Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

For each Bill heard today, there will be an opportunity for two main witnesses in support and two main witnesses in opposition. I'm recommending, and I think the Committee would stick by this for two minutes of testimony by each person, and I'll signal it just for everybody not to be rude. So I'll just do it for everybody. In addition, for any witnesses calling in, you'll be placed in the queue until your opportunity to provide public comment.

For those additional support and opposition, I'll take them in as they are on the phone. When it's your opportunity, please to provide comment, please press one, then zero. Unmute yourself in order to speak and you'll be reminded, too, on the other side, please limit your comments to name, organization, and position only. And I'll say that one more time so that I can be consistent. Name, organization, and position only outside of those main witnesses.

With that, Sergeant, please call the absent Members and we're going to go ahead and begin as a Subcommitee. And if we have Mr. Lowenthal, I notice is here, would you be kind enough to begin in a Subcommitee when you're ready? Also forgot to mention that Mr. Bryant is absent today, for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, very pleased today to present AB 1013, which will require type 48 licensees to offer for sale or for free to customers, Simple drug testing devices, such as test strips, that can detect the presence of controlled substantives that are commonly used to spike or lace an individual's drink. Now, as we all know, we have a crisis with fentanyl in the State of California. It is not the only crisis that we have in the world of drugs.

And as a matter of fact, we have a crisis that's taking place that's resulting in sexual assault that's targeting primarily women and Members of the LGBTQ communities. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and would like to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. The underreported epidemic of drink spiking continues to plague California and the entire world. Unfortunately, drink spiking is often used to facilitate the commission of other crimes, such as sexual assault and rape.

For the last two years, a number of articles published in news stories around the country have indicated an uptick in drink spiking, or at least bring our attention back to the serious crime that often goes underreported and overlooked. By way of example, I have members of my staff that have been roofied. There are members of the legislative body that have been roofied. There are members of the third house that I have spoken with that have been roofied. Drink spiking is often an elusive crime.

It can be difficult to catch perpetrators in the act. Additionally, victims who have already been drugged may be disoriented, incapacitated, appear to be inebriated, unable to identify or communicate who the perpetrator may be, or may not even know who spiked their drink in the first place. Once someone has had their drink spiked, it is frequently too late to prevent the drugged individual from falling victim to another crime, such as sexual assault or rape.

And furthermore, once someone has been drugged, the controlled substances usually pass through their system overnight, and the presence of these substances is undetectable after the individual first urinates in the morning and would not be detectable without laboratory testing of hair follicles approximately 30 days after ingestion. While anyone can have their drink spiked, the victims of these crimes are too often women and LGBTQ plus individuals.

Due to the challenges of addressing and prosecuting this crime after it has taken place, preventative measures are a common sense way to curb instances of drugging. I kind of look at this as where we were with drunk driving 30 years ago, where we know that there's a crisis, it's too late after it's taking place. What can we do preventatively, legally, and also to raise awareness, to cut down on it, to make the environment safer for everyone?

Drug testings like the ones that I have with me today, and I've brought examples I'd like to show you as simple as coasters that have testing on them that you could put a few drops of your drink on to see if there's GBH or Ketamine paste in your drink or test drips themselves. Very simple. They are simple preventative measures that can protect someone from being drugged and being the victim of another crime, such as sexual assault or rape.

These devices are able to detect the presence of controlled substances that are most commonly used to spike an individual's drink, such as GBH and Ketamine, within a couple of minutes. They are readily available and currently being distributed and sold throughout bars and nightclubs, as well as a number of colleges, universities, us military, throughout the United States and UK. Requiring that these devices be offered for sale at type 48 license establishments is common sense way to protect individuals from being drugged and falling victim to other crimes.

I'm pleased to be joined by Lance Norris, the President of Drink Safe Technologies. One of the producers of the test strips and devices that are being described in the Bill, and he is here in support, testifying the Bill. I believe he's calling in. Do we have Lance on the phone?

Yes, you do. Can you hear me?

And the moderator can sort that out for us. You may begin.

Yes, we hear you, Lance.

Ok. Shall I go ahead and start?

Yes, sir.

Lance, approximately two minutes, please. Okay.

My name is Lance Norris. I'm President, owner of Drinksafe Technologies, and I want to appreciate Assemblyman Lowenthal for bringing this Bill forward. How our product works is basically you place a drop of your drink on the little pink spot and as well as the little green spot. And if either one of those spots turns blue, it lets you know that your drink has been compromised. The green spot is the one that checks for GHB, and the pink spot is the one that checks for Ketamine.

It's a very simple screening mechanism for a person to be able to test their drink. One of the areas that has done a very good job of this is the Tennessee Coalition of Sexual Assault. And what they have done is they've created a safe bar program where they have a window sticker that goes onto the front door of the bar, and they provide the test cards and the test strips to the bars at no charge.

And so anybody who goes into those bars, into the Nashville area, can simply ask for that product and it would be given to them. One of the larger purchases of this product throughout the country has been the US military. I mean, I'll just give you an example. Last week, Fort Knox, Fort Sill, the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Fort Hunter, and NBVC Sapper program, which is a military program, all ordered coasters from me just last week. So I'm open for any questions, if anybody has any.

Thank you. Appreciate it. And I believe we only have one main witness in support, unless it was another one that I missed. Mr. Lowenthal?

That's correct.

Okay. And I don't know of any main witnesses in opposition, unless there are some that are unknown to me? You may sit up here and you're allocated. I would recommend two minutes. That's what the Committee's kind of traditionally done.

I'll take far less than that. Thank you. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm Mike Scippa, Public Affairs Director at Alcohol Justice. I'd like to thank the author for bringing the Bill forward. The actual incidence of having a drug put in one's drink without their knowledge varies from 6-25%, depending on a survey done recently by American Psychological Association.

Just to be clear, is this in opposition?

No, this is in support.

Oh, I am sorry. If traditionally they're written in advance. Mr. Lowenthal, are you okay with this?

I'd be happy to hear.

Thank you.

We did submit a letter. I guess it didn't get in on time.

That's okay.

So even at the lowest rate, one in 20 means that you can look around a bar on any given Friday night and know that at least one person in that room has or will be the victim of a spiked drink. The Bill goes to empower individuals to monitor their drinks to normalize the act of additive testing for those who might be hesitant to engage in it.

We believe that this Bill has the potential to reduce incidents of deep trauma for thousands of bar patrons and would ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd ask for any main witnesses in opposition. Knowing none, I've moved on. Now, any public comments in support that are in the room? Again, name, organization, and position only. Any public comments in opposition in the room? Name, organization, and position only. Now we'll go to the phones. Moderator if there's any support or opposition. Name, organization, and position only. I'm not hearing any, so I'm going to go ahead to questions from Committee Members.

Mr. Gipson has hands up, followed by Mr. Lackey, and then additional mics have gone up.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the author for bringing this Bill forward. I think it absolutely makes a tremendous amount of sense when you look at the amount of people. My cousin died from being roofied. It was poison. And he went home with the individual who robbed him, who actually put the roofie in his drink, and he never woke up again. And they found him in bed, for one.

And then myself and Senator Connie Leyva, a former Senator, we did the removing the statute of limitation off of rape. And I had a young man who I read a story about on Facebook, and I invited him to come and speak in support of the Bill at that particular time, who was also roofied. We believe that through his testimony that the bartender was involved and knew exactly what happened.

And when he woke up, the perpetrator was raping him and he was able to get away and fall downstairs and wound up half naked in the alley and then found his way to his car and went back to the place. And everybody played stupid and dumb. And so I believe that where we are in our society, people will do this, and we see it time and time again.

I believe we need to put things in place, like this measure to at least. I tell my kids and family members, if you have to go to the bathroom, don't go back to that drink. Take it with you into the restroom because you never know who's watching to put something in your drink. And that goes for anyone. Never trust anyone when you're at a public event, a bar, club, because you are primed for something like that to take place. And again, I commend you.

I want to be a Principal Co, if you would have me on this Bill. I want to help you get this Bill across the threshold and onto the governor's desk and commend you for the lives that you're going to save and the victims that won't fall victim to this.

Comments are very well appreciated. Mr. Lackey.

Certainly this is a significant social problem that has become a problem. It's not new. It's been around for a couple of years now. And unfortunately, there have been many, many victims that I think this idea would be a significant rape prevention measure. But I'm hoping that you might consider an amendment that will address the liability for potential false negatives because there's no screening process that's a hundred percent.

Right, and we don't want to expose the people in the bar to unnecessary lawsuits. So I would just ask that you consider that as an amendment to include and to address as this Bill progresses forward, because it certainly is a very worthy attempt and you're to be congratulated and thanked.

Mr. Chair, may I respond? First of all, Mr. Lackey, I appreciate your comments so much. I would want to make sure that you know, and everybody knows I'm a bar and restaurant owner and have been in the industry for some time. It is horrific to consider that drugging and assault can take place on the premises of places that we've worked so hard to create a different type of environment. There is liability for not doing anything, right now, maybe more than anything.

And so we are in a slippery slope when we start assigning where liability is or isn't. Having said that, of course we will consider any amendment that will make this stronger. I truly appreciate a bipartisan approach to this. All we should all be caring about is what's best for Californians, what makes a safe environment, especially for young people, to all go out, and particularly for women.

If it was men that was being targeted here, it would have a different type of crisis in the State of California. And we tolerate it, as you've noted for some time now, primarily because it's women that are being targeted and that's wrong. And it has to end. And we all have to do something. And this is a start. This is not the end. It is a start. And we're going to have to continue to build on this over time until we get this crisis down.

Thank you. And I don't know who lifted up their mic first between you two.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to sincerely thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. So I really appreciate that. And I am in full agreement with the goal of ending sexual violence. But I do have a question about the bar or night club liability in providing testing kit. What if a bar has 50 kids only, but ... and unexpected rush of 200 more customer? Will they be penalized for not having enough kit, even though they make a good effort to provide the test?

And what is the expected amount they should have on hand?

Well, bars and restaurants and clubs are responsible and currently liable for all types of things associated with serving alcohol. They need to make sure that they have somebody who's properly checking ids. They need to make sure they have proper staffing around that they cannot serve somebody or overserve somebody. So they have to have certain requirements with local fire authorities and health authorities and things around that they're already under certain requirements, that they have certain things there, and if they don't, they shouldn't be operating.

And I caution you all that if we allow a slippery slope and say what's their best effort? That's a tough situation. This is not that complicated. Do we think that every patron is going to be asking for this? Probably not. The question is, are we making sure that we have tools available for the people who want to feel extra know? Mr. Gipson brought out something that was really important. There are instances that I know of anecdotally where people at the bars have participated in this.

Stop and consider that for a moment, that people working in the bars are participating in this. It is very important that the patrons of these places have these test trips available. And as it relates to the liability question, I think I answered it. I'm certainly open to discussion around this and would be more than happy to have discussion around this. And I would also remind everybody that there is incredible liability right now by not doing anything at all.

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assembly member Lowenthal, I'm so excited to see this Bill. You and I sat down in the very beginning of this year, and just briefly last year, we were able to pass a Bill that actually allowed this to happen. To move testing tools from paraphernalia category to a category that would make this available to the public. And this was really hoping the next step. And so it's great to see where we're at here. This is so important.

And I think one of the biggest things that I see is this will deter people that may want to be doing something like this, because now if they're sitting there and someone tests it, they're going to look around. So now that spotlight will be near them if something happens. And I'm hoping that will stop it, not only will prevent it, but it will stop that person from doing that.

I also agree with a Member Lackey in regards to the liability so that they can feel comfortable knowing that, listen, I'm doing everything I can do. I've got this available here. You can give it away free if you want. You can charge for it, whatever the cost at that point is. But I don't have to worry about something going wrong. And so I would be honored to be part of a co author on this.

And I'd like to see perhaps in the near future something perhaps we could work on, is that restaurants and bars that do something like this, perhaps they can get some type of reimbursement or some type of benefit with insurance. As well as I'd like to see us putting these into colleges and having them where they're available, just like you have Narcan machines and things like that, which sounds like something you're looking at as well. So thank you very much.

Like, it's sad that we have to do this, but the fact that we're doing something and it's moving much faster than I was hoped, that I didn't think it would. Thank you so much.

Ms. Davies, I enthusiastically welcome you as a co author on this Bill. I really appreciate your commitment on this issue. And yes, I recall very fondly our initial discussion about this. I think that there are many directions that we need to go to further on this issue in the years ahead and would love to work with you on those things. We have a Bill that's moving through right now requiring this to be on college campuses the same way that we do with feminine hygiene products right now.

So that's here in this cycle. So appreciate you. And to reiterate what Mr. Lackey and Mr. Ta brought forward, we certainly want to consider the thoughts that you're putting forward here as far as liabilities.

Thank you, chair. I'm not sure if we have a quorum, but if we don't yet.

Okay.

Yes. So I would like to be a co author to your Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Ta. Yes, of course.

Yes. Thank you.

I don't see any further comments. I'm going to ask the author. We'd welcome a close.

I really appreciate the time today. Happy to continue to work with this Committee on this Bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

And we'll take it up once we have a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Boerner Horvath, please, if you're ready to present.

That'd be awesome.

Yes.

Moving slowly today.

The floor is yours.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair Members, good afternoon. I'm here to present AB 1294, an important measure for the sport of surfing. AB 1294 creates an advertising exception from the state's tide house restrictions specifically for Surf Ranch, located in Lemoore, California. The exception would permit specified alcohol manufacturers to advertise their products at Surf Ranch and provide an important source of revenue for the venue. Surf Ranch is the first of its kind surf venue, offering surfers a perfect six foot barreling wave traveling over 2300ft and yielding up to a minute long ride in a converted water ski lake known as a wave basin.

Since the inception in 2015, Surf Ranch has hosted surfers from around the world at competitive and corporate events throughout the year, attracting thousands of visitors to Kings County and local businesses, while employing close to 100 full time and part time jobs in a part of the state with limited job opportunities. Surf Ranch is also home to the Surf Ranch Pro, one of the major stops on the World Surf League's professional surfing tour brings some of the best surfers in the world to California and attracting up to 5000 spectators.

For an event streamed live to a global audience of surf fans. Every year, the California Legislature awards tide house advertising exceptions to a variety of professional sporting venues such as baseball, football stadiums and basketball arenas. AB 1294 would simply provide a similar exception for a venue that is home to professional surfing. The exception will provide an important source of revenue to sustain Surf Ranch's operations, grow the tourism economy in a remote part of the state and promote surfing as the official state sport. I respectfully have an aye vote with today and I have here with me, Pat Joyce, on behalf of the World Surf League to testify in support of the Bill.

Pleasure to meet again, Mr. Joyce.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Chair Committee Members, Pat Joyce. I'm here today on behalf of the Bill sponsor, the Kelly Slater Wave Company as well as the World Surf League. AB 1294 creates a new exemption to the state's tide house restrictions in the BMP code for Surf Ranch. It's a wave basin facility located in Lemoore, California.

As the author mentioned, Surf Ranch is a first of its kind surf experience and has revolutionized the manmade wave by transforming two water ski lakes into a large wave basin that generates six to eight foot barreling waves giving surfers the perfect ride. Surf Ranch has put Lemoore, California on the map within the global surf community.

The World Surf League, which runs the professional surfing tour and hosts events all over the world now has two CT events in California one being the Surf Ranch pro, which is happening this May. The event will bring thousands of people to the region and give professional surfing the major sporting arena feel. Due to surf ranch retail liquor license, the state's tide house laws limit important sponsorship opportunities.

AB 1294 clears the way for Surf Ranch to generate important advertising revenue from relevant sponsors that sustains the venue's operations, grows surf tourism in the region and importantly, promotes the sport of surfing. Thank you for your consideration and ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other. I don't have listed any other main witnesses in support so I'll ask for any main witnesses in opposition. This is an opposition, sir. Okay, perfect. You could do that there. You could also sit down as a courtesy. It's your preference, sir.

Thank you once again, Mike Scippa on behalf of Alcohol Justice. Although we continue to ask for a no vote on AB 1294 we actually spoke with representatives of the wave basin and would like to modify our grounds for opposition. We continue to remain concerned with the impact of alcohol sponsorship on sports especially since the brands most likely to sponsor events are already the brands favored by young people.

Absent any assurance that events at this facility will not be televised or will be televised in a manner conscientious of not advertising alcohol to youth we feel this tide house exemption still threatens to create harm. However, we realize that the wave basin is not really a public premise per se and we retract any objection based on immediate physical activity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Much appreciate your comments. Now we'll go to any public comments and support who are in the room. Again, name, organization, position only. I'm not seeing any. So we'll go to opposition the same and then we'll go to the phones.

Thank you. For an opposition or support you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition. And, Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

Okay. Any questions from Committee Members?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. Remember Surf Ranch is in my district and it's a great employer and great opportunity for us locally. And as already mentioned, this provides a great opportunity for us and creates some equity for Surf Ranch to be able to compete with large events. So with that, I ask you for your support and your aye votes.

Thank you. Seeing no further comments, you may close. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you raise. I apologize. We'll have to get a quorum first. Sorry. You may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you for that.

I believe we have a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. We have a quorum.

We have a quorum. And just so I could get everybody up to date here, I would need a first and a second on the consent calendar. We have first and a second on the consent calendar. And that's AB 553 Ramos and AB 1658 Santiago. We have a first and a second, Madam Secretary.

On the consent calendar, file item one, AB 553 Ramos. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations, recommended consent. File item seven, AB 1658 Santiago. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations on recommended consent. [Roll Call].

Consent calendar is out. Now, I would need a first and a second on AB 1013, Lowenthal. Davies, and Gipson. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. Madam Secretary please call.

File item three, AB 1013, Lowenthal. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Sure. We'll leave that open for Members to add on. And then the final one is AB 1294. We would need a motion and a second, Mr. Gipson. Aguiar-Curry. You did, but we weren't official. Now we're official. But you are accurate. Madam Secratary.

File item five, AB 1294, Boerner Horvath. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Thank you. We'll leave it open for Members to add on. Ms. Addis, are you ready? And we're moving in follow order. Sorry.

Well, thank you, honorable chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you, Committee staff, and also to my own staff and our witness who's here today. I'm here today to ask for your aye vote on another tide house exemption. So mine is AB 840 to create an exemption to the tide house rule for 23 venues across seven California State University, or CSU's campuses. Doing so will allow these campuses to access much needed revenue, which benefits both athletic as well as other programs that utilize these venues.

And just for some background, the CSU system serves over 450 students annually, making it the 18th largest University system in the world. In order for alcohol manufacturers to advertise at a venue at any CSU campus, the campus must obtain a tide house exemption from the Legislature. Tide house exemptions, as you know, are a common sight here in the Legislature. For example, last year, the Legislature passed SB 1280, which exempted the newly constructed Snapdragon Stadium at San Diego State University.

And in the past decade, the Legislature has passed over 13 tide house bills. Compared to last year's massive surplus. California now finds itself with a sizable budget deficit, as you know, and AB 840 would give our CSU campuses additional forms of revenue to fund athletics and other activities that are so important to educational experiences of university students. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to my witness, who will self introduce.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, chair Santiago and Members Eric Bach with the California State University Chancellor's Office. I'd like to begin my testimony by thanking Assemblymember Addis for authoring AB 840. As the largest university system in the United States, with a range of studies and locations across California, the CSU provides access to valuable, life changing degrees and supports many of our local communities.

To support these efforts, campuses continue to look at ways to bring in additional revenues to their campuses. After surveying our campuses, we found that seven of those campuses were interested in expanding economic opportunities, through sponsorship agreements with beverage suppliers. AB 840 would create the necessary exemption and statute that will provide access to revenue sources that will aid and support programs on our campuses. For this reason, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 840.

Thank you. You may proceed.

On the line is Dru Zachmeyer, Assistant Vice President of Strategic Business Services with Cal Poly SLO to provide a few remarks how this measure will benefit their campus. Thank you very much.

Afternoon Chair Santiago and Members, some of you may know Cal Poly for its Learn by Doing teaching philosophy and highly regarded polytechnic programs. The University also serves as a regional hub for jobs, economic development and cultural activities in San Luis Obispo County. Cal Poly is seeking a tide house exception for four of its athletic and multipurpose venues, as well as its performing arts center. While Cal Poly athletics and performing arts enjoy strong support from the community and donors, operating budgets are always very tight.

Sponsorships with local alcoholic beverage suppliers and manufacturers, based in part on advertising opportunities at these venues, provide hundreds of thousands of discretionary dollars that augment limited base budgets. For example, in the case of athletics, every last dollar generated through these sponsorships goes into their scholarship fund. Fully funding scholarships is critical not only for athletic success, but also to further Cal Poly's diversity objectives.

The performing arts center uses these dollars to allow over 12,000 local K-12 students each year to experience live educational arts performances through the free school matinee program. As you can see, the ability to develop sponsorship relationships with the alcohol industry, when done appropriately, provides important revenue source that directly benefits students and the local community. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 840.

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. And now we're going to go to any main witnesses in opposition. Yeah, you may come to the front as the tradition of the Committee, and I just recommend two minutes per person or less. Thank you. Floor is yours. You may want to press the button so we can hear you. Thank you.

Lights on. That helps. Thank you Mr. Chair, Members of the GO Committee, Fred Jones, on behalf of the California Council on Alcohol Problems, which is a faith based organization primarily of ecclesiastical leaders. We're also a founding member of the California Alcohol Policy Alliance. Both organizations opposed the Bill. A couple of reasons. One is the scope. We understand district bills occasionally for tide house restriction exceptions, as we just heard prior to this Bill. But this affects CSU's campuses up and down the state, so the sheer scope of this Bill makes it somewhat unusual.

The other concern is we're dealing with college campuses where a majority of students are under the age of legal drinking and which have all sorts of history, as all of us know, with inappropriate levels of drinking, not just underage drinking. And then the third reason is fiscal. The last time alcohol excise taxes were adjusted in California was 1992.

There is no cost of living or inflation element to that so we think if there's a fiscal argument related to the alcohol industry and public coffers, we would strongly encourage you, before you give the alcohol industry another marketing boon at the expense of underage drinkers at college campuses, that you would adjust the excise taxes that would bring in a lot more money than we're discussing with this Bill and would help shoulder the load of some of the cost of this industry. Thank you.

Thank you. And I appreciate your comments. You now have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Mike Scippa, on behalf of Alcohol Justice, I'll try not to duplicate what my colleague has just said. This Bill does indeed intend to suspend three tier regulations and open up these sporting facilities on a large number of the campuses. But the consequences of youth consumption should be self evident.

Alcohol related fatalities, including motor vehicle crashes, suicides and homicides, are the leading killers of youth ages 15 through 19, and three of the four leading causes of death for college students between 18 and 24 years of age. The facts that exposure to alcohol advertising makes a child more likely to start drinking younger and increases the amount consumed when they do drink is well established, and the recent research suggests it may also be associated with binge drinking.

Yet California seems determined to prop up its university system with alcohol funding. We believe this is reckless and the strategy is across multiple domains. Unlike most deregulation, this selectively targets underage youth. By our conservative estimates, there are at least 180,000 Cal students under the age of 21. That's about the population of Santa Rosa. There is no defensible reason why alcohol companies should be facilitated in advertising to people who cannot legally buy their products, irrespective of the harms just mentioned.

This does not count the many youth from the community who may attend concerts or sporting events hosted at these facilities. The scope of these exemptions is an extraordinary case of overreach. By ramping up alcohol advertising in nearly every campus, you are excusing local legislators of the obligation of making the request and opening themselves up to feedback from constituents. The three tier system is there for a good reason, to prevent monopolization and corporate price controls that lead to the most harmful of alcohol consumption patterns.

We know that these mega corporations hate the three tier system and want to see it abolished forever, and that the strategy in this Bill, a sweeping series of exemptions that function as a de facto repeal of three tiers for a specific kind of facility. And we feel this is a blueprint that will be used time and time again to eviscerate California's protective policies. The State of California's higher education system should be protected and nurtured.

However, there is every reason to believe that increasing the penetration of alcohol corporations into student lives does the opposite. California would most deeply benefit from a healthy and engaged student body. For this reason, we ask you to oppose AB 840. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we're going to go to the. Thank you very much for your comments. Much appreciated. We're going to go to the phones for any additional support or opposition witnesses who might be on the phone. Moderator, please.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that's one and then zero if you're in support or opposition. And, Mr. Chair, we have no support or opposition in queue.

Any questions from Committee Members? I'm not seeing any. You're welcome to close.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We have a first, Mr. Gipson? Oh, I apologize. I just heard the noise from this way, Mr. Ta? There first. And we have a second. Now I'm going to ask because I didn't see. It was Mr. Lackey, I assume. Okay. No, I heard the noise, the voice. And so. Mr. Ta, Mr. Lackey motioned and Madam Secretary, please call roll.

File item two, AB 480 Addis. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

We'll leave it open for Members to add on. Thank you very much for your presentation. Much appreciated. Now we're going to move thank you. We're going to move to Mr. Gabriel, if you're ready.

Two for the price of one.

The floor is yours, sir.

Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. And I want to start by thanking the Committee for their thoughtful work on this Bill and to confirm that we will be accepting the Committee amendments today.

I am pleased today to be here with my joint author to present AB 1217, which will support California's restaurants that have been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and also by inflation, by helping to preserve outdoor dining across the State of California. As we all know, neighborhood restaurants are the backbone of communities across California, and many of them were barely hanging on by a thread during the Covid-19 pandemic, during which outdoor dining provided a critical lifeline to help struggling neighborhood restaurants.

In 2021, I authored, along with many of you on this Committee, AB 61, which provided restaurants with the initial regulatory flexibility to provide outdoor food service and empower restaurants to use their own spaces for increased outdoor dining capacity. AB 61 was signed into law that same year. Today, restaurants that survive the pandemic are facing rising operating costs due to inflation as well as unfortunately, some local governments that have decided to consider additional red tape to prevent them from utilizing their own spaces for outdoor dining.

Unfortunately, a recent survey reported that wholesale food prices have increased 16.3% in the last 12 months, while menu prices rose 7.6% and surveys suggested that restaurant spending is one of the first things families cut due to rising prices. So, in short, California restaurants are still in need of regulatory flexibility to help them recover from the economic losses associated with the pandemic and wrestle with the challenges of rising inflation.

On top of that, many of these restaurants and restaurant owners have invested significant capital in creating outdoor dining spaces that are inviting, where people can come and gather and enjoy, and we need to make sure that that can continue. So this Bill will preserve existing regulatory flexibility related to outdoor patio and Al Fresco dining and extend the current catering authorization that allows restaurants to serve guests in these outdoor dining areas.

And so doing this Bill will help to keep our beloved neighborhood restaurants afloat and assist them on the long road back to recovery. This Bill is supported by a robust coalition of small businesses, local restaurants, hospitality coalitions, business councils, and local chambers of Congress. And I'm delighted to be here today with my joint author, Assembly Member Schiavo, who is a small business owner and has been a champion of small businesses in the San Fernando Valley, where we are both fortunate to serve.

And we are also fortunate to have our witness, Matthew Sutton, on behalf of our sponsor, the California Restaurant Association. I'll now turn it over to assembly member Schiavo and would request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. And I just want to thank my colleague, Assemblymember Gabriel, for authoring AB 1217, allowing me to join as a co author and testify today and impress upon folks how important this Bill is to my district specifically. And I think probably everyone has a connection with this issue in their community. Throughout the pandemic, open air dining kept many small businesses afloat.

These restaurants were really part of the solution when we were trying to flatten the curve by creating outdoor dining spaces that were safe. And really, we know that these are still needed when we're talking about public health, there are folks who are immunocompromised who still need outdoor spaces to be able to enjoy dining. We know that Covid is still real and still impacting folks in our community and our colleagues, even.

And so this is something that we're going to need in an ongoing basis as part of the solution. In my own community, I saw, I've talked to a small restaurant owner who said that it was going to, if he wanted to make this permanent through working with the city, he would have to spend $20,000 to make all of the upgrades that were being required after the investment that he had already made in creating this outdoor space.

And if he couldn't do that, then he would have to tear it out. And so these are the choices that restaurants are being faced with right now. To try to make these outdoor dining spaces permanent. The pieces of this Bill would extend what is a lifeline for so many. But more than surviving, outdoor dining has helped cities thrive. Communities piloted walkable streets, open air events and venues, and new ways to connect with one another and the communities that we live in.

So through AB 2017, we have an opportunity to reimagine city centers, create stronger bonds in the places where we live, and support small businesses. I want to thank Assemblymember Gabriel again for allowing me to join him and speak today on this important Bill, and join him in asking for your support and and aye vote as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to witnesses in support for recommended two minutes, if there are any. Please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you so much. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. We are the sponsor. We're very grateful for the leadership here on this issue. As was said, this is extending existing law for a little bit longer, two years specifically without action. These provisions will expire at the end of next February. And so the other thing I would point out is these are those spaces that you see that are expanded outdoor dining spaces. They're often not contiguous to the restaurant.

And so there are two regulatory, basically streamlinings in here. So these restaurants are already permitted to serve alcohol and obviously already permitted to serve food. What the two aspects of this Bill do is allow for that service in these non contiguous spaces. It's completely regulated by the health departments. And in the case of the alcohol service, ABC. ABC can revoke the permit and license at any time. So we're talking about dining. We're not talking about anything beyond that. So, as was said, it's truly lifeline.

There are 11,000 restaurants right now that enjoy the temporary catering authorization and more will have the opportunity to do so if this Bill moves forward. So thank you so much, and we'd ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Now, we're going to go to any main witnesses in opposition, and we recommend two minutes.

Thank you. Chair Members of the Committee, Mike Scippa, on behalf of Alcohol Justice. The expanded footprint allowed by ABC and then extended under temporary order by the Governor were intended to allow restaurants to operate without forcing customers to gather inside. Yes, it worked, and it worked spectacularly well. However, lockdown is over, and the footprint is no longer necessary.

In fact, that particular rule that allowed this to happen formed just one part of a constellation of alcohol deregulatory measures that have had a measurable lethal impact on California residents. According to current CDC data, alcohol related deaths in California rose 15.9% from 2019 to 2020 and 17.7% from 2020 to 2021.

This is a stunning spike in a state that was already experiencing increases in alcohol related deaths out of proportion to population growth. This mortality disproportionately affects young California residents, with more than one in four deaths among those 20 to 34 year olds being alcohol related. Yes, drinking outdoors does not cause this mortality, but increasing the density of people drinking in any given area does. This is why the US Preventive Service Task force strongly recommends limiting the density as a simple and effective form of harm prevention.

This indefinite expansion of service in this Bill flies against evidencebased mitigation. We'd like to emphasize that by the time this goes into effect, the last true lockdowns will have ended three years ago. We cannot sweep aside the impacts of mortality and livability in the name of a life saving emergency order that the state is hardly interested in enforcing.

Gently remind you we've reached about two minutes.

One sentence left.

No problem. Thank you.

Please look at the scope of alcohol related deaths and think about the life saving policies that are yet to come. Thank you.

Thank you. And that was in an effort to try to be fair to everybody. So I appreciate that.

Mr. Chair Members. Fred Jones, again, on behalf of the California Council on Alcohol Problems, faith based organization, and also the California Alcohol Policy Alliance. If this was about eating food on a non contiguous outdoor setting beyond the footprint of the licensed establishment, we would have no problem. It's the consumption of alcohol on sidewalks that children walk in. It's about reimagining cities without city input because this is a state law that will trump local control. For those two reasons, and several others, we urge your opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Very much. Now we're going to go to public comments in the room who are supportive. Name, organization and position only, please.

Mr. Chair and Members Jason Bryant, on behalf of the California Downtown Association and the downtown San Diego Partnership, we're in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Any additional comments in support? Then we'll move on to comments and opposition in the room. Name organization opposition only. Not seeing any to the phones will go moderator.

Here for your support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero. If you're in support or opposition, and we do have one coming in the queue. One moment, please. One.

We will go to line 54. Your line is open.

Thank you. I think I heard it was only one. So now I'll just move to Committee Members. Any questions for Committee Members? Mr. Gipson? Oh, I'm sorry. You were moving the Bill, Mr. Gipson?

Good afternoon, Chair and Member is Melissa Hyzdu on behalf of the California Travel Association in support. Thank you.

I'm a little off my game today. Go ahead.

No, Cecilia moved it. I second it. But I wanted to speak.

I want to say thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank the authors and the joint co author for bringing this Bill before us. I just want to make, mention that to assume that the businesses in California has bounced back is an incorrect assessment. And I know one of the speakers made mention of that.

I think small businesses still need help, and I think the State of California did a very thoughtful thing by allowing the small business to expand their business because we couldn't go inside because of the pandemic. And communities have grown accustomed to such accommodations. Again, this is a way, because a lot of businesses in my community lost a shirt off their back. They couldn't bounce back. A lot of businesses had to lay off people. They could not bounce back. Their doors were shut.

And for those who are still remaining in operation, to assume that they've made all the money they lost for the past two years because of the pandemic is an incorrect assessment. And so thank you very much. It gives the flexibility for communities and cities to operate and to give discretion. And this Bill does it. Please add me as a co author. I won't be sitting next to you at the next time you present the Bill, but certainly I'm there when it comes to the floor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional comments from Committee?

Thank you very much for bringing this Bill forward. This Bill, initial Bill, changed my community. We were dying, and I had sleepless nights, worried sick about how we were going to keep the economic stability of the community. If I took this away from them, if we took this away from them right now, we'd be almost back in the same place. But it's thriving. It's a better sense of community than ever.

People are coming together, meeting on the streets. Families are coming together. There's rock and roll bands. It's just a whole different vibe. And so I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. I'll be in support of the Bill today, and I'd also like to be a co author.

Any additional Committee Member questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to note, thank you to both the authors and joint author. First off, who doesn't need more vitamin D, right? Our family has enjoyed outdoor dining and would love to see this continue. And so I was really excited to hear about this measure being proposed and excited to support it today. We need to continue to ensure that our small businesses are thriving. Many are still struggling, as we know. As a former Chair of the Jobs Committee, we were doing everything we could during COVID to assist our small businesses, and this is another avenue that we could take. So this is important, and I look forward to seeing this get to the floor so we could support it and get it out.

Any additional comments?

I'd also like to thank you guys for authoring this Bill. My family, we own small restaurants in Isaac Bryan's district. And in my district, my cousin who just opened up his restaurant in my district, it was closed for about a year. We really struggled, and so we appreciate that you're doing this for these small ma and pa's. And I would like to be a co author as well. Thank you.

Any additional comments? I'll sum it up and say I'm a big fan. You're welcome to close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you to all the colleagues for your kind comments. I will just add, I think this is a win win for everybody involved. We also should note that these small businesses are engines of economic growth, of social mobility. Restaurants employ one of the most diverse workforces in the State of California.

This is something that's been good for workers, good for businesses, and good for our communities. So again, I want to thank my joint author, who has been a champion for small businesses. And with that, we would respectfully request your aye vote.

We already have a first and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item four by Assemblymember Gabriel. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Health. [Roll Call].

And if I could be considered for a coauthor as well that'd be great.

Okay thank you. [Roll Call].

[Roll Call].

And I want to be a coauthor.

I'm going to go ahead and run if Madam Secretary be okay with me to run through the whole thing. So everybody can get caught up. So when we go through the last Bill, you're welcome to leave for those who just got here, those who have been present, if you would allow me that too.

Anyways, while we get an author, if the author allows, I might just present for him if you have any questions, because there may be some questions on the next Bill, I'll just have to defer them to the author. Or we can wait for the author, depending on what they agree on.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]. We will leave it open. File item two by Assemblymember Addis, AB 840. [Roll Call]. We will leave it open for Members to add on. File item three AB 1013, Assemblymember Lowenthal. [Roll Call]. We'll leave it open for additional. File item five AB 1294, Boerner Horvath. [Roll Call]. We'll leave it open for Members.

The author is on his way, so if you'd be so kind just to give us a minute or two, please. Thank you. And Mr. Ramos will be presenting for Mr. Garcia. And what we will do is I will call the main witnesses up, and that is Mr. Dennis Raval, and I apologize if I mispronounced that. And Jason Gonzalez, sorry. If there's any technical questions, the Chair will work with the author to make sure that those questions are answered for the Members who have asked it.

And thank you, Mr. Ramos. Much appreciated. The floor is yours.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. On behalf of Eduardo Garcia, I'm presenting AB 1403. This Bill will allow the Office of the State Fire Marshal to identify methods that will capture more detailed data relating to fires, damages and injuries caused by both dangerous fireworks and safe and sane fireworks.

The state fire marshal shall provide to the appropriate policy and budget committees of the respective houses of the Legislature a workload analysis of resources needed to further assist in the training of local fire law enforcement personnel regarding all the following.

Finally, this Bill ensures that the local nonprofits in our communities who are selling safe and sane fireworks are given funds to assist them in the public education and awareness campaigns regarding the safe and responsible use of safe and sane fireworks and the dangers and risks posed by the use of illegal fireworks. With me today to testify in support of the Bill is Dennis Revell and Jason Gonzalez.

Thank you. And just for the record, Mr. Garcia is chairing a Committee that he could not leave. So thank you, Mr. Ramos again.

Mr. Chair Members Jason Gonzalez, representing TNT Fireworks as well as the City of Elk Grove. The sponsors of the Bill is TNT fireworks. We want to thank the author, want to thank the Chairman of Rules for pitch hitting, you, Mr. Chairman, the Committee and the stakeholders for their efforts on this legislation.

Illegal fireworks is a problem I think we all know, and we're working with the State Fire Marshal, Department of Justice and others trying to get a handle on it. But again, want to thank the Committee. Your consultant spent his Spring break walking us through this and it's very much appreciated. So thank you, Mr. Chair. And we respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Just hit the button.

Yes, Dennis Revell, representing TNT Fireworks and I'd be happy to respond to any technical questions.

Thank you. Now, any main witnesses in opposition? I'm not seeing any. So we're going to go ahead and move to public comments and support. Who might be in the room. Name, organization and position only. Any additional opposition comments in the room, name, organization, position only. Now we'll move to the phones. Moderator, please.

If you're in opposition or support, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for support or opposition. And we do have one. One moment, please. . We will go to line 57. Your line is open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Evan Corder on behalf of Phantom Fireworks in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no further in queue.

Thank you. Any questions for Committee Members? I'm not seeing any. You're welcome to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members.

I apologize. I thought I missed the comment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, on behalf of Eduardo Garcia, this is an important Bill for his district and also for the State of California. And I urge your aye vote and a motion and a second on this Bill.

Yeah, we have a first and a second with a new co author. Assemblymember Ramos, do we have a first and a second? Second. No problem. Yeah, and I'll second that. That's fine, Madam secretary, please call the roll.

File item six, AB 1403 by Assemblymember Garcia. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. [Roll Call].

We'll leave it open. Thank you.

So if you've now gotten all your votes, you may leave and then we'll start all over again. And we have an informational hearing. So you may stay for the informational hearing. I meant take a quick break and come back.

Opening the roll on AB 1217 by Assemblymember Gabriel. Rivas? Rivas, Aye.

You're good. Would everybody else be kindly if I just wait a second and then we'll do this again and then go to the informational hearing. Maybe the sergeants can call the absent Members if they'd like to add on. Mr. Lackey, would you Chair while I go add on in ... So I will be releasing the gavel to Mr. Lackey.

Opening the roll for Mr. Mathis. File item two, AB 840. Mathis? Mathis, aye. File item four AB 1217. Mathis? Mathis, aye. File item six AB1403. Mathis? Mathis aye. We'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on.

I am opening the roll for Assemblymember McCarty on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call] File item two, AB 840 Addis [Roll Call]. File item three, AB 1013 Lowenthal [Roll Call]. File item four, AB 1217 Gabriel [Roll Call]. File item five, AB 1294 Boerner Horvath [Roll Call]. File item six, AB 143 Garcia [Roll Call]. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members.

We want to thank everybody for their patience. We're still waiting for a couple of Members to come and cast their last vote. I'm sorry for the delay, but thank you for your patience. Okay, absent Members or absent Member staff. We're waiting five more minutes, and then we're going to proceed. Five more minutes.

Opening the roll for Assembly Member Villapudua on the consent calendar. Consent calendar aye. Item two, AB 840 Addis [Roll Call]. File item three, AB 1013 Lowenthal [Roll Call]. Item four, AB 1217 [Roll Call]. Item five, AB 1294 [Roll Call]. Item six, AB 143 [Roll Call]. AB 553 Ramos and 1658 Santiago are both out on the consent calendar. AB 840 is out with 18 votes and no "no" votes.

AB 1013 is out with 18 votes and no "no" votes. AB 1217 is out with 19 votes and no "no" votes. AB 1294 is out with 18 votes and no "no" votes. AB 143 is out with 16 votes and no "no" votes.

Okay, the Assembly governmental organization Committee is now adjourned. And guess what? The Assembly governmental organization Committee is now called to order. The call in number for public comment is the following. 877-692-8957 and the access code is 1850-1100 this number can be found on the Committee's website and is displayed on your screens. For those calling in, please mute yourselves while in the queue to eliminate background noise. You'll be placed in a queue until your opportunity to provide public comment.

When it's your opportunity to provide comment, press one, then zero, and unmute your phones in order to speak. Please be brief limiting your comments to your name, organization and position on the compact. The purpose of today's hearing is to be briefed on the contents of a tribal state gaming compact between the State of California and the Federated Indians of Granton Rancheria, which was executed on March 92023. Today, we will hear from the principal architects of this compact.

The governor's office and the Chairman of the tribe. Under the terms of this compact, the tribe may operate up to 6000 gaming machines in total at two facilities, one of which may host only 50 machines. Under the compact, the tribe will reimburse the State of California for its regulatory costs on a prorata basis by payments into the special distribution Fund.

The compact reflects a commitment by the tribe to ensure, through the revenue sharing trust Fund, that economic benefits of gaming extend to all tribal governments in California. The compact requires the tribe to distribute a specified percentage of their net win to neighboring local jurisdictions in order to mitigate the impact of gaming facility operations on those jurisdictions.

The compact includes a tribal labor relations ordinance which provides that gaming may commence only after the tribe has adopted a TLRO that allows for a secret ballot election and union neutrality as defined the other majority. I'm sorry. Major components of this compact are significantly similar or identical to those found in recent compacts ratified by the Legislature. Upon all the necessary approvals, the compact will be valid for 25 years following the effective date.

I just want to remind all interested parties that no formal vote will be taken today, and today's hearing is for the Committee to be briefed on the terms of this compact as it cannot be amended by the Legislature. With that set of remarks, I need to read one more page. Assembly Bill 498, by Assembly Member Aguiar Curry, is the ratification Bill for this compact. At some point, AB 498 will be taking up for consideration by the entire body on the Assembly floor.

I would like to thank our witness in advance for taking the time out of their busy schedules to be with us today, and especially for the long delay there. Thank you for your patience. Without further ado, I'd like to ask the bill's author, Assembly Member Aguiar Curry, if she has anything that she would like to say at this time.

Excuse me. Thank you. I'd just like to thank the Committee for working with our office and my constituent tribal council in putting this information together for the hearing. I'd like to also welcome and thank the chair of the Tribal Council, Greg serious, for speaking on behalf of the tribe. And I want to thank the Tribal Council of the Federated Indians of Rancheria for the honor of carrying my Bill to memorialize the agreement between their government and the government of the State of California.

This tribal state compact will enhance the economic development, stability and self sufficiency of the tribe and its people, and will protect their sovereign interests, the relationships with neighboring communities and the California public. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, well, thank you. We now have Nathan Vogeli, senior advisor for tribal negotiations for Governor Newsom, who will provide us with a General overview of the terms of the compact and other background details. The floor is yours, sir.

Good afternoon. Thank you and thank you, Committee Members. My name is Nathan Voegeli. I'm the senior advisor for tribal negotiations for the Governor. I'd like to first thank everyone for the chance to go over this compact with the Federated Indians of Great and rancheria. I'd also like to thank in particular tribal chairperson Saras and the tribal team that worked to help negotiate this revised compact.

I'll start with a brief background on the tribal state compacting process, and then I'll turn to the specific terms of the great and Rancheria compact. The Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory act, or IGRA, authorizes a tribe to offer slot machines and other class three games that are permitted in the state if the tribe has a negotiated class three compact. IGRA broadly limits compacts to subjects directly related to the operation of gaming.

Class three gaming under a compact is limited to Indian lands and those forms of gaming allowed in the state. In California, voters in 2000 approved Proposition one A, amending the California Constitution to permit tribes to operate slot machines, banking and percentage card games, and lottery games on tribal lands.

Prop one A authorized the Governor to negotiate tribal state gaming compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Once ratified, a compact has to be submitted to the Secretary of the US Department of Interior for a 45 day review. During that 45 day review, the secretary can approve the compact, disapprove the compact, or not act on it, in which case it is deemed approved. Great in Rancheria is located in Sonoma county and it has roughly 1500 Members. After having been terminated by the Federal Government in the 1960s.

It was restored federal recognition in 2000 in the Great and Rancheria Restoration act. In 2010, the Bureau of Indian affairs took a 254 acre parcel next to Rohnert Park into trust for gaming by the tribe. The state and tribe signed an initial class three gaming compact in 2012, which was then amended in 2017. The compact before the Legislature for ratification is a new compact.

It responds to issues raised by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. California, which held the state failed to negotiate in good faith with the plaintiff tribes by seeking certain provisions related to environmental review, family law, and torts. It's also consistent with two California compacts approved at the end of last year by the Department of Interior. The Great and Rancheria Compact contains the elements traditionally included in prior gratified compacts, but it's tailored to Great and Rancheria.

It reflects the government to government nature of the tribal state relationship and the tribe's existing positive relationships with local governments and organized labor. The compact term is for 25 years and includes forced majeure language to address reduced operations or closures from events outside of the tribe's control. If tribes lose their exclusive right to operate slot machines or gain the right to operate a new form of class three gaming in California, the compact entitles Great and Rancheria to negotiate amendments.

Great and Rancheria's 2012 compact authorized the tribe to operate up to 3000 gaming devices at a single facility. The new compact allows for expanded operations up to 6000 slot machines at two gaming facilities, but only one of those facilities can have more than 50 devices. The tribe committed to paying its prorata share of the state's regulatory costs for tribal gaming into the special distribution Fund. It also agreed to contribute an additional $500,000 to the special distribution Fund.

If the balance after five years is insufficient to reduce or eliminate payments for non unlimited gaming tribes, the tribe will continue contributing to the revenue sharing trust Fund or the RSTF. The RSTF is the primary source of revenue for an annual $1.1 million disbursement to each limited and nongaming tribe in California. Excess RSTF funds are granted to tribes statewide through the tribal Nations Grant Fund. As the tribe operates more devices, it would contribute a greater proportion to the RSTF.

The tribe will pay 8 million into the RSTF each year. It operates under 3000 slot machines, increasing to $11 million if it operates over 5000 gaming devices. In addition, the tribe and state agreed to supplementary payments by the tribe into the RSTF to help support limited and non gaming tribes. The amount contributed by the tribe would be distributed on a prorata basis to non and limited gaming tribes in addition to the existing $1.1 million disbursements.

The amount Great in Rancheria would contribute varies based on the number of slot machines it operates over 3000 devices. At the lowest level, it would contribute annually $500,000, ranging up to $7 million if it operates over 5500 machines. This voluntary distribution specific to Great and Rancheria provides an opportunity to help bolster the base funding provided to tribes through the RSTF while ensuring that the tribal nation's Grant Fund continues to support specific tribal priority projects.

The compact includes standard controls for Fairplay, honesty and the integrity of gaming operations. These include facility and employee licensing, gaming device testing and inspections, and tribal gaming regulations with minimum internal control standards. The tribe agreed to comply with California Department of Alcoholic Beverage control licensing requirements and minors under 21 are prohibited from gaming or being in areas where alcohol may be consumed. The tribe also committed to providing a non smoking area and State of the art ventilation for any significant renovations to the casino.

Creighton Rancheria's compact includes standards for patron disputes, torts and employment discrimination comparable to the two prior compacts approved by the Legislature and the Department of Interior. These provisions have been simplified and consistent with the Chicken ranch decision ensure tribes maintain principal responsibility for developing their own administrative and legal procedures.

Employment discrimination standards extend to all classes protected under state and federal law, and the tribe committed to maintaining a General liability policy of at least $10 million to address tort claims for patrons and others lawfully on the Premises. Additionally, the tribe commits to ensuring minimum wage rates at least as stringent as California's and to maintaining and complying with the tribal labor relations ordinance or the TLRO.

The TLRO functions as a mechanism for a bilateral contract between a tribe and a labor organization with corresponding commitments by each. In recognition that Great and Rancheria already has an agreement with a labor organization that's enforceable under the federal Labor Management Relations act, the state in this case agreed that the tribe could maintain the same TLRO as under its 2012 compact relative to the two compacts approved last year by the Department of Interior. There has been one key change that I'll highlight.

The tribes for the two prior approved compacts had preexisting intergovernmental agreements with their local counties to mitigate impacts. In approving one of those compacts, Interior noted that it sought to ensure such an agreement was not a precondition to compact negotiations. Consequently, the state and tribe agreed here, looking to recently approved compacts in Arizona and Washington as a guide that the tribe would annually distribute 2% of its net wind to neighboring jurisdictions to mitigate impacts.

Unlike the grants to local governments from the special distribution Fund that were authorized under the 99 compacts or the environmental review process under the tribe's prior 2012 compact, the tribe here will be responsible for distributing funds directly to mitigate impacts. Finally, the compact includes a dispute resolution process to address any alleged breach and to enforce compact terms. The compact is structured to encourage good faith negotiations to resolve disagreements through a meet and confer process respective of the government to government relationship.

Finally, in concluding, I'd like to reiterate that the state and tribe worked together to negotiate a compact that addressed issues raised by the 9th Circuit and its chicken ranch decision that mitigates impacts to the local communities and supports tribes with smaller or no gaming operations while also ensuring that the tribe and its Members are the primary beneficiaries of gaming. I'd like to thank the Committee for the Opportunity to go over the specifics of this and the tribe for its efforts in reaching agreement.

I'll be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Thank you. Do you have any questions?

Not a question, Mr. Chair, but more of a comment and thanking the Administration and working side by side with Great and Rancheria tribal government and the Chairman, Greg Sarus and I just don't want it to be lost and taken lightly that Great and Rancheria was terminated in 1966 which was a movement towards a lot of federally recognized tribes here in the State of California. And Grayson continued to advocate for federalization.

In 2000, were awarded federalization back to be able to get into building the economic success where they're at. However, we know that housing still remains a top priority of the tribal government where most of their Members, if not all, do not live on the reservation which again is a stereotype to many in the State of California that believe that all Indian people live on Indian reservations.

The fact of the matter is a large population lives off of reservations because of the land base and the economics that are there. So I wanted to highlight that but also congratulate great and Rancheria for moving forward with a 25 year compact to continue to work and benefit the people of Greaton Rancheria.

All right, thank you for that. We'll now go to our tribal perspective and I believe we have Mr. Greg Sars, the chair of the Federated Indians of. Is it Gratton? Racheria. Gratton. I'm sorry. Gratin Rancheria. We're ready for our technology to take over.

Can you all hear me? I think we're going here.

Good. We can even see you.

All right. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you. I also have to work backwards here and thank Assembly Member Ramos for his comments and of course Assembly Member Aguilar Curry and Nathan Voegeli who I worked with. Thank you, although you've just now taken a lot of my steam but I will move forward and perhaps a little bit repetition here. So forgive me all. I am Greg Sarris, Chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.

We're a tribe of approximately 1500 enrolled Members all of whom are descendants of southern Pomo and coast Mewak ancestors. As was mentioned, we were terminated illegally terminated in 1966. And as both Nathan voguely and Assembly Member Ramos alluded it was a long battle where I had co authored a Bill to undo the wrong done by the Federal Government. And finally, President Clinton signed it on December 272002 weeks before he went out of office. We did not have a land base.

The restoration said, well, you're a tribe and you have all these rights. And we tried other methods of economic development. They didn't work. And then finally we began. It was considered the casino. And once we got the land into trust, we purchased in 2010, we went ahead with a compact which was again alluded to here. And I want to underscore that at the time, it was the most generous compact at the time it was created.

We were the first in 2012 that our compact to Fund the tribal nations grant Fund. More importantly, we all ultimately opened in 2013. But we wanted to make sure that our mission of social justice, not only to take care of our tribal Members, but the mission of social justice and environmental stewardship extended to the people who work for us and the larger community that is southern Sonoma county and all of Marin county in which we lived. We moved ahead. We thank you again for the compact.

We worked well with the state. We opened the casino. And to date, since that compact, and based on that compact, over $113,000,000 has gone to the City of Ronald park and over 86 million to Sonoma county. That's in basically 10 years. Equally important, the tribe has made over 80 million in charitable contributions with a focus again on education, social justice and environmental stewardship.

Prime examples are we funded 2.5 million to the University of California in perpetuity so that all California Indians, Indians of California Indian heritage can go to UC tuition free. In addition, we gave 15 million to the UCLA Law School to establish a Low cohort for all law students studying Indian law and endowed 4 million for two chairs in that Department.

We've given nearly $6 million to the Smithsonian, the Museum of the American Indian, to develop a template for the teaching of American Indian history and culture throughout schools and in public libraries here in America. The tribe is now planning to expand its facility to continue the goodwill. The goodwill, which I also need to mention is extended to our team Members. You heard about our union connections. But in addition, we go over what the union would ask, which includes all the people over the. Over 2100 people.

And the new compact and the expansion that would come with it would allow nearly 700 more team Members, for a total of 2700 people working for us. All of the people who work 20 hours or more a week get the Kaiser gold Cadillac plan. They pay nothing out of their paycheck for full coverage, $10 deductible for aspirin or brain surgery. As I like to say, we provide dental vision and we believe that social justice must start in the workplace and be extended throughout the community.

The tribes in our community in Sonoma county that are not gaming, we give them $3 million a year and additional $3 million to the Sonoma County Indian Health project. Generosity is about who we are. The new compact will allow us to continue to do that.

And again, one of the important things, in addition to mitigating any of the impacts from the growth of the casino, we've established a supplemental review sharing trust Fund that was alluded to, whereas non gaming and limited gaming tribes will receive more than $1.1 million at which these tribes have been capped since 1999. Again, that's a first in a compact for which we're proud.

There was a lot of pushback from the local community when they heard there was going to be an Indian casino built in Sonoma county. Quite hostile, in fact. We experienced a lot of negativity in the form of racism and so forth. People feared crime. They feared so much that went along at the close of my comments.

Now I would refer you to a two page article in the local Sunday press Democrat paper that talked about our expansion and who we are as a people who have lived up to our word and how, in fact, all of that pushback has been totally turned around in a form of appreciation and gratitude from all sectors of the community in which we live. Thank you for the time and again, thank you, Assemblymember Aguilar Curry, Assemblyman Ramos, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, and Nathan Vogely.

I could have said more and gone past my two and a half minutes, perhaps. Remember, I'm a Professor, we talk forever. But you filled in for me and I'd be glad to answer any questions. Once again, thank you all for the time and support.

Thank you, Mr. Sarris, for that tribal perspective. Is there any other comments that need to be expressed? If not, we'll move on to the interested party's perspective and it'll be presented to us by Mario Yedidia. He's the western regional political Director. Unite here, International Union, AFL CIO.

Thanks, honorable Chairman Lackey. Can you hear me, sir?

Yes, we can hear you. We can even see you.

Excellent. Very good. Good afternoon, Chairman. And good afternoon to Chairman Saris and Mr. Voegeli. Thank you for this opportunity to address you. I am indeed Mario Yedidia, the western political Director for the Gaming Workers Union in North America. Unite. Here we have 300,000 Members, who are overwhelmingly people of color, immigrants and women. And in California, we're very proud that 7000 of us work at 10 tribal casinos across the state, where collective bargaining agreements ensure dignity, respect, fair wages and benefits.

And today, we are proud to enthusiastically support this compact between the State of California and the federated Indians of the Greaton rancheria. Unite here does represent workers at Greaton, and we deeply value our relationship with the tribe. We thank the Governor for his work in negotiating this compact, and we ask the Legislature to please approve it without delay. Thank you once more.

All right. Thank you for that perspective. And if we have no further comments, we'll go to the phones. Okay? Moderator. Thank you. I hope you can hear me. And we'd now like to give people who may be on the line an opportunity to express whether they support this compact or not.

Thank you. You may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero. And we have no one in queue at this time.

Okay, now people in the room, if they would like to express their support or frustration, either one.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Frank Molina, on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the San Diego band of Chumash Indians, in strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no other people rushing to the mic, we'll bring it back to Committee Members if we have no further. We thank everybody for participating, and especially for your patience. And sorry it took so long, but it was well worth the wait. Thank you very much for the presentation, and we will now adjourn this meeting. Thank you.