Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance

The Senate Committee on Governance and Finance will come to order. Want to thank you all for your patience. Most of us were here until almost 09:00 last night doing the judicial or serving on the Judiciary Committee. And Mr. Chair, you did a fine job, but we're all exhausted this morning. Your patience will be required. The Senate Committee on Governance and Finance continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service.

For individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participant number 877-226-8163, and the access code is 6948930. We are holding our Committee here in Room 200 of the O Street Building, and I ask all Members of the Committee to be present so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have 15 bills on today's agenda, with one proposed for consent. The consent item today is item number 14, SB 882, Governance and Finance Committee Omnibus Bill.

Item number six, SB 458 by Senator Gonzalez, and item number 15, SCA 4 by Senator Seyarto, was pulled from the agenda by the authors and will be reset for hearing at a future date. Are we going to have a quorum? Okay, we'll wait. Now we're going to hear from our first author. We'll begin going right down the agenda. Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And you are correct. Thank you for accompanying and being a participant on the Judiciary Committee death march yesterday. I'm here to present SB 34 and SB 229. The predicate and catalyst for both these bills is a scenario that occurred over the last few years in the City of Anaheim in connection with the sale of Anaheim Stadium to the team formerly known as the Anaheim Angels.

And what that was about was the former mayor, and for the most part, former City Council, in my view, colluding with the Angels to sell the property for hundreds of millions of dollars less than its fair market value. The purpose, at least, as I understand, of the Surplus Lands Act, is at least twofold. One, to make sure that taxpayers get their due with respect to the sale of any public property.

And thus that's why it's required to be put out for bid, so that the marketplace can determine what the fair market value is. And then, secondly, to provide, when you're selling governmental property, a portion, 25%, as is required in the Surplus Lands Act, for affordable housing. In the sale of Anaheim Stadium, both those provisions, again, in my view, were violated, and that became the subject of an FBI investigation.

Thus far, two people connected have pleaded guilty, and there's still an investigation as to the former mayor and his involvement. The purpose of these two bills is to prevent that scenario from happening again, at least as it pertains to the County of Orange. These bills right now only pertain to the County of Orange. I understand that we have been discussing the various aspects of the Bill. One of the issues is what is the connection between the Surplus Lands Act and leases versus sale of property.

Last night, I got feedback from the Committee after a death march, and I've talked to the Chair, and I understand we still have some issues to work out, but I would request that we pass both SB 34 and SB 229 out of Committee so that we can continue to work on them. I know that the Chair will hold us accountable to make sure that we do come to some accord.

Just briefly, what this does is if HCD notices a violation of Surplus Lands Act, they can basically issue that notice and the city has to correct it within 60 days. Also, once the agreement is signed, there's got to be, in essence, a 14-day period for review. In the situation with Anaheim Stadium, previous situation, for reasons that I still don't understand, after the deal was signed, it was almost immediately approved by City Council, then immediately submitted to the court to resolve the lawsuit. Lots of speculation.

I won't speculate any further in public, but it was a unique scenario, and that's what SB 229 is designed to at least provide for a period of public scrutiny. With that, I have with me Mr. Andrew Dawson from the California Housing Partnership to testify in support.

Welcome, Mr. Dawson.

Hello. Hello. I'm Andrew Dawson. The California Housing Partnership. The partnership is a private nonprofit created by the state in 1988 with a public mission of increasing the supply of affordable and sustainable housing for low-income households. We're here in support of SB 34 and SB 229. Should I do both of them? Sorry.

No, just the first one.

Just 34. Okay.

SB 34.

SB 34, a Bill that prohibits Orange County and cities from proceeding with disposal of surplus land if HCD receives, or if it receives a notice of violation from HCD. Public agencies own land, and sometimes they want to sell it if it becomes surplus. The Surplus Land Act, or SLA, governs how to dispose of it. HCD is the agency in charge of the SLA guidelines and procedures.

Part of the SLA requires that a right of first refusal is given to other government agencies and nonprofit affordable housing developers. As the Senator talked about, Anaheim City was involved in an issue with selling Angel Stadium and was issued a notice of violation in 2021. And the Bill analysis does a good job of talking about it. Service properties, in general, are important source of cost-effective land for affordable housing.

And so we want to be able to establish reasonable checks by stopping local governments from proceeding with disposition while under HCD violation. For this, we would like to ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any other witnesses that would like to testify in support of this Bill? If so, please come forward. Any witnesses in Room 2200? Seeing none, we'll move on to witnesses in opposition. Is there anyone who would like to serve as a lead witness in opposition? Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully with an opposed unless amended position, and confining my remarks just to SB 34 at this time. While we understand the author's desire for additional transparency and accountability, the concern with SB 34 is that it would set precedent by including leases in the definition of dispose under the Surplus Land Act for the first time.

And we think this goes against what is the clear and established legislative intent that, as of today, leases are not included in that definition. And we think that is clear from AB 1486 from 2019. That was Assemblymember Ting's Bill and that Bill initially proposed to include leases in the definition of dispose. There was a broad local government coalition that opposed that Bill, and ultimately, leases were struck from the Bill, and it was chaptered without leases.

So we think that this injects confusion, and, again, goes against precedent and establishes a new precedent by including leases, but only in this violation section. So that's the amendment we're seeking. I would note that this Bill is similar to last year's SB 361, again, by Senator Umberg, and leases were initially in that Bill as well. And CSDA, along with others opposed unless amended for that reason. And leases ultimately were struck from that Bill as well. So we're asking for a No vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Pilar Onate-Quintana for the Irvine Ranch Water District. We are opposed unless amended for the reasons very clearly stated by CSDA. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in hearing room 2200? Seeing none. We'll move on to the teleconference line and ask the moderator. Sorry?

Once again.

Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me just a second. I missed movement in the room.

Hi, I'm Latifah Alexander with the Association of California Healthcare Districts, as well as the Urban Counties of California, in opposition unless amended.

Great, thank you. Anyone else? I guess I'm going to have to go slower today. Seeing no other movement in the room, we'll move on to witnesses via the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, now it's your turn. Or Madam Moderator. Well, that's kind of how my brain feels. I think we need to see if there's anybody.

Line 10, you're open. Please go ahead.

Obviously, they're on a spaceship.

Line 10. We can hear noise, but no one talking. We're going to move on. If you have no comment, you might want to pull over. Yes?

You are up.

Agenda. Agenda five.

Okay, agenda five. We're on agenda item number one. Next witness, please.

No one else is queued up on the phone lines.

Very good. We'll bring the Bill back to the Committee. Any comments, questions, concerns? Yes, Senator.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm just trying to understand the CSDA and others in opposition. This issue. So if there is a 99-year lease proposal and HCD issues a notice of violation because they feel there's some part of the housing law that's not being properly accounted for and the violation needs to be corrected within 60 days or the lease, 99-year lease, couldn't proceed, what's the problem with including leases? I guess I'm not really understanding that part.

I'm not the right person to ask that question.

Should it be?

Just to respond, a 99-year lease is the equivalent of a sale and certainly should be included within the definition of sales under the Surplus Land Act, in my view.

So here's the challenge. And this is one of the things that we have been discussing but couldn't reach a conclusion on, is that the legislation that has been passed and signed does not include leases, but HCD has interpreted that it includes leases. And has made some kind of rulings on SLA, the Surplus Land Act which confuses cities and they don't know what to do because you can be fined for a violation of the Surplus Land Act. Plus it's embarrassing.

And so we've been working on what number of years would constitute a lease for which you'd want the Surplus Land Act to be operative. And I have a Bill that's working on that. There's an Assembly Bill that's coming that works on it from a different angle. And so ultimately, we're going to have to come together and figure out what the solution is. Is it 99 years? Is it 35? Is it 50? Is it 25? We're just trying to get it right.

And what makes it complicated is that there was some illegal conduct and people are going to jail. And so we want to make sure we get it right.

Okay, well, I'll just state for the record, as this is being negotiated in the future, that from my perspective, I would like to not disincentivize leasing. So to say that I would prefer that public land be maintained in public ownership and that leases be promoted instead of a Surplus Land Act that moves public property into private property hands because it's much harder and more expensive than as the public sector is trying to solve problems that emerge in the future to reacquire land.

So, I would hope that there would be an analysis of how to create the structure that doesn't disincentivize leasing, but creating clarity and also making sure that the goals of the Surplus Land Act, particularly around housing development, are followed is important. So I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.

Very good.

And I'm happy to support the Bill today.

Very good. Seeing no further questions, Senator we'll allow you to conclude.

This conclusion will apply to both bills. So, Senator Blakespear, you're absolutely correct that we want to make sure that governments basically preserve property for public use, public space to the extent they're necessary and useful. There are some properties that are no longer useful and should be disposed of, whether it's by lease or by sale.

And if that happens, if the locality, if the municipality, if the county makes a decision to go ahead and dispose of that property, it's my view, and I think the view of the Surplus Lands Act, that it should be put out to bid. So we know, rather than having a governmental entity basically negotiate sort of potentially behind the scenes to sell property, we want it to be bid, we want it to be open. We want it to get the highest value possible.

And we also want to provide some affordable housing portion of it. As the Chair has pointed out, what that is in my view, 99 years is the equivalent of a sale. One year is a lease. So somewhere in the middle, I think, lies the sweet spot. Sadly, I think the behavior of the former mayor and most of the former council in Anaheim provides a roadmap as to how to circumvent the Act and basically do exactly what happened, which is sell a piece of property.

Or dispose of a piece of property hundreds of millions of dollars less than its fair market value and undermine the provision of the act that provides for affordable housing. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to correct it with the next Bill. We're trying to provide a 14-day transparency period. With that, that's my close so I'd urge and Aye vote.

Thank you very much. And I'm looking for a motion. Oh, yeah, that's right. We don't have a quorum. Sheesh, see what I mean? Okay, so we'll take this under advisement and I'll make the comment, which is that I'm going to support it, but with the understanding we'll bring it back if it needs to be brought back if we don't get this whole issue about leases concluded. So, appreciate your testimony here today.

We're going to move on to your second Bill, which is based on the same set of facts, which is SB 229, and allow you to make a presentation, if you'd like to.

That simply provides for a 14-day period from the time of the execution of the lease or the sale for the City Council to approve it so that there's some transparency, public comment, public scrutiny. Urge an Aye vote.

Very good. And your lead witness?

Well, again, I'll just say that SB 229 ensures that the public is engaged when a violation of SLA occurs and so that there is increased transparency and accountability. Thank you.

Very good. We're going to see if there's anyone else in support of the Bill in Room 2200. Anyone in support? Seeing none. Like to invite witnesses in opposition? And you may serve as a lead opposition witness if you'd like.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. Once again, Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. I'll not repeat my comments about leases. It's the same issue with this Bill, though, as well, respectfully, and we do, for that reason, have an opposed unless amended position. I do want to address one issue that came up in discussion with respect to long-term leases. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had around long-term leases. I just think that this Bill is not the vehicle for that.

This Bill is dealing with notices of violation from HCD and doesn't attempt to define what types of leases would or should be included. So it's just adding fuel to the fire and this confusion. And as of right now, as of how the Surplus Land Act is written today, leases are not included in the definition of dispose. So that's the concern with this Bill in particular. Focusing on a couple of comments that are unique to SB 229.

In addition to the lease issue, our coalition is asking for additional flexibility in the meeting procedures that are required under this Bill, again acknowledging the author's well-placed desire for additional transparency and accountability. We are asking for additional flexibility around the format that these notices of violation need to be considered by a local agency. We're asking for an off-ramp.

This Bill requires this public meeting to occur, even if the local agency decides they're not going to proceed with the transaction after getting this notice of violation. So we're looking for an off-ramp there, and then some additional flexibility around the notices that the local agency needs to provide. Currently, the Bill, as written, requires posting on the local agency's website. Not all local agencies maintain websites, so we're asking for a little bit of flexibility there, and at this time, respectfully asking for a No vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other witnesses in opposition?

Again, Pilar Onate-Quintana for the Irvine Ranch Water District, opposed unless amended for the reasons outlined by CSDA, but with a particular focus on the lease issue. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Latifah Alexander here with the Association of California Healthcare Districts, as well as Urban Counties of California. Both are opposed unless amended.

Very good. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to this Bill in Room 2200? Seeing no movement. We'll go to the teleconference line and ask moderator if you could see if there's anybody on the line that would like to testify either in opposition or in support.

If you'd like to make a comment on the phone lines, please press one, then zero. And no one has queued up. Please continue.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Concerns? Yes. Senator.

So what's the status of these requests that were made around it seems like it almost doesn't need to be stated that if an application is withdrawn, then you wouldn't have to have a public hearing.

The answer is. Right. The Bill will be amended to deal with some of those issues. Yes. There's no need to have a public hearing if well, let me caveat that. I suppose it depends upon the reason for withdrawal. There could be potentially a reason that there should be a public hearing in order to shed light on why the deal was entered into and now why the governmental entities decided not to complete the transaction. But we will continue to work on those issues.

Issue of websites, my guess is probably a special district that can't afford a website, probably doesn't need to sell some property or lease some property. I don't know. But the public engagement is what was lacking here. And I do believe that again, this whole scenario provided a roadmap for entities who wish to, in essence, circumvent the requirement that you put property out to bid.

A one-year lease or a 10-year lease for a $2 million piece of property, in my view, need not go through the Surplus Lands Act process. A $100 million piece of property with a 50-year lease does need to go through.

Again, we haven't come to the place where we've reached agreement on this, but I think both the Chair and I recognize that at some point in time, a lease becomes a sale and should be subject to the Surplus Lands Act. In terms of the intent with respect to leases, Assembly Member Ting I think eventually we'll have a Bill here and he can express his own point of view as to whether or not he thinks that leases should be part of this Surplus Land Act.

My expectation is that he will say yes.

Okay, yeah. Well, so I'm happy to support this today. I mean, whatever the noticing that an agency would do, if it's a small water district that has one meeting a year and they normally publish in the newspaper, whatever the normal noticing is, I would support that and they don't have a website.

And then also this issue of if the application is withdrawn, just like in any application setting, I don't think that shouldn't be punitive like because you put out an idea, then HCD sent a notice of violation, now you still have to hold public hearings. I think, to me, it makes sense to follow a normal process where if an application for a project is withdrawn, then there would be no need for a meeting because there's nothing to talk about.

But that will just I'm happy to support it today.

Point well taken. Thank you.

Point well taken. Any other comments? My only comment in regards to that example, I do agree with you. Otherwise, I think there's got to be a public notice that the sale or the lease or whatever is going to be terminated, whatever the language is from the contract. So that it's very clear to the public what happened. So we are in discussions about this, and again, this is a Bill that we've agreed to bring back.

This is an area that a lot of work is being done in and we'll bring it back if it doesn't satisfy what we've discussed here today. So, thank you, Senator Umberg. We'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your work on this. Thank you to Cassie Royce also for all her work. Madam Chair, Thanks.

Thank you very much, Senator. The next item is item number three, which is by Senator Hurtado, and I've been asked to present that Bill. She's not here, so we're going to skip right over it and we'll take it up at the end. So anybody that's here for the item number three, SB 262, we'll move on to item number four, which is SB 329 by Senator Dodd.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members.

Welcome.

First, I would like to thank the Chairwoman and Committee staff for their work on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee's recommended amendments that are detailed on page three of the analysis. SB 329 updates the base compensation amounts for City Council Members in general law cities. These amounts have not been raised by the Legislature since 1984. City Council Members have one of the hardest jobs in California government, and all too often they do this job with very little financial compensation.

No one runs for City Council to get rich, but the low levels of pay make it much harder for them to balance their careers and personal obligations with the calling to serve their communities. As mentioned, the Legislature has not raised the base pay amounts for City Council Members since 1984. In my district and in much of our state, we've seen the cost of living increase dramatically since then.

It's time for those amounts caught up to the present economic reality, especially with the rapid increase in inflation that we've seen recently. Raising the pay will make it easier for our members of our marginalized communities to serve. We know that the increase in cost of housing, transportation, childcare, and other basic necessities falls hardest on those communities. We need to make it easier for people from all income levels and backgrounds to serve.

City councils should be reflective of the communities they represent, and I believe raising the compensation is an important step to achieving that equitable outcome. I would like to introduce Rohnert Park Mayor Samantha Rodriguez, to speak in support of this Bill.

Welcome.

Good morning. I'm coming to share. I am a first-generation, first Latina, and the current youngest Council Member to serve not only for our county, but for our city. And I am in support of this because I currently make about $400 a month to be what many would find a full-time council member and mayor for our city. With that, I also juggle being a full-time public employee through the state and, most recently, a full-time student. So, as we know, it's very difficult to juggle.

Actually, Senator Dodd's office actually saw me working on the way here and working before we came here. And I do think it's important because it helps bring some equitability for appropriate representation for our communities. I am honored to serve on my council. We actually reflect what our demographics look like, and we have multiple members that are also juggling work with their responsibilities and how much they care for their communities.

So I would hope that we could also support this Bill to provide that for many of the cities and council members to continue, especially given that it was not changed since before I was born. So that's a bit of time. And so I would like to do this. And I'm also somebody who is not, once I finish my term, I will not be continuing. So this is not even something that I could potentially benefit from.

But I do think it's important so that others can continue to do the incredible work that is done at the City Council level. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much for being here today. I appreciate it, given your busy schedule. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in support in Room 2200?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities, proud sponsors of this long overdue Bill, and I'm happy to make myself available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Roger Dickinson on behalf of Civic Well, formerly the Local Government Commission, in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members in strong support. And thank you very much for your efforts on this.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support in Room 2200? Seeing no movement. I'll ask and see if there's anybody that would like to speak in opposition and that would like to serve as the lead witness? Seeing no movement, is there anybody who just wants to say I oppose?

Very good. We'll go on to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could queue up any individuals that would like to speak in support or in opposition of this Bill SB 329?

As a reminder, press one zero if you have a comment. One moment. I'll have a line number for you.

One moment. 949, you're open. Please go ahead.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am definitely in favor of this. As a member of the community, I do would like to serve one of these commissions or town councils, but financially it's a hardship unless there is compensation. But I do think it's time for an increase. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else that would like to testify?

Not on the phone lines at this time.

Thank you. Very good. We'll bring this back to the Committee. Senator Blakespear.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I think this is really important. The issue of what is fair recompense for somebody who is serving their local community is unquestionably higher than what they are currently being paid at every level. And I think that it's impractical. Some of the things that were suggested in the comments are just highly impractical.

To suggest that a general law city would then become a charter city so that they could raise pay. And even putting something on the agenda to even discuss what is fair immediately becomes a political firestorm in nearly every community. And I think the question of whether somebody should be paid several cents for every hour worked or a couple more cents, really, the reality is that what you're suggesting the amount go up to is still very low for what the work is. So I fully support this.

I think it's great that you brought it forward, and I also think it's just really important that we create the possibility of a really high-quality pipeline of elected officials. And the reality is that it's a very narrow group of people who can manage this with their life right now, to have a full other job, to have to be retired from a job that had a pension, to be independently wealthy, the various different, to be married to a spouse who has a high paying job.

There are lots and lots of people who would really be good in serving in local government, but because of the money, it is completely closed to them because they have to support their families. So it's really important that we do do this. And I'm grateful that you brought it forward. So I will make the motion just to move it to the next level.

Thank you.

Very good. There is a motion. Any other comments?

Question.

Senator Seyarto.

So does this? Thank you for bringing the Bill forward. I know this addresses some real issues out there for city councils and council members, but during the process of doing this, do the councils themselves have to take action still to move their compensation up to whatever this limit is if they want to, or can they set it. They can still set the compensation, correct?

I think they can. That's a technical question. I'm probably not the best person.

It's one of the amendments that we requested is that it requires that the City Council be taken up at two separate regular and open meetings of the City Council and then making the necessary findings if they go beyond what the Bill allows.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for helping me with my Bill.

And I'm sorry, I didn't catch that amendment when I was looking at it, because my only concern is that there are different cities. Obviously, different sizes of cities, and some cities are very small and have very few issues to deal with with their city councils or commissions. I think it makes sense for cities where their council members become very busy, that this works to have pay that will help them negotiate that or navigate that I mean.

Whereas a smaller city, the small rural city, that it really doesn't take a lot other than ministerial stuff every couple of weeks or even once a month would probably not warrant that city having to pay out that much. Yeah, I think this probably works for the cities. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you to you, Senator, for doing this important work. It is never easy to raise council salaries. That's just the bottom line. That's the reason that this hasn't been touched in such a long time, is it becomes immediately political. So to the extent that they're still going to have to hold meetings, it at least provides some parity for people who are really. I have yet to meet a city that doesn't have a lot on their agenda because of whatever's going on in their community.

And so this is really important. So I'll allow you to conclude.

Yeah, just to be clear, nobody's going to get rich on this increase. When I was a county supervisor, I was often stunned talking to City Council Members on what their rate of pay was. When I saw this opportunity, I thought it was a great opportunity to run. Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much. When we get a quorum, we'll take your Bill up with do pass, as amended, recommendation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And also to the Committee staff. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much. I'm looking around and I don't see any of the authors that come up next. So I do have Senator Hurtado's Bill. I'll pass the gavel.

All right, the next item up is item number three, which is SB 262 by Senator Hurtado. And Senator Caballero will be presenting on her behalf. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. I will be presenting SB 231 on behalf of Senator Hurtado, who accepts the amendments suggested by the Committee in the announcement.

I'm sorry. We're doing 220--I mean, this is 262?

262.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. At least we're on the same page. That's good. So, Members, this year's winter storms have been devastating for Californians across the state. January flooding led to the state of emergency declarations by both Governor Newsom and President Biden. Lives were lost, and economic damage is estimated in the billions. In March, an atmospheric river battered California, resulting in more flooding, more emergency declarations, more economic devastation, and more loss of life.

Yet, despite unrelenting storms and the notably wet season, nearly a quarter of California is still considered to be in a drought. In California, drought has become commonplace. In 2021 alone, drought resulted in 1.2 billion dollars in direct costs to the agricultural industry. And it really goes unreported that hundreds of acres were allowed to lie fallow because there was no water in order to plant a crop and create a harvest, which really has a detrimental impact on rural California.

Farmworkers are disproportionately impacted by the drought and by increased climate instability from floods to drought, wildfire, and extreme heat. When floods hit farmland and damage crops like lettuce, broccoli, and strawberries, farmworkers are affected. Conversely, when farmers face prolonged drought and are forced to reduce planting or fallow their land, farm workers see a reduction in their hours and their ability to find work. To combat the financial uncertainty farm workers face, Senator Hurtado has introduced SB 262, the California Farm Worker Drought and Flood Resistant Pilot Project.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, over half of farm workers have incomes 200 percent below the federal poverty level, with higher poverty rates among undocumented workers. The pilot project, under the direction of the Department of Human Services, would provide 1,000 dollars per month to households who meet very specific eligibility criteria. This can ensure funds go to the farm workers who need them the most. California farm workers play a critical role in helping to feed the world.

SB 262, through the establishment of the California Farmworker Drought and Flood Resistance Pilot Project, will provide these farm workers the financial assistance they need. With me today to offer testimony is Hernan Hernandez, Executive Director for the California Farmworker Foundation.

Mr. Hernandez, welcome. Thank you for joining us today.

Okay. It's my first time testifying in this. Just talk in the mic?

You don't have to look up at it. You can just--yeah.

It's multidirectional and it works really good.

Okay. My name is Hernan Hernandez, Executive Director of California Farmworker Foundation. Want to show our gratitude for Senator Hurtado and Chairman Caballero for discussing SB 262. SB 262 is needed today more than ever. Climate change is directly impacting our farmworker population, whether it's through extreme drought or whether it's through extreme flooding and storms like we have been seeing in the past couple of weeks. SB 262 will provide a pilot program that would grant aid to our farm workers, economic assistance, which is in so dire need right now and has been in dire need for the past couple of years.

Agriculture is changing. If you drive down the 5, you drive down the 99, you look to your left, you look to your right, you're not seeing high labor-intensive commodities. You're seeing more of tree nuts. You're seeing less labor-intensive commodities. Our farm worker season is shortening by the year. Before, in the Central Valley, farmworkers can work 48 to 50 weeks.

Now they're working on average 35 to 37 weeks. That means a loss of income. You couple that with climate change, with extreme flooding and extreme heat, they're losing even more income, and at the end of the day, when we go to them and ask them what is it that they need, it's always economic assistance.

It's the need to be able to pay rent, to be able to pay basic utilities, and to be able to provide food for the children and put food on their tables. So once again, we're asking for support, an aye on SB 262. It's much needed, and the population that feeds the world and that fed the world during the pandemic is in much need of aid in this moment, and the Legislator can do its part by providing them with economic assistance through this program. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming to testify today. Are there any other primary witnesses? If not, if there are any witnesses in the room who would like to come and state their support for the bill, now is the time to do that. There is none. Any opposition witnesses? Doesn't look like anybody scrambling to the microphone right now. Anybody in the room who would like to state their opposition for the bill? Given that I don't see any movement, we're going to move on to the phone lines.

As a reminder, if you have a comment, please press one then zero. And no comments. So one moment, I'll have a line number for you.

Mr. Operator, is there anybody?

Yes. We just have to get their line number. One moment.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Line 43, you're open. Please go ahead.

Yes. I would like to speak in support. My name is Clara Poley, and with climate change, we all know that most--

Ma'am, I'm sorry. Just your name, and whether you support or oppose the bill.

Support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that. Anybody else?

No one else is queued up on the phone lines.

All right, we're going to bring it back to the dais, and we're going to take one quick break on the dais to establish a quorum. I believe we have enough now.

[Roll Call]. You have a quorum.

Great. Thank you. So now we're going to bring it back to the dais for discussion. Questions? Anybody have any questions on this bill? If not--oh, do you have a question? Okay. Yes, absolutely. We have a quorum. You can move the bill. So the bill has been moved by Senator Skinner. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you.

Motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

So we're going to keep that bill open for other Members when they come in, and I'm going to turn the gavel back over to the Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. We're going to move on to--the next item on the agenda is Item Number Five: Senator Portantino. He's here. You're up. The floor is yours, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I want to start by thanking the Chair and her staff for working closely with my office on the amendments in front of us today for SB 411. The amendments clarify the Bill only applies to the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils. Requires City Council approval before use. Requires two-thirds of a neighborhood council to approve before use. Requires neighborhood councils to notification to the city. Requires a quorum of the neighborhood council Members participate from within the city.

Allows the city to override a neighborhood council's decision to make hearings remote. Requires that neighborhood councils try to make a reasonable accommodation upon request at least 48 hours in advance of a meeting for Members of the public who need assistance to participate in the meeting. And lastly, the amendments will add a sunset. The Bill in front of you today with these amendments stems from lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic due to Covid-19 Public Health Emergency.

Audio and video teleconferencing were widely used to conduct public meetings in lieu of in person. What that did, fundamentally, is it actually brought more people into the public process. We saw participation increased. We saw quorums easier to get, and in particular with the neighborhood councils. These are volunteers that meet all throughout the City of Los Angeles in rec centers, in libraries and back rooms. And so by having the opportunity for the public to participate remotely, public participation shot through the roof, which is good for democracy.

The more people involved, the better it is for all of us. Sadly, the governor's emergency order that gave these neighborhood councils the ability to meet remotely sunseted. And so now there's a scramble to try to keep, frankly, modern public participation germane and pertinent and relevant to these neighborhood councils. And again, I want to emphasize, these are volunteer bodies, and they're immediate to the public in those neighborhoods. And so it makes sense to give them the flexibility to continue to meet remotely.

I appreciate the chair and the Committee's safeguards in that, because we don't want to do anything that has any appearance that we're not open to the public, because this actually increases public participation. And so with that, we have Michael Schneider, who was here to testify on behalf of streets for all and as a neighborhood council member himself. And I'd like to go to him as my primary witness.

Very good. Mr. Schneider, welcome. The floor is yours right there. Perfect.

Good morning. My name is Michael Schneider. I'm the Vice Chair of Mid City West, which is one of 99 neighborhood councils in the City of Los Angeles. Today, however, I am here as founder of Streets for All, which is the proud sponsor of SB 411. This Bill would allow neighborhood councils to continue to meet virtually without a State of emergency being declared.

During the COVID emergency, when we met via Zoom, our Board Meetings went from only a few people in attendance to a busy meetings over 50. We were not alone in seeing this trend, as evidenced by the letter we submitted, signed by representatives from 22 other neighborhood councils. Past efforts by this body amending the Brown act to permit virtual meetings simply don't work well for LA's unique neighborhood council system.

Current law would require a volunteer board member to publicize their home address and open up their living room to the public. Beyond that, hybrid meetings would require costly it setups. The neighborhood councils have neither the budget nor the technical expertise to install and maintain. In short, current law means the end of virtual participation options for board members and the general public.

For LA's neighborhood councils, I'd like to offer some very quick points on the benefits of this Bill, the neighborhood council that represents where someone works may be different from the one that represents where they live or where their kids go to school. By allowing permanent virtual meetings, we ensure that members of the public can make their voice heard without the burden of having to physically get to a location at a certain time.

We have seen an increase in participation from council members and most crucially, city staff with virtual meetings because it's easier for them to attend, it's easier for us to get work done. Cars pollute and waste people's time sitting in traffic, not requiring the public, board members or city staff to attend in person meetings. In Los Angeles, a city that is over 500 sq. miles reduces vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead of spending much of our very small budget on rent, neighborhood councils have been able to increase their funding of projects that benefit their community. Lastly, virtual meetings are more equitable to those that don't have a car. A member of the public should not have to have access to a car or childcare, etc. To be able to participate or serve on a neighborhood council. I ask for your support on this critical Bill that will strengthen local democracy in the City of Los Angeles. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in room 200 that would like to speak in support?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange on behalf of the City of Los Angeles, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Solano County Water Agency in support.

Thank you. Good morning. Catherine Brandenburg with the Brandenburg Group representing Sonoma Clean Power in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Amy Costa with Full Moon Strategies on behalf of San Diego Community Power in support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in room 2200 that would like to testify?

Sabrina Bradbury with the California Association of Councils of Governments. We are supportive of the version of the Bill that is in print now, but from the sounds of the amendments, we would have to remove our support.

Anyone else seeing no movement in the room, we want to ask anybody in opposition of the Bill to please come forward and state your name for the record.

Good morning, ma'am. Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Brittany Barsadi. I'm the General Counsel at the California News Publishers Association, respectfully in an opposed and less amended position. While we greatly respect Senator Porntino's willingness to take amendments and the additional guardrails that are being placed in due to this Committee's work, we still remain having concerns with a trend of bills that we've seen. So, first of all, I guess I'll take a step back.

Last year, this Committee did a substantial amount of work on AB 2449, which has been in print in effect for mere months, and provided additional flexibility for Members of local bodies to participate remotely without having to comply with a traditional teleconferencing provision. That Bill should be given the opportunity to play out before making additional changes to the Brown Act.

As this and several other bills noted in the analysis look to make changes to the Brown Act, given that there are six bills that would all try and create. So there's different categories of legislative bodies behind in each of those bills, and then they also all have different requirements for teleconferencing provisions. And while we're still early in the process, that type of confusion or those type of conflicts would lead to greater confusion for members of local bodies as well as the public alike. And so with that, I will respectfully commit to continuing to work with the author's office to address our remaining concerns. And thank you. Thank you very much.

Scott Kaufman with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. We also have an opposed and less amended position. I won't take up too much more of your time because I feel Brittany hit the points very importantly, but I just wanted to state, digital access is important. We're very supportive of digital access, but we don't feel like it should be the only point of access. We feel it's very important to be able to meet and interact with your elected representatives in person, like we're doing right here, right now.

The inability to address your representatives in person can have an a chilling effect on transparency. Yes, a lot of people join Zoom meetings, but how many of them actually speak? And transparency really is a taxpayer issue. Obviously, the less we know, the less we can confront our government when we feel that they're acting inefficiently or even in support of bills that we find are very important. I would also mention that we feel like this is really a local problem in need of a local solution.

The way the Bill is currently written, it would affect everyone. We look forward to seeing the amendments, and we'll consider them when they're in print. But all these positions are elected, and they do have budgets. And I think it's important to have as much transparency as possible when dealing with the people's money. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room in room 2200 that would like to testify in opposition?

Good morning. Ruth Dawson with the ACLU, California Action and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Hello. Ginny LaRoe, with the First Amendment Coalition respectfully opposed unless amended. I'd also like to read the other groups who join us in our opposition. As noted in a letter we submitted to this Committee that includes Californians aware, the California Broadcasters Association and the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in room 2200 seeing? None. We'll move on to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could queue up individuals that want to testify, either in opposition or in support.

As a reminder, press 10 for your comment. 975, you're open. Please announce yourself. 975, you're open. Well, they took themselves out of queue. 964, you're open. Hello, can you hear me? Your line is open.

Yes, we can hear you. Okay. My name is Lionel Mares. I'm a board member with the San Valley Area Neighborhood Council in Los Angeles. I'm speaking in support of SB Bill 411.

Thank you very much.

Support. Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Line 74, you're open.

Good morning. My name is Kathy Schreiner, and I am President of the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, I strongly support SB 411. Thank you. Next, please.

Line 50, you're open.

Hello. My name is Michelle Gallagher, and I am the parliamentarian at the neighborhood council. We do lost forum on Monday because of childcare issues. I, for example, have a six-year-old child at home.

Ma'am. Ma'am, please. I'm done. I strongly support the unamended SB 411. Excuse me. To identify themselves, who they're calling on behalf of. And that's it. Please. We've already heard the witnesses, the lead witnesses.

LIne 29, you're open.

Hi, my name is Jamie York. I am the secretary of the Reseda Neighborhood Council, and I am calling in very strong support of SB 411 so that I can continue to serve my community. Thank you.

Line 37, you're open.

Glenn Bailey. I'm President of the Northbridge East Neighborhood Council and subject to seeing the further amendments I am supporting 411 thank you 411

Line 57, you're open.

Hi, my name is Jonathan Echavarria. I'm the President of the Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council. I'm very grateful to have this teleconferencing option to urge your aye vote on SB 411. Thank you.

Line 91, you're open. Line 91, you're open.

This is Gina Fields, Chairperson of Espa Neighborhood Council, Empowerment Congress West, voting in support of SB 411 thank you. Thank you.

Line 30, you're open.

My name is Susan Rogan. I'm a board member of Tarzana Neighborhood Council. I am definitely in support of SB 411. Thank you, thank you.

Line 36, you're open.

My name is Tawny Kay. I 'm at the Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council, and I support SB 411. Thank you, thank you.

LIne 79, you're open.

My name is Ann-Marie Holman. I'm Communications Director for the City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, which supports LA's neighborhood council system. I'm calling in as an individual to speak in strong support of SB 411. Please preserve the equity and please. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Next 31, you're open. Line 31, please. Go ahead. Mine. 38, you're open. Yes.

Karen Purdue. I'm a previous board member of a neighborhood council, voicing my strong support for Senate Bill 411, as stated for the. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments here today.

Line 40, you're open.

Good morning. My name is Kim Turner, a resident of Eagle Rock, and I strongly support this. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 53, you're open.

Good morning. My name is Alex Graham, the President, neighborhood council in Bomi, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 14, you're open.

Hello, my name is Dennis Miller. I represent Westchester District 11. I'm in support of the SB 411.

Got it. Thank you.

Line 17, you're open.

Good morning. My name is John Von Gunten. I am a seven year member of the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council. I'm calling in strong support because SB 411 will enable.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your testimony today.

I'm 32 year old.

Good morning. This is Kate Laddish. That's L-A-D-D-I-S-H. Chair of the Yolo County in Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee. I'm calling with strong support for the Bill as written to apply statewide new bodies of appointed Members. Thank you very much.

Line 59, you're open. Line 59, please, go ahead. Line 19, you're open.

This is Cheryl Schmitt from the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council, and I strongly support SB 411. Thank you, Senator Portantino. Thank you.

Line 85, you're open.

Good morning. Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities in support of the Bill and prep. Thank you. Line 33, you're open.

This is Lori Kelsen. I'm a member of the Encino Neighborhood Council, speaking for myself, and I'm in support of SB 411. Thank you, thank you.

Line 43, you're open.

Clara Solis, Senior Director of the Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council, speaking as an individual in strong support of SB 411. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Line 16, you're open. Once again, line 16, you're open. Hello. You're on. We can hear you.

You're on. Hi, can you hear me now? We can hear you. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. My name is Carol Hutchinson. I'm a board member with the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council in Los Angeles, and I'm in very strong support of SB 411. And thank you, Senator Portantino. Thank you so much.

Line 83, you're open. Line 83, you're open. Line 94, you're open.

This is Joanne De Antonio of the Greater Valley Glen Neighborhood Council that no longer meets because we have no place to meet in support of SB 411, thank you very much.

Line 58, you're open.

My name is Suzanne Jerome. I'm a member of the Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council, and I am in support of SB 411. Thank you, thank you.

Line 52, you're open.

Hi, this is Jennifer Goody. I am a Parliamentarian of the Mid City Neighborhood Council and Co-Chair of the Neighborhood Council of Budget Advocates. I'm on behalf of myself, I am in strong agreement with 411 due to equity-

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We have 18 more members. I want to make sure we can get through them. So the longer you talk, the shorter I'm going to end up cutting it. I don't want to cut.

Line 28, you're open. Line 28, you're open. No. Line 21, you're open. Once again, line 21, you're open. Line 44, you're open.

Hello, my name is Teresa Sasso. I am the secretary of the Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council, speaking on my own capacity, in support of SB 411, thank you, thank you.

Line 87, you're open.

Tony Braswell, President, Neighborhood Council, Valley village, in strong support of SB 411 thank you.

Thank you.

Line 65, you're open.

Hi, my name is Richard Law. I'm the President of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council speaking in strong support for SB 411 thank you.

Thank you.

Line 22, you're open. Line 22, please go ahead.

Good morning.

25, you're open. Hello? Yes, you're on. Hello? Yes, your line is open.

Hello, this is Trevor Miller, a resident of Westchester, in strong support of SB 411. Thank you.

Line 27, you're open.

Good morning. This is Iris Polanski, board member of the Tarzana Neighborhood Council in Los Angeles, and I'm in strong support of SB 411. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Line 51, you're open.

Hi, this is Annie Gagan, former board member, current stakeholder of Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council and strong support. Thank you very much, Senator Portantino. Thank you.

Line 34, you're open.

Good morning. Nikita Jones, Houston board member, CANDO Neighborhood Council, speaking as an individual, standing in strong support of SB 411. Thank you. Thank you.

Line 95, you're open.

Hello. Anastasia Mann, President for 20 years of the Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council. We are in support of Senator Portraitino's Senate Bill 411 and thank you very much. Thank you.

Line 66, you're open.

Mark Foxovich, a resident in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Line 92, you're open.

Jeff Malzner, Tarzana Neighborhood Council, speaking as an individual, in strong support of SB 411.

Line 61, you're open. Once again line 61, you're open. Line 67, you're open.

Good morning. This is Carolyn G. Young Park. I am a governing board member with the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council, speaking as an individual, and I am in strong support. Thank you.

Line 103 you're open.

Hi, my name is Joyce Green. I'm a board member of Tarzana Neighborhood Council in Los Angeles, and I'm in strong support of SB 411, thank you.

Line 42, you're open.

Yes, hello. My name is Kathy Wayne. I am with the Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council, and I am in strong support of SB 411. Thank you.

Line 31, you're open. Line 31, you're open. Is that me? Yes, sir. Yes. I was never given a line number, so I don't know what number I was. All good, you're on.

Okay, thank you. This is Vic Christensen. I am the Secretary and Zoom administrator of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council down in Los Angeles area, and I'm enthusiastically strong support of SB 411, subject to the amendment.

Hello, my name is Seymour Liao. I'm a member of the Atwater Village Neighborhood Council, and I am in strong support of SB 411.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Line 28, you're open.

Thank you.

Line 83, you're open.

Hi, this is Kevin Davis, President of the Football Trials Neighbor Council, in strong support of SB four. Thank you, Senator Pontino.

Thank you.

Line 75, you're open. Line 75, you're open. Line 104, you're open. Thank.

One moment for 104 line. 104, you are now open.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hi there. This is Kyle Cadman, President of the Olympic Park Neighborhood Council. I'm here as an individual in support of SB 411.

411. Yeah. Thank you.

And one moment. We have one more. Line 106, you're open. Line 106, you're open.

My name is Pamela Castle. I oppose.

Thank you very much.

922, you're open. No one else is in queue. Please continue.

Very good. Thank you very much. So let me first of all thank Senator Portantino for his work with this Committee. And I want to be very clear, just to kind of structure the discussion, is this is about the Brown Act, and it's about changes to the Brown Act. It's not about whether you can have teleconferencing as part of your format. It's about whether people that have been elected to a board have to actually show up or whether they can do it electronically.

And then if they do it electronically, do they have to post their location and make it available to the public? And so we made some adjustments to the Brown Act last year because I think we learned some lessons going through the pandemic.

But I just want to say, as the Chair of Governance and Finance and having served in local government, that one of the hardest things that I ever had to do is to show up to a council meeting when people are really angry and where they want to be heard. And public hearings become really important, because you may have an idea of what you think should happen when you go in, but when you're on a dais with people, you can come up with different solutions.

This is the reason there's a lot of restrictions that we put on this particular bill, because I have a question about how far we want to expand the exceptions to the Brown Act, particularly since LA set up these neighborhood councils and then doesn't support them with locations to meet at, staff to be there, and the accoutrements of government. And I'm concerned about good government.

So I really want to laud the author, Senator Portantino, for working so closely with the Committee and taking the amendments and really trying to structure this as an exception rather than the rule. So, Senator Wiener, I can see you want to speak, and then we'll go through the Committee.

Yeah. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I really want to second and reiterate some of your comments, which were very thoughtful. And I agree with you. And I appreciate the Committee working so hard on amendments to this bill. In its broader form, I would not have supported this bill. I, with hesitation, will support it in a narrower form. And I appreciate the author having that flexibility and working to solve a local issue without creating this whole statewide structure.

And I'll tell you why, although I'll be voting for this today, why of hesitation. Clearly, if people are going to be participating as a public official or whatever remotely, we do not want to have to disclose people's homes. And that's what this is about. I absolutely agree, that would be very inappropriate to force people to disclose their home addresses. That can be dangerous and just very problematic.

But we have to be clear, there's a cost to doing this. While virtual meetings and doing things to really facilitate them, virtual public meetings, where important public decisions are being made that can expand access in some ways. I won't dispute that at all. It absolutely degrades the public process. It is a worse public process when everyone's just totally physically separate, sitting in front of their computer, not interacting with each other in any way.

It's all just like people raising their hand on Zoom and one person engaging at a time. And when we're all in person, there are a lot of city councils are in person, and it is a better process that way. And I know some people disagree with me, but having participated in both, I really believe that that is the case. I don't object to having flexibility.

And again, I know there are advantages to having these virtual public meetings, but there are real downsides and we have to acknowledge the degradation, I think, of the process. You can have in person, where you have the decision makers in person, where you have the option of people showing up in person and you still have remote public testimony like we do today. The Senate has, we now require lead witnesses to be physically here, and there's a reason for that.

It is a better process when we have the lead witnesses here and you can have that engagement. Clearly, LA should be doing more to support these neighborhood councils and make sure they have a place to live to meet. But speaking of which, I was the president of my neighborhood association in San Francisco. The neighborhood associations in San Francisco play an important role in doing work in the community. But it is not the same as the LA neighborhood councils.

The housing work that I've done over the last seven years, I've learned a lot about LA neighborhood councils and they are very powerful, impactful bodies. So they're not like your typical neighborhood group that's sort know informally meeting and doing some work in the community. These are organizations, these neighborhood councils that have real impact on what happens in their community, on development, on housing, on policy, influencing the City Council Member.

And so these are real public bodies that have a real impact, and that can be fantastic, but we need to acknowledge that. And that's why this matters. The final thing I want to say and why participation at this level is important. Neighborhood associations, whether it's an LA neighborhood council, San Francisco neighborhood association or anything else, these neighborhood associations historically have been older, whiter, and more homeowner than the general population. That's not true of every neighborhood group.

And there are neighborhood groups that don't fit that, but they historically have not always represented the full community, and yet they have a real impact. And that's why the participation, in my view, is so important. So I'll be voting for the bill with those reservations.

Senator Blakespear. Okay, well, she's gone. Anyone else? Senator Durazo?

Yeah, thank you, Senator, for proposing this. As Chair overseeing the Judicial Council, these issues of in person or remote have come up many times over the last three years. And we really had to grapple with during the pandemic, as we getting out of the pandemic, how to learn from what worked, what was still important, followed the law, but began to certainly make changes.

And a lot of these were very uncomfortable with in some ways, but we see try to move forward. I appreciate that there's some guardrails here, there's a sunset. And I support the bill, although again, we're experimenting with this process and we're more than anything looking for the democratic process for democracy to be upheld, especially at the lowest neighborhood level. So I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Anybody else? There are no other comments. I'll make just a couple of comments. I had one question, though, on the neighborhood councils. Are they elected or are they appointed?

So they're elected, but they're volunteers and they're advisory. And I think those are distinctions that need to be understood. They are elected. They do run in districts. The interesting thing, as the lead witness mentioned, they don't have to live in the district that they're running for. They can have a business in that district or be a resident.

And that's also germane because if you live, say, in Venice Beach, but you're on the Hollywood neighborhood council because that's where your small business is, that creates an additional hardship in LA for participation. But again, they're elected, volunteer, and advisory.

Okay. So my concerns align a little bit with the Chair's concerns in the erosion of the public process because she is absolutely right. There is nothing like being in on the dais with a room full of your constituents that are mad as hornets. Really, when you're on a Zoom meeting, you can't feel that as much.

And that can create even more animosity, like you're trying to hide. And so I really have concerns about this. I think this type of process should be reserved for unique circumstances that impede the process of getting urgent agency business done, like approving a budget or ensuring that people are getting paid, that vendors that have been servicing a city or whatever are getting paid. So that's my concerns with the bill, is I don't want to erode that process because there's value in that.

And when you sign up or compete with other people to have this opportunity to represent people, I think you need to sit in front of them and represent them. I do like the access that people have through new technology so they can participate via remote, but that's for, I think, the citizens, not the representatives. So with that, you can go ahead and close.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. No, I think what we have here is a unique situation. This is an LA specific issue, in a sense that these 90 plus neighborhood councils meet throughout a ginormous city, in rec rooms, in libraries, and oftentimes they don't even have a physical place to meet. Again, they're volunteers, they're advisory, and they meet in the neighborhoods and represent those neighborhoods. And it's counterintuitive, but participation increased when they went remote, significantly increased. Democracy got better, not less.

And I think that's an important piece to understand. And with the safeguards, the City of LA has to vote to approve this. So again, to go to the point of whether this is a local control issue, you don't get more local control than having to have the appointing body, the City of LA, actually proactively have to embrace and approve this. The neighborhood councils themselves have to, not just in a simple majority, have to have two thirds of the neighborhood council to approve this.

And then if their meetings are during regular business hours, they have to be accommodated for in person meetings. If they happen in nights and weekends, they have to make an effort to accommodate the public. So the amendments recognize the unique nature of neighborhood councils and put prudent safeguards. But overall, this will allow the public to participate more, create easier opportunities for quorum, and frankly, I believe, serve the democratic process significantly in a very unique circumstance. So with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do I have a motion? The bill is moved by Senator Durazo. And this is do pass as amended to Judiciary.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that has three votes right now, and we'll hold it open for other Members to vote on when they arrive. Thank you. Okay. All right, next up on the docket, we have SB 769 by Senator Gonzalez. Sorry.

Making sure he wasn't cutting in front of me.

Oh, he is not cutting in front of you.

Just joking.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here today to present SB 769, which would require local officials to complete fiscal and financial training requirements. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's recommended amendments, and I want to thank the Committee for their work on this bill. Over the past few years, the California State Auditor has repeatedly recommended that local officials receive training on their fiscal and financial management duties.

And in California, local officials are entrusted with taxpayer money and have authority over budgeting, procurement, management, and investments in pensions, yet there are no requirements that these officials receive training on best practices on how to manage these substantial financial responsibilities.

As a former City Council Member from Long Beach myself, I understand how much work is involved with running a local government, and I really wish I actually had this training that could equip me and many of other local officials across the state with skills to fulfill their duties to the best of their abilities.

As amended, SB 769 will encourage responsible governing and prevent fiscal management by applying training requirements for local officials in cities that have been designated as high-risk by the California State Auditor or when a city, county, or special district receives notice from the State Controller that their annual financial transaction report is late or not even submitted at all. This training will be required once every two years and will be made available for local agency employees, similar to the ethics training requirements for local government officials now.

Here to speak today about 769, we have Nick Kolitsos from the California State Auditor's Office. I want to thank them for being here. This merely implements one of the recommendations. They're not, of course, on record as formally supporting, but I thank you and ask for your support, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Thank you for coming today, and you may proceed with your testimony.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Nick Kolitsos. I'm Audit Principal with the State Auditor's Office. Our office does not generally take a position on proposed legislation, but we can tell you that this bill would partially implement one of our recommendations. Just to give you a little bit of background, back in 2022, we made a recommendation for City Council Members to receive ongoing training in financial, budgeting, and city operations.

When we did audits of several local governments, we did find that many of them had problems in--or adequately overseeing their finances and budgeting. So we believe that this training would help address some of the problems that we've seen through some of our audits. SB 769, as amended, would partially implement our recommendation by requiring such training for City Council Members under certain circumstances. I'm available for any questions you might have.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? If not, then anybody in the room would like to come to the microphone and support the bill? State your support.

Morning Chair and Members. Izzy Swindler with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, on behalf of the California Association of County Treasurer Tax Collectors, in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anybody else? Since I don't see anybody scrambling up here, we're going to go to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses that would like to testify? Doesn't appear to be anybody. Anybody in opposition in the room would like to just come up and state that you oppose? If not, we're going to go to the phone lines. So AT&T Operator, we have anybody on the phone lines?

As a reminder to the phone lines, if you have a comment, please press one then zero. No comments from the phone lines.

All right, we will bring it back to the dais. Do you have any questions by any of the Members? We have a motion by Durazo to move the bill. All right, and with that, I guess nobody has any questions. So government finance is like a whole semester class in school. And also, as we put on more and more of these trainings--because that's not--you know--we have the sexual harassment, we have work-based violence. We have ethics.

Pretty soon they're in this mode of training all the time and not being able to do their job, but I think it's important for them to know the basics because council members come from all walks of life and it is important for them to understand those basics. So I see the point in the bill and I see the point in the recommendations by the state. Anyway, with that, I'll let you close.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I think you said it perfectly. We want to empower local governments to do their duties at the best of their ability, especially when it comes to financial management. So thank you.

All right. And with that, I'm going to turn the gavel back over to the Chair. You can go ahead and--

Just to confirm that you'll be taking the Committee amendments?

Yes. Correct.

Great. And you've concluded?

Yes, I have. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much. Okay. Well, do we have a motion?

We did. We already got it.

Very good. We have a motion. The motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' The roll, please.

[Roll Call].

The vote is five to zero. We'll put that on call for the absent Members. Moving on on the agenda. Senator Becker is here. Item Number Eight: SB 537. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Caballero and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 537, a bill that will increase accessibility to multijurisdictional cross-county board meetings and encourage participation by allowing applicable multijurisdictional boards to choose to convene remotely. I want to start off by thanking the Committee Chair and Consultant, Jonathan Peterson, for the work they've done with our office to get to a place of agreement on the bill. With that said, I am accepting the Committee amendments to the bill.

For the last several years, multijurisdictional boards have been meeting remotely and benefit from the opportunity to meet in virtual spaces for both constituents and boards. AB 361 from Rivas codified the ability to meet remotely and showed the positive impact on multijurisdictional bodies. Both AB 361 expiring in February 2023, multijurisdictional boards have begun to feel the impact of transitioning back to in-person meetings. They've already had issues with membership retention and are concerned about a drop in public attendance.

Specifically, for multijurisdictional bodies covering large areas, it can often be difficult for board members and the public to travel great lengths to actively participate in a meeting. The distance disincentivizes participation from community members, prospective legislative body members, and citizens attempting to become civically involved. SB 537 encourages participation, allowing multijurisdictional boards with appointed members--again, these are not, say, city councils with elected members; these are boards with appointed members--to convene in hybrid settings, allowing those most impacted to join remotely.

This bill also collects data on attendance of remote meetings and requires the data to be posted on agencies' websites, increasing available data and evidence on the benefit of--we hope to show--benefit of remote meetings. The gateways provided in this bill offer an important update to facilitate attendance and active participation in multijurisdictional agency meetings while creating guardrails to preserve the intent of the Brown Act. And today I have two witnesses: Alan Abbs from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Donna Colson from Peninsula Clean Energy. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you very much. Good morning, Madam Chair and Honorable Committee Members. My name is Donna Colson. I am the Vice Mayor of Burlingame and Vice Chair of Peninsula Clean Energy, which is proud to sponsor SB 537. We are sponsoring this bill because for the last three years, we have seen significant increased participation from our board and Citizens Advisory Committee, represented by San Mateo County, all 20 of its cities, and the City of Los Banos.

The virtual meeting format has allowed people to participate who would have otherwise missed meetings due to distance, work and family obligations, road closures, and even extreme weather. We have a diverse board of directors, and we value the contribution of every member at every meeting, and we want to make it as easy as possible to participate. When Governor Newsom issued his Covid-19 executive order allowing for virtual public meetings, PCE moved quickly to ensure continuity of our board meetings, continued transparency, and easy public participation.

We successfully held 37 virtual board meetings and dozens of Subcommittee meetings, all with nearly 100 percent participation, a dramatic increase of our in-person attendance levels. No members of the public filed complaints, and our board was grateful, especially when people were sick and people who took public transit or rode their bike.

While Los Banos is our greatest concern, the geographic realities of our county mean that many of our directors make long, late night commutes for our meetings and have no option to attend day meetings due to work or family care constraints. Our experience has proven that virtual meetings work well for all parties involved. We have seen increased access, more diverse participation, and more interest in serving on the board and on subcommittees.

Nearly every one of our 23 board members has joined a working committee, bringing a wide range of talent and perspectives. On behalf of Peninsula Clean Energy Board of Directors, I'm grateful to Senator Becker for authorizing SB 537, and I respectfully request your aye vote today. We think it will make a great difference in the lives of many people who volunteer on our regional boards and committees and ultimately help us provide excellent service to our constituents. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alan Abbs. I'm the Legislative Officer with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and for those not familiar with the AQMD, we're a nine county regional agency; on the south end, Santa Clara County, all the way to the north end, Sonoma County. We have an appointed board of directors. Each of the nine counties gets to appoint several city council members, mayors, or county supervisors.

We have a board of directors of 24 appointed officials, two board meetings a month, and when you're appointed to the Bay Area AQMD, you're in for a busy life because not only do you have two times a month board of directors meetings, but it means you're also going to be appointed to several of our seven standing committees that deal with finance and administration, climate change, stationary sources, mobile sources, grants and incentives, things like that.

In addition to that, for our non-board of directors, we have community advisory groups that meet under the Brown Act that represent disadvantaged communities and AB 617 communities in the Bay Area, and then also a technical advisory committee that represents professionals in air quality outside of the district that provide recommendations to our board of directors. Prior to the pandemic--so if you're a board member of the AQMD, you might be scheduled for 40 meetings a year.

In addition, a lot of these board members also do regional agencies like MTC, ABAG, BCDC, and a lot of other meetings that span several different counties. Prior to the pandemic, our board members on average were able to attend about 24 board meetings and committee meetings a year. When we went to remote conferencing during the pandemic, the average attendance for an appointed official over the course of a year rose to 35 to 36 meetings a year.

And so undoubtedly, we had better participation from our board members rather than making the trip to Downtown San Francisco for meetings. And we're looking to try to have that balance going forward where we can have that high level participation from our board members, still have the public be able to participate, and have that decision making that, as some of the members have stated, have that in-person, but also be able to have that attendance and that participation. And so with that, we support Senator Becker, SB 537, appreciate his leadership in trying to strike that balance, and look forward to supporting the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in Room 2200 that would like to speak in support?

Thank you. Katherine Brandenburg with the Brandenburg Group. On behalf of Sonoma Clean Power, we're in support.

Amy Brown, on behalf of the City of San Carlos, in support. Thank you.

Don Gilbert for the California Community Choice Association, in support.

Sabrina Bradbury with the California Association of Councils of Governments, in support.

Hi. Ellen Medill with San Diego Community Power, in support.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange. I'm representing San Mateo City Council, Associate of Government, C/CAG, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in Room 2200? Seeing none, I'll move on to the opposition. Is there any opposition to 2200--in Room 2200? Welcome, and you can serve as lead if you'd like.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Having a little bit of déjà vu here, but I'll try and keep it simple. So we have an opposed unless amended position on this bill. We respect the author's willingness to work with us and the amendments they've committed to taking. However, our overarching concerns with the Brown Act still remain. Oh, yeah.

Brittany Barsotti, General Counsel, California News Publishers Association. Last year, we worked very hard with a large group of stakeholders to come to a reasonable compromise on AB 2449, which does allow flexibility for issues like child care, family emergencies, contagious issues, and we feel that that bill should be allowed to stand for more than mere months to play out and see what we can learn from the pandemic. Also like to add that we fully support remote access.

In fact, many members of our coalition sponsored a bill that would have provided remote access for the public. However, this trend of Brown Act bills only provides that access for the public if the members of the body are able to have that same flexibility and not participate remotely. We are all for diversity and inclusion, but we feel that the focus needs to be on increasing public participation instead of flexibility for the members that choose to serve.

Again, as we also mentioned earlier, six bills up this year on the Brown Act. This bill would create a different definition of legislative body for the purposes of complying with the teleconference and provisions outlined, that we also have 2449 last year with teleconferencing provisions, and then the traditional teleconferencing provisions in the Brown Act. So we feel that if these bills continue to advance, that there will be greater confusion for the government and the public. And with that, I'll respectfully ask for a no vote, but commit to continue to working with the author's office. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, also opposed unless amended. Happy to work with the author, and appreciate the amendments and the Committee working on them. As Brittany said, kind of déjà vu, so I won't take up too much of your time. It seems like the body is fully aware of our issues with this and just how important it is to have in-person, physical meetings. We fully support digital access for people. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is a 250,000 membership organization. Our members are typically older.

We fully understand the need for digital access for the public. We just believe that there should be a quorum in-person. We think it's very important to transparency, and transparency is a taxpayer concern. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in opposition in Room 2200?

Good morning. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Ginny LaRoe with the First Amendment Coalition, respectfully opposed unless amended. And I'd like to read some other organizations also who share our position. Those organizations are: Californians Aware, the California Broadcasters Association, and the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in Room 2200 that would like to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line and invite anyone on the line who would like to speak in opposition or in support to please state your name and your affiliation and whether you're in support or opposition.

As a reminder, for the phone lines, if you have a comment, press one then zero. One moment. 85, you're open.

Good morning. Again, Johnnie Pina with League of California Cities, in support of the bill in print. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Line 31, you're open.

This is Vic Christensen, Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council. It's kind of hard for me to say one way or the other for sure because a point was made early on that this was only for appointed and not elected. So if one of the amendments adds the elected to it, then I will say I am opposed to this subject to any further amendments.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Line 32, you're open. Line 32, please go ahead.

Hello. This is Kate Laddish, Chair of the Yolo County In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee, in support.

Thank you.

Line 76, you're open. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. This is Phillip Vander Klay with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, in support.

And no one else is in queue on the phone lines. Please continue.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee for comments and concerns. Senator Seyarto.

Okay, so thank you for bringing your bill forward. It's somewhat similar to the one we just heard, and I have a lot of the same concerns about that. But these are agencies, these agencies that are referenced and are made up of public officials that are elected.

In some cases, yes. In some cases.

I've sat on almost every board in Riverside County and they are elected officials. From the city councils, we select somebody who volunteers to do that, and usually it's built around, do you have the time to go and put into this? And then we kind of spread them out so that not one person gets over impacted because I've been in that position where you're trying to go to all these boards, but we had to get it done.

I think it's part of what goes with your wanting to represent people is being in front of them. And even on these agency boards, they make some very important decisions that affect the entire county. And it's important for people to be able to go and address the elected part of it. But it's also important for people to have that digital access which is increasing. Most city councils now have that available for citizens so they can get the citizen participation to 100 percent.

If they don't have a board participation of at least 80 or 90 percent for all of their time, each of the members themselves, they should probably reconsider being on the board because that's what they signed up for. I think it's important to maintain that for our citizens, maintain the ability for them to address us in-person at a board meeting, and for us to be able to feel the wrath or if they're happy with us, that's fun, too. Anyway, I have the same concerns with this bill that I had with the other. I don't want to erode that process. So thank you.

So I think we all made our comments in regards to Senator Portantino's bill. Very concerned with eroding the Brown Act requirements. You've taken some amendments that provide some parameters around it, and I understand that some of these JPAs have a bigger jurisdiction than just a city or one county. So it's for that reason that I was willing to support a 40 mile one-way--I guess you could say--requirement as part of the ability to participate remotely.

But I do have some concerns about eroding the Brown Act, and I think we've had a fairly robust conversation about it. So I'm prepared to entertain a motion. Well, actually, I'll allow you to conclude and then we'll take a motion.

Sure. Thank you. I appreciate it. I know there was a previous discussion on a previous measure. I do again, appreciate you working with us. I will just say, we can take amendments to include things like a physical quorum of Members in one location, and it may have been a situation where you were on a board that was able to divvy it up.

But I think there's no question that when you think of the obligations we just heard about from the Air Quality Management District, for example, of 40 meetings, plus you're on CCAC, plus you're on--this is all on a basically volunteer basis, that it's inevitably going to restrict for certain people, right?

There's certain people in certain times of their life, they have more flexibility. They're going to volunteer for more of those. And other people are just not because there's just no way they're going to be able to get to those meetings and really fulfill the obligation that they're signing up for. So again, I think that's why we tried to limit this. And in many cases, yes, you're elected, but then appointed.

But we also talked about citizens advisory boards and other things, say, in the case of Peninsula Clean Energy. So that's why we think this is so important and really did this to urge folks in my district, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote to keep this moving today.

Is there a motion? Senator Durazo moves the bill. The motion is 'do pass as amended to Judiciary.' The roll, please.

[Roll Call].

We'ee going to put that on call for the absent Members. We're going to move on to file item number nine, SB 586 by Senator Eggman. Thank you for your patience, Senator. Of course.

And you'll be pleased to know I am not talking about the Brown Act at all today.

We're so happy.

I am talking about floods, flood protection. That's easier, right? That's easier than the Brown Act. So SB 586 and these bills are going to maybe seem like they're in conflict, but I'll tell you how they're not. SB 586 is a bill that seeks to update adequate progress standards. After Katrina in 2005, the person then representing my area, was concerned about flooding in the Central Valley and earthquakes and things like that. So they said, well, unless you show adequate progress and you got to be finished by this date, arbitrary date of 2025, then you can't continue to build.

And anyone who drives down I five or 99 has seen the amount of development we've had in the Lathrop area, the Manteca area, all of that area is behind is kind of the area that we're talking about behind these big flood tracks. And as you know, in order to work with the feds, the feds put up money, the states put up money, but then the local communities have to put up, and that's generally done through development fees.

So if you stop development, you stop development fees, and funding coming in to be able to meet adequate progress. So I've done a couple of bills to try to extend the date. And so now we're just coming back and we're saying these communities are working hard. They don't want to be underwater. Nobody wants to be underwater. And let them, let's just take away that arbitrary date and let just have them continue to work towards adequate progress.

As everyone knows, working with the Corps of Engineers can be very difficult, but unless you have a progress, a process in place, you're never going to get there. So that's what this bill does, is just to practically say, let's get rid of that arbitrary date, continue to work toward that 200-year flood standard with per protection. And with me here today is Scott Shapiro from the General Counsel for the San Joaquin area flood management.

General counsel for the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency. We're grateful for the leadership that the Senator has shown on this issue. We have found, as have the other flood agencies in the valley, that the way we are achieving the most is by bringing state, federal and local dollars together. Over $2.5 billion of federal money has come into our region for flood protection in the last five years with the ability to bring another billion and a half over the next five years.

What we are trying to do is align our timing to that of the Federal Government, and doing so allows us to continue to bring that money in, which means that local and state resources are available for other things in addition to paying for needed flood protection. We appreciate your consideration on the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in room 2200 that would like to testify in support? Good morning.

Kira Ross. On behalf of the City of Stockton, in support and thankful to the author. Thank you.

Amy Brown. On behalf of the City of West Sacramento and West Sacramento Area Flood Protection Agency. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of the California Central Valley Flood Control Association, in support.

Izzy Swindler. On behalf of Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange. I'm representing the Board of Supervisors of San Joaquin in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in room 2200? Seeing none move on to comments in opposition. Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition of the Bill? Seeing none, we will move to the teleconference line. Is there anybody on the teleconference line that would like to testify in support or in opposition of the bill?

For comments in support or opposition to SB 586 please press one, then zero at this time.

And, Madam Chair, we have no comments.

Very good. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee. Comments, concerns, motions? There is a motion we'll allow you to conclude.

Just look forward to your aye vote. Thank you.

Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye. Seyarto. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Blakespear? aye Dahle. Durazo. Durazo aye. Glazer. Skinner. Skinner aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye. Six to zero. Six to zero. We'll put it on call, move on to file item number 10, SB 638.

Thank you very much. Make sure there was a technical amendment, that was okay? Very good. The motion is do pass as amended due to appropriations. The roll, please.

Thank you very much. And staying on flood protection as we continue to work towards adequate progress. SB 638 is a $6 billion flood bond providing critical funding for much needed flood infrastructure throughout our state. We haven't had a flood bond, we haven't had water bonds since beneficial use, big projects going on, but we haven't done anything on floods, at least since 2006. So we need to be proactive and not reactive.

As we've seen, highway 99 has shut down, 5 has shut down due to our lack of infrastructure around flood protection. This focuses a lot on the Central Valley, where our major water projects live, much of our ag lives, and the two main arteries that connect the state highways 99 and 5, and all the communities around there. So we need swift and bold investments in California to be able to meet the needs going forward.

And with me here today is Bob Reeb on behalf of the Central Valley Flood Control Association.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Members, Bob Reeb, on behalf of the Central Valley Flood Control Association. We know that in California we always have dry years and wet years, and they seem to be more exaggerated here. Recently, through the effects of climate change, California Central Valley Flood Control Board recently updated the 2022 update to the California Central Valley flood Protection Plan, and they noted that California needs to be spending about $550,000,000 per year in capital investments for its flood control system. That's the Central Valley.

We also have needs on the coastal areas and in Southern California as well. The General Fund, as the members know, is not a reliable funding source for a lot of infrastructure investment. It goes high, it goes low, and we really need to get into the habit of investing in these facilities on an ongoing and regular basis.

This legislation will provide funding for the next decade of investment in not only the state plan of flood control facilities in the Central Valley, but it also provides a significant funding for multi benefit flood projects that will assist the environment, improve the ecosystem, and address threatened endangered fishery species in their recovery. It also includes significant funding for state subvention, support for urban projects throughout the state outside of the Central Valley, and finally, two other areas of the bill will invest in delta levees and special projects.

That system is very important not only for the locals, the farmers, the legacy communities, but it also protects state highways, infrastructure for energy and water infrastructure, particularly for protecting water quality for the Central Valley project and the state water project. The bill also includes $1 billion for dam safety after the 2017 disaster at Lake Oroville with a floodway. The State of California, at the direction of the Legislature, looked at all of these similar dams in California.

We have a list of high hazard and significant facilities that require investment. Senator Edmunds Bond will provide a 50% state match to bring those facilities up to safety standards. We'd ask for your support for the bill today and be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Very good. Is there any other primary witnesses, if not other people in support of the bill?

All right. Thank you. Pilar Oñate Quintana, on behalf of the Irvine Ranch Water District and Yuba Water Agency, in support and particularly appreciative of the dam safety funding component of the measure. Thank you.

Very good.

Manny Leon, California Alliance for Jobs, in support Echo Polar's comments. Thank you.

Jaime Minor, on behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association, in support. Appreciate the recognition of stormwater and the importance and connection with flood protection. Thanks.

Good morning. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Serrano Water District in Orange County, in support, specifically of the dam safety funding. Thank you.

Good morning. Don Gilbert for the Little Egbert Joint Power Authority, in support. Thank you.

Good morning again. Scott Shapiro, general counsel for the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, in support.

And Mr. Vice Chair, on behalf of the other clients of reap government relations, in support, El Dorado Irrigation District, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, Solano County Water Agency and the Valley Ag Water Coalition. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming in to testify today. So next we'll go to opposition. Is there any primary opposition witnesses that want to testify as main witnesses? Doesn't appear to be any. So anybody in the room want to come up and oppose? All right, well, we'll go to the phone lines then at&t operator.

If you can get anybody on the phone that would like to express either their content or discontent with the bill, name, association, and who you're with if you're an individual, that's fine, too. And whether you oppose or support the bill, if you can just limit your comments to that.

For comments in support or opposition to SB 638, please press one and then zero at this time. And we have a comment from line 121.

Chairman, members, this is Erin Evans, on behalf of Valley Water, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, with a supportive, amended position, we'd like to thank you for the dam safety funding and encourage amendments for geographic balance and flood protection funding. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have no further comments at this time.

Okay, if there are no further comments, I will bring it back to the dais for additional questions or discussion. Don't let me be the only one. We have a motion to move the bill, and with that, I just want to make a comment about this. So the last three days, we've been looking at three bills for $47 billion in debt in the form of bonds. Last year we had a 97 and a half $1.0 billion surplus.

We could easily have prioritized, because these things shouldn't just be a priority for getting bonds or presenting bonds to the public, they should be a priority to get done. Period. We are seeing all the impacts of not spending money on our infrastructure all over the state because of the rains that had come in and also the drought that had gone on. We have water infrastructure that needs to be fixed. We have flood control infrastructure that needs to be fixed.

We have road infrastructure that needs to be addressed. We have all sorts of things that should be priorities for this state, but they shouldn't be just priorities to accumulate bonds. As a person, if you're doing your personal finances, the worst thing you can do when you have a bunch of debt and you're faced with a deficit is pile on more debt. So the state needs to be a lot better at prioritizing just these kinds of projects, because these projects are high priority projects.

And to not have addressed them last year when we should have put money to that first, before we figured out where to put all the other money, and now we're short again. That, to me, shows a lack of priorities by the state. And so we need to get better at that because I would love to spend a lot of money on these projects, and we should. But accumulating $50 billion of debt to do these various projects, not this one. This is six and a half.

So this one could have easily been absorbed. Last year. There's a school one coming up, 15.5 billion. And then last year's 20. Or last yesterday, there was a $25 billion ask. So I am kind of going to be the person that just won't do bonds until we start prioritizing. I know it's not going to count, but that's where I stand. And so it is nothing against these projects and your passion for getting them done, because I have that same passion.

I just want to get it done the right way. Thank you. With that, we have a motion by Senator Skinner, I believe it is. Would you like to close?

Just thank you, Mr. Chair, for those comments. I mean, I think we can all have philosophical conversations about how we think we ought to do things, but I don't think any of us argue that they need to be done. And so this bill before you today is not 50 billion, it's only 6.5. And dealing with floods that we know killed people last year. People died in the floods last year to be able to protect communities, protect our infrastructure and make sure we have some dam safety.

I ask for your aye vote.

Yes. We need dam safety for sure. So with that, Madam Secretary, go ahead and call the roll.

Motion is to pass to Appropriations Committee.[Roll Call] Four to one.

All right. That Bill is still open, and we'll leave it open for additional votes later as Members arrive. Do we have any other? No, we have Glazer here. Would you like to present, Senator Glazer? All right, next up on the docket, we have SB 28 by Senator Glazer. I hope you weren't standing outside the door when I made my comments about the last Bill. Anyway, go ahead. You may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Members. I did not hear your comments. As many colleagues know, I'm double booked at Education, which is meeting at the same time, so I apologize for not being here earlier. Senate Bill 28, again, appreciate the Committee's work, the staff's work on the measure.

It authorizes a $15.5 billion bond on the 24 ballot for facilities that include K through 12 through higher education, specifically 9.5 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 bond together passed in 2006. However, by 2012, all of those funds were essentially exhausted. This bond is 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 of California, about two-thirds of state's school facilities are more than 25 years old. Research shows that it would cost over $117 billion, 117 billion, to modernize these schools and colleges in the next decade. Now, we did have a similar measure to this, and this Bill is based on that for the March 2020 ballot, but it came up just short.

But if you look at the results of this last election, November of '22, you'll see that 71% of the vote of the 101 local school bond measures were passed by voters. So the Bill before you is an extension of the compromises that occurred in 2020. I know that there are still many conversations and discussions to have with leadership, certainly with the Governor, to fashion this measure in a way that works for all stakeholders involved. So the Bill before you is a starting point.

So as the legislative year moves ahead, powers that be want to create a settlement on exactly the proposal going forward. This vehicle will be allowed to do that. With that, I respectfully ask for your support at the appropriate time. I do have two folks here in support to testify, Jason Murphy from the University of California and Satinder Malhi from the California State University.

Mr. Murphy.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Murphy, on behalf of the University of California, here today in strong support of this Bill, want to thank the Senator for his leadership in this effort. Also want to thank the Committee consultant for the great and thorough analysis of this Bill.

The University of California, of course, as mentioned in the analysis, our capital financial plan for 2021-2027 mentions over $23 billion in unmet need, 10 billion at least of which is eligible for state-supportable buildings and structures, campus labs, classrooms, infrastructure, and so forth, that these types of funds would be available to be spent on. I would just also mention the University of California realizes that State of California is never going to be able to address all the University's needs. This is but a down payment and a starting point.

And we are here, again, strong support. Appreciate your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, or good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Satinder Malhi here on behalf of the CSU Chancellor's Office. It's a pleasure to be here and join with our UC colleagues in strong support of this measure. And we'd like to thank Senator Glazer for his strong leadership on this issue.

As we all know, the infrastructure challenges are quite dire across all of our segments of public higher education, and that includes the CSU, where more than half of our facility spaces 40 years or older, and a third are over 50 years old. Our five-year capital outlay plan reflects more than 26.9 billion in academic and self-support infrastructure projects and 7.8 billion in critical facility renewal needs.

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 we believe that SB 28 provides very critical funding for our campuses to expand student capacity in our classrooms and labs, addresses critical fire, safety, and seismic deficiencies, and will help modernize and construct facilities to keep pace with current technology and workforce needs. It's for these reasons we respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, both of you, for coming to testify today. Is there anybody else in the room who would like to go to the mic and express their support for the Bill? And if there's nobody else in the room that would like to express their support, we're going to go to opposition. Is there anybody in the room who wishes to oppose this and wants to be a primary witness? That means you get a couple of minutes to speak instead of just your name. Come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Victoria Rodriguez with Neilson Mersamer, on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors of California. As a policy matter, we are not opposed to the policy in SB 28. We are, in fact supportive of the sister Bill in the Assembly, AB 247, by Assembly Member Muratsuchi. Our concern with SB 28 is really the inclusion of project labor agreements, or PLAs.

For associated builders and contractors, we have concerns of PLAs across the board because it will exclude California workers who want to be a part of these projects. School projects are the bread and butter of what associated builders and contractors do in California, but unfortunately, PLAs don't allow us to use our own workforce, so that is of great concern. So happy to continue conversations with the author's office, but we are respectfully opposed today. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Anybody else in opposition who would like to come up and state so? Nobody rushing to the mic. So I guess we will go to the phone lines. AT&T operator, can you dial up the people to see how many people would like to speak on this?

And folks on the phone, we would like your name, the organization you represent, and whether you support or oppose the Bill. And that's pretty much it. So if you can get the people on the line, that'd be great.

For comments in support or opposition to SB 28, please press one then zero at this time. And we have one person queuing up. One moment, please, while we provide them with their line number. And we'll now hear from line 125.

Hi there. Leticia Garcia, on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and the 23 Riverside County School District superintendents in support.

Thank you.

And we have no further comments at this time.

All right. With that, we will bring it back to the dais. Any comments? Perhaps a motion? Moved by Senator Durazo. And then my comments from before stand. Mr. Glazer, would you like to close?

I didn't hear your comments from before, but I'm sure the Committee did. So that's probably sufficient enough just to say that students need to be equipped with the classrooms, libraries and labs that prepare them to be future leaders of our state. With that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. All right. And the motion is to.

Motion is to pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]. Five to one.

Five to one. So we'll hold the Bill open? Yeah, we're going to hold that open for other Members to add on. Next up we have Senator Durazo with SB 227.

Great.

Senator, when you are ready.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I want to begin by thanking the staff for their analysis and accepting the suggested amendments to address reporting requirements of Section 41 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. It's on page four of the Committee analysis. This Bill has no known opposition and is a Latino Caucus priority. Federal law excludes over 1 million Californians from Unemployment Insurance benefits when they temporarily lose work.

Yet, employer taxes on the labor of undocumented workers contribute an estimated $485,000,000 each year to our Unemployment Insurance System, even though those same workers never see a cent of the benefits. This disparity hurts employers as well as workers. That money is supposed to help sustain industries, help workers get back to work when jobs become available. And without unemployment benefits, our economy suffers. Missed paychecks spiral into missed rent checks, missed car payments, and the inability to provide even basics like food for their families.

Modeled on successful programs in New York and Colorado, SB 227 creates a program to provide unemployed workers who are excluded from the Unemployment Insurance due to immigration status with a $300 per week benefit for up to 20 weeks. These programs have provided us with a proven and a tested model that can work right here in California. Here with me today to speak in support of the proposal are Andrea Amavisca from CIPC and Carmen Estrada, member of Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Andrea Amavisca and I am here on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, which is a member of the Safety Net for All Coalition. Yesterday was tax day, and I want to remind the Committee that California is home to 1.1 million undocumented workers who contribute 3.7 billion in state and local taxes every year.

Additionally, through employer taxes on their labor, undocumented workers contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to California's Unemployment Insurance System every year. Yet they never see a cent of these unemployment benefits when they temporarily lose their work simply due to their immigration status. During the pandemic, undocumented workers were excluded from thousands of dollars of unemployment benefits and stimulus payments, forcing them and their families to exhaust their life savings and accumulate greater debt and compromise their health just to afford their necessities.

Now, while still reeling from the hardships of the pandemic, many undocumented workers across our state are once again left with little to no economic support after being temporarily displaced due to the recent historic and catastrophic storms. While California's undocumented workers are ineligible for Unemployment Insurance due to federal restrictions, SB 227 would create a separate state-funded excluded workers program, which would provide undocumented workers with up to $300 per week for up to 20 weeks of unemployment.

This amount is in line with what undocumented workers would receive if they were eligible for Unemployment Insurance and would go right back into local economies to sustain communities. The program is modeled after successful programs in other states, including New York, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. And as just one example of its potential success, 20% of surveyed participants in New York's Excluded Workers Fund applied for an ITIN to file their taxes as a result of the program.

SB 227 will ensure that our economy and our state is resilient enough to sustain the next state of emergency and able to support all workers in California regardless of their immigration status. And for these reasons, I respectfully request your Aye vote and I'll pass it to my colleague Carmen, who will speak in Spanish and then I'll quickly translate.

Okay, Ms. Estrada.

[Testimony in Spanish].

She says, my name is Carmen Estrada and I've lived in the U.S. for over 30 years. I am a single mother of four us citizen children and I'm a member of MCTF. For the past 20 years, I worked in a janitorial company cleaning offices in the greater Sacramento area. But on April 3, I was abruptly laid off with no real reason given and no safety net to fall on due to my immigration status, I cannot apply for Unemployment Insurance and sustain my family.

Just like me, over a million undocumented Californians work hard making this state the world's fourth largest economy. We are called essential workers, but when we face unemployment, there isn't a system to support us. Our community needs an unemployment benefits program for excluded immigrant workers. I ask that you vote in support of SB 227, the Safety Net for All Workers Act. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Muchismas gracias, senora, por su testimonial. We'll move on to other support witnesses.

Hello Chair and Committee, Rita Medina with CHIRLA and in strong support of SB 227.

[Testimony in Spanish].

Doscientos veintisiete. Si, gracias.

Gracias.

Mucha gracias.

Hi, everyone. I'm Shantaya. I'm also from Porterville and I am in strong support of the bill SB 227.

Very good.

Hi, everybody. My name is Guadalupe Barron. I come from Bakersfield and I am in strong support of SB 227.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members, James Michael Agpalo with the American Federation and State County Municipal Employees, AFSCME, in support.

Thank you.

Izzy Svenler with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange representing San Francisco Board of Supervisors in strong support. Thank you.

[Testimony in Spanish].

Muchas gracias.

Good morning. Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in Room 2200 that would like to speak in support that has not spoken? Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition.

Is there anybody in Room 2200 that would like to speak in opposition and act as a lead witness? If not, anybody at all that like to speak in opposition? Seeing none. We'll move on to the teleconference line and open the line and invite anyone who wants to speak in support or in opposition to please do so.

For comments in support or opposition to SB 227, please press one, then zero at this time.

And right now it's just your name and your identification and whether you're in support or opposed.

And first we will hear from. Line 119.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Nicole Wordleman, on behalf of The Children's Partnership, in support of SB 227.

Thank you.

Line 128.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Ashley Walker, on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors, in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 89.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Fanelly Millan with the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. I'm calling as part of the Safety Net For All Coalition in strong support of SB 227. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 120.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Vanessa Teran, on behalf of the Mixteco and Indigena Community Organizing Project in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 130.

Good morning, Senators. Carlos Amador with the Safety Net for All Coalition. We're in strong support of SB 227. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Line 73.

Hello, Chair and Members, my name is Linda Swank, calling on behalf of GRACE and End Child povertP California. Also a Member of the Safety Net for All Coalition in strong support of SB 227. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 122.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Daniela in calling in support of SB 227 with the California Immigrant Policy Center and Safety Net for All Coalition.

Thank you very much.

Line 127.

[Testimony in Spanish].

Muchas gracias. It's a support.

Line 131.

[Testimony in Spanish].

Muchas gracias. Support again.

Line 139. Line 139, your mic is open.

Madam Chair and Members, Michelle Taran Wolfwork with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in strong support of SB 227.

Thank you.

Line 140.

Good morning. Anna Hasselblad with United Ways of California and a member of the Safety Net for All Coalition in strong support. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Line 142.

Good morning. Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters, Unite Here and the Machinists, all in support.

Thank you.

Line 132.

Hello, this is Brian Sanchez with the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, calling in with strong support for SB 227.

Thank you.

Line 129.

Hello, this is Kelsey Chapple, a Staff Attorney with Bet Tzedek Legal Services in Los Angeles, also part of the Safety Net for All Coalition, calling in strong support for SB 227.

Thank you.

Line 141.

Good morning. Berta Gonzalez with CLEAN Car Wash Worker Center. I'm calling as part of the Safety Net for All Coalition in strong support of SB 227. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 148.

Anna Alvarado, on behalf of the California EDGE Coalition in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 135.

[Testiomony in Spanish].

Gracias. Support.

Line 151.

Hello. Luca Diegos with TODEC, calling in strong support of SB 227.

Thank you.

Line 134.

Good morning, Chair and Members, on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network, Melissa Segun in support. Thank you so much.