a bill that authorizes the Port of San Diego to utilize Job Order Contracting, or JOC, for their repair, remodeling, and repetitive work. The Port Of San Diego is a special district spanning 34 miles along the San Diego Bay and across five cities. The port manages a wide array of infrastructure, including 23 public parks, six museums, two cargo terminals, and two cruise terminals.
Currently, when maintenance is needed on the port's property, the port must go out for competitive bidding for each individual project. This can result in major delays, and can interrupt port operations. Instead, job order contracting establishes long term contracts with prequalified contractors. This reduces the time and resources spent on procurement activities, offers flexibility in project scope and timing, and is particularly beneficial for addressing unplanned or emergency repairs effectively. The legislature has granted the authority to other special districts, including to San Mateo County Transit District and to the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Specifically, this bill does the following: It establishes a pilot program allowing the Port Of San Diego to use the procurement method known as job order contracting, requires that the maximum dollar amount that may be awarded on any single job order not to exceed $1,000,000 requires that the contracts may be executed for an initial contract term of no more than twelve months and may be extended or renewed for two subsequent annual terms, and sunsets the pilot program on 01/01/2037, among other provisions. Before this committee hearing, we took author amendments to strike the reference to construction and the definition of work that is authorized to be completed under JOC. We have had several productive conversations with labor organizations, including the Building Trades and the I. L. W.
U. And we will continue to have those discussions to ensure that established collective bargaining agreements are not affected. Here with me today is Jonathan Clay on behalf of the bill's sponsor, the San Diego Unified Port District. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. Jonathan Clay here on behalf of the Port Of San Diego. As the senator mentioned, we are a special act district created in 1962 made up of our five member cities to manage state Thai lands around San Diego Bay. As detailed in the excellent committee analysis, SB nine eighty three would allow the port to utilize shock authority similar to what cities, counties, special districts, school districts, and other state agencies have currently. The port would like to be able to use this authority.
We manage 34 miles around all of San Diego Bay, including operational terminals, public parks, fishing piers. So we're more than just simply a cargo moving. We are managing these lands on behalf of the state for public access, public benefit. Today, small routine projects must go through the same procurement process as a large scale project. As a result, minor repairs can take six to nine months, and even though construction may only or the repair and remodeling can only take a few weeks.
Costs increase due to the complexity and time of going through that process, and critical infrastructure repairs are delayed because of this. Joc allows for a faster delivery for this critical work. These benefits are immediate, less disruption to the public and the tenants, lower overall project costs, and more reliable infrastructure. Bottom line, this is about giving the port the ability to respond quickly, responsibly, and efficiently to real world infrastructure needs. It also assures that the process right now, the process isn't aligned.
Speaker 21
When a small waterline repair takes the same procurement as a large scale new construction project, it just doesn't benefit the public. Real quick because and I'm running short on time, but I just want to say the Port has had a small business program going since 1990. And in that, for example, as of our last three years, we've had small business participation ranging from anywhere from 24% to, 42%. Also, per Prop two zero nine back in the I think that was the '90s, our program is race and gender neutral, but I'll just share some of the numbers of the participating entities.
Speaker 8
Yep. The last point, then I'll just say, we have a Project Labor in place since 2024. We have a number of small businesses, minority businesses, women owned businesses, and non union labor participating under that PLA. So here to answer any other questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Any more witnesses in support? Okay. Any others who would like me too in support of SB nine eighty three?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. We are, as the Senator alluded to, working with her on some language as the bill moves forward. We appreciate those conversations with the port and the author. Not in support today, but just wanted to throw that out there that we are working on things.
We appreciate the time. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Anyone in opposition to SB nine eighty three? Please come forward. Good morning.
You will have two minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you. Good morning, Senator and members. Richard Markison for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. And quite frankly, I'm a little bit confused because the amendments that the author referred to and the sponsor are to remove construction from the authorization for job order contracting. Construction is routinely a part of job order contracting, and I'm not sure how you make the distinction between maintenance and repair that is not construction.
So, we would certainly be looking forward to seeing that new definition that captures maintenance and repair but isn't a construction trade. The other point and although the sponsor did refer to the fact that the Port District does have outreach to small businesses, we think that, from a local government perspective, JOC is a practical, proven tool that allows agencies to complete small well, I've had construction in my testimony, but, obviously, construction is not included. But repair and maintenance projects quickly, efficiently, with fewer administrative hurdles, that's where JOC really shines. They're not megaprojects, as the sponsor referred to. They're smaller task order jobs, but SB nine eighty three, unfortunately, undermines that.
Speaker 25
When you link job order contracting to the external demands of a project labor agreement, you remove the efficiencies of job order contracting and the savings that would accrue from these small jobs. And also, it is a real impediment to job order contracting being an important entry point for small contractors. DVBEs and SBEs can use these small task order as an entrance to public works contracting, to get their bonding capacity, to get experience doing public works contracts. Project Labor Agreement, despite what the sponsors say, from our perspective of merit shop contractors, are an impediment to many small contractors wanting to participate in them. And for those reasons, we are opposed with the Project Labor Agreement language in the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in key witness in opposition? Seeing none, are there any me too's in opposition to SB nine eighty three? Okay.
Seeing none, I'll come to the dais. Yes. Senator Laird?
Speaker 4
Thank you. I appreciate the amendments and will be supporting the bill, but was interested in your response to the testimony that was just given.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Senator. So the initial question that the opposition had about how do you remove construction, easily, you just remove it from the language. If you look at the bill, it does differentiate construction from renovation, maintenance, or improvement of buildings, wharfs, earths, facilities, utilities, infrastructure, and related systems performed by licensed contractors. And so statutes already differentiated different things, and so we just removed construction from that list. So that is how you do that.
Speaker 20
As far as the issue of the project labor agreement, this bill actually aligns with current project labor agreement standards for the Port Of San Diego. The Port's current PLA, including the reporting requirements, is only triggered for values of projects that are over $1,000,000 And so, this particular bill only allows contracting to be used on single job orders that do not exceed $1,000,000 And so, in that situation, the bill does not change what is currently happening, and these projects are all under $1,000,000 Then finally, as far as the issue of PLAs with the port, nonunion contractors can work on both PLA and non PLA projects. They're not excluded. To participate in a PLA project, they just sign a project specific PLA for that job only and agree to follow the labor terms during the construction. As the sponsor was alluding to, the project's five year PLA agreement has been in place since February 2024, with 13 covered projects and prime projects made up of the following: 38% were small business, 15% were minority business, and 8% were disabled veteran business enterprises.
Speaker 7
And so what they have currently in place has not prevented small businesses nor minority businesses nor veteran businesses to be able to get contracts. In the last three fiscal years, the Port's small business participation has ranged from 24% to 42%, and diverse contracting has ranged from 16% to 30% based on dollars awarded.
Speaker 4
And Thank you for that. On the building trades testimony, it sounds like you're continuing to talk.
Speaker 7
Yes, we are continuing in conversations with them to ensure that the language is correct.
Speaker 4
Okay. That's very important. But I appreciate. I think you've made progress. You're continuing the conversation.
I think you should have a chance to do it. At the appropriate time, I would move the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. There anything that you want to add? I yes. Great. Okay.
Good. Any other questions or comments, I just I just wanna thank the senator for bringing this bill. We know that the port of San Diego is trying to add this authority for smaller repairs to help main maintain ongoing operations. This is gonna help the port save time and money for repairs, so I'm happy to be able to move this forward today, knowing that you're gonna continue conversations. And particularly, know you're regarding the scope of the work.
You're gonna find the solution that that you need. So I'm sure all parties involved are gonna make this work. So anything else that you would like to say?
Speaker 7
Just wanna, thank the committee for hearing the bill and respectfully ask for a nay vote.
Speaker 2
The motion is due passed to the senate floor. Senators D'Arzo? Aye. D'Arzo, aye. Choi?
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. This bill remains on call. Thank you. And item number two, I understand we're gonna move the order of this to allow senator Jones to jump in front of
Speaker 1
I'm gonna jump to my bills if you're that generous. Are you that generous? Oh, God. I'm gonna make you last.
Speaker 10
Don't give me any more trouble. Promised Senator Nilo this would take less than an hour.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Chairwoman and members, and thank you for the deference of being able to jump the line a little bit. I'm here to present SB twelve fifty six, a measure to prevent lawsuit abuse, nimbyism, and needless delays in the building of a much needed new homes for California families. I want to thank the chair and committee staff for their work on the bill, We will be accepting the committee's amendments to help move the bill forward. Harmony Grove Village South is a planned development of 500 new homes in San Diego County. San Diego County has identified a need for an additional 100,000 new homes by 2029.
Litigation abuse like has been seen with Harmony Grove Village South is one of the main reasons that the goal will not be reached. This development has been twice approved by the board of supervisors and the planning commission. It has a PLA with the local labors union, Local eighty nine, and the plans for the subdivision are fire safe, certified by local fire authorities. The project has been tied up in litigation since 2018, has been updated to address CEQA concerns, and is shovel ready. However, the opponents of the project have continued to put the County Of San Diego and the developers of the project through a litigation spin cycle over the same claims on issues that were already litigated in previous filings.
That is why this measure is needed. With me today is Matt Henderson with the sponsor of the bill, RCS Harmony Partners.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Matt Henderson, counsel for RCS Harmony Partners, and I represent RCS Harmony in the ongoing litigation regarding, its housing project in San Diego County. And I'm here this morning to hopefully talk myself out of a job in this regard. My client's project, as senator Jones alluded to, has been pending since 2015. That's well over a decade.
But because of the ongoing litigation, it is nowhere near to breaking ground. And as senator Jones alluded to, the county has approved this from a local government perspective twice in 2018 and in 2025. And frankly, it is cases like this as a as a litigator in the land use space. I can tell you it is cases like this that help explain why California is facing such an acute and, significant housing shortage. And frankly, if the state, my home state, wants out of the housing crisis, it has to build out.
This is a good project. It includes both affordable units and, is supported by the local union. The the main issue that's been brought up in this context is wildfire, concerns about wildfire, which, of course, we're all concerned about. The court of appeals opinion in this case, handed down in 2021, is 78 pages long, which is not not the longest, but certainly not the shortest. Approximately 23 pages of the, appellate court's opinion addresses concerns and issues with wildfire.
Speaker 12
These wildfire risks have been exhaustively studied. The project includes a 100 page fire plan and an extensive wildfire risk analysis and a wildland fire evacuation plan. Both the San Diego County Fire Authority and the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District accepted the fire plan. The EIR in this case actually concluded that this would reduce fire risks in the area, and this is something that needs to be considered. New development in California is hopefully going to be more fire resistant than existing development in California because of the concerns about wildfire, and these are now being baked into projects such as my clients.
Speaker 11
The EIR also concluded the project exceeds the applicable fire codes. So this issue has been litigated before. It's the the project opponents are trying to litigate it again, and this is going to jam up the project, cost my client additional hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, and that just makes development of housing in California harder. And so we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other witness key witness in support? Okay. Any anyone in support of s b twelve fifty six as a me too? Okay.
Seeing none. Opposition to s b twelve fifty six. Good morning. You have, two minutes.
Speaker 9
Good day, chairing committee members. My name is Gabriel I'm speaking on behalf of the Elphin Forest Harmony Grove Town Council in San Diego and Endangered Habitats League dedicated to improved land use. These organizations are lit are in are in litigation challenging the county's unlawful approval of the Harmony Grove Village South project. The product proponent is a main supporter of s p twelve fifty six. According to wildfire scientists and public safety experts, the community of Harmony Grove located in the Authors District faces a very real risk of entrapment during a wildfire evacuation due to a lack of secondary exit.
They found out about this bill, which would undermine fire safety review just days ago. This is a special interest bill aimed at intervening in an active court case on behalf of a single developer seeking to bypass local safety laws. The legislature should not step in to rescue an unsafe project or shield it from judicial review. This bill would prevent the county from holding the county accountable under the subdivision map act for failing to enforce its own fire safety ordinance. The result is a subdivision without required secondary access, which, as we see repeatedly in wildfire disasters, is crucial for the safety of rural communities.
We support housing, but not housing that bypasses basic safety protections. This bill also misrepresents the law and suggests that prior CEQA litigation eliminates the need to comply with current subdivision and fire safety requirements. That is incorrect and sets a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, this case is not a repeat CEQA challenge. After the prior approvals were rescinded, a new project was submitted that triggered new legal obligations, including fire safety review, which did not occur.
Speaker 2
The fire chief has since stated publicly that, quote, today, you could not pass that project without secondary access. The failure to obtain safety review for the new map is a new procedural violation and is not a recycled challenge. Finally, while proposed amendments narrow the bill scope to the litigation at hand, this still sets a terrible precedent for the state and still throws the town council and endangered habitats leak out of court at the direct expense of public safety planning. The new action allowed by the amendments would also be time barred. For these reasons, I urge you to vote now and today.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposed to s b twelve fifty six? Any me too's? Okay. Seeing none, comments.
Senator Laird.
Speaker 4
Thank you. This bill has been in print for two and a half months. My question of you, excuse me, the opponent, thank you. Because the opposition was sort of late, is there any place you think you could go in relation to this bill? Or are you just unalterably opposed to the bill?
Speaker 3
Yeah. This bill is very clear because it's seeking to prevent duplicative litigations against the housing and the development of projects by barring subdivision action lawsuit and substantially similar claims have already been litigated on the CEQA and that has been cleared. And we talk about always affordability and unaffordable housing is the one of the main reasons for shortage of housing. But at the same time, under the CEQA requirement, environmental review requirements, they are just as simple with no litigation alone, it takes tens of thousand dollars money wise in application fee alone. And at the same time, the permit process is year one two two years.
In this case, through because of the litigations, about ten years. More than that. More than ten years dragged. And now, I'm hearing the opponents' main key issue is that fire safety issue of that village, number one. How many homes are included in the plan?
Speaker 3
500 homes, we call it in my town, is villages, the different villages in in so that particular section, fire safety, that is a really big concern when we face so much of a fire hazard with wildfires. So that's a legitimate concern. So but the keyword I heard from you was that lack of a secondary entry. So why proponent maybe you can advise to that? Did you hear there the reasons for litigations is lacking secondary entry because that can be easily solved?
Speaker 11
That was yes. Thank you, senator Choi. The issue of secondary access was addressed in the initial CEQUA lawsuit. It was fully litigated and addressed in the Court of Appeals decision. And secondary access is not the only means for alleviating risk from wildfire.
Shelter in place, and other, project features that were built in and specifically addressed, you had not one but two different fire districts look at this plan and okay it. And fire districts are not in the habit of approving projects that exacerbate rather than reduce, wildfire risk. So, again, that issue has been litigated. It's been before a court. A court looked at this, looked at what the county did, and ok'd it.
Speaker 3
So you simply won the trial. However, you did not satisfy what they are talking about, the the secondary access that did you provide that access?
Speaker 11
The secondary access has not been provided. There are other project features that alleviate the need for secondary access. So the fire safety has been fully evaluated without the secondary access and found to be sufficient.
Speaker 11
Yes. There's shelter in place. There's a number of different, what they call layers in project, providing different levels of fire protection. And this is why both the two different fire districts that looked at it concluded that this is not only consistent and the AIR concluded it exceeds the requirements of the code. So so is better than a code compliant project.
Speaker 3
So fire authorities over your area all approved that your fire safety issue Exactly. Is no longer
Speaker 11
This has been looked at by the the officials. It's been looked at by the courts, and yet we're still stuck in, if you'll pardon the expression, litigation, how?
Speaker 3
Opponents, I would like to know when the litigation through the litigation, the fire authorities of that district already now feel that is not the issue and that they approved the project. Do you think you have more authority over fire district and they approved the project?
Speaker 9
I'd like to begin by clarifying the challenge at hand. That is distinct from the fire safety issues raised during the initial 2018 challenge, which was against the EIR. In this case, opponents are challenging the approval of the subdivision map, tentative map approved by the county in October 25, which was done without obtaining the local fire chief's recommendations for reducing wildfire risk.
Speaker 11
So I'm sure through the retrials, all kinds of testimonies or witnesses and cross examination, whatever, and that's a nonpartisan issue. It's a public safety issue. So obviously, the defendant has cleared all the objections that the plaintiff has brought up at that point. And then other than the intent intentional drag of the project for whatever the the reasons that the unknown and using that fire safety issue and bringing up another litigation over and over and make the project to just go away and give up. So I think this is something general public would not really understand and compounding the litigation cost construction time is all about the money.
Speaker 3
And that will drive up the cost of construction. And that would not help the the the key issue of California affordability of housing. So I fully understand the intent of this bill. Once that that the issue has been cleared through the court, that should not be litigated second time, third time, etcetera, and dragging the project down and driving up the cost. For that reason, I think this bill makes sense.
I will support the bill.
Speaker 12
Thank you. So the arguments in this case or in in this issue, really, if if we were to apply those in California, we wouldn't build anything anywhere. All of Orange County used to be in the same situation. All of the Inland Empire is in the same situation. Building has to be done somewhere if we are going to accommodate the housing that we need in in California.
What this is really about is people don't like that type of development going near their rural development. And so any excuse will do. As far as the and and a lot of times it's the fire stuff. Everybody goes to the fire stuff because everybody's very sensitive to that. And and in regards to that, it's all about how you mitigate it.
And in this project, I think they've shown over and over that it can be mitigated without the secondary access. Sometimes these accesses, you you can't the secondary access would go through a a preserve and you can't do it. So if you're not going so you have to mitigate it another way and then sometimes that other way is way more expensive than a secondary access, laying a road out the back. But it has to be done. And and and they're very effective.
They're just safe refuge areas, you know, extra water facilities where they might need it, extra setbacks, buffer zones, vegetation management around the around the project. All of that lends to what what the proponents are saying which is we've mitigated for this. So this is just like a delay tactics over and over and over and we can't do it in California. We have to call it and say that's enough. And otherwise we are going to fall farther and farther behind, which means more and more expensive housing that nobody can afford.
And at that point, we won't have the population in the future that we need to support California. So I'll be supporting this. And with that, I will move the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none. Senator Jones, I'm sure like you, I take the wildfire concerns
Speaker 1
Very seriously. LA continues, to recover from the fires of last year. So ensuring that we're building in a fire safe manner is very critical. We heard very late from opposition on these issues and how the bill might affect if the development is in compliance with with fire safety requirements. I think the agree amendments that you've agreed to today are an important step to ensure that there are avenues for legitimate challenges, to take place.
But just we got this opposition yesterday. We haven't I haven't fully vetted their issues, but I am prepared to support this bill today.
Speaker 1
I'd like to see wildfire issues addressed before the bill comes up further, addressed before the bill comes up on the senate floor, and we'll be in communication with you as to whether or not I continue to support the bill. Thank you. But would you like to close?
Speaker 10
Sure. Absolutely. Thank you. And you are correct. I am very sensitive to fire issues.
I was elected to the Santee City Council in December 2002. In the 2003, the Cedar Fire tore through the east Eastern portion of San Diego County, killing 11 people and destroying multiple homes. And so that was my initiation into public service as an elected official and public safety responding to those issues. And then again in 2007, the Witch Creek fire tore through the eastern portion of San Diego County, from the far eastern areas all the way into the city of San Diego. So I'm very, very sensitive to those issues, and and the memories of those of that destruction stay stay with me.
The one thing that the opposition said that I agree with and and hope will happen is that this will set a precedent for the rest of the state. The median home price in San Diego County right now is $1,000,000. $1,000,000 is the median home price in in the county of San Diego. The reason for that is there's a shortage of homes. The other thing that I hope is already setting a precedent across the state is home builders in my district are already building new projects to the most up to date and creative fire safe principles currently science currently available.
Speaker 27
So much so that a project in Escondido, a brand new project in Escondido just opened up last last year, was recognized by the state as one of the as the most fire safe new development in the state of California that the California insurance commissioner came down to the ribbon cutting to be a part and other state officials came down to be a part of that ribbon cutting. So I have all the confidence that San Diego County and in particular the home construction in my district which is a mixed of rural and urban, flat and hilly, that the the most creative up to date fire science is gonna be coming out of this area. So with that, thank you for your support and I ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. We're going back to item two, s b nine nine two. Senator Nilo? I'm not used to seeing you wearing jeans.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and members for the opportunity to present SB nine ninety two. This is a bill that seeks to make permanent an existing allowance for small special districts to comply with important financial oversight by the county auditor. SB nine ninety two deletes an existing sunset that authorizes a special district with a budget of less than $150,000 to engage in agreed upon procedures agreed upon procedures engagement in lieu of full traditional audit. The bill also increases the $150,000 threshold allowing districts with annual revenues not above $250,000 to utilize annual financial compilations or agreed upon procedures engagements. In other words, it is eliminating the sunset and increasing the threshold $250,000 obviously still very small special districts.
For lean special districts with smaller budgets, other procedures still provide fiscal oversight without the major cost that a full audit would be. SB nine ninety two keeps important safeguards intact, such as ensuring qualifying districts have their expenditures and revenues transacted through the county's financial system, and importantly, this allowance cannot be utilized for more than five consecutive years. I have with me today Matt Silverling with the State Association of County Auditors and Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association to testify in support of the bill.
Speaker 18
Good morning, Chair members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association, CSDA. CSDA represents all types of special districts, including fire districts, health care districts, public cemetery districts, water districts, if I didn't already say that, geological hazard abatement districts, and more. CSTA is a proud cosponsor of Senate Bill nine ninety two. Back in 2015, the California Special Districts Association partnered with the then Chair of the Assembly Local Government Committee, Katchou Achajan, to pass that rounded out the full complement of supplementary audit flexibilities that are found in this section of law.
Speaker 15
Absent any legislative intervention, however, that suite of supplementary audit flexibilities will be reduced and will diminish. And so SB nine ninety two is that legislative intervention that preserves the full complement of supplementary audit flexibilities for these smaller special districts whose money is managed by county systems. We figured also while we're in there, given that the last time that there was a significant update to this code section, the dollar threshold was $150,000 We recognize that $150,000 in 2015 doesn't quite buy you the same amount of things as it does in the present day, and so we've revised that figure up to $250,000 to avail a similar amount, however, fewer amount of independent special districts to make use of the full complement of supplementary audit flexibilities. For these reasons, again, proud cosponsors, and we respectfully urge your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Matthew Seiberling, on behalf of the State Association of County Auditors. Without being too repetitive, Mr. Dettweiler covered almost everything. This bill does build on an existing framework for a system and a process and tailored approach that's been in place for over a decade.
Speaker 16
The monies that we are auditing here do flow through the county general fund and they are limited to the very small special districts. Currently, a 150,000 or less. We are adjusting that to 250,000 or less moving forward based on inflation. But this is a very important tool. It allows county auditors to maintain, an appropriate balance of fiscal oversight while not overly burdening small special districts with the cost of audits, which in some cases may completely wipe them out based on their small cash flow.
So we urge you support and an eye vote for this to allow us to move forward doing what we do. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Is there anyone who wants to add a me too in support? No. See s nine ninety No. Seeing none.
Is there anyone in opposition to SB nine ninety two? Seeing none. Any questions or comments? Senator Laird?
Speaker 10
Well, I appreciate the mention of Kacho. My district overlaps with his and we have many special districts that I'm sure this applies to there. It's always nice to align with the auditors on something. That's great. I noticed there's no opposition and at the appropriate time I would move the bill.
Speaker 1
Okay. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, would you like to wrap up?
Well, I appreciate the testimony of Mr. Dettweiler and Mr. Seiverling. I mispronounced his name, and I apologize for that. But, with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Okay. We have a I
Speaker 2
The motion is due passed to the senate floor. Senators D'Arzo? Aye. D'Arzo, aye. Choi?
Aye. Choi, aye. Adeyin? Ashby? Cervantes?
Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Sarto?
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Senator Groove. Okay. Senator Groove.
You're here to present s p eleven fifteen. Good morning.
Speaker 18
Good morning, madam chair. Thank you, madam chair and members. I introduced senate bill eleven fifteen in response to the recent dysfunction and mismanagement fail in the management failure of the Tulare County Public Cemetery District. The five member appointed Board of Trustees for the district recently experienced significant conflicts that raised questions about the district's governance and operations. The district has a history of operational problems, including eight disinterments eight disinterments since 2016 to address incorrect burials, allegations of excessive spending, ongoing litigation, and poor conditions of the grounds.
Colleagues, please keep in mind that this is where our loved ones are buried. Last year, the district's regular meetings were quite frankly a joke at best and a disaster at worst. One meeting was held and held open one meeting was held open or opened and closed within ten seconds. Other meetings have not allowed public comment, and trustees even called the police to remove upset members of the public. And the officer that arrived and saw the situation did not move the remove those members of the public.
In May, three of the five members resigned, saying they could not work with the chair, leaving the district unable to make a quorum. Things got so bad, the company that insures the district threatened to withhold coverage, which would have essentially shut down the district. Under current law, the board only has two options to address the trustee misconduct, do nothing or remove the trustees and appoint itself as the cemetery district board. So, the board voted to assume control of the cemetery district in June. SB eleven fifteen gives the Tulare Board of Supervisors a third option, which should a situation like this arise again, to remove a trustee individually and reappoint a replacement.
Speaker 6
The supervisors are currently in the process of transitioning Cemetery District back to newly appointed Board of Trustees. The county is asking the legislature to establish an alternative process to provide a clear authority to address substantial neglect of duty, misconduct, or situations that prevent the Board from fulfilling its responsibilities to the community. SB eleven fifteen provides a targeted solution by authorizing the Tulare County Supervisors to remove a trustee for specific causes through a resolution, while also ensuring due process for that trustee with proper notice and the opportunity for the trustee to respond. I know the Special Districts Association is in opposition of the bill, and they're concerned about the infringement on the operation of an independent board. But this board needs infringement.
Speaker 18
That's all there is to it. However, the supervisors are involved in another way, and they're appointing the Board that functions properly in taking over the operations on the conditions that when conditions reach this point. And frankly, like I said, this district is a disaster. I look forward to the continued discussions with CSDA to see if they can better define conditions that will trigger the board to becoming involved. I understand their concerns, but we have a situation where our loved ones are being buried in a Tulare County cemetery, and it's, it's unhinging for the families themselves to have a a member disinterned disinterment happen to a member of their family and go through the process of reburial and to rehash those wounds that hurt.
And then the complete dysfunction of the board with not having insurance to be able to even operate is something that needs to be addressed. And I appreciate your I vote. It's a district issue, it specifically needs to be addressed. Thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 18
I'm sorry. I have Jason Britt, who is the county CEO and also the chief of staff to the Board of Supervisors and would just like their testimony as well.
Speaker 13
Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. My name is Jason Britt. I'm the county administrative officer for Tulare and have been the co manager of the Tulare Cemetery for the last ten months. My colleague, Giselle Sotelo, our board chief of staff, is also here with me today. I'm asking the committee to support SB one one five.
Speaker 20
Tulare County has been experiencing varying degrees of disruption to regular business because cemetery boards have not been able to conduct orderly meetings, have a quorum, or simply have individuals who take their role as a cemetery trustee seriously. Although the senator spoke about Tulare Cemetery District specifically, I will tell you I have over 10 districts, cemetery districts in my in my county, and all of them have have experienced a varying degree of the problems she has spoke about. Under the current law, of course, we're the board of supervisors is limited in their role and how they can appoint and replace a committee member. Having the board of supervisors appoint themselves as trustees is a significant disruption to the community, cemetery staff, and county staff. In the recent takeover of the local cemetery district, we learned it requires comprehensive financial audits, performance evaluations, process and procedures to be analyzed, modified, implemented, payroll and accounting systems integrated with the county, a number of of things that have to be done.
But above all, trust has to be reestablished with the community to entrust the barrel of their loved ones in the in the cemetery district. While the county has proven itself capable to turn around a cemetery district, we strongly believe that this business, remains with cemetery districts and with the people who have the passion to operate those districts. So we feel like SB one one five is the middle ground in a system that currently forces the board to either do nothing while dysfunction, threatens the respectable burial of the dead or completely take over a district that might otherwise self correct under proper leadership. We believe this bill gives Tulare County a narrower and streamlined option to remove an individual trustee and appoint a replacement to ensure the district can function effectively and optimally for their constituents they serve. And I would just add that for cemetery districts specifically, the board appoints them.
They're not elected. Thank you.
Speaker 5
In an effort to not repeat too much, I just want to acknowledge that there is a process in which the Board can intervene, but we really have found this process to be very costly, very time consuming, and overall disruptive and difficult in practice. The proposal through SB115 to remove an individual trustee. It is an unprecedented proposal, but it's born out of decades of cemetery district dysfunction in Tulare County dysfunction, including, but not limited to, repeated grand jury investigations, censuring of trustees, threats of violence, numerous allegations of financial mismanagement, and as previously stated, the near cancellation of the district's insurance due to board instability, where the insurance authority specifically stated or specifically directed that a change in the district's leadership was necessary in order for them to have the confidence to continue to provide coverage. The county has no interest in assuming control over cemetery districts, which is why we're requesting this narrow option that would allow either the district themselves to self correct or the Board of Supervisors to remove a dysfunctional or disengaged trustee before their dysfunction threatens the district's ability to operate effectively. And then, finally, we do understand that there is opposition, but we're optimistic that we can work with the CSDA to address their concerns.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB115 that would like to join? Okay. Seeing none, is there anyone in opposition to SB115? Please come forward.
Speaker 15
Good morning, Chair members. Marcus Detwiler again with the California Special Districts Association, CSDA. CSDA represents all types of special districts, including health care districts, water districts, fire districts, mosquito and vector abatement districts, and public cemetery districts. We would like to thank the author for her commitment to working on this bill and addressing a very serious issue that is affecting Tulare County. I'd also like express to gratitude to the committee staff who has worked very tirelessly on public cemetery law, which has proven to be an unexpectedly lively issue.
And we are also hopeful that we can arrive at an area where there's mutual agreement as it relates to a middle ground for what this bill envisions and what currently exists in law. However, CSDA does remain opposed at this time. We do have very foundational concerns about this approach and hope to see those resolved before this bill continues. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Any opposition? Any others in opposition? Okay. Seeing none.
Questions, comments by our members? Yes, Senator Laird.
Speaker 4
My in laws are actually buried in Tulare County and now I'm going figure out whether the cemetery is in one of these districts. I appreciate the author for bringing this bill. I know what you're trying to address. I know you're continuing conversations with the special district association, and at the appropriate time, I will move the bill.
Speaker 1
Any other comments or questions? Okay. I I also appreciate what what you're doing and taking the time, to fix this.
Speaker 1
Sounds like a horrible horrible, problem, that really impacts you personally. So I also have a family member in I think it's Smith Mountain, cemetery. So, I'll be glad to be supportive today. Would you like to wrap up?
Speaker 18
Just thank you very much, ma'am, for your comments and senator Laird for your comments. I appreciate the understanding that this is a district bill, we really have a responsibility to our constituents to make sure that their loved ones are taken care of. And, although, CSDA is an org wonderful organization, this particular district is a complete disaster, and there's no other definition and way to describe it. And I appreciate your I vote.
Speaker 2
The motion is due passed to the senate floor. Senator Dirazzo? Aye. Dirazzo, aye. Choi?
Speaker 2
Choi, aye. Aragine? Aye. Aragine, aye. Ashby?
Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Aye.
Laird, aye. Cervantes,
Speaker 22
Next we go to item four, S P 1193. Senator Wahhab, good morning. Good morning. Thank you, guys. I first wanna just really commend the staff and their work with my team on this particular bill.
I'm here today to present SB eleven ninety three. I would like to start by accepting the committee amendments and thank the chair and committee staff for working with us even till last night. SB eleven ninety three will promote good governance by creating a transparency framework for the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to follow before awarding discretionary funds to a community organization, nonprofit organization, or private entity. Existing law authorizes the Board of Supervisors of any county to appropriate and expend money from the general fund of the county to establish county programs or to fund other programs that are necessary to meet the social authorizes needs of the public. Currently, Alameda County's policy on discretionary spending lacks guardrails that serve the best interest of the public for certifying that programs are fulfilling their contractual obligations.
The Alameda County grand jury has identified that there has been unchecked spending of discretionary funds by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. In fact, dual roles have been played by county employees in connection with discretionary funds as both a county employee and as a co founder, chief executive officer, and a board director of said nonprofits or organizations, which has led to the disbursement of discretionary funds without a competitive or an equitable process in place. The Board of Supervisors has publicly declined implementing the recommendations that were suggested by the grand jury report. Alameda County's refusal to act brings us to where we are today. Discretionary accounts are designed to support nonprofits and community organizations have become slush funds for board members to prioritize groups that serve their own agenda and not the public's constitutes a conflict of interest and a failure of good governance practices by Alameda County.
Speaker 7
To ensure the integrity and transparency of discretionary funds spending in Alameda County, SB eleven ninety three will require a majority vote from Alameda County Board of Supervisors before awarding discretionary funds to a community organization. SB eleven ninety three will also require the board to document and post on their website appropriated discretionary funds, including the planned and actual costs of the program or project, the spending time line, the purpose of the program funding and the eligibility requirements to receive funding, the total dollars awarded so the public, as taxpayers, we can all see what our tax dollars are going to, why this organization got them and how they were spent. To avoid interruptions in county health services, especially during this time, SB eleven ninety three will exempt discretionary funds awarded to Alameda Health System. And to ensure that a supervisor's candidacy does not interfere with county programs, the bill will allow supervisors running in an election to vote on discretionary awards that benefit the county as a whole or outside their district. False claims from Board of Supervisors have been made regarding SB eleven ninety three, suggesting it will prevent a nonprofit and community organization from receiving discretionary funds.
Speaker 22
But in reality, SB eleven ninety three will simply require the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to follow a transparent and documented process for awarding discretionary funds. This is purposeful misdirection aiming to combat transparency with false narratives. SB eleven ninety three will not eliminate or prohibit any discretionary funds funding for community organizations or nonprofits. Nonprofits and community orgs that currently receive funds in good faith will continue to receive them and can continue to apply for these discretionary funds. I want to highlight that there have been many other conversations about why this applies to Alameda County.
In fact, there are many other counties that have these guardrails in place already. In fact, last year, Orange County's AB 2,946 by Assembly Member Valencia was passed, and the governor signed that into law. This bill only applies to Alameda County because other counties such as Riverside, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Diego, and San Bernardino, and so many others have either implemented similar transparent requirements on their own or through legislation. And the sad reality is that a lot of the legislation to implement guardrails usually happens after some crisis takes place, some corruption takes place, it hits the noose. We have to be, especially in this committee, ensure that guardrails are there so that everyone is protected, and this is transparent, and this is very clear to the public.
Alameda County refuses to regulate itself. And this is not the first time. Alameda County has a history of ignoring grand jury reports in a wide variety of spaces. Alameda County refuses to regulate itself, and this legislation is of their own making. I have met with supervisors from Alameda County, and it's interesting because several of them in one on one conversations have stated that they would love to implement such a process, but they feel the pressure from other members.
And they have refused to collaborate on even creating a bill that combines both the public's concerns and the board's obligations. Failing to provide amendments, failing to have the conversation of what is the concern and how can we address it together. When counties clearly disclose their budgets, funding revenues, and spending, nonprofit community organizations can better plan their programs, identify opportunities for collaboration, and align their efforts with the public need. Transparency in county spending benefits everyone. It ensures a fair and competitive environment where organizations can trust that funding decisions are made openly and solely based on clear criteria.
SB eleven ninety three will create a more open and accountable process to build public confidence, support informed civic engagement, and enable the Board of Supervisors to operate more effectively in addressing community challenges? I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 22
Oh, just to me too. Pat Moran with the Retired Public Employees Association support the bill. We support transparency, whether it's in retirement systems or local government funding, and, we request an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else in support of SB eleven ninety three? Okay. Seeing none, is there anyone here in opposition to SB eleven ninety three? Good morning.
Please come forward. And you have two minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Amy Costa, and I'm here on behalf of the County Of Alameda. Unfortunately, we're here to respectfully oppose SB eleven ninety three. Alameda County is the seventh largest, most populous county in the state. We are one of the most diverse regions in the state with 33.3 of our population being foreign born and 90 languages spoken throughout our county.
We provide for the basic needs of the most vulnerable populations in our communities. We share the Senator's goal for public transparency and the use of taxpayer funds. Alameda County has one of the most transparent budget processes in the state. We convene budget work groups, which include not only our Board of Supervisors and department heads, but also members of the public. These meetings, in addition to the adoption and discussion of the budget, are noticed and open to the public, and all budget documents are posted to the county's website.
Speaker 23
As a matter of course, all contracts in excess of $25,000 are brought before the full Board for approval at a regularly scheduled Board meeting. Much of how the county provides services is through contracts with community based organizations, other government agencies and nonprofits. Unfortunately, the bill in print, the definition of discretionary funds, is overly broad and unduly restrictive. Last year, the County contracted over $1,000,000,000 with two seventy eight community based organizations for a variety of services, including $134,000,000 specifically for our public hospital system, the Alameda Health System. Our budget documents include a line item description of each CVO contract amount and the services provided.
Speaker 19
Our Board and staff comply with state required ethics training requirements under AB twelve thirty four, the training requirements of SB eight twenty seven, which include training on fiscal administration and ethics. Lastly, our Board offices can utilize their prior year savings to provide funding to community based organizations. This is based upon the savings achieved by individual board offices. Our auditor has created a form that each office fills out, which the sergeants passed out to members of the committee. These requests are put forward as board items and discussed in full open public board meetings as nonconsent items and require a supermajority four fifths vote.
The form has recently been amended to include additional measures to ensure no conflict of interest exists in the awarding of those funds. The County Of Alameda is fiscally responsible and sound. Alameda County maintains top tier bond ratings from the major bond rating agencies, including Moody's, S and P, and Fitch, indicating the highest credit quality and the lowest risk.
Speaker 19
Thank you. We are concerned that, as counties face the impacts of H. One, which the Senate has discussed frequently as a matter of course, that this would create undue burdens for the county in administering these funds to ensure that we serve the most vulnerable members of our community. For those reasons, we respectfully request your no
Speaker 1
vote. Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone else in opposition to SB eleven ninety three? Please come forward as a me too.
Speaker 26
Chair Drazo and members of the committee, my name is Edith Cuevas, and I'm speaking on behalf of Alameda County supervisor David Halbert in opposition to SB eleven ninety three. This bill targets Alameda County even though we already have strong safeguards in place, such as the fourth, fifth vote requirement on any funding and with all funding decisions already being public information. This bill will negatively impact the most vulnerable members of our county. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to SB eleven ninety three? Seeing none, come to the dais. Questions or comments? Senator Aragine?
Speaker 25
I have a number of questions before the opposition witness. Thank you for being here today. So you touched upon this in your statement that and I think this bill specifically focused on the Board of Supervisors fiscal management reward program. Mhmm. You touched upon this in your comments that any savings that are achieved on an annual basis from a supervisor's office budget can then be spent for, discretionary grants to community based organizations, and that's what the fiscal management reward program is.
Speaker 25
So there's no allocation from the county to a supervisor's office for discretionary grants. It's whatever. Surplus money is available in salary savings or savings on office expenses.
Speaker 19
It varies wildly. And the last figure I saw was actually in the grand jury audit brought forward by the Senator. It included a table that included the different amounts, and there was a wide variance, candidly, amongst the officers.
Speaker 25
Yeah, that audit. Has there been any audit or complaint filed as to the propriety of how these funds have been spent since that 2016 audit?
Speaker 25
Could you maybe provide a description of the types of programs that are funded through the FMR program?
Speaker 19
Absolutely. It's at the discretion of the board members, but sometimes it'll be things like homelessness services. Love Never Fails is one of the CBOs that was referenced in the grand jury report, and they're an organization that provides housing and housing support services in the community. Sometimes it's been for emergency shelters. It really varies based on the discretion of the Board member that brings it forward, then, of course, the full Board has to vote for it by fourfive.
Speaker 25
Okay. So we received a copy of the form that supervisors have to complete in order to request that a funding award be put on a Board of Supervisors' agenda. So talks about the organization mission, purpose of funds, alignment with the county's Vision 2026, term of the agreement. Could you maybe talk about the conflict of interest rules that currently exist and how those apply to these types of discretionary grants? Grants?
Speaker 19
Yes. I mean, like all public entities, we're subject to conflict of interest, and it's included in the county's accounting manuals and procedures. And as I mentioned, this body has heard in past two measures, specifically, AB one two three four and a subsequent measure, that requires, elected officials to receive conflict of interest training as well as fiscal administration training, which the county abides by.
Speaker 25
Okay. And have you had an opportunity to see the committee amendments? I just saw them literally when I came into my office this morning, and I wanna just express my appreciation to the chair and the committee staff for, pro proposing these amendments, the author, which I I believe you've accepted. Have you had an opportunity to look at these amendments?
Speaker 25
Okay. So it limits the use of these funds for, an entity that that provides health care services, human services, education, homelessness, cultural resources, or other services to the residents of the supervisorial district, as well as, travel and related expenses, marketing and economic development programs. So that seems to encompass a lot of what you talked about. Not. No.
My understanding, correct, Jonathan, is that those things the statutory construction, this is a bit confusing, so maybe you can clarify that, if you're a health care services or human services or education or homelessness, that you would still be eligible to receive these discretionary funds. Correct? Yes. Yes. That's my my reading of it.
I was a little confused about the statutory construction of the statement. So this does seem to nearly limit, the application of this bill to things that most likely encompass what these grants are for. Uh-huh. And I you know, I I will just be honest. Up until I read these amendments, I did have concerns about this because I thought the definition of discretionary funds was too broad.
I didn't wanna prevent Alameda Health System, which is facing significant fiscal challenges, for example, from being able to receive, county funds or or other things that serve a particular public purpose. So I have no further questions. I just I just really wanna get a better sense of, you know, what are things that are funded, what are the existing conflict of interest rules. I'll just say as well that, you know, you know, we both represent Alameda County.
Speaker 25
And I I frankly think that having transparency is something that we should do throughout the state of California. It shouldn't be limited to one particular county, and it's unfortunate that these bills have come up on a case by case basis given, specific, you know, reports or, you know, criminal or legal legal legal circumstances. I I frankly think that we should look at doing this in every county in the state of California. There's no there's no reason why there shouldn't be a blackout period. There's no reason that there shouldn't be reporting on some of these things.
I'll also note that I think the board already does a lot of this already. So I'll stop there, and I may weigh in later. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Thank you very much. Senator Wahhab? Thank you. First and foremost, I do want to say that there's actually several buckets of discretionary funds. And, I think when a budget is passed, you know, I've served on local council.
I believe you've served on local council and being a mayor and many of us. So it's quite interesting. The the the budget itself, to to quote the actual budget and not necessarily, hey, you guys have a budget, it highlights that there's a number of different discretionary funds. So, for example, the $15,000,000 proposed Supervisor's Discretionary Fund is a one time pot of county money split among the five supervisors intended for nonprofit CBOs and projects. Yet, there has been significant amount of money and conflicts of interest that have been clearly documented.
Number one is the board members and their staff serve as a board of these organizations requesting funding across the board. There is no Form 700 for any of the Board of Supervisors staff at all. There is no clear effort to highlight, is there a conflict of interest? And consistently, the public has reached out to us to point at conflicts of interest or perceived conflict of interest. We are trying to limit that and reestablish trust within Alameda County and the Board of Supervisors To the amendments that were referenced, we have ensured that nonprofits are protected as best as possible.
I have been a board member of several different nonprofits in Alameda County, and I know how difficult it is for smaller nonprofits to even compete. So I flagged several of these concerns that even, in fact, for example, that when there is the leftover funds, is separate from the $15,000,000, and I wanna be clear, of the FMRP that was referenced, this is actually a separate bucket of money. So there's several different buckets of money and the fact that it's not clear to the public, and many of them are on consent without any real conversation or negotiation, these funds can be distributed by supervisors with limited public debate, often through consent calendar votes, making it hard for the public to track who gets the money. You know, there have been religious organizations that have gotten funding. There have been restaurants that have gotten funding.
There have been associations and private entities that have gotten funding with very limited understanding of what was the public good, except for that the owner of that business was friends with one of the supervisors. So Alameda County and I wanna flag that the Alameda County legislative members, the assembly members and the senators serve on a task force that I started because there was another grand jury report, an audit, that clearly showed Alameda County is failing the children of Alameda County when we're talking about, you know, children at risk and immediate calls and mandated reporting and much more. They're the seventh largest county in the state of California, but they don't even actually address the calls within because of the lack of hiring staff, the lack of, you know, actually doing their job. They have a youth transitional facility that was closed because of, rumors of, 12 year olds being prostituted and drug use and much more. The money that they have should be used for the services and social services that are required by law.
And this slush fund, has been used in a very questionable manner to the larger public. That is why this bill is being brought forward. We have a number of constituents that have provided clear documented evidence of concerns that I think will elevate even past the legislature. Senator Sciarto.
Speaker 12
Thank you. I have a question about the, earlier, we alluded to the amount of this, this funding, and you said there's a wide range. We asked for the amount. So what is the range? What was this low and what was the high?
Speaker 19
Across the board offices in the grand jury report that the senator brought up, it was 9,000,000. And, that was in twenty sixteen, seventeen.
Speaker 12
So I'm gonna talk a little bit about the real world and relationships with elected officials and what you see from the perspective of citizens that are out there. Yes, their favorite charities who who are run by their friends wind up getting those monies Mhmm. And nobody knows how that gets allocated. The other board members don't vote against them because they wanna do the same thing. So everybody just kinda goes along with whatever that supervisor wants to do.
Speaker 15
That was touted as a good reason to become a supervisor because you have more money to be able to spread around. And I know a lot of a lot of times it's very, you know, it's it's for very good purposes, but sometimes it's not. And that's what I think this bill is trying to do is is not have the ones that it's not just be able to get done anyway. And so I don't think it's going to impact the good work that people are trying to do out there. All it's going to do is make sure that that good work isn't being biased by personal preferences as opposed to community needs.
Speaker 25
In looking at the amendments, I just want to suggest, if this bill moves out today, just a few things for the author's consideration. One, you know, the provision under not allowing for the award of discretionary funds at a special meeting or a consent calendar might be too restrictive. So, you know, I understand what you're trying to do, but, you know, there may be circumstances where, you know, there are legitimate services or, nonprofit purposes, and I don't wanna limit the ability for those awards to be granted if they follow all the guidelines in this bill. And then with respect to the provisions under subsection e, you know, sometimes it's for a nonprofit, but sometimes it's support like a community event. And so in those instances, you know, eligibility requirements, indirect costs may not be applicable.
So my understanding is there's is a range of different types of things that have been funded. Some are like sponsoring an event, for example, or supporting a particular nonprofit organization. And so there are a range of purposes. And so just be mindful of that, to ensure there's sufficient flexibility is another thing I would raise as well.
Speaker 22
Thank you. And I think the chair and I actually spoke about this ourselves last night. So that has been taken into consideration. Happy to answer any other questions. But I will also highlight that what was referenced is one bucket of slush funds, right?
There is multiple different buckets. And we just want it to be fully transparent to the public to avoid any perceived conflicts of interest or legitimate conflicts of interest as well as, again, even with the Form 700, as there have been dual roles by multiple people in the Board of Supervisors' role as well as their staff. So we're trying to limit as much as possible. And this is, again, very simple, good transparency bill, and
Speaker 1
we are trying to support our community through that. Yes. So senator and I had many discussions about this, and I raised concerns, and we went back and forth and made amendments to the amendments. One of my concerns was that it was not become so burdensome Yes. That organizations, community based organizations wouldn't be able to take advantage of funding that is there, funding that comes from their tax dollars.
So how do community based organizations get access without making it too burdensome and still give transparency? I think there's gotta be a healthy balance of the of the two. I also thought about this, even though it's restricted to Alameda County, would this be a good thing beyond Alameda County? Is there some reason that a county with greater population or a county with smaller population, it would cause problems? So we talked about that a lot.
And, yes, things like how do you define program a with a public purpose. Right? You know, is the Thai community festival, is that a public purpose? Or is that gonna be considered, you know, part of something else that people object to? I I also wanna make sure that as you describe the criticisms that you have of of the of the board, that this is not taken to mean that the organization's receiving the funding Agree.
It's not a judgment on them. And I think that's really important. Using terms like slush fund or whatever, I I understand the the criticism behind it. But many of these organizations barely survive. And so getting funding from from the county or any other source is welcome, and it's important, and it's part of the diversity of our of our county.
So those are those are the thoughts that I had. I I'm sure you're gonna continue to work on and address senator Aragine, concerns and and other concerns that have been brought forward to get today. But with these amendments, I will be supporting your bill.
Speaker 22
Thank you. Yes. So, you know, I really do appreciate the conversation here. And this bill is good for everyone. If I could apply this to the entire state, I absolutely would.
That, obviously, in the second year of a legislative cycle, it's a little bit more difficult to talk to 58 different counties. Different counties also have different resources and much more. To your point, you know, again, I was a board member of several different nonprofits, some smaller, some larger. And the smaller nonprofits, for example, really struggle to even have the relationships with the individual supervisors. Right?
And to one of our senators point here that the supervisors build these relationships. And what we have seen in Alameda County is 6 figures and more to specific organizations that have nothing to do with actual service in Alameda County. In fact, one supervisor funded a trip and has significant conflicts of interest with several organizations. And that has not been allowed to be vetted by the full transparent process. When we talk about special meetings, the special meetings are called within twenty four hours or so.
And the public has complained about that, not being able to attend these meetings, where people also have been cut off the phone lines, cut from presentation and public comments, ignored, PRA requests, and so much more. So I think that there's a lot to work on in Alameda County, and this is just one step. And, again, it's just transparency. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and, again, thank all of you guys for your work on this bill.
Speaker 2
The motion is due passed as amended to the senate floor. Senator D'Arzo? Aye. D'Arzo, aye. Choi?
Speaker 1
Six. Senator Majivar here? Oh, Aragin. Senator Aragin. Good morning, senator.
You may proceed.
Speaker 25
Well, thank you very much, madam chair and fellow committee members. It's my pleasure to present Senate Bill thirteen eighty three, which is a narrowly tailored amendment to the state density bonus law to make clear that projects which qualify for incentives and concessions in exchange for providing on-site affordable units cannot waive any locally adopted labor standards. I want to clarify that this amendment does not affect any state adopted labor standards, including those in recent state housing legislation. This only addresses labor standards that are adopted by a city council or board of supervisors, such as local prevailing wage requirements, health care standards, or the use of apprentices, which are applicable to and specific only to that jurisdiction. As you all know, I'm a strong advocate for building housing for people at all income levels across our state.
And I strongly support laws to streamline and incentivize the production of needed homes. The state density bonus law is a critical tool to not only get needed, deed restricted affordable housing, but to also help make projects pencil. We want developers to include on-site affordable housing and use the many incentives that the density of months provides to get housing built in California. However, this should not come at the expense of critical labor protections for our construction workforce and policies which provide living wages for those who build our homes in California. A unique situation is happening in my district which may have statewide implications.
Developers in Berkeley are using incentives and concessions granted for density bonus projects to waive labor standards. Currently, the statute is ambiguous and does not expressly state that labor standards are excluded from the category of costs that can be waived using incentives and concessions. It's very clear, from my opinion, that the legislative history of the statute stated that these incentives and concessions were intended to waive lot development standards, such as parking requirements, height, floor area ratio, and other standards that may impact the physical form of a project. We do need to build housing for everyone all over California, but not on the backs of our workers. Labor standards are essential to provide health care and sustaining wages for working families.
Some of the hardest working Californians who are literally building our state to make sure that they can afford housing and food and the rising cost of living. By allowing local labor standards to be waived, this threatens worker safety, undermines training pipelines, and creates unfair competition by allowing bad actors to undercut responsible contractors. Senate Bill thirteen eighty three ensures that increasing our housing supply for all does not come at the expense of worker protections, good paying union jobs, or quality construction safe construction. In closing, I want to acknowledge that since this bill was introduced, we have been in conversation with CBIA, the California Home Builders Alliance, and other housing groups about the potential impacts of this policy on housing production. I want to state my commitment to continuing these conversations to see if we can find a way to address their concerns while also ensuring that we can maintain these essential labor protections.
In the end, this is about preserving the ability of local governments to set labor standards, to address the unique needs of their workforce, and make sure we have safe and sustaining jobs and wages and quality construction in California. With me to testify in support of the bill are our cosponsors, on behalf of the Building Construction Trades Council, Andreas Kluwer, the Secretary Treasurer of the Alameda County Building Construction Trades Council, and Vince Segrew, the State Legislative Director of Sheet Metal Workers, Local one hundred four, the appropriate time and respect for the Astro and I vote.
Speaker 26
Okay. Well, good morning, Chair D'Arrazzo and members of the committee. My name is Andreas Kluver and I represent the Alameda County Building Construction Trades Council. I'm here in strong support of SB thirteen eighty three. For many years in Berkeley, the building trades and labor have worked collaboratively with policymakers, stakeholders, and even developers to craft what has become known as the hard hats ordinance.
This policy was developed carefully, deliberately, and with a clear goal, to protect construction workers with health care standards and support the apprenticeship pipeline while ensuring that housing projects still pencil out. We understood the balance that needed to be struck. We knew housing must get built, but we also knew that the men and women building that housing deserve basic protections in a most dangerous profession. But what we are seeing now is deeply disturbing. In Berkeley, we saw a proposed 20 story tower where the developer was successfully able to use the density bonus concessions to waive these core labor protections, including prevailing wage, health care, and apprenticeship standards.
On a building of that scale, 20 stories, where workers are operating at height and in high risk conditions, those protections are not optional, they are essential. That is not good faith. That is not what the law was meant to do. Developers are exploiting the density bonus law in ways it has never intended for, using it not just for zoning relief, but as a loophole to strip away these important worker protections. SB thirteen eighty three is about restoring that balance.
Speaker 9
It clarifies that concessions cannot be used to strip away essential labor standards and ensures that we can continue to build housing without compromising worker safety, training, or fair competition. Let me be clear, we support housing. We want to build more of it, but we want to build it the right way. SB thirteen eighty three ensures that we do both. I respectfully request and I vote.
Speaker 3
Chair and members, my name is Vince Segrew, state legislative director with Sheet Metal Workers Local one hundred four, and I'm before you today in strong support of SB thirteen eighty three. Construction is hard, dangerous work. Everyday workers put themselves out there, high above the ground, around heavy materials, in conditions where one mistake can change a life forever. When something goes wrong, the consequences aren't minor, they're life altering. Last year alone, seventy eight construction workers were killed on the job in California.
Speaker 27
Tens of thousands more are injured each year, many of them seriously. We're talking falls, crushed limbs, and incidents where workers are taken out of the workforce, making construction the deadliest industry in our state. Our union has worked closely with enforcement agencies in the aftermath of a variety of these cases. In housing construction, too many contractors still fail to provide even basic health coverage. So when workers get hurt, the cost doesn't disappear.
It gets pushed on to the public and on to families already dealing with crisis. That is why construction labor standards set a necessary baseline in an industry where, without clear rules, standards can erode quickly. These standards directly impact the quality and durability of the housing we are building. There is a gap in California housing law that creates confusion in how these standards apply, particularly under density bonus, and we are beginning to see that to justify lowering standards, as you've heard in Berkeley. This creates an absolute race to the bottom.
That was never the intent of the law. The goal was to build more housing, not to do it in a way that compromises safety or quality, and SB thirteen eighty three fixes this. The people building our housing deserve to go home safe at the end of the day. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in support of S. B. Thirteen eighty three?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. We are the co sponsors of the bill, but had much better spokesman today than us, so we let them take the leads. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Chairmembers. Elmer Lozardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Speaker 1
Ms. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none, is there anyone in opposition to SB thirteen eighty three? Seeing none, questions or comments from the dais?
Senator Cervantes?
Speaker 16
Thank you. Madam chair, I wanna just, take a moment to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I certainly support the the intent of the bill and the purpose here today. We certainly need to continue building housing, but, not at the expense of workers looking at the incidences that have been happening across our state, as we have heard, from the sponsors today. But we need to make sure that we are protecting labor standards and worker protections.
Speaker 2
The motion is due passed to the senate floor. Senator Serrato? Aye. Serrato, aye. Choi?
Speaker 2
Arrigine, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye.
Laird? Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Three one.
Speaker 1
The vote will remain on call. Thank you both for coming. And think it's me. Senator Senator. Senator Troy.
Speaker 3
Next bill is file number nine SB what was the number 40? 1361. When you are ready, go ahead to prepare.
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator and chair. I want and members, I wanna start by accepting the committee amendments and thank the staff very much for the work on this bill. California is making real progress in aligning housing and transportation. LA Metro has a plan to build 10,000 homes on public land near transit with 50% set aside as affordable deed restricted housing, and it has already delivered approximately 2,600 homes. This is a historic transit build out, generational investments tied to mobility, cleaner air, good jobs and economic opportunity.
Speaker 19
This momentum reflects the kind of coordinated approach we want to see pairing housing production with strong public transportation. At the same time, since last year's enactment of SB 79, unintended consequences are beginning to surface that are creating risks for this long planned transit expansion. Under current law, SB 79 transit oriented housing requirements apply to both existing and planned future transit stops. In some communities, local governments are facing significant pressure not to support planned transit stops and routes because those projects could trigger SB 79 density and height requirements. This includes openly threatening additional environmental review of transit projects due to possible SB-seventy nine impacts, openly threatening to reduce certain services along planned routes to avoid SB-seventy nine application, threatening to withdraw support for federal funding applications due to opposition to SB 79 requirements.
Speaker 1
When local support becomes uncertain, the consequences are very real: Project delays, higher construction costs, and reduced competitiveness for federal infrastructure funds. SB thirteen sixty three is a narrow, practical bill to address the issue. It does not change existing s b 79 housing standards. It simply ensures that local governments cannot take certain actions just to avoid SB 79 density or height requirements at existing or planned transit stops. Specifically, it prohibits requesting a transit provider reduce service so a stop no longer qualifies, conditioning approval or review of a transit project based on concerns about additional height or density, or withholding support for a federal funding application on that basis.
At the same time, transit decisions should continue to be based on legitimate planning considerations, such as safety, station design, traffic flow, pedestrian access, construction mitigation, and neighborhood connectivity. Not opposition tied solely to s p 79 height or density standards. It is my hope and expectation that most local jurisdictions will not need to use this bill. I believe that planning can and should be cooperative at the local level. I also know that we can't relitigate current law at the expense of public transit.
And when that happens, we need to step in. This is also a jobs bill for workers and communities. What's at stake is not abstract. The bottom line is this, s b thirteen sixty one protects transit investments, protects jobs, and protects taxpayer funded infrastructure from avoidable disruption. With me today, I have two witnesses, Madeleine Moore, deputy executive officer from LA Metro, and Keith Dunn, Building and Con oh, that's not Keith.
Speaker 29
witnesses. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here today to speak in support of SB thirteen sixty one. L.
A. Metro is leading the nation's largest capital program, investing $120,000,000,000 over the next forty years. These projects are critical to serving our customers, 89% of whom are very low income and 85% of whom are transit dependent. L. A.
Metro works closely with cities to secure competitive funding and build transit projects throughout the region. We have a long history of working cooperatively with municipalities on issues such as utility relocation, bus lane infrastructure, and transit signal priority. However, we believe that SB 79 is threatening our transit progress by creating unintended consequences in Los Angeles County. By linking increased density and development standards to both existing and planned transit stops, opposition is forming against transit capital projects themselves. We are already seeing this on the ground locally.
Speaker 28
Local jurisdictions and stakeholder groups that otherwise support transit are expressing resistance to rail and bus rapid transit projects. SB thirteen sixty one removes the ability for objections to be made to transit projects on the basis of opposition to increased density requirements in SB 79. I thank you for your time and look forward to taking any questions.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Co Chair. Members of the committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. As my colleague Keith Dunn said in the last committee hearing on this bill, can't have transit without housing, can't have housing without transit. Is transit planning, transit funding is years in the making, and it was not envisioned that SB79 would be used in this way.
Speaker 24
It's, frankly, preposterous that, as the author stated, some local governments may be reconsidering their support of federal transit dollars to build much needed transit stops and build out our existing transit system. I can't believe we're here today having to do this bill, but here we are. I look at these transit stops much the same way we all here in this building look at the build out of public infrastructure before a planned housing development. The curbs, the sewers, the sidewalks, they go in and then along comes the developer to build the housing. These transit stops are similar.
Speaker 5
We're going to put the infrastructure in to move people to and from where they live to where they work. These stops need to be built as they're planned to be built, and we do not need to walk away from federal funding or any funding, especially in this day and age, when it comes to building out our transit system. So for those reasons, we're happy to support the bill today. We're glad that the Senator brought this bill, and we're sorry that we had to be here to clean this up. But here we are.
So thank you. Urgent I vote.
Speaker 3
Thank you. And any opposition main witnesses? Okay. If there any me too supporters Opposition me too supporters? You can come forward.
Speaker 17
Sofia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council. We are removing opposition.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Any other? If not, I want to bring it to our senators. Any questions? Okay.
Senator Arrigan.
Speaker 25
Thank you. Well, I want to thank the author and her staff in LA Metro for their work on this bill. This first came to the Senate Housing Committee, and I strongly share the concerns that she had expressed about actions that local governments are taking to stop planned transit projects. That's not what we want. It's bad for our climate goals.
It's bad for our efforts to build more housing and sustainable communities, and really appreciate the thoughtful work that wins this bill to have it focus on addressing that particular issue while making sure we can continue the work that we started last year with SB 79. So thank you very much. I strongly support the bill for all the reasons stated. I believe I'm being added as a coauthor, and I move the bill at the appropriate time.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay. If not, is there any motion? Okay.
Senator Arrigan made the motion, would you please close your statement?
Speaker 1
Yes. You know, I'm so proud of what LA Metro and all the partners have done up to date, and they did this without a a bill or legislation being passed to require them to do it. They've been working on it and using our tax dollars in such a way that it's build up trust. Our our voters, our residents of the county just very much appreciate and respect all all the work that the way it's been done connecting housing and and transit. So we we were doing this before any bill required us to do it, and I just wanted to continue that good work.
And, unfortunately, there's a a hitch along the way, but we're doing it now. And so I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3
Okay. With that, senator Ergen has made the motion, and, please, call the roll.
Speaker 2
The motion is due. Pass as amended to the senate floor. Senator D'Arazo. Aye. D'Arzo, aye.
Choi? No. Choi, no. Arrigine? Aye.
Arrigine, aye. Ashby? Cervantes?
Speaker 2
Starting with the consent calendar, the motion is to adopt the consent calendar, which consists of file item number eight s b eleven eighty seven, file item 10 s b thirteen eighty eight. Senators Arrigine? Aye. Arrigine, aye. Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye.
Seven zero.
Speaker 2
File item number one, s b nine eighty three. The motion is due passed to the senate floor. The current vote is two to two with the chair voting aye. Senators Aragin?
Speaker 2
Aragin, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes?
Aye. Cervantes, aye. Five to two. Yes.
Speaker 2
File item number two, s b nine nine two. The motion is due passed to the senate floor. The current vote is five zero with the chair voting aye. Senators Arrigan? Aye.
Arrigan aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Okay.
Seven zero?
Speaker 2
File item number three, s b 1115. The motion is due passed to the senate floor. The current vote is six zero with the chair voting aye. Senator Ashby? Aye.
Ashby, aye. Seven zero.
Speaker 2
item number 4, s B1193. The motion is due passed as amended to the senate floor. The current vote is five zero with the chair voting aye. Senators Ashby? Aye.
Ashby, aye. Laird? Six zero? On call.
Speaker 2
File item number 5SB1256. The motion is due passed as amended to the senate floor. The current vote is six zero with the chair voting aye. Senators Ashby? Aye.
Ashby, aye. Seven zero. The
Speaker 17
File item number 7SB1383. The motion is due passed to the senate floor. The current vote is three to one. Senators with the chair voting aye, senators Choi. Ashby?
Speaker 2
File item number 9SB1361. The motion is due passed as amended to the senate floor. The current vote is three to two with the chair voting aye. Senators Ashby? Aye.
Ashby, aye. Laird? Four two.
Speaker 1
The vote is four two and on call. That's it. Okay. We're gonna take a three minute recess.
Speaker 2
File item number 4SP1193. The motion is due passed as amended to the senate floor. The current vote is six zero with the chair voting aye. Senators Laird?
Speaker 2
File item number seven, s b thirteen eighty three. The motion is due passed to the senate floor. The current vote is four to one. Senators Laird?
Speaker 2
The file item number nine, s b thirteen sixty one, the motion is due pass as amended to the senate floor. The current vote is four to two with the chair voting aye. Senators Laird?
Speaker 1
Yeah. Okay. So we have permission for her. Okay. We will we are resuming from recess, and we're moving now to item six, s p twelve seventy two.
Senator Aragine is gracious enough to present on behalf of Senator Mengevar.
Speaker 25
Go ahead. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of Senator Mengevar, I'm pleased to present SB twelve seventy two. And the Senator wishes to appreciate the committee's work on this bill, and she is accepting the committee amendments. This bill, the C.
A. S. H. Act, Curbing Abusive Sanctions on Homeowners Act, seeks to help keep costs predictable for homeowners as a way to address the state's growing affordability challenges. Due to no fault of their own, homeowners are currently being unfairly penalized for renovations or alterations that were done on the property by the previous owners without any disclosure of said work that has now been identified as a result of a violation or investigation.
Speaker 4
Existing law does require local governments to provide a reasonable cure period for violations that do not pose a danger to anyone's health or safety. What is deemed reasonable is left to the discretion of local governments to decide. Unfortunately, this means that the cure periods that homeowners are subjected to are often too short for compliance when balancing all the priorities and challenges of everyday life. The amendments would require local governments to provide six months to remedy a violation that does not pose a danger to health or safety if specified conditions are met, including that the violation is located on a residential property that is owner occupied, requiring a homeowner to submit an affidavit that they were not aware of the violation, nor committed the violation itself, and providing the transfer disclosure statement, or TDS, as evidence requiring local governments to provide an additional extension of up to six months if homeowners show good faith that they're trying to resolve the violation, and is a big step forward for consumer protection. It also allows local governments to provide an additional extension of an additional six months at their own discretion if actions are being taken and the homeowners are demonstrating good faith.
Speaker 25
I are there any witnesses in support of the bill? No witnesses. At the appropriate time, respectfully ask for an I vote. On behalf of Senator Mengewehr.
Speaker 1
Okay. So no witnesses in support. Any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Good morning.
You will each have two minutes.
Speaker 13
Good oh. Morning, chair. Mark Neuberger with the California State Association of Counties providing testimony also on behalf of rural county representatives of California. Our coalition is currently opposed to the version of bill in print, but we appreciate the author's collaboration, and we look forward to reviewing the amended language. While our concerns with the bill in print are outlined in our letter and reflect the analysis, we're committed to our ongoing work with the author to strike the right balance of bringing about the joys of homeownership and preserving local government ability to effectively enforce housing and safety laws.
I want to also thank the committee staff for their assistance with the bill as well.
Speaker 17
Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, aligned with the statement just given by our affiliates at CSAC. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to SB twelve seventy two?
Speaker 28
On behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, hoping that the amendments make it much better. And, thank you for the substitute author. Okay.
Speaker 1
Nobody else in opposition? Come to the dais. Questions? Comments? Motion?
Let's let's let's drill him.
Speaker 1
Do we have a motion? Motion. Motion made by senator Cervantes. Yep. Call the vote.
Speaker 2
The motion is due pass as amended to the senate floor. Senators D'Arrozzo?
Speaker 2
D'Arzo, aye. Choi? Araghin? Aye. Araghin, aye.
Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye.
Cervantes, aye. Laird?
Speaker 1
So what was 50? And the bill is out. Okay. I just need my closing. Okay.
Thank you all to participate in the public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Local Gov Committee. Your comments and suggestions are very important to us. Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Thank you to my colleagues for your patience and cooperation.
And we've concluded the agenda. The senate committee on local government is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.