Senate Standing Committee on Education

Before you hear a presentation on the bills, let us establish a quorum. We do not have a quorum. We will start as a subcommitee. We will skip all of that. And let us start with the first bill. First Bill is SB 98 from Senator Portantino. Good morning, Senator Portantino. Welcome. Please proceed when ready.

Morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. It's good to be back in Committee.

It's good to have you here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. SB 98 will provide additional funding to local educational agencies based on an average daily enrollment instead of average daily attendance. Enrollment based funding ensures equity in how our schools are funded and also makes it easier for districts to plan their budgets and operations. California has calculated school funding used on attendance method for decades. Average daily attendance is always equal to or less than enrollment because students may be absent, whether excused or unexcused.

Besides, California is the only other state that uses this attendance based funding model, include Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. God loved those states. But I don't know if we want to be funding the same way that they Fund in those states. Most states base school funding on the average enrollment, referred to as average daily membership, which is a more equitable way to do attendance. It's a better method. In fact, schools that serve low income families are disproportionately impacted by financially penalizing schools for poor attendance.

Basically, a school has to budget their year based on the number of kids that are enrolled, and then throughout the year, as people are absent, we take money away from those schools, but the costs stay the same. So why are we penalizing schools when we should be helping them? We see funding in our education system. Though last year was a fantastic year, we still need to do better. This is a better way to do it, and that's why most states use this method.

SB 98 attempts to fix this issue by allowing school districts to receive additional funding using the difference between their funding based on attendance under the LCFF and what they would receive based on enrollment. We also want to make sure that there's accountability built into the bill, which there is. We want to make sure that we go after chronic truit absences. We want to make sure that we incentivize being in class, which we do. The bill does.

And so we think it not only is an equitable way to do this, but also more accountable way to do this. It's got incentives. With me today, we have our state superintendent, who's going to be our key witness. We also have Mr. Myers from the California School Employees Association, and I'm sure a number of other folks are here to advocate. So, Mr. Superintendent, please come on up.

And good morning. Superintendent of Public instruction, Mr. Tony Thurmond. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you Senator Portantino. Pleased to be here. As a sponsor of SB 98 and to speak to why we think it's important, I would echo and plus one all the things that you heard from the senator right now about why this is so important to school districts. I spent about 10 years working with school districts where chronic absenteeism is one of our toughest issues.

It is an issue that we can improve, but what's never been lost on me is that there is a built in incentive to help our schools do more around reducing chronic absenteeism. They simply lose money every single time a student is not present in school, for whatever reason, whether they're sick or there are other transportation issues, they lose money.

And so switching to a system that focuses on enrollment addresses that need for school districts, and it also addresses the need to bring equity into the conversation for our schools. Having worked in school based mental health and other programs, I've learned the reason kids miss school often has to do with health. Asthma in many of our counties is one of the number one reasons. If there are any disruptions in the family, from poverty to transportation, anything that you can imagine becomes an issue.

Earlier this year, I was knocking on doors with some school district leaders, the families of kids who were chronically absent. The number one thing I heard mental health needs were the reasons that many students weren't coming to school.

What I appreciate about SB 98 is that not only does it create a more equitable way to Fund attendance by moving to enrollment, but the 30% of the funds being used to help districts with the programs they need to do outreach, to do support, to work with families to get them back into school. It's a thoughtful piece of legislation. It is critical for our schools, and I respectfully ask for your. I vote on SB 98.

Thank you, Superintendent.

Good morning, chair, Committee Members. My name is Chris Myers. I'm representing the California School Employees Association who represents over 250,000 classified school employees across California. And both the Senator and the superintendent basically said everything I was going to cover. Except I do want to mention that for us, this is an equity issue. We talk a lot about schools not getting the funds that they need, but it's really the kids that are in attendance at these schools that aren't getting the programs and services that they need.

And I just do want to mention we do have a lot of co sponsors on this Bill, some which are reflected in the analysis and some weren't. So, of course, we have the superintendent, we have LAUSD, AFSME, CFT, Genup, SEIU, State Council, and the Teamsters. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anybody here to speak in opposition.

Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District. We are proud co sponsors of this bill and ask for your support.

Thank you. I'm sorry. Other witnesses in support, please.

Mr. Chair and senator. Adam Kegwin, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Kegwin. Anybody else here in the Committee room in support? Good morning.

Shannon Primer, Special Education Paralegal who represents mental health kids. I support.

Thank you.

Paula Hauzaski, a teacher for Hemet Unified School District and I support. Thank you.

Thank you. We are going to take teleconference witnesses combined at the end so everybody knows now we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Is there anybody who here to speak in opposition to the bill? Welcome.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Darren Waters. I currently serve as the Vice Chair of the Legislative Committee for the California Association of School Business Officials, or CASBO. We represent over 24,000 school business leaders in k-14 education, and we regretfully oppose Senate Bill 98. Our concerns stem from how this bill would create a new formula to distribute resources in a manner that can create unintended consequences for LEAs, including winners and losers or districts receiving less funding than they're currently getting.

The bill would provide additional funding to LEAS with lower attendance rates without any state or County Office of Education analysis or review prior to distribution of funds to determine that LEAs with high chronic absenteeism rates have made strides in reducing their chronic absenteeism and or rates. Nor does it provide for the ability to reduce staff according to need and statistical gains in reducing chronic absenteeism. The maintenance of effort component creates an autopilot expenditure plan with no consideration of. Need.

And then, as we all know, Prop 98 is roughly 40% of the budget and it represents the whole pie. There will be winners and there will be losers. And the question is, where within that 40% does the extra $3 billion come from?

As we know, CDE has estimated that this will cost approximately $3 billion Prop 98. We do recognize that the author and sponsors are interested in resolving the discrepancy that can be created due to funding based on an ADA system in which LEAs have to ensure that every student, regardless of their attendance record, has an educator, classroom space, instructional materials, and equipment to attend school. We also understand the current system does not provide for such resolution.

Instead, we recommend that you conduct an enrollment based funding studies that accounts for federal and state programs that are dependent on ADA information creates a minimum funding threshold to protect small school districts with low enrollment numbers reviews basic aid districts, which generate funds through local property taxes instead of the LCFF, and assesses how these districts monitor and establish accountability metrics for attendance purposes. Review other geographically and demographically similar states on their accountability system for enrollment based funding and this bill does not address growth districts.

There are a few of us still out there, and as currently written, with a mid year growth that does happen throughout the year, especially after Christmas, a district would not receive the additional funding it needed until after the following fiscal year, after you've already had to hire in staff for it. Thank you for your time this morning, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have another lead witness in opposition? Seeing none. Let us go to the teleconference line. Ms. Moderator thank you. I'm sorry. I am sorry. We've got a late arrival. Please welcome.

Hi. Thank you. Sorry I ran over here. I'm running a little late. So. CTA Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association. CTA does not have an official position on the bill, but we did want to just raise some issues concerns with the bill. We do appreciate the intent and understand what the bill is trying to do. But we do raise a couple of issues. Just one. As noted in the analysis, the bill does not provide more funding for education, but reallocates existing Prop 98 resources.

We do have some questions just around, will this adequately hold school districts accountable for attendance? And then concerns with the reduction of overall Prop 98. If we don't hold them accountable, we could reduce the overall amount of Prop 98, since that uses ADA to calculate total Prop 98. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Hardeman. Are there any other people here in the committee room want to testify in opposition? If so, please come forward. State your name, your organization and your position.

A good morning. Christophe Mair with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. Apologies, also running late this morning. We are a proud co sponsor of this bill.

Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Mair.

Hello. Sierra Cook, San Diego Unified. Also running late. We are in support of this bill. Thank you.

Points off your test for being late, but otherwise, much appreciated. Anybody in opposition? Okay, let's move on to the teleconference line. So a moderator, if you would, please prompt. Individuals waiting to testify in either support or opposition to the Bill. This is a change for the pandemic, and so if you are waiting to testify, please, your name, your organization, and your position on the Bill.

And please press 10 at this time. And first we can go to line number 16. Please go ahead.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU, a proud co sponsor.

Give us just a moment here. We got one more in queue. And we can go to line eight. Please go ahead.

Good morning, chair and members. Shirley Down, on behalf of California School Board Association. Opposed. Thus amended. We look forward to working with the author to be able to get those amendments. And thanks so much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses?

Again, that's 1 0. And none further at this time.

I appreciate it. So thank you to all of our support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to the members. Let me start, Senator Portantino. So, as the analysis and as some of the witnesses pointed out, this does have an impact, especially as it intersects with Prop 98, which is a difference between California and many other states. So how should we think about how can we address the shortfall and the fiscal impact?

I think it's the right question to ask, Mr. Chair. And it's always been my intention to make sure that there are no winners and losers, that there's only winners. We hold school districts harmless, which we've done over the past several years, is we've recognized the impact that enrollment has had on school funding. The pandemic has devastated attendance numbers. And so we want to make sure that there's a hold harmless provision in the bill.

We want to bring additional funding, and we think that that's what this is going to ultimately do. I mean, look at the impact of LA Unified. That's why they're here as a co sponsor of this bill, that it's going to have a positive benefit. But we also want to make sure that those smaller districts don't have a negative impact.

So we're building that safeguard into the bill, and we look forward to having the conversation because that's our intention is to increase school funding, not decrease school funding.

And I appreciate, you know, there's a similar implication as it relates to the LCFF and the sort of continual tweaks that we make in the LCFF. So how do we square that against the current approach with the equity multiplier within the LCFF?

Well, I think that's one of the things that we're going to work through both through the Budget Committee and both through the appropriations process. These are the issues that have to be worked out as this bill moves forward. I mean, that's the intent behind it. And we think also, as Mr. Myers talked about having some accountability built into the bill, frankly, some of the opposition or some of the concern is people want there to be 100% discretion with it.

And we think some piece of this should go directly to truancy efforts. And we think that is a good spirit to keep as part of this. And so we're negotiating those points.

And so with respect to the truancy efforts, and I do appreciate both you and the superintendent did emphasize the challenges with truism, especially coming out of the pandemic. Clearly, there's a bunch of drivers there. Does that emphasis, does that the maintenance of effort with 30% ongoing spending requirement on absenteeism and truancy, there's some concern that that would create a new categorical. Correct categorical program. So how should we think about that?

Well, I think it's easy to call it a new categorical program. I prefer to call it accountability. I mean, it's all in the name. But the point is we recognize that when you change from an attendance based model to an enrollment based model, there are going to be folks who think that that's going to disincentivize attendance. And we want to make sure that that's not the case.

We want to make sure that a part of this new money goes towards truancy efforts, whether it's 30% or a different number. That's obviously going to be negotiated as the bill progresses through the process. But I think it's an important point, important policy to keep as part of the framework of this bill. What the appropriate number is, can be debated. But the concept, I think, is important.

I appreciate that. So I'm going to open up to members, and then before we complete or after Senator Portantino closes, we've got two administrative items that we'll cover. We're going to get a quorum and also vote on the committee rules. But other Members questions to the Senator. You've done an excellent job. There's no questions. A good question. What bill is this? That's fair. Welcome to Senator Wilk,

It's your mother in law's favorite politician bill.

Actually, that, in fact, is true.

Every chance I get. For the record, I am his mother in law's favorite politician, just so you all know. Okay, that has been verified.

All right, let's do this then. Let's establish a quorum. Give folks a chance to get only the late dance. So, Madam Secretary, if you could please call the role.

[Roll Call]

All right, second admin detail, if we could, to establish the committee rules. This is our first meeting of the year without objection. Any objections to establishing the committee rules as specified? None. Madam Secretary, please call the role on that.

[Roll Call]

All right, last admin detail to reaffirm the committee's policy on curriculum as we do year to year. Any objections to reaffirming that policy? Seeing none, Madam Secretary. Thank you. Please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so we want to do it's consent. We'll do that. Can we do that after Senator Portantino. Let him close? Let's not do that.

So, having bought some time. It's mother in law, though, right? I'm not sure that doesn't get you the same amount of traction. So, any questions from Senator Portantino? Thank you. If you'd like to close.

I would like to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. And know, obviously, from my perspective, and I know that's why all of you sit on this committee, public education is our primary responsibility. I think, as shepherds of our state. And when we have an opportunity to improve how we fund public education, I think we should take that opportunity. And we've seen that most states use this model. And frankly, California traditionally has been a leader on public policy.

It's been a leader on so many things, and in this case, we're not. And I think we have to correct that. And I appreciate the superintendent being here. Again, the person who's in charge of the state shepherding education and all of the different aspects of that sees the merit of it. We have LA Unified, and we're all seeing what's going on in La unified right now. And again, it comes down to resources.

And I appreciate them being here to make that perspective, because this would help them. I respectfully disagree with some of the opposition on winners and losers, because I don't think that is the ultimate goal and not the case. But we have to figure out a way to shift to this model. It is just a better way of doing things. And when we have an opportunity to do something better, we should take it.

And it's not a mystery that it's better because we see it working in other states. And again, part of innovation is to see what other people are doing well and then do it. And that's what we see here. Other states are doing this better than us, and we should use that example, and we should do it. So I respectfully ask for an eye vote.

Thank you. So, this does raise some fiscal challenges, but fortunately, we do have good people on appropriations or chairs. Recommendations do pass appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Is there a motion? I'm sorry. Thank you, Senator Glazer. We have a motion for Senator Glazer. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

SB 98 by Senator Portantino. The motion is do passed, but first be re referred to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

I will leave that open. Current vote count is five to one. We'll leave that open. Senator Portantino, back for SB 234, opioid antagonist. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. SB 234 would require schools, colleges and campuses, stadiums, concert venues, amusement parks in our state to maintain unexpired doses of narcan and various other names of the same important opioid fighting treatment. We saw a spike in adolescent death rates from opioid overdoses from 2019 to 2020, nearly doubling. And we've continued to see this alarming increase. I don't know about, I'm sure all of you have received those painful phone calls from parents and family members who have lost somebody to this horrible scourge. It was found that 20% of the 42 Bay Area school districts reported not having narcan readily available on their school campuses. It's crucial that we place narcan in spaces frequently accessed by Californians, given the severe risk posed by our state's growing opioid crisis. It's a medication with the potential to save a life. It really does help. Again, we have the ability to help. We know that states that have implemented distribution programs have seen a reduction in death rates. By following this approach, this bill will help equip schools with the resources they need. We've all been in places that have defibrillators. We've seen that the state mandated that they're available and they save lives. This is a similar concept, by having it available not just on school sites, but places that our young people congregate, we're going to save lives through this. So I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. We have Adrienne Shilton from the California alliance of Child and Family Services and Kim Stone from the California District Attorneys Association to testify in support.

Welcome, Ms. Shilton. Please proceed.

Thank you, chair and members, Adrienne Shilton. I represent the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. We represent 160 nonprofit, community based organizations across California who are providing services and supports to children, youth, and families in public human services systems, and that includes behavioral health and child welfare, juvenile justice and education. And we are proud to support SB 234 today. Our members are serving students in various settings across the state and recognize the need to have life saving medications such as naloxone available on school campuses. And we have existing law in California that authorizes each public and private elementary and secondary school to determine whether or not to make emergency naloxone and train personnel available on its school campuses. However, due to the availability of opioids and the impact of youth across the state, we believe that we must take further precautions to prepare for potential overdoses in our communities. The opioid crisis, as has been stated, has been heightened, and we are seeing deaths linked to opioid overdoses at alarming rates. So, for example, the California Department of Public Health has reported a total of 6843 deaths related to overdose in the past year, up from 5500 in 2020. So we must have naloxone, more commonly referred to as narcan, more readily available in schools and other venues to significantly reduce opioid related overdose deaths. So SB 234, from our perspective, will better equip California to respond to our opioid crisis and will make critical medication available to those experiencing overdose. So for those reasons, we are proud to support SB 234 today.

Thank you, Ms. Shilton. Next, Ms. Stone, welcome.

Good morning, chair and members, thank you to the author for his leadership. The California District Attorneys Association is in support of SB 234. Fentanyl, as you probably know, is a synthetic opioid 50 to 300 times stronger than morphine, .007% of an ounce can be fatal. Fentanyl kills currently more people aged 18 to 45 than car crashes, gunshots, suicides, or last year, Covid-19 deaths. And youth deaths, that's age 24 and under, is the fastest growing section of drug caused deaths. Fentanyl is cheaper than other street drugs and is often mixed with other street drugs. So a user purchaser may not even know that they are buying fentanyl. You've probably heard the story of Zach Didier, a 17 year old teenager from Rockland who bought on social media platform Snapchat a single pill he thought was Percocet for pain relief at the food, met the dealer at the food court at a local mall. His parents found him dead in his bedroom two days after Christmas. He was a student athlete, a soccer player, an Eagle Scout, in the school musical, and a piano player. Had no idea he was ingesting fentanyl. Now, naloxone is a nasal spray opioid antagonist that you use, like I use flonase every morning, and it can rapidly counter fentanyl overdoses. This common sense measure, although my client believes other measures are also necessary to address the fentanyl crisis in California, we believe this is a common sense harm reduction measure that will save lives, and we urge your support.

Thank you, Ms. Stone, are there any other witnesses in the committee hearing room would like to testify in support of the measure? If so, your name, your organization, your position, please.

Tara Gamboa Eastman with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Thank you.

Zachariah Wooden with the Student Center for California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you, sir.

Shannon Primer, on behalf of myself and Tasha Hamilton, who has a child who's used drugs on a campus, I'm in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Wendy Brill Wynkoop from the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

Andrew Govenar, on behalf of the San Francisco 49ers and the Five California Baseball Teams, we apologize for not getting a letter in sooner. We're support if amend, and we appreciate the sender working with us on some clarifying language. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Govenar.

Paula Hozowski, teacher for Hemet Unified School District. And we support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses in support in the committee hearing room, we will move on to opposition. Any lead witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Any witnesses at all in opposition. Excellent. Let's move now to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please prompt anybody wishing to testify both in support and in opposition to the bill. And again, if you're on the phone, please just your name, your organization, your position.

And thank you very much. And it is 1-0 at this time, so please press 1-0. Go to line number nine, please go ahead.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez of the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Thank you.

And currently, none further in queue.

Thank you. Let's bring it back to the Committee hearing room. So, Senator Portantino, this is a good and necessary bill, glad to support it. Any other members like to speak on the bill? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Thank you. I just had a couple of questions for Senator Portantino. I'm in support of the bill. I just want to make sure that I have some questions answered. With regards to the number of doses being required at the different venues, whether it's the colleges or the sports or concert venues. Well, let me preface the first question. What is the time. What is the time that the naloxone needs to be administered so it can be effective.

As soon as possible.

Okay. Do we have a time estimate? And the reason for my question is that when we're speaking with regards to really large venues, there has to be some time that has to be considered in which it has to reach the person that is being helped. So I'm just kind of curious as to.

I'm sorry. What we've built into the bill is that at all times on those sites there has to be at least two people who know where it is. The point you're making is if there's an emergency, you can't have somebody who doesn't know where to go or what to do or how to get it. And so we're requiring, on site at least two personnel at each of those sites has to be knowledgeable of how to implement, has to know where it is, has to know how to get it as quickly as possible. So you're right, if it's on one end of a venue, and some of the logistics are key to the success, but part of it is making sure that the people on that site know where it is, know how to implement it, and know how to administer it as quickly as possible.

That was the concern that I had, just to make sure that it gets to the person tended within a timely manner. And of course, that's going to vary depending on where, the logistical part of the venue. So keeping that in mind and making sure that we have that within the bill. And then the cost more towards the schools, I have no idea what this cost to have. I can't imagine being that expensive. But are we providing any funding for these schools to be able to provide this or the training?

So the Governor in January put in 79 million for distribution. There's also 3.5 million was allocated of Prop 98, money ongoing for middle and high school sites to maintain the doses. And then there's 10 million was for fentanyl programs, and another 4 million was allocated for support approaches. So within the current budget, there are resources to help schools offset the costs. Many schools are already doing it. What we're trying to do is also add those other private venues as well. And so there is money in the budget to help implement it and make us an efficient rollout.

Wonderful. Well, if I'm not already a co author, would like to be added as a co author on this bill, be happy to have. And I will move the bill when time is appropriate.

Appreciate that. Members, any other questions for Senator Porntino? No, Senator Portantino, if you'd like to close.

As we all know, this is a problem. And as the district attorneys mentioned, needs multiple solutions. And treating the emergency is, frankly, an after the fact treatment, but it's one that's necessary. We should be looking at the upstream problems as well, and then dealing with these crisis as quickly and efficiently and as safely as possible. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Appreciate that. We have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

The motion is do pass, but first be re referred to the Committee on Health. [Roll Call]

All right, thank you. We are midway through the Portantino show, and we'll put that bill on call for now. So next up is SB 445. I understand for this bill, we'll be using a translator. Senator Portino, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the co authors, who will be added to the bill in the next committee. I'm presenting SB 445, which requires local education agencies to provide a student parent with a copy of a completed IEP within 30 days of being requested in their native language, as well as require the IEP to be translated. The bill also requires CDE to revise its notice procedure safeguards in order to inform parents of their right to request the translation of the document. Frankly, just imagine being a parent with a child that requires an IEP that needs help, and you get this document and you can't read it because it's not in your native language. How do you advocate for your child? How do you help them? I mean, it's tough enough to get through the system when you're knowing what's on the document, when you have an army of folks around you to help you. And I just think we should make it available in multiple languages as quickly as possible and help kids get through the system as efficiently and nurturing as possible. And so that's what the heart of the mill does. With me, we have Maritza Ochoa, who is a member of the Disability Rights California Board of directors, and Sharon Primer. I don't know if it's Primer or Primer, that's my bad, from Educate Advocate, who are here to speak in favor of the Bill.

Welcome, Ms. Ochoa.

Buenos días a todos, mi nombre es Maritza Ochoa, soy Latina y tengo un hijo con necesidades especiales. Él se llama Alex, tiene 12 anos de edad, y esta recibiendo educación especial.

Good morning. I am Maritza Ochoa. I am Latin and I have a child with special needs. His name is Alex, he's 12 years old and he's receiving a special education.

Como inmigrante, ha sido muy dificil navigar el sistema educativo. Siendo el idioma ingles unas de las principales barreas ... para poder ayudar a mi hijo a conseguir servicios por parte de el distrito escolar.

As an immigrant, it has been very hard to navigate the system, the educational system being in English. This is one of the principal barriers to break, it's a barrier that has to be stopped to be able to help my child get the services from the school district.

Uno de los retos mas grandes es el conseguir que se traduzcan los IEPs de mi hijo en mi lengua natal en un lapso de un mes. Ya que la mayoría de las ocasiones ha llegado tardarse hasta 6 meses, dejándome sin saber realment que servicios mi hijo va a recibir.

One of the biggest challenges that I have is to get to an IEP translated into my language, into my native language within a month. Because most of the cases they have taken about six months, leaving me without knowing what is really happening and what kind of services my child is going to receive.

Como si eso no fuera suficiente, e recibido una constante presión para que firme el IEP porqué de otra manera mi hijo no podrá recibir dichos servicios hasta que el documento esta firmado.

And if that weren't enough, I have received a constant pressure to sign the IEP. Otherwise my child would not be able to receive the services that are offered until the document is being signed.

Así que como ha resultado, muchas veces ha tenido que firmar mi IEP sin saber lo que se dice en él. Si yo pudiera leer mi IEP en mi idioma en un lapso de un mes, yo pudría identificar que tipos de programas educativos, emocionales, y medicos presenta, y asi poder abogar por los servicios que mi hijo necesita.

As a result, many times I have had to sign my IEP contract without knowing what says. If I could read the IEP, in Alex's my son and my language within a month, I could identify the type of problems, educational problems, emotional and medical, that he presents. Therefore, being able to advocate for the services, the adequate services that he needs.

That way I could have more knowledge of the evaluations and if he needs more modifications or accommodations that may be damaging and that we can fix it on time.

Alex y yo merecemos a ver lo que le espera en su ano escolar al igual que las de mas familias que están bajo en la misma condición que nosotros. Si hay also que no se seto en cuenta, poder actuar de forma inmediata.

Alex and I deserve to know what is waiting for him throughout the school year and the families that are in the same situation as we are. We deserve to have this, and if there's something that they are not taking into account, we can act immediately.

Solo quiero pedirles que también asi como ustedes pueden leer sus documentos que para ustedes son importantes, lo mismo es para todas las familias que el ingles no es nuestro primer idioma. Por esta razón, les pido hoy que apoyan la propuesta SB 445, gracias por darme este espacio.

I only want to ask you that as you can read the documents in your language and the documents that are important for you in your language is the same for us and all the families who do not speak English as the first language. For this reason, I ask you to please support the Bill 445, thank you for providing this space for me.

Thank you Ms. Ochoa, and thank you for the translation. Next lead witness.

Good morning chair and members of the Senate Education Committee, I am Shannon Primer of Educate Advocate. We are a statewide, grassroots, nonprofit organization that serves families with exceptional needs and a co sponsor of SB 445. As a parent of three students who qualified for special education programs and whose native language is English, I found the process very difficult to navigate. I attended the University of San Diego's law School education advocacy class to learn about special education, parental, and student rights for my children.

And thank you, Ms. Primer. Any other witnesses here in the Committee room wishing to testify in support of the measure. Welcome your name, your organization, and your position, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California. We're a proud sponsor of the Bill. I'm also a parent of a child in special education and I support thank you.

Thank you.

Jennifer Wada, on behalf of Ed Voice in support.

Kristy Sepulveda Burchit on behalf of Educate Advocate and we're in strong support and a co sponsor. Thank you

Paige Clark on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in strong support.

Quentin Lebec on behalf of California Health Coalition Advocacy in support.

Paula Hauzaski on behalf of educate advocate and a parent of special needs children, I support.

Mr. Chair and Senators Adam Kegwin, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association. Apologies for not getting our letter in in time, but we're in strong support.

Appreciate that. Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition who'd like to speak as the lead witness in opposition of the measure, seeing none of the committee room is anybody in the committee room would like to testify in opposition at all? Very well. Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please prompt anybody wishing to testify either in support or in opposition to the measure by phone.

Thank you. Again, please press 1-0 at this time. I'll go to line number nine. Please go ahead.

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in support.

And give me just a moment here. Got one more on hold here just a second. And we'll go to line number 19. Please. Go ahead.

Daniel Savino, Association of Regional Center Agencies also in support.

Anybody else on the teleconference line?

Currently none in queue.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Any members of the committee wishing to speak on the bill? Vice Chair, click first. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

A couple of questions on this. Though I support the measure with regards to having the documents being translated, I'm looking at the logistical part of it for the school districts. I wanted to first ask Ms. Ochoa, what school district does your child attend?

Lodi.

Lodi district. Okay. Depending on the school district, do we have enough qualified translators to be able to be hired by school districts to meet this requirement? Because that's one of the biggest factors that I have seen with programs not being able to be implemented within school districts, because I believe school districts are required to translate documents for parents. But I'm trying to figure out how many of these school districts do not have the personnel to be able to meet the need, and it's not whether or not they don't want to, but it's the fact that they don't have the ability to fulfill this requirement.

I believe there is enough resources out there to adequately meet a mandate like this. I do think school districts have a challenge, and I do think, unfortunately, it leads to the delays. And I think by forcing the issue, we're going to make sure that it gets done. And I think there's enough translators out there, and we're limiting it to the top eight languages in a particular district. And so we think that's also prudent. But I do think the resources are out there to accommodate, and I think if we don't, you never get back first grade. You never get back second grade. We have to do everything we can to make these translations available. Is it going to be easy? No, and I respect the question, but I think it's something that we have to do.

And are the school districts now already required to.

They're required to translate, but not in a timely manner. They don't have to do it within 30 days, and so they don't, as you know, things get pushed back.

And are we giving them time to be able to make sure that they have the personnel to translate?

I don't know what the implementation date is. Do we know what the implementation date is?

And what happens if we don't have someone capable of.

We don't have punitive measures in it.

Okay, so what are the measures?

The teeth are. If you require it, they're going to do it. But right now, we're not penalizing them for not doing it, but we're requiring them to do it. And again, once first grade is over, first grade is over.

So this is only for first and second?

No, I'm just saying you don't get those young. Oftentimes, if you do things in earlier grades, it has a bigger impact. And what I'm saying is, when those IEPs first come out for the younger kids, there's a missed opportunity if we don't take it. And so I'm not debating that it's going to be difficult, but I'm saying the benefit is worth that difficulty.

And I completely agree with you. I believe that it is a benefit. It is something. But the reality is we just want to make sure that our school districts are able to implement this policy in a timely manner, an efficient manner. Tengo una pregunta para la Señora Ochoa. Señora Ochoa, de casualidad, no tienes o no hay servicios de traduccion en su communidad que pueden ayudar a traducir esos documentos academicos?

And so, before she answers, Senator Chobag, I think the translator has departed. So you're going to have to translate the answer as well.

Perfectly. My question was, I'm also asking whether or not Ms. Ochoa has the ability to reach or have access to translating services or people that are bilingual that can help or translate these academic or IEPs for a child in her community.

No, no tenemos.

No tienen ningun servicio donde puedan traducir esos documentos en espanol?

No, y aparte tambien trabajo con muchas familias igual latinas como yo que no hablan completamente ingles y estamos en la misma circumstancia.

Sabe usted si en el escuela, que numero de personas son bilingües en el distrito escolar que tenga la capacidad de traducir los documentos?

El distrito tiene la responsabilidad, pero tardan meses hasta un ano.

Y el escuale no ofrece classes de ingles donde puedan ayudarle a traducir?

No. Y el ingles es complejo porque hay terminos técnicos, entonces para encontrar una persona culturalmente también para que les ayuda entender el idioma, también cuesta trabajo.

...Gracias por sus comentarios. I just wanted to make sure that she understood what my questions and concerns were to the author and then the other question I asked was whether or not the school districts had personnel who spoke that were bilingual, that could translate, that she could have access to other than official. And then the other question, her answer was. Sorry. Her answer was that they do have it, but with technical language in the IEP, they don't have anything.

Understood.

And then the last question that I asked her was whether or not the school district facilitated classes to teach english to help that perhaps could have the teachers be able to translate the documents. So just finding other resources within the community to be able to translate.

I appreciate that. Let me have the author speak to those issues, please.

So, one thing. Some school districts, frankly, complete these within 10 days. So some districts take inordinately longer periods of time. And what we're trying to do is create a uniform system so there's certainty for the families. Obviously, we have a multicultural state. There is numerous professionals that speak multiple languages. I think school districts will accommodate this, but we need to make sure that it's required of them to do it. And so that's what we're trying to do here.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Senator Wilk, you had a question. Go ahead.

No question, just a comment. So my wife Vanessa and I, one of our children's special needs. I believe that we are educated consumers, and even we had problems at times navigating the system. So I don't even begin to fathom the hurdles these families go through. And so I salute you for continuing to push this bill, because it is the right thing to do. So I'm definitely supportive of it. I did get a text from my mother in law who wants me to ask you if i could be added as a coauthor at the appropriate time.

And given the request came from your mother in law, I'll proudly put you on as a coauthor.

Actually, she just texted again. She said, thank you, and she said it'd be nice. And she calls you Anthony. So, I mean, you have a personal relationship. If I could be principal, co author. She wanted to know if that was possible.

Tell her anshushed, which means, of course, in Armenian. All right, worst of quest, though.

All right, everybody. Thank you for participating in this family reunion. So I've got a motion for Senator Glazer. I actually will give you an opportunity to close you. Would you like to close or Senator Porntino?

I thought you gave my. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And so, to be clear, there are amendments to ensure consistency with existing law related nonprofit charter schools. You have accepted those amendments. We have a motion from Senator Glazer. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended. The first amend and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

[Roll Call].

Next up: SB 467. I will be interested in how Senator Wilk's mother-in-law feels about this bill. Please proceed.

Well, I talked to her yesterday, but Mr. Chair and Members, today I'm presenting SB 467, my final of four bills this morning--which you should clap over that--which would prohibit a community college from denying a student access to an internship or an apprenticeship training program based on their use of an individual tax identification number when applying for these programs.

In the past, we've made great strides to increase access to education for undocumented students, making significant investments that incentivize completion and promote job placement.

The Faculty Association of California Community Colleges brought to our attention that some schools have denied admission to students in certain career technical education or workforce programs because of their immigration status, resulting in not being able to complete the program or secure the employment. In essence, we're having them come into the school and then having certain programs denied to them based on a particular type of identification.

So this bill provides an important step in correcting this inequity, ensuring that immigrant students do not present--that immigration status does not present a barrier to obtaining a higher education for all of our students. So with me today, I have Wendy Brill-Wynkoop from the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, and Zachariah Wooden from the Student Senate for Community colleges to testify in support. Go ahead.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. My name is Zachariah Wooden, and I'm the Vice President of Legislative Affairs with the Student Senate for California Community Colleges. We represent over 1.8 million students in the California Community College system. We're proud to cosponsor SB 467, which would stop the practice of certain career technical education programs from excluding undocumented students who need to use an individual tax identification number or an ITIN for background checks who are otherwise qualified to participate in the program.

With approximately--with estimated tens of thousands of undocumented students in the California Community College system, and with community colleges closely linked to the career and technical education programs that they host, this issue is closely related to us as students. When the SSCCC supported AB 595 in 2019, we believed that this would open doors for undocumented students and help fill high-demand jobs with qualified people. Yet that's not what happened.

Colleges and placement programs have used what should have been a tool for accepting more students into their programs as a way to block students based on their immigration status. Undocumented students do exist, and they're not going anywhere. Enabling them to enter allied health, nursing, building trade programs, and others requiring an individual tax identification number for a background check allows them the opportunity to increase their lifetime earning potential, building opportunity for themselves and for those that depend on them.

Higher lifetime earnings also means paying taxes and contributing even more significantly to California's economy. One of our student leaders recently described the experience of being undocumented as feeling like a ghost. You exist and you are there, but nobody ever really sees you. Again, undocumented students are here. They're talented, they want an education for jobs with life skills, and they want to work. Let's not prevent them from that because of where they come from. Show undocumented students that you can see them, and support SB 467 with an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Another lead witness? Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair Newman and Members. My name is Wendy Brill-Wynkoop. I'm the President of the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges. FACCC, along with our colleagues across the California Community College system, has joined with Members of the State Legislature for many years in supporting thousands of undocumented students in our state. These students are our neighbors, our colleagues, our friends, and they work in our communities and give back exponentially compared to what we invest in them.

In 2019, the Legislature passed legislation to allow these students to utilize an individual tax ID number for the purposes of a background check required by an internship or apprenticeship program. AB 595--by then, Assembly Member Medina broke down one of the largest barriers to entering a career technical education program or workforce initiative that these students faced at that time. These programs allowed students to dramatically increase their earning potential and improve their overall livelihood through skilled trades and advancing training needs needed to grow in their careers.

Unfortunately, despite the intentions of the Legislature and countless advocates for these students, some community college districts have programs that deny students access to CTE and workforce-based on their use of ITIN number for their background checks. The rationale is that students using an ITIN may not be able to apply his or her degree or certificate and secure a job in their intended field of study. This assumption is unfounded, and many do go on to find employment in their fields.

And unfair, this criterion is not applied to any other student population applying for these types of programs. SB 467 would prohibit these programs from utilizing the use of an ITIN number or immigration status as the basis for denying an otherwise capable student from a CTE or workforce pathway that would ultimately be the defining change in their life. We thank Senator Portantino for his important work in this space and urge your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anybody else here in the Committee room who'd like to speak on behalf of the bill? Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Roman Vogelsang with Aprea and Micheli, on behalf of the California Workforce Association and the 45 local workforce development boards across the state, here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies. On behalf of the California Community College Association for Occupational Education, we urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

Dr. Crystal Nasio from Barstow Community College, Executive Dean of Workforce Development. We support, and urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else who'd like to speak in support? Seeing none, is anybody here who'd like to speak in opposition to the measure? Also seeing none, let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please prompt individuals on the teleconference line to speak either on behalf of or in opposition to the measure. Again, your name, your organization, and your position.

Thank you. And please press one then zero at this time if you'd like to queue up in opposition or in support of. One then zero at this time. And we'll go to line number seven.

Members, Ashley Walker with Nossaman, on behalf of North Orange County Community College District, Mount San Antonio College, and Citrus College, in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

And now we go to line number nine. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, there are no further lines in queue.

Thank you. Let's bring it back to the Committee room. Members, any thoughts on this bill? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I feel like I'm talking a lot today. So questions. I know it was either last year or the year prior. Senator Skinner had a similar bill or had a bill that had to do with-- specifically--I believe it had to do with law enforcement or public safety training community colleges that led to, I believe, the FBI training or CIA. I don't quite remember the details on it, but some of the concerns that I express within that is that when you're going into public safety--

Well, before I express my concerns, clarification. What programs are denying students access to the apprenticeship programs or the careers in community colleges for students who have the TIN number? What sort of programs are we looking at that are currently denying access?

Primarily allied health and building trades.

I'm sorry?

Allied health programs and building trades.

And what's the reason behind those particular programs denying access? What are the requirements after that?

There is a background requirement for--check--for some programs, for some employment after completion of those programs, is my understanding. And based on the concern whether somebody can use an ITIN number and a background check for that employment, students are being denied access to even the training programs.

Is that for security or safety programs in be able to do the job? I'm trying to understand why the background--why are these careers requiring a background check and a TIN number?

I'm sorry. I don't know why they require them. They just do require them.

But to clarify, there are programs that require a Social Security Number where they're not allowing the ITIN number in lieu of that because the understanding is that if those people are ineligible for future employment or training, it does not make sense to make the investment at this time, right?

So that's more of the concept. It's not a safety issue. People are questioning whether they can get the employment if they complete the program, and that's the false narrative that we're trying to correct.

That's correct. Yes. So I am Former Dean of Nursing/Allied Health at many colleges in Southern California. One of the issues is that prior to even entering into the program, the students will need to do a live scan and background check which includes their Social Security Number or TIN.

Some programs are hesitant because the clinical sites or something of that nature may be hesitant to bring on a student, and so they have unfortunately, erroneously stopped those TIN students from actually entering into the programs, which cannot happen moving forward. It's not a legal requirement for employment, and so it should not stop a student going into the clinical sites.

And Mr. Chair, if I could comment?

Please.

And given our workforce needs, something that we talked about earlier, this is a cohort of folks who can help us on our workforce needs. We shouldn't be using the identification barrier to keep that pipeline from being supplied, if that makes sense.

Right. In order to paraphrase, we shouldn't allow that barrier to get in the way of proper workforce development.

So with that in mind, the reason I asked, we had a similar bill that sort of wanted to break the barriers with Senator Skinner's, as I mentioned earlier. I don't know what happened to that bill with regards to removing barriers for students that were undocumented, going through law enforcement training because of the requirements moving forward.

What would be, I think, important to add if we don't already have that in the bill, something to consider, would be a disclosure for these students to make sure that they know that there may be some requirements that might impede them from moving forward in those careers because the saddest thing for me would be one: for us to invest money because we're providing for many of these students the ability to go to school at no cost, keep providing that training, and then seeing them not be able to pursue a career in that field.

So perhaps an advisement would be wise to say, 'hey, you're doing this, but just so you know, moving forward, these are some of the obstacles that you may face because you don't have a Social Security Number and you have a TIN number instead.' Just something that we should probably keep in mind and maybe consider adding to the bill moving forward.

Any other comments from the Committee? I've got a motion from Senator Glazer. Madam Secretary, please. Oh, do you want to close? I'm sorry, Senator Portantino.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good close. So, Madam Secretary, please.

Best one yet.

SB 467: Portantino. Motion is 'do pass.' [Roll Call].

All right. Let us move on quickly to vote on the consent calendar. Members who want to withdraw any items from the consent calendar? I've got a motion from Senator Glazer to move the calendar. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On the consent items, [Roll Call].

[Roll Call]

Awesome. And I welcome to the podium Senator Menjivar. Welcome. You are going to present SB 499. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, members of the committee. First, I really want to take the moment to thank the committee staff for working with my team on this bill. And I do want to note that I will be accepting the technical amendments as stated in page five of the analysis.

So I'm here to talk about SB 499, my cool schools act, which will address the issue of hot ground surfaces on school campuses that impact the health and safety of students.

Specifically, this bill is looking to do four different things. Create an extreme heat action plan, stating that by the earliest time or the next time schools were surfaced or resurfaced, they will opt for a cooler solution.

Two, install shade trees and mini forests that have been shown to mitigate the impacts of extreme heat and pollution. Three, it's going to require the Department of Social Services to identify a liaison that is trained in extreme heat mitigation efforts.

And lastly, and it's requiring the Department of Education, in consultation with Department of Social Services, to develop a plan that would serve as a model program, a guidebook, if you will, that is made available to school sites.

Please note this final section, the language of it is still being worked on as we move through the process. We all know climate change has led to average temperatures rising in the United States, disproportionately impacting our black indigenous people of color communities.

Just last year, the LA Times highlighted how drastically this is impacting areas. In particular, they highlighted an area in my district the LA Times went on to write about. On a day of 93-degree weathers in the San Fernando Valley, the asphalt in our schools reached 145 degrees.

Research continues to shows that communities with the fewest resources usually have the least access to nature within and surrounding their school grounds.

Coupled with the highest heat pollution and environmental toxicology levels, many of the ground service materials used on school campuses are harmful. These materials generally consist of asphalt, concrete, synthetic turf and other plastic surfaces that overheat and melt.

Burning students and staff on contact are even catching on fire. I hope I'm assuming that we've seen photos of little kids having to sit on their backpacks because how hot the asphalt is or preventing them from going outside and playing.

A statewide coalition of nearly 50 experts, including doctors, medical and environmental health researchers, educators, youth and community groups released a call to action report just this past month, and among their evidence-based recommendations was the call for creation of a climate resilient master plan to serve as a guiding light for California's K through 12 system. Specifically, on what I'm looking to address.

I want students to be able to thrive in school, and by removing these harmful services and adding green spaces, there will be significant change in students' daily experiences, learning, and health outcomes.

Here today with me to testify on SB 49 is Christina Hildebrand, President of A Voice for Choice Advocacy, co-sponsor of the bill, and Leah Jones, who is speaking on behalf of Piper Primrose, director of Non-Toxic Schools and co-sponsor of SB 499, and I welcome them up.

Welcome, Ms. Hildebrand.

Hildebrand, I'm sorry.

Welcome, Ms. Hildebrand.

Thank you chair Newman and members of the Senate Education Committee. My name is Christina Hildebrand and I am the President and founder of A Voice for Choice Advocacy and proud sponsor of SB 499.

The goal of SB 49 is to create school environments which benefit students and staff physically, mentally and environmentally, and ensure this is accomplished from a place of equity. SB 499 will mitigate both extreme heat and air pollution in California schools.

In line with these priorities, in our state and by the Governor. Children spend a significant portion of their day at school, removing synthetic surfaces that absorb heat and adding shade trees in places that are accessible to children during the school day will directly protect them from high temperatures and toxic air exposure.

As Senator Mendravar mentioned, synthetic surfaces can rise to over 120 degrees.

Vegetation and tree canopy lower temperatures on schoolyards through direct shade and a process known as evapotranspiration, in which trees pull moisture from the soil and release it via their leaves.

An area of shade can be 20 to 45 degrees cooler than surfaces in full sun, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Children in lower income neighborhoods are affected disproportionately and with alarming frequency. Amid growing public concern about economic inequality and environmental injustice.

It is essential to unravel the link between poverty and pollution and extreme heat, and design effective means to spare children these detrimental effects. Research shows that urban tree and tree cover in schools is positively associated with academic performance as well as a student's mental and physical health.

This bill will ensure that all California schools, not just those in affluent neighborhoods, prioritize natural systems on their school sites, leading to heat and pollution mitigation.

SB 499 will be funded through a number of existing and future grants A Voice for Choice asks that you pass SB 499 through this committee, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Welcome. Watch me get this last name right. Welcome, Ms. Jones.

The goal of this project is to successfully implement an organic field maintenance program, increase environmental awareness and interest, and expand green spaces at multiple school sites by working with students and staff. Elementary school students are involved with native habitat gardens.

Good morning, Chair Newman and Committee Members. My name is Leah Jones. I'm legislative director for Voice for Choice Advocacy. Non Toxic Schools is an AVFCA pilot project based in the Bay Area and recently launched in Nevada Unified School District.

The middle school has established a teacher led environmental club, and Non Toxic Schools is partnering with Osborne Organics and Beyond Pesticides to train the district maintenance team in organic field maintenance to better improve field health and increase drought tolerance.

Organic grass playing fields are the only climate friendly choice for schools. They're cool, drought tolerant, non toxic and ecologically compatible. There are a large number of public schools in California that have already made greening schoolyards a priority, and many more are recognizing the benefits of getting started.

Despite this, there is still a concerning majority of districts in high minority, Low income areas that have yet to take such steps.

These areas also top national charts with having the highest air quality environmental toxicology issues. Campus greening, including removing hot synthetic surfaces and creating outdoor classrooms with pollinator friendly plants and natural tree canopy shade, is supported by students and staff as well as community businesses, individuals, and a large number of environmental and children's health organizations.

Adding green spaces, including tree shrubs and natural grasses to schoolyards has been linked to persistent positive changes in recess and classroom behavior, including increased physical activity, attention and social collaboration, higher academic achievement, and decreases in stress, anxiety, and disruptive behavior.

The choices schools and districts make about how they manage their land directly impacts students daily experiences, mental and physical health, and learning outcomes. Synthetic surfaces become extreme heat vectors that overheat. 200 degree temperatures have been recorded on asphalt and synthetic turf.

Turf has melted, burned students and staff on contact, and even caught on fire. Synthetic turf contains toxic chemicals listed on Prop 65, such as benzene and PFAS. These chemicals are released into the air, waterways, and soil constantly, especially when played on, when heated and when rained on.

Natural surfaces, native shrubs and trees sequester carbon, improve soil health, air quality, and increase the water holding capacity of soil making campuses and surrounding communities healthier, cooler and more resilient to extreme heat.

On behalf of the children of California, and especially those in low-income areas, I ask you to pass SB 499 through this Committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Josh. Is anybody else in the Committee room would like testify on behalf of the measure? We'd ask for your name, your organization, and your position.

Christy Birch, on behalf of Educate Advocate, we support SB 499. Thank you.

Thank you.

Paula Hazovsky, board Member of Educate Advocate, teacher and parent in Riverside County and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Gabriella Barbosa, on behalf of The Children's Partnership, in support of SB 499 and respectfully urging your aye vote.

Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California environmental voters in support.

Thank you.

Shannon Primer, Board member of Educate Advocate and advocate. For a child who was left to sleep on an 80 degree day on the asphalt, I am firmly asking you guys to please support.

Thank you. Next, please. Is anybody here in the Committee hearing would like testify in opposition to the measure? Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members and staff. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and the 23 school district superintendents in Riverside County. We are opposed to the Bill as introduced. We're not opposed at all to having the conversation about ensuring that our schools are more climate resilient. As Senator Ochoa-Bogh knows well, we have four school districts in Riverside County that are actually in a desert. Two of those have desert in their names. So we have a lot of experience in heat mitigation.

To give you one example, Desert Sands Unified School District close to Palm Springs, has worked with their teachers, their staff, their students and their community and their parents and their community to come up with a heat mitigation plan to make investments in shade structures to require that each school site in the district actually report on days when temperatures reach a certain threshold. So it's not as if school districts in the county aren't doing anything.

But I think our concern with the Bill really gets to a comment that's made in your analysis that references the flexibility to develop plans that consider appropriate landscape and other factors. Even within Riverside County, we have a vast divergence of geographic conditions. In Palm Springs, the average temperature in June and August is over 100 degrees. In Temecula, in the south part of the county, it's close to 80 degrees.

So the needs and even the climate conditions for the types of trees and other green efforts that are referenced in the Bill are different within the county. So we'd like to continue the conversation, but we think that mandating one approach for every school district is not the correct route to go. And I hate to always mention, we hate to mention the fiscal impact, but a lot of these quote unquote cool technologies, they are more expensive than the types of materials that would normally be used.

There are funding sources but those sources are finite. And so we would like to continue this conversation as various bond measures are advancing through the Legislature this year. Senator Glazer has a Bill, Assemblymember Muratsuchi, Assemblymember Garcia, who lives in the desert, has a Bill on climate resiliency. So for the reasons that I've outlined, we are opposed to the Bill, but would like to continue to work with the author and the sponsors on appropriate measures.

Appreciate it. Appreciate your testimony. Next, please.

Mr. Chair and Members, excuse me, Ian Padilla with the coalition for adequate school housing. And, of course, I'd like to associate, we are also opposed, unfortunately, for many of the reasons that Mr. Vaca stated. I will give you kind of a school facilities and maintenance frame on this. Of course, we are very well aware of the issue of heat in schools. It's not only outside, but it's also inside.

Right. There's multiple bills in both houses. Right. Talking about temperature, interior, and then we have this one. So we also want to have this larger conversation about this. But we do, as introduced, feel like this is very prescriptive. Schools are kind of, we're looking at solar and storage and air quality and energy resilience and storage and so on. And so this Bill touches on a lot of those very important issues. But again, we're concerned, again, of the fiscal impact.

But as planners, how do we want to make sure, and the last one, I'll use it as an example, we want to make sure at the local level that we aren't asked two different things. Right.

Kind of competing goods, so to speak. We have shade, but then we have solar placement as well. Right. Those are both very important. So we just want to make sure as we have this conversation going forward that folks who are doing this work have a voice in the process. And so we also look forward to working with you because this is an important issue. And again, there's a lot of bills that are discussing different aspects of the issue in an educational environment. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the Committee hearing would like testify in opposition? Your name, your organization, your position, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association for California School Administrators, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Anybody else? Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please prompt anybody on the teleconference line to testify in support or opposition to the Bill with their name, their organization and their position.

And please press one, then zero at this time to place yourself in queue. And we'll first go to line number 13, please. Go ahead.

Hi, this is Catherine Dodd. I'm representing families advocating for chemical and toxic safety. I'm also representing other organizations, and the letter didn't get through the portal. The Sierra Club, also Pasadena, 350 Ventura Climate Hub, Active San Gabriel Valley, Climate Action California, banned single-use plastic. The climate reality project. We are in strong support of this Bill and hope you'll vote aye.

And if you could say your name again, it got cut off as you were coming on.

Sorry. Catherine Dodd with families advocating for chemical and toxic safety. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Dodd. Next, please.

And next, we'll go to line number 23. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Cynthia Fan, and I'm a parent who has volunteered in the local schools here in Santa Clara County, where school campuses can get blazing hot from artificial salt and asphalt. I strongly support SB 499. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we'll go to line 24. Please go ahead.

Diane Wolkey, with safe, healthy playing field, plastics are the most prolific polluter.

Just your name, your organization, your position, please.

We strongly support this Bill and wherever children play and recreate. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we'll go to line 25. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Sakereh Carter with Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line number eight. Please go ahead. Line number eight. Number eight, you're open. Moving on, we have line number 10, please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Lendri Purcell, special education teacher, public school parent, and I'm with Jonas Philanthropies in strong support of safe places for our children to play.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

Moving on. We have line number 27, please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Piper Primrose. I'm with NonToxic Schools, also representing Pesticide Free Zone, and we are in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you, next.

Next we have line number 22. Please go ahead.

Good morning this is Will Briger on behalf of 350 Sacramento, and we are in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we have line number 21. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chuck Mills with Tree people in Los Angeles, strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we'll try line number eight. Again, please go ahead.

Good morning. Chair and Members, Shirley Day, on behalf of the California School Boards Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

And with that, we have no further lines in queue.

All right, let's come back to the committee hearing. I have a couple of questions. Senator Menjivar, clearly, this is a big deal, right? As you and Ms. Jones were very eloquent about describing the extent and scale of problem. I think it was Mr. Vaca who pointed out the fiscal impact. What are your thoughts on how this will be funded? Clearly there's...

Right. Thank you. And I'd like to, if the chair will allow me start off with also responding to the comments made on the opposition side. Bundle that in together.

Please do.

So I recognize every school and State of California is based in a very different area, right? So this isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. And I do commit to working and further having conversations with the school districts or representatives to clarify this language in the Bill as it moves forward. Because what I want to ensure is that we make this as successful as possible. And I do commend school districts that already have a plan in place.

They're going to be ahead of the game when it comes to this Bill. In terms of the fiscal impact, the legislators here, before my time, passed in the budget, $130,000,000 for the urban and community forestry grants within CAL FIRE, as the January budget proposed, they're looking to zero out the remaining $33 million. $117,000,000 were already included and grants applications close April 3. There is also a federal grant through the EPA because they recognize how important this is.

While applications also close in April, you are now seeing how important it is both on the federal level and on the local level. Additionally, I have colleagues both in this house and the other house who are pushing legislation to make this grant within CAL FIRE permanent and continue to find funds for this. This is why my Bill is not looking to mandate change right now. It is looking for these schools to have a plan for once we have funding appropriations, they're ready to go.

Because, again, the goal of this is for them to be successful.

Appreciate that. So to another, Mr. Vaca's points, the vast differences across the state, both in terms of landscape and climate, should school sites and childcare facilities have greater flexibility to develop plans? Let me add to that. This identifies each school site as the kind of area or entity for developing a plan. Might it be more efficient for the planning to be at the school district level in some districts?

Could you rephrase?

We'll break it in two. So should school sites and childcare facilities have greater flexibility to take into account differences in climate, differences in configuration? There's also the issue of some school sites are not owned by the LEA. They're on somebody else's property. So how do we think about that? As it relates to the...

Right so, you know, recognizing, know, this is the first policy committee. It's going through. We're still working on the language within, and I do want to reaffirm that I will be clarifying the language in there to ensure that we put more specifics in the different types of locations, whether they're co-located or not, like you mentioned, in other entities that aren't under the LEAs and so forth.

Okay. Last question for me is about training. There's some language about training for personnel, making the assessments and making those improvements, who provide that training, and again, moving to another committee. So think about what training criteria should be met under the provisions of your Bill.

Yeah. So right now, Department of Social Services should have a liaison and then with collaboration with the Department of Education, come together to put together that guide in terms of the eligibility or qualifications for the liaison. We are working with Department of Social Services to come up with language, and it's going to be worked out as we move through the legislative process.

I appreciate that. Any other questions for the Committee?

And Chair, we are open to making this on a school district level for jurisdiction.

I appreciate that. And again, this is double referred to. We go to human services from here. Senator Ochoa-Bogh.

So, as you heard, there are some concerns with my district that spoke this afternoon or this morning actually, I think it's morning still in the committee. So I'm going to support the Bill today because I think the intent, and I know that you are currently engaged in having conversations.

I do hope that you take in consideration what the not one-size-fits-all and take into consideration the geographical areas that we have in this beautiful state when it comes to that, and also take into consideration the districts that are already being proactive in this space, such as my district. I'm going to support the Bill today in hopes that the conversations will continue, the negotiations will continue, the considerations will continue.

But I do reserve my right to change my vote once the final language is drafted and seeing whether or not it meets the criteria for my district. Thank you.

You have my commitment. That will happen.

Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I grew up in a working class neighborhood, and in our school we had asphalt and we just had a patch of grass. And then some time ago, a long time ago, but sometime during my elementary education career, the city formed a JPA and they built out, the rest of which was just dirt into a park with trees and indigenous plants and everything else, which really made a difference.

In fact, I went recently to go present an educational grant to my home elementary school, and I took a tour around of it, and it looks great 50 years later. So this really is an important issue. Like you, I have a very high heat area, but I have some of the same reservations that Senator Ochoa-Bogh does. So I'm going to support it today, give you every opportunity, and I think you will be successful and reserve the right to vote no at a later date. But I don't think I'm going to have to. But I'm happy to support it today.

Thank you

Senator Glazer.

Well, someone would suggest, Senator Wilk, that you bring heat everywhere you go. But with that, I'm happy to move the Bill. Thank you for your work on this and for continuing to work with all parties going forward at the appropriate time.

Senator Menjivar, would you like to close?

Just to quickly say, I appreciate the feedback. Again, I look forward to ongoing conversation on to work through this Bill. And I ask that my colleagues support the Cool Schools act and that will move to improve the well being of our youth. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that on hold. Next up. Thank you, Senator Menjivar. Well done. Next up, Senator Hertato. She's here. Sorry.

So disappointed.

Welcome, Senator Hurtado. Senator Hurtado, you will be presenting SB 486.

Yes, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. As we all know, California is full of talented individuals that make our state great in every way. Our school sports are no exception. Great athletes have started their inspirational careers here in our very own school systems and have gone to represent California at the highest levels possible.

Unfortunately, the number of those that go on and make it to the professional stage is very low, meaning that most of our athletes will not experience what it is like playing the sport they love on the highest stage possible. For the majority of our students, high school is where their athletic careers end, and they will not play organized sports ever again.

In early December, 2022, under the rules of the California Interscholastic Federation, 30 high school football teams competed in a state championship game where some athletes played their very last game. While all winning teams can equally claim to be a California State Champion, the conditions under which the games were played were less than equal.

A select few games, those typically reserved for the schools from the top divisions that will bring in bigger crowds and drive up ticket revenue, were played at neutral facilities with turf fields and almost perfect field conditions, which made for a memorable and positive experience for those students. The rest of the CIF State Championship games were played at the school of the higher ranking team with facility and field conditions that varied across the board.

A recent game between Shafter High School and Orland High School, which was played in a weathered stadium with inches thick of mud, both teams earned the right to play at a state championship game, but they were not able to fully showcase their full capabilities and unfortunately were given an experience far from those of higher divisions. Families traveled six plus hours to attend this game in pouring rain, and when they arrived, there was not enough seating to host them and there were long lines for restroom facilities.

Small towns like Shafter and Orland are oftentimes the most disadvantaged and forgotten communities in our state, and their experience that day was not what they had hoped for. I will be the first to say that small communities are often some of the most prideful communities that we have. Football, in particular, is a sport that heightens pride not only in athletes, but in the community as a whole.

Fans of the sport will be the first to let you know that it brings communities together as they cheer on their teams, and making it to the State Championship is a great accomplishment that should highlight the students and the communities where they come from. These teams and communities should have been celebrated and treated with the level of attention that they deserve. The educational and athletic experiences for students in rural and disadvantaged communities across California are unfortunately shaped by the neighborhoods they live in.

Students from low income and disadvantaged schools already lack opportunities and resources as they face a challenging path to achieve their educational and athletic goals. And it's no secret that high income high schools have access to better quality sports fields, modern gymnasiums, state of the art athletic equipment, and overall better educational facilities, while low income schools have limited or inadequate facilities that negatively impact student athletic experiences and opportunities.

To this very day, we continue to see inequity issues in the quality and availability of opportunities between high income and low income schools in California, including access to high-quality sports fields and educational facilities. SB 486 requires the California Interscholastic Federation to hold all state football championship games for all divisions at comparable, neutral locations. However, SB 486 dives into a much deeper issue of inequity that is seen throughout our education systems, especially when it comes to those in our rural and disadvantaged communities.

Students who earn the opportunity to play in any CIF State Championship game deserve the same treatment so they can be safe, so they can showcase their talents and skills, and so they can be recognized for the hard work and discipline it took to get there. For those reasons, I introduce SB 486, which aims at providing an equitable experience for all student athletes who have earned the opportunity to compete and be forever known as a California State Champion.

I do want to acknowledge that CIF has initiated conversations with my office and has expressed they are looking into addressing this concern of inequity at State Football Championship games. I also want to thank the Committee staff and the consultant for being so knowledgeable on this issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on this. I do have two witnesses with me here today, both students who will be sharing their experiences from their recent state championship game.

Witness one is Ezekiel Osborne, second rated freshman quarterback in the state and third in the nation, and witness number two: Mariyon Sloan, also a freshman phenom.

Hello. My name is Ezekiel Osborne. I'm a freshman in the starting varsity quarterback for Shafter High School in Shafter, California. On December 10th of 2022, my team played in the Division 5 State Championship Game for the CIF. Another team from my area also made it to the State Championship Game for Division 1, and the team's experiences could not have been more different. My team was not a powerhouse. We were a young team of 26 guys from a small, rural school.

We grew as a team through the season of struggles and barely made it to the playoffs. Our team grew closer and closer and went on a win streak that you could write a movie about. 14 miles south, the team from Liberty High School was returning to the state game for the second year in a row. They had 90 players from all over a much bigger town. I, like every other QB, have always dreamt of leading my team to State.

The only vision of the big game I had was what I saw on TV and social media from Liberty State Championship last year. The huge college stadium, turf field, a DJ, instant replay, full media coverage, and live streamed by a professional media team all on a neutral, fair site. I was surprised when I found that we'd be traveling six and a half hours on our bus to our opponent's home field, a field that was worn out with barely any grass and soaked from all the rain.

We called and were told that the visitor stands could not accommodate ADA seating for my uncle that is in a wheelchair, nor could the stands fit all of our fans. So my dream night turned into one of the most disappointing times of my life. A game played in the middle of nowhere, neither team getting to play anything that resembled a football game in ankle-deep mud. No scouts came out to the tiny town to watch us in the terrible, unsafe conditions.

My uncle and the rest of our fans, instead of attending, had to watch a spotty stream of the game that kept pausing and the announcer did not even know how to pronounce our town's name. I returned home to see the incredible day my friends from Liberty High School had on a field where five other games were played. They got to display all of their talents for the world to see in a first-class stadium that could seat thousands.

The news and CIF's own official website promoted how nice their facility and game was. So I'm here to ask this: why? We have all paid the same price, blood, sweat, tears, and time away from our families. How can you tell one group of us that we are worth less than our peers from 14 miles down the road?

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mariyon Sloan, and I'm a freshman at Shafter High School. First, I want to thank the Committee for allowing me to speak on the topic that is really important to me. As a young boy, I played travel football and was able to play in many national championship games. I was able to play at the Cowboys Stadium, the New Orleans Saints Practice Facilities, and the Los Angeles Rams Stadium. As a freshman, the week going into the state championship game, I was super excited.

And when I thought of a varsity football state championship game, I thought of a big stadium with a nice field with hundreds or even thousands of Shafter fans ready to support their team. Not saying I thought it would be an NFL stadium, but I expected it to be something pretty nice. When we got to Orland High School on December 10th, 2022, it was the exact opposite of what I expected.

The visitor stands weren't even big enough to sit all of our fans. Before we even came out for warm-ups, the stands were full with people sitting in the stands, the stairs, standing along the gate, and standing on the sides of the stands. There were even people who brought their own--sat in their own chairs. The field was flooded with puddles spread out across different areas of the field. As soon as you took a step, your foot would sink and get stuck in the mud.

The mud was so bad I couldn't move how I wanted to. I felt limited. Me being a receiver, catching the ball is a big part of my job. I couldn't catch the ball because it was so slick and muddy. On defense, I was having hard time switching directions and making tackles because every time I'd make impact with someone, my feet would slide out from under me. The mud also was affecting the way I moved and caught. It was also getting into my eyes, affecting my vision.

Towards the end of the game, I was squinting because of how badly it burned. Normally a game, I'd be hot, but during this game, it was very cold. And the water and mud getting into my jersey pants and shoes made my body feel even more cold and just made my muscles feel tight.

I was extremely excited about making it to the CIF State Championship Game, but it was not what I dreamed a state championship would also look like. If I couldn't perform in my best in those conditions, I know that my teammates and Orland's players were not able to play at their best either. It would be nice to get this fixed because it's not only important to me, but the new incoming high school football players.

If they make it to a state championship game, I don't want them to have the same experience I did. I would like them to play in a big stadium with all their fans watching, cheering them on. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you to both of the witnesses. Is there anybody else here in the Committee room who wants to testify on behalf of the bill?

Hello. My name is Jerald Pierucci. I'm the head football coach at Shafter High School. You know, I'm, I'm obviously in support of the bill. I'm unique in the fact that I've--in 2012, I took a team to a state championship game, and it was at SoFi Stadium. So I know the experience that the big schools get to have. I got to witness it myself.

From the locker room that you get to being on the field and the TV timeouts and the whole experience of being in a college stadium to what we had to experience was a small girls locker room with two toilets and no hot water. It was frustrating to know that my kids had the opportunity to play at the highest level that a high school athlete can play in the State of California, and there was nothing special about it at all.

And so if anything, this bill gets the ball rolling in the right direction, that all kids that are lucky enough to play in a program that gets to the State Championship Game are given the same experience, no matter what size schools they go to. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Pierucci. Is there anybody else who'd like to testify on behalf of the bill? If so, please come forward. Is anybody here who would like testify in opposition to this legislation? Okay. Let's go to the teleconference line. Ms. Moderator, if you could queue any participants who would like to testify for the bill or in opposition with their name, their organization, and their position, please.

Thank you. Please press one zero at this time if so. Again, it's one zero. And currently nobody in queue.

Okay. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Committee Member, Senator Glazer, please.

Yeah. Thanks, Senator. Thanks, Chair Newman. I want to thank Senator Hurtado for bringing this issue forward. I love your passion, and I know it's consistent with your great leadership in the Valley on so many things. I want to commend the student athletes who have come to speak to us today. You guys did great. Certainly an easy touchdown here with me on the Committee. So thank you for taking the time as well as the coach to come up here and share your thoughts.

In some ways, this goes counter to my own philosophy about what we do here in government, which is try to make these decisions at the local level, try to have responsible entities do responsible things so we don't have to step in and Bigfoot issues like this, but I respect the author and know that she will continue to work with the CIF as this bill goes forward.

I hope it does go forward, and hope that we can resolve it maybe without a state law, but with appropriate actions that they might take in a thoughtful consideration of the concerns that have been raised. And with that, I'm happy to move the bill at the appropriate time.

I appreciate that. Any other Members? No. So I share Senator Glazer's concern basically to the question, like, does this require legislation? And I see Mr. Nocetti from CIF. If you wouldn't mind, can you speak to this? I mean, obviously that was a suboptimal situation in the game or games to which our witnesses referred. So how does the CIF think about this moving forward, and what's your response to legislating the need here?

Well, obviously, we always want to handle our issues within the organizational structure. We have 1,609 member schools who put the current structure in place with a vote. We used to have five state games. We expanded to now what is 15 state games, knowing that they all couldn't be at the same site. Given that they passed that, we want to continue to work within our membership. Just because something's in place currently doesn't mean that that's what has to stay in place permanently.

And so we are committed to continuing to work with her office, with the Senator's office, and looking at ways we can be at neutral sites for all the games. It does mean that we're going to have to find probably several hundred thousand dollars somewhere to do this because there is greater expenses. We lose--this year at our five main state games, we lost 90,000 dollars.

So we're not making a lot of revenue with the sport of football at our state championship games because of the expenses to travel the teams to those games. So we have met currently with our Football Advisory Committee, our 10 Section commissioners, our Executive Committee, and we'll be meeting with our Federated Council about how we can improve this going forward so that we don't hear experiences like this because I commend the student athletes. They came and spoke to our Federated Council as well and did a great job there, too.

And so if you could stay there for a moment, Senator Hurtado, the bill actually, to my knowledge, deals exclusively with football and not other sports. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And so to Mr. Nocetti, so if at some larger expense, you try to accommodate this legislation, we had an informational hearing earlier in the year specifically about Title IX. Are there implications for Title IX? If you have to find money for football, I assume--no? You're shaking your--

No, there shouldn't be because right now, all of our other state championship--most of our regional championship events are played at home sites for both boys and girls sports. Our state championship games are played at neutral sites. The only reason football is treated differently is our other sports have either five or six divisions total. Football has 15. So that's why football is treated differently than the other sports not being played at a neutral site for the championships.

Appreciate that. Members?

I want to echo Senator Glazer's comments. I typically, on this type of stuff, I defer, but I watch Friday Night Lights. No, I'm serious.

I see you've been so inspired.

No, no. No seriously, and I understand those young people's concerns. I know for me, during Covid when football was shut down, I remember having a Zoom call with the entire football team, and there was young men on there crying because they said, 'we're not allowed to play football. We think we're good enough to get a college scholarship, but no one's going to know because of the fact that we're not playing,' and the same thing with these young people.

So I'm going to support the bill today, and with the hopes that we can get all this worked out because I was inclined to be a 'no' going in, but I was really moved by their testimony. I'm hoping we can get to--and I want to commend the CIF for expanding the opportunity for young men to play as well, right, because you went from five to 15. So we should acknowledge that as well when we move forward. Anyway. Board of today.

Do appreciate it, and I think, Senator Glazer, you made the motion, sir? Senator Hurtado, would you like to close?

Colleagues, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 486: Hurtado. Motion is 'do pass.' [Roll Call].

Very good. Thank you, Senator Tatto. I think that brings us to our next bill, and that is SB 28. Senator Glazer, thank you for your patience.

Chairman, members, thank you for allowing me to present SB 28. I want to thank the committee staff for your diligent work.

I think you need to move the mic just a little bit up toward you.

There we go.

There you go.

Is that better?

Yes.

Okay. Shall I repeat my thanks or. No, you heard it.

No, we love it. We'd really appreciate if you thank us again. You don't have to, though.

So, this measure authorizes a $15.5 billion bond for the 2024 ballot for facilities that include K through 12 through higher education, specifically nine and a half billion for preschool through grade 12 and $2 billion each for the community colleges, the CSU, and the UC.

The last K through 12 and higher education bonds passed in 2006. However, by 2012, all those funds were essentially exhausted.

This bond is really critically important to bring all of our public schools into the 21st century and ensure students have a safe place to learn. According to the Public Policy Institute, two thirds of the state's school facilities are more than 25 years old.

Research shows that it would cost over $117,000,000,000 to modernize those schools and colleges in the next decade. Now, we did have a measure similar to this on the March 2020 ballot that came up just short.

But if you look at the results in this last election, November of 22, voters approved 71% of the 101 local school bond measures that were on the ballot. So the bill before you is an extension of that compromise that occurred in that 2020 election.

There are still many conversations and discussions to have with leadership, with the Governor, to fashion this measure in a way that works for all the stakeholders involved.

So it's a starting point for the discussions that will occur over the next year if the bill moves forward. I know we need to do better for our students. Facilities are important, part of a proper learning environment.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I do have two folks here to testify in support, Jason Murphy from the University of California and Sutender Malhi from the California State University.

Thank you. Mr. Murphy, welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Murphy, on behalf of the University of California, here in strong support today. I want to thank the Senator for his leadership on this important topic and being willing to bring this issue back again after the fortunate outcome in 2020.

At the University of California, over 50% of our facilities are over 30 years old. Our most current Capital Financial Plan identifies over $33 billion in state supportable need in the educational space.

And we feel that this bond, we know it's not going to solve all of our issues, of course, but really hopeful that we can get our state back on track with a regular effort to put bonds on the ballot on a regular basis. Again, strong support today. Thanks to Senator and thanks for the conversation today.

Thank you for your testimony. Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Satinder Malhi here with the CSU Chancellor's office.

It's a pleasure to be here and join with our UC colleagues in support of this measure. As was stated earlier, SB 28 will help finance critical capital renewal projects at both the CSU and the UC, along with our K through 14 educational facilities.

These resources would enable the CSU to begin to address the construction, renovation and renewal of facilities throughout our 23 campus system as outlined in our five year capital outlay plan.

Mr. Chair, as we well know, California is facing the challenge of an aging infrastructure in dire need of renovation and replacement in our over 1000 plus school districts, community colleges and, yes, RUCs and CSUs.

At the CSU, specifically, more than half of our facility space is 40 years or older and a third being over 50 years old. Our five-year capital outlay plan reflects more than nearly $27 billion in academic and self-support infrastructure projects and 7.8 billion in critical facility renewable needs.

And as was recently noted by the LAO, our backlog for academic facilities and infrastructure grew by 2.4 billion, or 60%, just over the past five years alone. So again, SB 28 provides critical funding for our campuses to expand student capacity in our classrooms and labs, addresses critical fires and safety and seismic deficiencies.

And it's for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

And thank you, Mr. Molly. Anybody else here, if any of you would like, testify in support of the measure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jeff Baca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools on the 23 school district superintendents in Riverside County in support of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Baca. Is anybody here in the committee hearing would like to testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Mr. Moderator, if you could please pull the teleconference line for anybody on the line who'd like testify either in support of or in opposition to this measure?

Thank you. And if so, please press one, zero at this time. Again, at one, zero. Give me just a moment here.

Thank you.

And we can go first to line number eight, please. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chairman and members. Shirley Dan, on behalf of the California school board decision, we don't currently have a position on this bill. Our meeting ran just a little bit out of queue with the hearing dates, but we plan to take a support similar to what we took last year on a similar bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Voter line number 17.

Good morning and thank you, Chair and members. My name is Sadalia King with Catalyst California. We're here to state our support, if amended. We shared a letter with the author's office focusing on amendment to enhance equity in the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, next.

And no further comments are in q.

Okay. Before I bring it back to the committee, we're nearing the end of the hearing. I'd ask any members who are not present, who have votes to make if they could please return the committee hearing room. Anybody on the committee want to speak to this measure? Seeing none. Seeing one. Senator Wilk, please.

I supported this last time. I intend to support it again as a member of the State Allocation Board. I can't confirm. We are out of money and the need is great. So, this question is kind of on a side issue. But I know you're Chair of the elections committee, and I think one of the reasons why we fell a little short was the numbering of the bill.

Have you and your committee taken a look at maybe eliminating in the future certain proposition numbers just because they connotate something one way or another. through the chair.

Thank you. Senator Wilk, it has not been an issue that we have discussed up until now. Certainly I share the concern that you are intimating about how a number that has been so ingrained in people's heads can bias an objective look at a new measure that just happens to have that number.

And I'm happy to have conversations with you and others about whether or not that should be something we should consider going forward.

And I will say, for my part, I appreciate that concern for the number we will not name here in the committee room. So, Senator Ochoa Bogh, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity. I have a question with regards to. I just want to clarify that this bill, it's so that we could vote, put it on the ballot for the voters to pass on there. But you do have a. Do you? Let me confirm. Do you have a requirement here that the bill prioritizes modernization of projects to districts that require PLA agreements.

There are a number of provisions. I can't speak specifically to that. There are a number of provisions that you might see in the bill today that are simply placeholders. It just replicates what was in before. Because this is going to be subject to negotiation with all the various stakeholders.

We thought that the best way to begin the conversation was to not make any changes, just make it come to you in the same form in which it had been passed previously, and have everything as everything is open. Everything is an open conversation, including the issue that you raised.

Okay. The reason I ask is just yesterday we had a conversation with regards to other housing bills, and the concerns that were brought up were the limited amount of people who can actually work on these projects and eliminating the ability for many other organizations to be able to work.

So, I'm going to support the bill today, but I am going to be watching and reserve my right to abstain or not support the bill in a later fashion. So, I hope that that can open the opportunity for all Californians to have an opportunity to work in our state and actually have these projects be built in the State of California. Thank you.

Any other members want to speak to this? Great. So, do we have a motion for SB 28 from Senator Wilk? Senator Glazer, I'm sorry, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Appreciate that. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 28, Glazer motion is do passed. But first be we refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance.

[Roll Call]

And that bill is out seven, zero. Madam Secretary, if you could please reopen the roll and let's go through the votes that members might have missed. I'll leave it up to you. Yeah.

Okay.

And members, we're going to open the roll and close out those remaining votes.

Okay. On the consent items.

[Roll Call]

On the curriculum policy.

Sorry, that's out seven, zero as well. Please proceed.

On the curriculum policy.

[Roll Call]

And I think that bill is at six to one.

File item two, SB 98, Portantino. Motion is do pass. But first we re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is five to one, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

I'm sorry, Wilson. No, that does. That's six to one.

Okay, file item three, SB 234, Portantino. Motion is do pass. Buffers be re-referred to the Committee on health. Current vote is five to zero, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That bill is at 7-0.

File item four, SB 445, Portantino. Motion is do pass as amended. But first amend and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is four to zero, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

And that bill is out 7-0.

Item five, SB 467, Portantino. Motion is do pass. Current vote is 4-0, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That bill is at 7-0.

File item seven, SB 499, Menjivar. Motion is do pass as amended. But first amend and re-refer to the Committee on Human Services. Current vote is four to zero, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

The bill is at 7-0.

File item number nine, SB 486, by Hurtado. Motion is do pass. Current vote is four to zero, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That bill is out 7-0. That is it. So that closes up the role. Thank you to all the individuals who participate in public testimony. Thank you especially to Committee staff and to the moderator. We have now concluded today's agenda. The Senate Education Committee is now adjourned. Thanks.