Assembly Standing Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism

Before we get started, there are a few housekeeping items that we'd like to cover for the Committee's hearings this session. We will only be accepting in person testimony and witnesses in support and opposition. When there are bills being presented in Committee, each will have a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition, with a limit of 2 minutes per witness.

After we have heard from the primary witnesses, members of the public that are here in the room will be given an opportunity to state their name, their organization, and if they represent any other additional clients. Any additional comments will be ruled out of order. And with that, we are going to start with- I see one of the Members here, Assemblymember Haney.

So we are going to start with Assemblymember Haney, as we don't see Dr. Weber here. Is she here? And we'll also be starting- Assembly Member Weber, do you mind waiting as he just got called up here? Okay.

And we will also be starting as- All right, fast switch there. Then we will be starting with file item one, AB 796 with Assemblymember Weber. Athletic trainers. Welcome, Assemblymember. Good morning. Right now before you present, we'll go ahead and start take roll as a Subcommittee.

[Roll call]

Assemblymember Weber.

Good morning, Chairmembers, I'm here to present AB 796. Good morning. Much better. Okay. So good morning, Chairmembers. I'm here to present AB 796. First, I would like to thank the Committee staff for the very thorough analysis. AB 796 would create the Athletic Trainer Licensing Committee within the Occupational Therapy Board at the Department of Consumer Affairs to exercise licensing regulatory disciplinary functions relating to athletic trainers.

This Bill would also prohibit a person from practicing as an athletic trainer or using certain titles or terms without being licensed by the board. It would also define the practice of athletic training, specify requirements for licensure as an athletic trainer, and would require a licensed athletic trainer to practice only under the supervision of a physician or surgeon. Athletic trainers are educated and trained to specialize in the prevention, assessment, and intervention of emergency, acute and chronic issues such as concussions, heat illnesses, and sudden cardiac arrest.

The American Medical Association, also known as the AMA, recognizes athletic trainers as an allied health professional and are classified as such by the US Department of Health Human Services. They are also assigned a national provider identifier number, also known as NPI, just like every other healthcare professional, like myself. I have an NPI number. I see the importance of athletic trainers as they are an integral part of the healthcare team for our athletes. In fact, we have all recently witnessed the importance of athletic trainers.

A few months ago, we watched the athletic trainer Denny Kellington save the life of Damar Hamlin after he collapsed on the field during the NFL game. In fact, athletic trainers are so important that every state in the US, including Washington D.C., has regulatory recognition of their profession. Except California. Athletic trainers are so important the 46 states have licensure for athletic trainers. Hawaii requires registration, and New York and South Carolina have a certification and title protection model. And then there's California.

As a physician myself who went through a very rigorous process for licensing in this state, I know that licensing athletic trainers will ensure the safety of California students and professional athletes. But it's not just about health and safety. It's also a social justice issue. The Athletic Training Locations and Services, also known as Atlas Project, has created a real time database of athletic training services in secondary schools.

Let's review some of their data of CIF school employment of athletic trainers. In San Francisco 79% of their athletic trainers, they have 79% of athletic trainers that are certified. In Oakland, zero. San Diego, my hometown, 63% of our high schools have athletic trainers that are educated. 2 hours north in Los Angeles, 4.8. Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley, 16%. In our CIF schools overall, 63% have no athletic trainers.

As a parent of two athletes myself, I want to ensure that if my child is injured, the person caring for him is educated in the proper techniques to minimize injury and required to work with physicians and other health professionals on follow up care. There are currently 138 individuals being paid to act as athletic trainers in high school sports right now that are unqualified. They include chiropractors, people with suspended licenses from other states, a student athletic trainer who did not pass the exam nor complete the program.

This practice of employing untrained and unqualified athletic trainers puts our student athletes at risk. We need to establish licensure in California now so we can protect our student athletes and this Bill is about keeping our student and professional athletes safe. Licensure protects the profession and our athletes. With me today, I have Kelci Stringer, founder of the Korey Stringer Institute, and Dr. Robert Nied, head team physician for the Golden State Warriors. Thank you.

Welcome. We're just going to pause and establish a quorum here.

Mike Fong?

Here.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and esteemed Members of the Committee. Again, I am Kelci Stringer. I am the wife of former all pro Minnesota Viking offensive line Korey Stringer and also an advocate for improved safety in professional sports. I am here today to ask for your support of AB 796, which would license athletic trainers in the State of California.

Tragically, my husband passed away due to complications of a heat stroke in August of 2001 while at training camp without the proper medical care and supervision of an athletic trainer. This incident sparked my lifelong mission to ensure that proper medical care is always accessible to all athletes. By doing this, in 2010, I founded, along with other partners, including the NFL and Gatorade, the Korey Stringer Institute. The Korey Stringer Institute serves the needs of athletes at all levels, youth, high school, college, professional and recreational sports.

The Team Up for Sport Safety initiative, which is led by the Korey Stringer Institute, was established to drive changes and adoption of policies proven to reduce catastrophic sports injury in the secondary school level. To accomplish this goal, the Korey Stringer Institute and the Tufts Initiative, we travel state to state to meet with legislators to facilitate adoption of best practices nationwide.

Interestingly enough, in 2017, our organization performed a study of state level implementation of evidence-based best practices for preventing and managing the leading causes of sudden death in sports and secondary school athletics. The study, which details the results, was published in the orthopedic Journal of Sports Medicine. The study ranked each state in terms of adoption of evidence-based best practices and, as Dr. Weber said, California was ranked last. Yes, last.

California's lack of licensure of athletic trainers, the only state in our nation to not license and regulate athletic trainers, was one of the factors that earned the State of California the abysmally low score of 30 out of 100. Esteemed Committee Members, I would like to personally and specifically ask for your support of this Bill. We all have children, and if we don't, grandchildren, nieces, nephews.

We all like to support them in sports and just the idea of them not having a licensed, certified athletic trainer by their side. Just today, your home team, the Sacramento Kings, have made it to the playoffs for the first time in 16 years. Many of you will be cheering them on, maybe criticizing or ridiculing them, but just remember that they were young athletes, too. And the idea of not having a licensed, certified athletic trainer along their journey, they might not have made it this far.

Licensed athletic trainers provide a level of care and service that potentially can prevent them from even having to even see a physical therapist. So with that said, AB 796 is a very important piece of the puzzle in ensuring athletes receive the best care possible. Having licensed athletic trainers on the sidelines would increase the level of medical care that the athletes are entitled to have and could prevent tragedies like my husband's from occurring again.

So again, I strongly urge you to support AB 796 and I'll take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Madam Chair and esteemed Members of the Committee. I'm Dr. Robert Nied and I'm here today in strong support of AB 796, which would license athletic trainers. I'm a practicing sports medicine physician in San Francisco and have been a team physician at the high school, collegiate, and international Olympic level. And as stated, I'm the current head team physician for the NBA Golden State Warriors, and I will see you all back here on Saturday.

I'm also a long serving member of the CIF Sports Medicine Advisory Committee. I work closely with athletic trainers in all of these settings, and they are an integral part of every medical team I am a member of. I've had countless experiences at every level of sport in which an athletic trainer was the initial point of contact for injuries big and small, for medical illnesses, and for mental health and well being. They are usually the person the athletes trust the most.

They are the first point of contact that they go to with just about every concern, and they are usually the best, sometimes the only person, on site whose primary responsibility is athlete safety. My own daughter suffered a significant concussion playing high school sport, and it was the school athletic trainer who recognized it and appropriately held her out of play, preventing possible further injury.

Indeed, athletic trainers are perhaps the most direct and impactful way we can ensure the health and safety of our athletes, especially at the youth and high school level. To do so, however, we need to be able to trust their expertise, training and integrity. This is why I find it nonsensical that 49 states and the District of Columbia provide licensure and oversight for athletic trainers, but California uniquely does not.

In every other state, the athletic training profession has statutorily outlined education and training standards, a defined scope of practice, an oversight board, and a formal adjudication process. For good reason, California requires licensure for every other allied health profession. Why not athletic trainers? Licensure of athletic trainers is long overdue. For the safety of California's athletes, especially those playing high school sports, I urge you to support this legislation with your aye vote today. Thank you for consideration and I welcome any questions.

Before we go to witnesses in support, let's see if any of the Members have any questions for our witnesses. Seeing none, if you

My apologies for jumping in late. Just for my clarification's sake, this Bill does not increase the number of athletic trainers that will be providing support to student athletes or just athletes in general, correct? It's more so a certification of the industry.

It is a certification, a licensure, which we don't have right now.

Wonderful. Thank you.

All right. With that, if you are in support of this Bill, please come to the microphone.

Good morning. Mira Morton with Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Awet Kidane, representing the Los Angeles Rams in strong support. Thank you to the author.

Hi, my name is Kadir Gakunga. I play for La Mace National Little League, and I support this Bill.

My name is Dr. Ky Kugler. I'm the California Athletic Trainers Association President. Thank you, Dr. Weber. I'm in support of AB 796.

Dr. Tom Abdenour, retired athletic trainer of the Golden State Warriors and San Diego State University, and I support this Bill and thank everyone.

Gina Biviano, Manager of Athletic Trainers at UCSF Sports Medicine, and I support this Bill.

Ron Nocetti, Executive Director of the CIF, in support.

Jay Nacionales, Sports Performance Coordinator at Jesuit High School Sacramento, in strong support of this Bill.

My name is Susie Gatis. I am the Director of Region Three, which is the Central Valley of California, and I am support of this Bill.

My name is Logan Heaney, current student of University of the Pacific's master's in athletic training program, and I support this Bill.

Ben Bishop, from the UOP athletic training program as well, and I support this Bill.

My name is RJ Balderama. I'm also a student at the University of the Pacific master's in athletic training, and I support this Bill.

My name is Justine Lee. I am a certified athletic trainer from Oakland, California, and I support this Bill.

Good morning. My name is Camille Lu. I'm an athletic trainer at UCSF and I support this Bill.

My name is Crystal Nunez. I'm a Master's of Athletic Training student at UOP, and I support this Bill.

Good morning. Sylvio Ferrari, on behalf of the National Football League, in strong support. Thank you.

My name is Emily Lu. I'm a master's student at University of Pacific. Thank you, and I support this Bill.

Hi. My name is Brittany Kamau. I'm a master's student at Pacific University, and I support this Bill.

Hello. My name is Alexandra Lomeli. I'm a student at the University of Pacific, and I support this Bill.

Jeff Neal, representing the University of Southern California, also in support.

Hello, I'm Peyton Roslin, and I'm a student at University of the Pacific, and I support this Bill.

Good morning. My name is Pete Youngman, formerly with the Sacramento Kings for 25 years, currently working for the National Basketball Association, and I support this Bill.

My name is Alejandro Jacobo, student at the University of the Pacific, and I support this Bill.

Hi, I'm Jonathan Marino. I am a student from the University of the Pacific, and I support this Bill.

Good morning. Manny Romero, former athletic trainer for the Sacramento Kings, currently the Clinical Education Director for the University of the Pacific Master's of Athletic Training program. I vehemently support this Bill.

I'm TK Koesterer, I'm the Athletic Training Program Director at University of the Pacific, and I vehemently also support this Bill.

Good morning. My name is Tina Tubbs. I'm the Associate Athletic Director of Student Athlete Health, Wellness, and Performance at Sacramento State University. I support this Bill.

Hi, my name is Caitlin Long, certified athletic trainer at Sacramento State University, and I support this Bill.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Anthony Duong. I'm a certified athletic trainer at Sacramento State University, and I support this Bill.

Good morning. I'm Matt Davey, head athletic trainer at Sacramento State. Like TK and Manny, I vehemently support this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Sarah Goble, the chair of the Secondary Schools Committee for the California Athletic Trainers' Association, and I'm the athletic trainer at Justin-Siena High School in Napa, California, and I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Lisa Varnum. I'm an athletic trainer at UC Davis and represent UC Davis Sports Medicine, and I support this Bill.

Thank you. Any others in support? With that, we'll turn it to opposition. And do we have anybody doing testimony on opposition? You can come to the table here. Thank you.

Is this one on? Okay. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I'm Chris Reed, a Doctor of Physical Therapy and certified athletic trainer. I'm the Chair of the California Physical Therapy Association's Government Affairs Committee, representing over 10,000 Members statewide. I rise to speak in opposition to AB 796. I want to acknowledge the work done thus far by the proponents in an attempt to more clearly define the practice of athletic training.

For the first time in 20 years, we have a Bill that actually includes the word athlete in it. However, we can continue to have several concerns. The proponents argue this Bill will help protect young athletes participate in high school and club sports. We agree that having athletic trainers on the sidelines during games and practices would be beneficial to our young athletes, but this Bill does nothing to create funding for more of these jobs or even require the presence of an athletic trainer during these sporting events.

The proponents claim this Bill is necessary to stop bad actors from running around the state calling themselves athletic trainers, something that would easily be addressed by the Title Protection Bill, like what was passed out of the Assembly without opposition in 2020. This Bill allows an athletic trainer to work with an athlete, defined as one who is engaged in sports, games, recreation or exercise.

While this definition is better than prior attempts that define physical attempts to define physical activity, it remains overly broad, allowing the athletic trainer to work with a wide swath of the population who may or may not have underlying medical conditions unknown to the athletic trainer. This is inconsistent with the education of a trained athletic trainer who is trained to work with athletes that have undergone pre-participation physical exams.

This Bill requires an athletic trainer to be supervised by a physician or surgeon who need not be present and who may supervise between one and infinity athletic trainers so long as they have an undefined practice agreement in place. Can we really expect a physician who is already busy with patient care to appropriately supervise twenty, fifty, one hundred or more athletic trainers?

Knowing the elements that need to be included in the price agreement between an athletic trainer and the physician or surgeon would help answer that question. Of further concern, the physician or surgeon oversees the activities of and accepts responsibility for the medical services provided by an athletic trainer. This makes it abundantly clear that the Bill seeks to create a new physician extender model to deliver medical services as opposed to the oversight of athletic training services.

Finally, we do not believe placing the athletic training licensing Committee under the California Board of Occupational Therapy is the appropriate spot. It seems a more appropriate placement would be under the Medical Board of California due to the supervisory role of physicians and surgeons over athletic trainers. We welcome further conversations with the author and proponents of the Bill, but without further refinement in these areas, we have no choice but to ask you to vote no on AB 796.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Pat Whalen at Ellison-Wilson Advocacy here on behalf of United Nurses Association of California/Union of Healthcare Professionals. UNAC UHCP has 32,000 members, not just nurses. We have occupational therapists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants. We're all opposed to this Bill- with all respect to the author and the terrible social justice issues, she raised a Bill that would mandate athletic trainings in all schools, all K-12 schools- would be a great Bill, would get a lot of support, I think.

Unfortunately, this Bill doesn't do anything like that. While the Bill does mention athlete, as my colleague mentioned, it defines it so broadly that an athletic trainer would be allowed to teach to treat anybody who's a human being who moves. So we're not talking about treatment on the sports field of an injured athlete who's already been pre-screened by a physician. They're going to be treating anybody and everybody hanging up their own shingle.

It's interesting that here we are in the Committee supposedly dealing with sports, and we're having a Bill that doesn't restrict the practice to sports or athletes at all. We respectfully oppose.

All right. Do we have any others in opposition coming up to the microphone?

Good morning. Lindsay Gullahorn with the Occupational Therapy Association of California, respectfully oppose, especially to the provisions that put athletic trainers under the California Board of Occupational Therapy. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition? All right. Bringing it back to the Committee. Any questions for the author or witnesses? Assemblymember Friedman.

Hi. Thanks so much for the discussion. I learned a lot today. I learned that the Kings are a basketball team. It's good to know.

I wasn't sure until I asked my colleague, not because of the Kings, just because we only watch soccer. Okay. But I learned a lot about athletics. And one of the fun things about this job is getting to learn about all of these different issues. So my question is, I've certainly put a lot of trust in the nurses and in their perspectives on these issues as well.

And I'm wondering if the author would commit to continuing to work with the opposition to try to address their concerns as the Bill moves forward.

Thank you so much for that. And yes, we have been working with the opposition and continue to commit to working with the opposition.

Okay. So I'm going to be supporting the Bill today. I want to see the discussion continues. Clearly, this is something that's of great importance to people in the sports world, in the medical world, and there certainly seems to be a need that's unmet right now. I would hope that the discussions can continue with the opposition and hopefully we can find common ground as the Bill moves forward. Thanks so much.

Any other questions from Committee Members? Assemblymember Valencia.

Thank you. Really appreciate the dialogue and then also the different perspectives. As a former college athlete myself at the junior college level, division one level as well, I've heard this topic floated around for many, many years, not only as a former individual who was a benefactor of athletic training and then also now as a policymaker.

So I also, too, would like to see a comprehensive plan move forward, and we'll be supporting this Bill because I think it's something that's extremely important, and athletics go hand in hand with our society, in my opinion. So I want to see the continuation of a productive conversation and look forward to seeing this Bill move forward as well. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion, motion and a second. Motion in a second by Mr. Fong and any other comments from Members. As the Chair, I too like to hear the robust conversation. I do support the Bill, but of course encourage and continue work with not only the nurses, but also opposition. This Bill has had a past. As we know, some of our bills here never quite leave, and there's always room for refining this work in strengthening and focusing the Bill.

But this Bill has a do pass to the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions. And with that, Madam Secretary, if you'd like to call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to ask you to make closing remarks.

Well, thank you to the Committee for allowing us to present this Bill today. We will continue to work with the opposition, but we also recognize that this is something that needs to be done in California.

The opponents mentioned in their opposition letter that various legislators for the past 20 years have been trying to get this done for our students. But there's been blockage every way. Fifteen times, bills have been introduced in many different forms to create licensure or certification for athletic trainers. And fifteen times this state has failed to secure the safety of our most vulnerable Californians, our youth. Every other state in this nation has declared that there is no scope of practice issue.

Yet for some reason, we love to cling to that here in California. Every other state has declared that the lives, the safety and the well being of their student athletes is important enough to make sure that those who are training them are properly trained, vetted and licensed. But not here in California. In the opposition letter, they say there is a lack of necessity because, quote, no current crisis exists in California.

Yet CATA has hundreds of documented cases of harm, with 46 in the past 10 months alone, including three felony sexual abuse charges against minors by people posing or hired as athletic trainers. And some of you may be familiar with the situation at Del Oro this past September. Student football player collapsed during practice because he was forced to practice in 115 degrees. The, quote, trainer on site was not certified, was not a certified athletic trainer.

He was an EMT with an expired license. Parents should be able to trust that the athletic trainers are actually trained to be what they say they are. And I will conclude with the results from the Korey Stringer Institute.

It was stated that they looked into every state who has the best policies and implementation of evidence based practices in high school sports safety, and it stated they ranked every state, including Washington, D.C. And I bring this up because there's a lot of talk lately about us against other states. And the state that ranked number one, that scored the highest, was Florida with 83. We here in California scored 51 out of 51, a whopping, what, 30.3.? 8?Something? That's failing.

Failing our youth. Members, I ask that we finally join the other 49 states and Washington D.C. in declaring that our student athlete lives are worth protecting. And we can first do that by creating a licensure for athletic trainers. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we'll call the roll.

[Roll call]

That bill looks like it's out, and we will hold the roll open for Mr. Lackey. All right, next, thank you. Next we'll be going to file item two. AB 1136, Assemblymember Haney, State Athletic Commission mixed martial arts pension fund. We've got a motion in a second. Thank you. Welcome, Assembly Member Haney.

Thank you and good morning. Chair Quirk-Silva, Vice Chair Wallace and Committee Members, I'm here to present AB 1136, the mixed martial arts pension bill. This bill is necessary for our state to provide much needed benefits and protection to athletes in the highly competitive and physically demanding sport of mixed martial arts. AB 1136 will ensure that licensed professional mixed martial arts fighters have access to a pension fund.

This pension fund comes at no cost to taxpayers and would be financed through ticket sales, the sales of sports paraphernalia and souvenirs. This would expand on current existing law that has enabled licensed professional boxers to have access to a pension Fund. Licensed professional MMA fighters currently do not have a pension fund, although boxers in California do. AB 1136 would make MMA fighters at 50 years old eligible to automatically receive a pension.

It would be financed through the ticket sales, sports paraphernalia and souvenirs, and specifically for every ticket sold, $1 would go towards the MMA Fighters Pension Fund. MMA fighters would become vested between 12 and 14 fights, which is around 39 scheduled rounds at Commission regulated MMA events. One thing that you all may be aware of is that California is the biggest state in the country for MMA fighters and MMA events. We have the most fights and the most fighters.

And this is a sport that we regulate through the California Athletic Commission. We authorize these events. We ensure the health and safety of these fighters at these events, and we have a responsibility to them as the regulators of this sport, to allow them to be healthy and retire with dignity when they're done fighting. With me here today are some very special guests in support of AB 1136.

We have Mr. Herb Dean and Mr. Cesar Gracie, who are renowned professionals and internationally expert, recognized experts in the sport of mixed martial arts. They devoted their career and their lives to the sport for several decades. And we also have the bill's sponsors from the California Athletic Commission Chair, Peter Villegas, and Andy Foster from the Commission's Executive, who is the Commission's Executive Director, and Ken Swenson, the Commission's General counsel. They are available as subject matter experts on the bill.

I first want to turn it over to Mr. Dean, who is one of the most renowned referees in this sport, in the world. And we're very grateful to have him here in his expertise on this bill.

Thank you. First of all, I'm happy to be here talking to you. I've been involved in mixed martial arts as a referee for 25 years. I been involved in martial arts all my life. I've had the fortune to be able to travel throughout the world on a continual basis refereeing mixed martial arts. And that is because I'm from California. By the time I started refereeing in the UFC, I had already refereed more matches than anybody else in the world who does this.

And so I wanted to express to you the fact that California is a leader. I guess there's three things that I really wanted to talk to you about. First of all, of course, I'm biased. I believe that mixed martial arts is the best sport on this earth. And I think there's some things that prove it. I think that it's a new sport and that it's already rivals. It's only rival of soccer in this world.

As far as for sports that are watched, it draws from all the other combat sports. And that's the other thing I want to mention, is that combat sports are essential to developing well rounded and well adjusted adults. Many people, especially young men, get caught up dealing with figuring out safety in their world, and mixed martial arts is a big part of that.

And if they're not able to figure that out, they have a hard time going on to figure out the other things that they need to do to enjoy life. And we see the people who don't figure it out, and we know where they are today. The third thing is, the reason why I'm talking to you is because we all work together. I'm your employee, I'm your representative in the ring, in the cage, and I take care of making sure that the fights are fair.

I make sure that the athletes don't receive any unnecessary injuries. And as far as how we feel about our job, my job is a sacred trust. Because unlike other sports, I think it's going to be maybe 12 to 14 fights before fighters vested. That's a big career. So each time these guys get in the cage, each fight is the most important fight of their career, and they're laying it all out there. Unlike in any other sport, very few people can do it.

So it's a sacred trust to look after them. I know my parts. And then there's the physicians who we work with, who look after them medically. But then also, it's our job to make sure we look after the fighters financially. And that's above my pay grade. That's why we're here talking to you. That's your part. And so I'm just here to ask you to support this bill. We have a good thing here in California. We're the leaders.

We have Andy Foster, who's our Executive Director, who's probably, as a regulatory regulator, has been the best thing that has happened to the sport. We have Peter Villegas here, who, when he's around on his watch, we know he's asking questions, we know he's looking at everything, and he's looking for a way to make things better than they were before he got here. So that's why we're here today.

Thank you. Next with witness.

Good morning to all you, and thank you for having me speak here. My name is Cesar Gracie. I was fortunate enough to have started the second Jiu Jitsu School in the country, and their very first one here in Northern California. I've also been involved as a trainer, manager, and occasional participant in the mixed martial arts since its inception in the early 1990s. During the course of events, I have been closely associated with several MMA fighters.

Unfortunately, many of the MMA practitioners who have given most of their adult lives working in MMA, prize fighting, making fight organization loads of money, have reached the end of their careers with almost nothing to show for it. As you are aware, this issue became so prevalent in the sport of boxing that legislation was passed ensuring that boxers were eligible for a pension upon retiring. It's a travesty that MMA fighters have been victimized by falling into a loophole, awaiting legislative remedy.

I urge this legislature to finally close this loophole in the law by passing bill AB 1136. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any questions from the committee with that? Do we have any support in support out there? If we have support, please come to the microphone and.

Just your name and support. Thank you.

I'm here with my chair of the Athletic Commission. My name is Andy Foster and we support the bill.

Thank you. All right, bringing it back. Do we have anybody speaking in opposition testimony or in the audience? We have a motion and a second. Do. Would you like to make any closing remarks?

Well, again, I want to thank the committee. I wanted to thank Mr. Villegas, the chair, and the California Athletic Commission. This is them demonstrating our responsibility as a state to make sure that these folks who put their lives on the line, who make a lot of money, who entertain a lot of fans, make a lot of money for our state and entertain a lot of fans, are able to live with dignity when they're done with this sport.

And I thank the committee and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Assembly Member Valencia. Question.

Assembly Member Haney, really appreciate you bringing this bill forward. As a fan of the sport, not very skilled in MMA. I was a former football player, but wish I would have been. Really appreciate again, this bill coming forward, a question that I have, just for clarification's sake.

The administrative side of the pension, it sounds like it'll be funded through an increased amount to ticket sales and things of that sort, but in terms of actually administrating the pension and the pension fund itself, who's going to be taking care of that?

Mr. Villegas, the chair of our Athletic Commission.

Madam Chair, good to see you again, committee. The commission would contract with an investment services provider and pension plan administrator, and both contractors would be accountable for responding to the commission and under the supervision of the commission.

Wonderful.

So we would hire someone and oversee their performance.

And then would that cost be incurred by the Athletic Commission or would it be included in the ticket sale?

It would be included. And then the promoters who hold the events would be the main contributors to the pension fund.

So then no cost to the Athletic Commission?

No cost, just administrative. Correct.

Thank you.

Thank you for that question and that answer, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And thank you, Assemblymember of Valencia, for that clarification. And I also think, clarifying that, as was mentioned, if I heard it correctly, the boxing world is already vested in this type of pension, so it would just allow parity. And with that, I do support this bill. It is a do pass to the Assembly Committee on appropriations. Madam Chair.

[Roll Call]

And that bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we call?

All right, I think maybe what we'll do is I'll jump in and then, Assembly Vice Chair, you'll run the show.

Here we can just pass this sorry.

Item. All right, next on the agenda is file item three. We have a motion already. AB 1382. Assembly Member Quirck-Silva, you are free to begin when ready.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here today to present AB 1382, which requires the California Arts Council to create an interdepartmental advisory group to support state designated cultural districts. Some of you may or may not know there are actually 14 state designated cultural districts in the state of California. The state designated cultural district program was established in 2015 which allows communities to enter into a competitive application system for certified designation.

Some of those that you might not be familiar would be Koreatown and Los Angeles, different districts like this. The benefits to state designated cultural districts include technical assistance and branding materials that increase the visibility of local communities and artists. The Arts Council announced the first group of 14 in July 27, but no additional districts have received certification in nearly five years since these initial 14 districts.

In addition to creating an interdepartmental advisory group to assist the art council with facilitating promotion and signage, this bill helps to build out the program by requiring the Arts Council to designate a staff person to develop, support, and strategically plan the state designated cultural district program. Upon appropriation, the bill would also authorize the Arts Council to use funding for additional tools that will provide guidance to emerging cultural districts.

And again, I know that as these become known throughout the state of California, other cities or localities would be interested in identifying their own areas as a cultural district. I believe that one of the greatest things about California is the diverse and unique artistic identities of our many communities, and more deserve the chance to be officially recognized for highlighting the cultural diversity of our state.

Thank you. Do you have any primary witnesses?

We do not today.

Is there anybody in the room who would like to speak in support?

Morning chair Members Priscilla Quiroz, on behalf of California Arts Advocates, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. And are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from the committee? Thank you. We have a motion by Assemblymember Friedman. Do we have a second? Mr. Valencia. Please call the roll. The motion is do pass to appropriations secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Yes. Bill is out.

Thank you. My second bill is similar but not identical to the first. In this, AB 1669 establishes the California historically significant commercial district program, which funds local revitalization entities to implement small business assistance strategies they learn through statewide training and mentoring. As we all know, entrepreneurs in California face obstacles in initiating and scaling small businesses. Covid-19 increased these challenges, especially for businesses owned by women and people of color.

Due to Covid's impact on tourism, small businesses located in historic commercial corridors face some of the greatest recovery challenges. Leveraging place based strategies such as main streets and cultural districts provide a clear framework for reaching and supporting the long term resiliency of these businesses. With me today is the Executive Director and board chair of California Main Street to speak in support. We have Amanda Elliott from the California Main Street program and Bianca Blomquist from the California Policy Director and they have some remarks.

Thank you, Madam Chair Quirk-Silva and I urge you to support AB 1669. Again, my name is Amanda Elliott. I am a senior program officer and Director of the California Main Street Programs. California Main Street is a 501 nonprofit organization that works with communities across the state to foster economic development and enhance overall quality of life. California Main Street provides training, network opportunities and access to resources to municipalities and community organizations focused on revitalizing older historic commercial districts.

We're part of Main Street America and we're working to bring vitality and prosperity to our downtowns and commercial districts throughout the country. Main Street America programs operate at local, city and statewide levels. Main Streets are committed to preserving and enhancing the built environment, celebrating local history and culture, and creating local economic opportunity. Main Street America is a subsidiary of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. From 1986 to 2002, the California Main Street Program was administered by California technology, trade, commerce and supported by state general funds.

In 2004, through the work of California Main Street alliance and California Preservation Foundation and the California Sport Preservation Action, the Main street program was reestablished within the Office of Historic Preservation. However, state funding for the program has not been renewed. Third, we have in our Main Street in California 30 plus programs throughout the state. The majority of our programs receive city funding directly to entirely or entirely to Fund the program or indirectly as members of business improvement districts.

Several of our California Main Street programs are located in California cultural districts. Programs range in formation from 501, c 3, c 4 and c 6. Some are business improvement districts, property business improvement districts, city sponsored economic development programs. In 2021, the reinvestment numbers for our programs generated 5.7 billion in local reinvestment and helped open more than 6000 businesses, facilitated the creation of 30,000 plus jobs, and catalyzed the rehabilitation of more than 10,000 historic buildings. Main street program spent more.

Their operations generated more than $19 of the new investment back into our main street. So every dollar for our Main Street program generated more than $19. So the Main Street approach is part of the Main Street America National Main Street Four Point approach, and it is a proven, place based economic development strategy that has been used throughout the country for more than 40 years.

And that 4.0 approach includes the economic vitality, building a diverse economic base, the organization, building broad community engagement and strong organizational leadership design, creating an inviting and inclusive environment that celebrates the historic character of the district and the promotion of marketing the district's unique assets through storytelling and promoting local small businesses. I am a former Executive Director of Richmond Main Street in downtown Richmond, California.

I was there for more than 13 years and through our work, through the community and all of our collaboration, we were able to implement the only property based business improvement district in the City of Richmond and in the county and bring together the residents as well as the property owners to support the small businesses in the downtown. I urge you to support 1669. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next witness whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chairwoman Quirk-Silva and members of the committee. My name is Bianca Blomquist and I'm here to share with you my support for AB 1669, a program that will revitalize and support historically and culturally significant commercial corridors in our state. I'm the California Policy Director for Small Business Majority, a nonprofit organization with several offices in California and nationwide. Small business majority serves economically and socially disadvantaged entrepreneurs, particularly entrepreneurs of color, women entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurs in rural areas.

We educate small business owners about a wide variety of issues to help them start and grow their small business and connect underresourced entrepreneurs to unbiased education, responsible lenders, and technical assistance providers in their communities. We also conduct research on the needs, challenges and opportunities for small business owners. The enactment of the California historically significant district program will scale strategy to support more small business owners in downtown districts, especially those located in historically and culturally significant commercial corridors.

It will increase the capacity of local commercial districts to meet the needs of underserved businesses, business owners, especially businesses owned by women and people of color. This is particularly vital because underserved entrepreneurs continue to face inequities in comparisons to larger businesses that enjoy greater access to consultants, legal experts, and business advice. As you may know, maintaining historically significant buildings can create an added expense for business owners while also limiting them in changing or adjusting their storefronts to attract new clientele.

The California historically significant district program will incentivize revitalization through technical assistance, training, and other activities that increase the capacity of organizations to operate, adapt, and meet the needs of very small business owners in historic commercial corridors for these reasons, we ask for your support for AB 1669. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in the room in support? Are there any witnesses in opposition? Questions or comments from the committee? Assemblymember Friedman.

I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I really, really appreciate and like this bill. I have a couple of these old historic downtowns in my district and they are places that definitely struggle during COVID but that give the community a sense of place more, that they ground our community more than anything else. And it's what people think about when they think about the heart of their city.

And it provides a place where people can truly interact with each other in a way that's really organic. And what this world needs is a lot more people interacting face to face as opposed to behind a screen. And that's what these areas provide along with that sense of history and of place and nostalgia and memory. I would be very honored to be added as a co author to this bill and I'm certainly going to support it today.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Adam chair, would you like to close?

I would just echo what my colleagues just know. I live in Fullerton, which has a historic downtown and over the years those buildings have changed different owners, different themes. But what remains true is exactly what my colleague said. People coming down to listen to music, to have some type of food, to engage, bring their dogs down and that we are sorely lacking in many places and we need more of that neighbor to neighbor, business to business. So with that I access for your support.

The motion is do pass to jobs, economic development and the economy. We have a motion by Assemblymember Friedman. Do we have a second by Mr. Fong? Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It's out.

All right, we will finish up with our last item here. AB 1421. Assemblymember Alvarez, the San Diego Regional Film Financial Incentive Pilot Program. Welcome, Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's great to be at this committee. I am a longtime supporter of the arts. When I was on the City Council in San Diego, I helped with a blueprint called Penny for the Arts, where we set aside one cent of our tot or transit occupancy tax money set aside for our arts institution in San Diego. So I'm really actually excited to be before your committee. Thank you very much. I'm here to present AB 1421.

AB 1421 will create the San Diego Regional Film Financial Incentive Program, which will provide grants to independent filmmakers with production budgets of less than $1 million to shoot their films. Thank you, Ms. Friedman. Over a decade ago, California rightfully recognized the importance of filmmaking, and we established a California tax credit for film. And that's been instrumental in maintaining our state's most important industries that generate immense economic interest and economic benefit.

However, our existing incentive, the current program, does not allow for smaller independent filmmakers with budgets under $1 million to participate. That results in many of the filmmakers opting for other states to do their filming and obviously create economic activity for those states. AB 1421 captures this fleeing workforce and the economic and cultural activity that they generate and will also complement the existing programs by incentivizing filmmakers to shoot their films.

AB 1421 does not have opposition, and it is critical for keeping independent filmmakers here in California, and I thank you for the opportunity. I'd like to turn it over to our two witnesses. Professor independent filmmaker Jeff Deverett will be first, and then independent filmmaker and president of San Diego Media Pros Jane Hare will go after.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thanks for having us. Hi, my name is Jeff Deverett, and I'm an independent filmmaker based in San Diego. I'm also a professor at San Diego State University, where I teach film production, finance, distribution, and marketing. In addition, I'm a professional independent film consultant, and I consult with hundreds of indie filmmakers, both across the United States and worldwide. I myself have made seven feature films with budget ranges from $400 to $950,000.

All of my movies were distributed worldwide, and three of them were bought by Netflix. The reason that I'm here is to tell you that of all my seven films; I shot only one of them in California.

I would have preferred to shoot all my films in California, especially in San Diego, where I live, but it didn't make financial sense for me to do so because, in California, low-budget indie films do not get any financial incentives, whereas I can go to other places like Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kentucky, Louisiana, Canada, et cetera, and get up to 30% of my budget covered.

My biggest and most popular film, called Full Out, hopefully you've seen it, is based on the true story of a UCLA gymnast who recovers from a car accident and leads UCLA to their 6th national championship. It's a true story, and it's 100% based in Southern California, primarily at UCLA. But of the 25 days of shooting, we shot only one day in California, at UCLA.

The rest of this movie was actually shot in Toronto, Canada because that's where we got the best financial incentive, and we actually dressed up a gymnastics facility in Toronto to look like UCLA. On that movie, we had 33 crew people, 17 cast members, and lots of extras, and we spent $890,000 over $930,000 budget in Canada. It would have been much easier and much more authentic for us to shoot the movie in Southern California, and I would have preferred to do so.

But in Canada, 25% of our budget was rebated back to us, which, for a low-budget independent film, is a significant amount of money. In California, there are no financial incentives for films with budgets below $1.0 million. The California Film Commission gives financial incentives to films with budgets above $1.0 million, but it does not assist any films below $1.0 million. Hence, hundreds of California-based independent filmmakers like myself leave California to shoot their films in other places in order to get financial incentives.

Every year, California loses hundreds of millions of dollars in film spending, as well as thousands of filmmaking jobs, because it does not accommodate low-budget indie films. Like many other industries, it's the small business, the low-budget indie films that create the most jobs and the most economic activity. The exact numbers are not published, but I would estimate that every year in the United States, there are at least 25,000 independent films are produced.

And I would guess that the state of California gets less than 2% of that business. This program will change that. It will incentivize indie filmmakers like myself from all over California and from all over the country to come to California to shoot their movies, which will create thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of spending within the California economy. California is by far the best place in the world to make movies. It's the home of filmmaking.

When people around the world think about the film business, they immediately think California filmmakers like me want to shoot their films in California. We want to stay at home. We want to support our local economies. This program will incentivize us to do so. I believe that we can bring thousands of independent films back to California, where they belong. This program will make California the premier and obvious destination for all filmmakers. And for that reason, I strongly support this bill.

And I just want to add, we did have dozens of witnesses lined up, but they were call in witnesses because they're in San Diego. Had I known when I saw the first bill being presented, we would have rented a bus and driven them all up here to be in front of you. But unfortunately, we didn't do that. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Jane Hare. I'm an independent filmmaker based in San Diego. I'm also the president, as you mentioned, of San Diego Media Pros, which is a nonprofit organization that is focused on uniting and educating professional and student film members in San Diego. County. We also build visibility for the San Diego County filmmaking community. Filmmakers, both crew and creatives based in San Diego are watching as projects go to other states.

I'm personally acquainted with filmmakers who recently wrapped low-budget indie films in Louisiana and New Mexico and others who were in pre-production and planning to shoot elsewhere. Why did they go? Because of the financial incentives. I've been a professional filmmaker and video producer, and director for my entire career. I've worked in seven major cities, and San Diego is one of the best destinations in the world for independent filmmaking. And that kind of answers the question, why pilot this program?

In San Diego, we have skilled technical and creative, plus talented actors and film students. We have locally owned rental houses for equipment, lighting, and everything needed on set. Lots of expenditures there. We have an amazing diversity of locations: cityscapes, deserts, mountains, the beach. And we know that filmmakers will travel to use our lovely locations. Our city and county welcome filmmakers, allowing access to almost all public parks, buildings, and streets at no location fee. It's free. And finally, sunshine. Filmmakers seek this out. We like predictability.

Predictable weather means fewer production delays and additional expenses. Every filmmaker I've talked about the pilot program has mentioned one word. Game changer. This program would equate to economic development and jobs. It would add San Diego to the list of regions like Georgia, Oklahoma, Minnesota, who have invested in attracting filmmakers and the budgets that they spend creating their independent films. This program would pave the way for San Diego first and then for all of California to become the premier destination globally for low-budget independent filmmaking.

We can't wait to get started. And I ask for your support of AB 1421. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anybody in the audience in support? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Members? Comments? I will make a comment. And this is a do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. I know. We'll let you make a close, and then I'll make some final comment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to add that in addition to all the benefits of being in San Diego, we are at the intersection of California and Mexico, which is really becoming a hub for filmmaking as well. In addition to that, I'd like to just acknowledge the fact that the 300-plus $1.0 million film tax credit in California, as was stated multiple times already, goes to big productions. And that's important, and that's good.

But we want to make sure that this can be inclusive of others and that others can participate. And we hope that working collaboratively as we are with the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and hopefully with the state participation, we can serve as a model to do this statewide. And I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And I really do appreciate this bill. One of the things some of you who are new to the legislature might know, it was mentioned that California has been offered a film tax credit for the larger films. But it is being worked on to renew and give more years to that. But certainly, the numbers you gave about how many small independents are going elsewhere.

We really need to do everything we can to capture them back in California and retain our home of the film industry, as well as the creativity that goes along with that, from students to professionals. So, I fully support this. Would like to join you on the bill, and we'll ask for a roll call vote here. -

[Roll Call]

Right, your Bill is out.

Thank you.

And with that, that is the. Is Mr. Lackey out today or? Oh. All right. With that, we are done. We'll keep the roll open for Mr. Lackey. Thank you. Members. Yes. oh, yes. We have, No. We'll do add-on votes.

AB 1136, Fong.

Was that all of the ones that you needed? Okay. Think that's it. All right. So we will wait till 10:20 to see if Mr. Lackey can make it back.

Thank you very much.

It is.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome.

AB 796. Lackey?

Not voting.

I think we have to have the. All right.

Abstain.

Okay, there we go.

AB 1136. Lackey?

Abstain. Also.

AB 1382. Lackey?

Aye.

AB 1421. Lackey?

Aye.

And AB 1669. Lackey?

Aye. Thanks for waiting.

Of course. And that concludes our hearing.

Thank you guys again for holding that. Thank you.

Not. Is this a mistake?