Assembly Standing Committee on Budget

We have Ms. Erica Li, Department of Finance here, we have LAO here, and of course our budget staff here. We will be taking public comment over the phone. The call in number is 877-692-8957, access code 18 50110 Zero. If you have any questions or issues, please call our Budget Committee office at 916-319-2099. I'm going to turn it over to our Vice Chair, see if he has any opening comments. No opening comments.

We will come back to committee Members after the presentation, but we will start with Ms. Li. And if you could just go through all eleven bills, that would be great.

Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Vice Chair, Fong, Members of the Committee, Erica Lee here with the Department of Finance and presenting on this final budget package which includes eleven bills. One is the budget Bill Junior and ten accompanying trailer bills. The first Bill, AB/SB 104, is the budget Bill Junior, which includes amendments to the 23-24 and 22-23 budget acts. In education. The Bill provides amendments to K-12 and higher education investments that support schools, students and families.

Specifically, it shifts roughly 17 million from the community college budget to the University of California budget to enable the UC to support the full cost of three intersegmental affordable student housing projects through the issuance of UC revenue bonds. It appropriates 163,000,001 time Proposition 98 General Fund to the Inclusive Early Education Expansion Program for increasing access to inclusive early learning and care programs for children with disabilities and provides an extended encumbrance availability period for these funds in Health and Human Services.

This Bill makes technical adjustments to implement the collective bargaining agreement with childcare providers United California or CCPU and the Parity package for non represented childcare providers. It shifts funding for the public health nurse certification fee, waivers from the Department of Healthcare access and information to the Department of Consumer Affairs. It increases by 40,000,001 time Federal Trust Fund authority for the Department of Healthcare Services to reflect federal grant awards and extensions in resources.

It includes 3.7 million General Fund one time to enable the Central Valley Flood Protection Board to support costs for 19 existing staff who provide oversight and management of the state federal flood control system. It includes an additional 12.2 million General Fund for the Pine Mountain Forest Fire Station, which is nearing completion of the construction phase of the project and has been deemed ineligible for lease revenue bond financing for broadband.

It increases the California Department of Technology's Authority to expend a 73 million federal grant from the National Institute of Standards and Technology Servicing for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to support work towards the California middle mile broadband. Initiative in Corrections that it reappropriates the remaining balances from the nonprofit performing arts grant program and the California Venues Grant Program to implement the performing Arts equitable Payroll Fund to provide grants to small nonprofit performing arts organizations to hire and retain employees.

It amends provisional language to expand eligible grant recipients to include other entities that have expertise in providing legal training to legal aid providers or public defenders, and this Bill makes other technical and clarifying changes. Moving on to the second Bill. AB/SB 135 the safety trailer Bill. This Bill extends the authority to use remote hearings in specified criminal proceedings by one additional year. It authorizes the Department of justice to adjust the ammunition authorization fee via the regulatory process.

It provides DOJ the necessary authority to conform with Federal Bureau of Investigation requirements for sharing subsequent summary criminal history information and moving on to the next Bill. AB/SB 137 the Health Trailer Bill. This Bill extends a moratorium on the New Department of Public Health issued hospice licenses by one year. It requires EMSA's, the Emergency Medical Services Authority Director and chief medical officer appointments to be subject to confirmation by the state Senate.

It clarifies that both prescription and over the counter drug products may be developed or manufactured through CalRx. It authorizes the Department of Healthcare Services to raise licensing and certification fees assessed upon residential and outpatient substance use disorder programs by up to 5% annually beginning in 2027-28 and requires the Department to develop a fee waiver process for facilities experiencing financial hardship by July 1 of 2024.

And finally, this Bill increases Federal Trust Fund expenditure authority by 56.2 million to reflect an extension of a previously awarded Substance Use Disorder Prevention and Treatment Block grant to provide substance use disorder services to eligible individuals. Moving on to the next Bill. AB/SB 138 the Human Services trailer, Bill. This Bill promotes equity within the developmental services system by establishing more uniform procedures at regional centers and examining access to common supports and generic services across the state.

It establishes a complex needs residential acute crisis program to serve individuals with co occurring intellectual and or developmental disabilities and mental health diagnoess. It reappropriates 27.4 million in onetime federal American Rescue Plan act funding for the Department of Developmental Services early Intervention Services program, also known as Early Start. The reappropriation extends until March of 2025 and the liquidation period for funds encumbered by September 2023.

It codifies the Department of Rehabilitation's Business Enterprises program for the blind workers compensation self insurance program and makes other technical and clarifying changes. Moving on to AB/SB 140 childcare trailer. Bill this Bill implements early childhood education related proposals to ratify the June 30, 2023 agreement between the state and childcare providers United CCPU and to provide parity for nonrepresented subsidized childcare and preschool providers.

The CCPU agreement and proposed parity package for nonrepresented providers, reflects the cost of care plus rate change to part time and full time definitions, and extends childcare and preschool reimbursement flexibilities. It also includes 70.4 million for alternative payment agencies to conduct CCPU related workload. Moving on to AB/SB 141 this is the TK through 12 education trailer Bill. This Bill provides a waiver for the administrator to teacher ratio requirement for Paradise Unified School District for the 2021-22 fiscal year through the 2023-24 fiscal year.

It authorizes the California Department of Education to recover Overalllocated Learning Recovery emergency block grant funds from local educational agencies via principal apportionment offset to reallocate funds based on the revised appropriation amount, and to report any uncollectible amounts to the Department of Finance and the Legislature by January 31 of next year. It exempts local educational agencies operating an expanded Learning Opportunities program from penalties when they are closed due to specified emergency conditions.

It authorizes until July of next year any holder of a substitute teaching credential or permit to teach for up to 60 cumulative days for any one assignment with that credential or permit. This flexibility was originally provided as part of the COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Sunset on July 1 of this year. The K-12 omnibus trailer. Bill also makes clarifying changes and correct statutory references.

Moving on to AB/SB 142 The Higher Education Omnibus Trailer Bill this Bill shifts the authorization and support for three intersegmental projects from the California Community College budget to the UC budget. It establishes intent to seek a statewide lease, revenue bond, or other fiscal approach to support approved California community college projects no later than the enactment of the 24-25 budget.

It also authorizes the community colleges to retain any cash provided to support their projects until the latter of either June 29, 2024 or the passage of the 24-25 budget. It expands institutional eligibility for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and caps a percentage of appropriated funds that can support awards for California residents that would be capable of receiving a $10,000 award.

And this Bill requires the Scholarship Investment Board to partner with the LA Unified School District and the Riverside County Office of Education to explore ways to increase participation in the Cal Kids program through additional data sharing. Moving on to AB/SB 143, the General government trailer Bill. This Bill extends the current alternative monthly minimum wage for goat herders from January of 2024 to July of 2026.

It requires the Department of Industrial Relations, in consultation with the Employment Development Department, to consult with stakeholders and submit a report to the Legislature by January 1 of 2026 on the conditions of sheep herders and goat herders to inform future discussions. This Bill includes an appropriation of 1 million special funds for DIR and EDD to complete the report.

This Bill also requires the California Housing Finance Agency to submit a report to the Legislature by March 1 of next year on various options to Fund the California Dream for all program and makes changes to the existing program to target assistance to first generation homebuyers and lower income individuals. It also expands the eligible recipients of resources provided by the Women in Construction Priority Unit within the Department of Industrial Relations to include all pre apprenticeship programs rather than just pre apprenticeship programs that are registered with DIR.

This Bill also conforms California law to federal law regarding portability of professional licenses for service Members and spouses that went into effect January 1 of this year. It extends the expiration date for any postgraduate physicians and Surgeons training license that expires between June 1 of 2023 and December 31, 2023 to March 31 of next year. And the Bill extends the Governor's COVID-19 Executive Order as it pertains to existing law related to the Bagley, Keane and Brown Acts and the utilization of Teleconferencing.

The waiver ended at the end of the last fiscal year. This Bill extends it to December 31 of this year. Moving on to AB/SB 148 the Memorandum of Understanding for various bargaining units. This Bill ratifies and funds MOUs between the Administration and Bargaining Units Twelve, the craft and maintenance engineers 19 the health and social services professionals and nine bargaining units represented by the Service Employees International Union.

This Bill also funds payments and pay differentials for BU 13, Bargaining Unit 13 the stationary engineers and 19 health and social services professionals, as well as statutorily required General salary increases for Bargaining Unit Five which is the Highway Patrol and to judges. The 1.2 billion appropriation included in this Bill provides 896,000,000 for rank and file employees and 262,000,000 for excluded employees. Moving on to AB/SB 151. This is the memorandum of understanding. Bargaining unit six.

This Bill ratifies and funds the MOU between the Administration and BU Six, also known as the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. The MOU term is two years and the 297 General million General Fund appropriation included in these bills provides 231,000,000 General Fund for rank and file and 66.1 million General Fund for excluded employees.

And the last trailer Bill is AB/SB 152 the Criminal Background checks trailer Bill this Bill clarifies existing law for several departments to obtain federal criminal history background check information for state employees and applicants for Licensure to continue regular operations and uphold its regulatory duties. These changes will bring the impacted state agencies into compliance with U. S. Federal Bureau of Investigation requirements and allow them to continue obtaining the required background checks with that. That is the budget package for today and happy to take questions.

Thank you. LAO, any comments?

Carolyn Chu LAO we're here to answer questions.

Thank you. Go back to the Members Members with any comments or questions. Mr. Alvarez? Sorry, we're going to go to Mr. Fong and then we'll go to Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just go down the list of bills first maybe to the LAO Department of Finance. But how much more spending is added with these changes to the budget that was passed with these adjustments.

There's roughly about 20 million General Fund that has been added through these adjustments.

There's also additional federal Fund authority that was provided through grants just under 100 million.

Okay.

Okay. So I'm trying to reconcile how we can justify a net increase in spending when we just saw, with the recent analysis, I think revenue came into the state $1.2 billion below forecast. Is there concern about that?

I would also like to note that there were some ups and downs across the net. I would say the total is still largely around the same as the Budget Act 310,000,000,000 for this current budget. 2023-24.

But even projecting out, your analysis shows deficits of 14 to 17 billion moving out. So I'm just trying to understand, should we be increasing spending or should we actually be looking to actually reduce spending with those clouds on the horizon?

Right. And we have pointed to the risk on the horizon as well, particularly the October date, as we wait for taxes to come in. I would note that there are some signs both in the stock market and in withholding that are more positive in regards to contrast with our or in contrast with our forecast, but agree that there's significantly less spending in this cleanup budget than there have been over the past two years. In recognition that we are not anticipating the one time flush dollars.

I think you're citing a less increase than before. But there's still an and I think you also highlighted another issue, which is the uncertainty about October. And I think that gives us some pause in terms of what is the responsible thing to do moving forward. Let me ask the LAO. There has been a record over the past few years of the state exempting itself from the public contract code.

My reading of SB 104 is that it allows funds allocated by the Department of Social Services to kind of be exempt from the public contract code. Tell me, I guess, from my perspective, for your perspective, what's the justification for that? Or is there justification for that?

I think in terms of the justification for the specific issue at hand for the Department of Social Services, I would let the Administration answer that particular question. There have been, in the past few years a number of different exemptions for different purposes, either due to urgency related to the pandemic or other priorities of the Administration in which public contracting code has been notwood. But I would let the Administration speak to the necessity in this particular case.

Maybe then I'll ask the Department of Finance, is there a justification for exempting those funds from the public contract code?

So Tyler Woods, Department of Finance in this particular case, because of the MOU timelines, we're trying to make sure that those payments go out quickly. And for some of those payments, we are going to need a contractor to do that quickly since there's one time payments that need to go out in November, as well as getting money to the APS very quickly so they can do the monthly cost of care.

Plus, is this how would we get the information? Will the information be presented at some point or are you exempting it permanently?

Only in this particular case for this pot of money that we're trying to get the payments out quickly at one time.

So for this specific situation? . Okay, thank you. Jumping to SB 135, I have serious concerns about the unilateral authority given to the Attorney General to increase fees on ammunition. My first question is why repeal the existing language that increases or not to exceed the CPI? Is there a reason why we're going to allow the Attorney General to increase fees above the CPI?

Mark Jimenez, Department Of Finance So the existing authority to adjust the fee based off of CPI is insufficient to cover the expenditures of the program. The expenditures exceed revenues. Currently, the fee is set at one dollars per ammunition transaction, and it's currently bringing in about $2 million in revenues annually. But the expenditures are close to four or $5 million.

And so giving DOJ the authority to adjust the fee will allow them to get feedback from stakeholders, the public, on the fee level, so we can right size the fee to cover the costs of operating the program.

But you do understand the concern that you're actually increasing costs on Californians who are exercising a constitutional right.

Well, currently, the proposed language isn't necessarily increasing the fee. It's not setting the fee in statute. It would just be giving DOJ the authority to increase the fee.

But you just said that you're not proposing reducing the fee. You said that it's insufficient. So you're going to increase the fee.

The proposed changes aren't setting a new fee. It's giving DOJ the authority to adjust the fee according to... Because the current fee revenues is insufficient to cover the expenditures of the program. Right.

So that's what I'm saying. You are giving the DOJ the unilateral authority to increase these fees and you're also allowing the DOJ to increase those fees above CPI, which was in statute.

We're not giving DOJ the authority to unilaterally increase the fee. The fee would be adjusted.

So does it come back to us? Does it come back to us to vote on that fee?

It wouldn't necessarily go to the Legislature. It would go through the regulatory process that includes a number of

so where do I get a say? Where do I get a say in this?

Certainly this proposal is before the Legislature.

Right. But after it passes, the DOJ gets to do it unilaterally.

They wouldn't necessarily do it unilaterally. It's through the regulatory

So how does it come back to me?

Well, we're obviously

Where's the checks and balances here where does it come back to me? How does a Legislature vote when the fee gets changed?

The Legislature wouldn't be voting on the ...

Exactly, that's my point.

But there is a regulatory process,

So the fee increases, Where do I get a say?

it's before you now.

So what's the fee? What will the fee be? Since it's before me right now, what's the fee going to be?

Well, the fee isn't well, we don't entirely know at this moment.

Exactly. So why can't you bring me back the fee to cover the cost and then I could vote on it?

It would be difficult to establish a fee in statute because the fee revenues have been really difficult to baseline in the past few years. It's really ranged from 1 million to 3 million. So there isn't necessarily a baseline. And so setting it in statute allows the flexibility to adjust.

There is a flaw in your logic. Do you see this? Right? You're saying, well, the fee can adjust automatically up. We see this with the gas tax. We see everything else. The Legislature somehow gives authority to the Executive, and then they increase the fees, and we have no say.

Well, it wouldn't adjust up automatically.

I would just like to note that this language has been out since the governor's budget, and there have been opportunities for the Legislature to weigh in. It is before you now, as Mr. Jimenez has been saying, it is going through the regulatory process where stakeholders will be involved.

Okay, I'm going to go to our Budget staff here to explain.

Yeah. Assembly Member. Hi. Jennifer Kim with the Assembly Budget Committee. I think the only two points I would add is that the program was established with the intention that the fees would support the program, that there would be no need for General Fund. There was a $25 million General Fund loan that was provided for the startup. That loan has not been paid back. We've actually had to provide an additional loan because the revenues have not been sufficient to run the program.

I just want to know what the guardrails are so that the fee does not go above and beyond what would be necessary to cover the cost.

So the statutory language that's proposed limits that the fee cannot be more than the reasonable cost to operate the program. So it has that ceiling in place. And in terms of the regulatory process, I know that Members have engaged in the regulatory process for the Department of Corrections, so the thing won't come back for a vote, but there are ways for Members to kind of engage in the process that way.

Look, I'm very concerned about you say there's guardrails. The guardrails are always blown through. And so what I'm saying is that the power rests with the Legislature. And if there is going to be a proposal to adjust the fees to cover the cost of a program, then we should see the cost of the program and we should see the adjustment of the fee somehow.

Me loaning my power to the Executive to somehow adjust the fee to what they see fit, which I don't necessarily think that they have my best interest in mind. And that's where my concern is. And I think there's going to be millions of Californians who are going to also be affected by this because they're exercising a constitutionally protected right, and their costs are going to go up by exercising that. And I think that's why I would prefer to have a process.

The stakeholders can still engage the Legislature. There's nothing that stops the stakeholders from engaging us in determining what the appropriate fee would be instead of giving the Attorney General the ability to increase the fee. And then I've just got to accept it, and then there's no way for me to adjust it. So that's just my point, and I appreciate the feedback. Moving on to SB 137. I'm wondering, has there been any formal analysis on the state's ability to engage in the manufacturing and sale of medicine.

This proposal was first started out to be focused on insulin, and now I think we're adding Naloxone and other types of medications. So has there been an analysis in terms of, like, should we be contracting with generics and cheaper forms of these products versus actually ramping up and trying to produce Naloxone ourselves?

Matt Aguilera, Department of Finance the Health and Human Services Agency is working proactively to find opportunities in the market where we can help bring down our costs of insulin and other prescription drugs to maintain access.

This proposal, though, is naloxone. So is the agency first going to go out to manufacturers who have other versions of Naloxone first? Or is this just a proposal to produce Naloxone ourselves?

They're looking at all the opportunities available in the market to find the best solution for California.

Okay, you're going to do all of it, but then how much are we going to is there a projection of how much the state needs to produce, or is there enough out there where we could get enough? And this is just kind of a backstop. I'm trying to understand the strategy here.

I think the boundaries for this particular program are that the state has appropriated 30 million of the Opioid settlement funds for this purpose. So those are the guardrails around the funds allocated for this purpose.

Okay. I mean, this is certainly important. I'm trying to understand if there's cheaper versions of drugs out there. I would think that the state could contract with those manufacturers, buy and save some money instead of trying to ramp up our own manufacturing with all the capital that has to be put into it.

Right. We're trying to maximize value here and expand access as much as possible.

Okay.In terms of the fee increases on residential and outpatient substance abuse treatment programs, I'm struck by the fact that there's a fee increase and then there's a hardship waiver. So how do I reconcile that? Is the fee so high that it's going to actually disrupt and put alcohol and drug abuse recovery programs out of business? How do we reconcile that?

Guadalupe Manriquez, Department of Finance so the proposal before you would phase in up to 20% of a fee increase through 26-27 for the same reason that you're raising so that it's not such a huge impact on these facilities. Starting in 27-28, we would do a 5% annual increase, up to 5% annual increase to keep up with cost of living.

However, we really did try to phase in the impact to the facilities, acknowledging that there are some smaller facilities with, for example, six beds that we would have to consider and make sure that this framework also works.

At the end of the process, how much do the fees go up? So 20% initially and then 5%. Up to what point?

Our initial proposal proposed to raise fees up to 75%. So that was at Governor's Budget, and now we're doing up to 2020 15% until we get to that initial 75. Then after that, with the goal of lessening a potentially significant fee increase like we were proposing at Governor's Budget 75, we would do 5% annually. Up to 5% annually to keep up with cost of labor.

And can everyone apply for the hardship waiver or how does that work .

That will be subject to the process? DHCS will engage stakeholders to develop what that hardship fee program will look like.

Okay, I'll apply my previous arguments on fee increases to this one that we probably do need to know kind of what those guardrails are if this is going to be such a hardship that smaller facilities, as you've indicated, are going to be put in jeopardy. I hope that there's input from us as well in terms of what that would be.

Yeah, I would note that for this proposal, anything above 5%, we would come back to the Legislature.

Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Jumping to SB 142, the higher education budget trailer, this, I think, is where it gets a little bit where the concerns are in terms of funds that have been already allocated to community colleges for student housing support, were there any stipulations that the funding would have to be returned when that was discussed?

No. As you may recall, the 2023 Budget Act did make some changes in terms of financing for the Community College Affordable Housing Program. Instead of cash on hand, it was for a type of financing and so there was no discussion of returning funds at that point. This Bill does authorize the community colleges to retain any cash provided to support their projects until June 29 of 2024 or the passage of the 24-25 budget, whichever is later.

It also allows for there's budget Bill Language that allows the Director of Finance to increase funds to keep projects moving forward in anticipation that there may be some financing issues in the current year. So there's those guardrails, as you might put it.

I'm trying to understand community colleges, when they received the funding, they weren't aware that there was a possibility to return it. And so I'm trying to walk me through this. If a community college has already spent some of the money on planning on architectural designs or whatever went into trying to develop student housing, then what are they to do with the money that has already been expended? Are they to return the money that's left, include, and then, of course, pay back the money that they've already allocated? Or is it just the amount that was unspent?

I believe it was the amount that was unspent. But I will turn to my colleague on he's actually on the line, Mr. Ferguson.

Either way, did you want to answer or did...

Christensen, with Finance so effectively, what we were doing is shifting the financing at the Budget Act, shifting the financing mechanism to be revenue bond based. And those revenue bonds would be issued by local community college districts with the expectation that they would return that General Fund to the state because the local financing would be covering it. And the state was creating a discretionary, ongoing pot of funding to support the local ability to support these projects as they move forward.

So we switched that financing mechanism with the understanding that the local revenue bonds would have covered all of the cost and they would return that General Fund to the state. And the state would then be providing ongoing funding to help the colleges with the costs of issuing those bonds.

Ultimately, what you see before you in today's package is a shift from a concept around local revenue bonds to a lease revenue bond structure at the state level or some other financing mechanism that you would see come forward, likely at the governor's budget.

So just I just wanted to make sure I nailed this down, because I think this is a huge sticking point amongst a number of community colleges is what happens when they already expended some of the money? Do they return that portion back, or is it just the unspent?

Mark Martin with the Assembly Budget Committee. The concept here is that the colleges that received money last year and have spent it or are in the process of spending it, will not have to give it back before we decide next year how to implement a state bond. And so this should work such that those colleges that received funding previously will not have to give it back. We will issue a state bond that will cover the cost so that they would stay, just keep the cash.

The state bond would be issued. We would generate the revenue that we need. So instead of colleges giving money back, the state. Bond would cover that.

So it's not a claw back.

Correct.

Community College X got X amount of dollars. They spent some of it back. Now instead of proceeding with what they were going to do, they're now going to shift to this lease revenue bond option, is that correct?

Well, they should be able to continue on, use the cash they received. The state will issue a state bond that will sort of pay the state back for that cash. So they shouldn't have to do anything.

Because I think there's confusion because the intent language mentions local revenue bonds. Like some, some districts, especially those in the Central Valley, they don't have the capacity to bond. So I'm just trying to nail down.

The language allows a local district to issue their own local bonds if they want to. But the language also states that we will work over the fall and hopefully come back early next year with a state bond that will cover the other colleges that don't want to do a local bond.

Okay, so there's a lot of intent here. I guess clarify for me then what exactly this proposal is trying to do then. Is it to basically say, look, community colleges, there was money in the budget and previous budgets for student housing. You have the money, continue to move forward as you were planning to do. But now instead of doing this, we're going to now go to a lease revenue bond backed by the state. Yeah.

In essence, we have shifted from cash, which was the original plan, to now a state financing mechanism that we will work on this fall and come back. And so no college should have to give any money back until we figure out the state funding mechanism. And ideally, then those colleges would just keep the cash and the state bond would cover that amount.

Okay, so just to be clear, none of the community colleges that got funding in previous budgets for student housing, they don't have to give the money back, right.

The language is explicit that they would not until we figure out the state bond and then that should generate the revenue so that they would not have to repay the money.

Okay. Department of Finance agrees with this analysis. Okay, yeah.

Effectively at that point, it's just a swap in terms of what is supporting the projects.

Okay. Because I think there was a lot of confusion within the most of the community colleges that somehow they got funding, they start spending it, now they got to give it back. So I'm just very clear to everybody that they don't have to give the money back.

Will, let me just add there was a portion of this you may have to come back and give me some more details on this, but over a year ago and there was a San Francisco Chronicle article about Student aid fraud, and over a year ago, the Chancellor's office, they were allocated $100 million for cybersecurity upgrades. I was told that $25 million had been fully encumbered, 75 million had been partially encumbered, but there hasn't been really any RFPs.

Is this something that you guys are tracking in terms of how we get these cybersecurity systems up and running? Would hate that. Millions of dollars of financial aid would be continued to be fraudulent. And how can we assist the Chancellor's office with that?

Yeah, I would have to get back to you on that. I'm not familiar with that particular program.

Okay, I'll send you the details. Because some of that money can have to be repaid to the federal government and to others. I certainly would want to make sure that we don't have an EDD situation within our community college system. Thank you. My last question on SB 143, I can't believe we're still talking about goat herders and sheep herders as well, the extension of the labor provisions. Can you confirm that this is something that will address this issue by the sheep and goat herders on a relatively permanent basis?

Andrew March, Department of Finance. So the proposal before you would extend the current alternative monthly minimum wage from January 1, 2024, to July 1, 2026. So it would give us two and a half years, essentially, to look at the alternative monthly minimum wage and then decide a future path.

Within those two and a half years, DIR and EDD are required to do a report to look at the conditions of goat herders and sheep herders and also address whether the alternative monthly minimum wage is appropriate going forward. So that would be something that we would hope to discuss in 2026.

So you're telling me in two years we're going to deal with this again.

Under the current proposal.

Yes. I didn't have goat herders on my bingo card this budget year again, but I guess we're going to deal with it. In terms of the changes to the Bagley Keene Act, I think this has been an ongoing conversation with other bills, but this is the second year in a row that there has been a budget trailer that proposes to suspend provisions of the Bagley Kenne Act that I would argue decreases transparency. I'm trying to understand what's the justification for that?

Yes, we understand that there are some bills that are before the Legislature dealing with this, and this is a bridge to potentially policy changes that are before the Legislature. The Bagley Keene or that exemption ended July 1 of this past year, and this bridges the gap to January 1 of next year. Should any of those bills come into be signed.

These provisions expire. I mean, you said a bridge, but they expired in July. So what are state agencies doing now? Is there a reason why they aren't willing to meet in person? We're meeting in person, so I'm trying to understand.

Afternoon. Danielle Brando with the Department of Finance. My apologies, Member. I don't have a response to that at this time. My understanding is that they are following the law and that this is to protect those private addresses of any of the Members or attendees of the meeting that are attending from their home location to maintain their privacy.

But just so I understand, pre pandemic, they were meeting in person. These were emergency provisions for the pandemic. So I'm trying to know we, of course, talk about highlighting and promoting transparency and so to continuously suspend provisions of the Bagley Keene Act is very disconcerting to me. So there has to be a justification. You're asking us to vote on this?

I think this is to extend some of the flexibilities that have been in place and again, providing the Legislature an opportunity to weigh in on some of the bills that are before you.

So you're telling me the meetings in July and August have been the agencies.

The agencies have been meeting in person. There have been flexibilities that have been used, I believe, depending on the boards in regards to calling from certain locations that are not physically there, but there's ten days notice,

But they've been meeting in person.

So is there some reason that somehow like, oh, my goodness, the last two months have been just terrible, we can't meet in person anymore and we got to now suspend the Bagley-Keene Act or change it and weaken it to where we now have to go back to something else and.

And again, it's just to provide the flexibility. There have been surges in COVID. It's been difficult for some people to meet. So to maintain some of the flexibilities for a short duration.

I would probably want a better justification for that, but you can give that to me after the committee. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to go to Mr. Alvarez, then Mr. Bennett.

Thank you. I have just a few questions. On SB 104, there's an item of reverting $50 million that was set aside for ADUs. I'd like to get a reason for that. Is it underutilized? Undersubscribed? Why? And I see that, I assume that that's part of the allocation for the multifamily housing and the Dream For All. But first question is, why are we reverting that?

Andrew March, Department of Finance. As part of the budget agreement before you, the $50 million from the 2022 Budget Act is being reverted. $25 million of that is being used for the multifamily housing program. $20 million is being used for the Dream For All program.

Yeah, I understand that, but what's the reason? Was it undersubscribed? Was there not enough demand for the ADU program?

The money wasn't set aside for the current existing ADU program. It was set aside to provide loan guarantees. The Department went through a working group meeting, decided that it really wasn't able to provide loan guarantees which would leverage private sector dollars. So because of not being able to use it for its intended purpose, we decided to shift it to other priorities.

So was this the ADU program that the state funded, or was there an additional ADU program that was sort of touted as a support to build ADU?

It was set aside two years ago as money for a loan guarantee program, which we asked CalHFA to take a look at creating. They were not able to create that program. And so because of that, the money's been moved toward other priorities.

Okay, so this means we don't have any kind of incentive program for ADUs at the state level.

The money has been spent. That was a different pot of money.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Yeah, I had questions on the UC and the community college. I think those were answered by the exchange earlier. So I think I've got clarity on that, that the community colleges are not going to be essentially on the hook, and that's important. There is an item here to count any UC enrollment above the 23 24 target of 7800 towards their enrollment growth for 24 25. What is the enrollment today at UC? So that I have a better understanding as to how much of that enrollment are we not going to expect now in year 24 25?

I'll defer to my colleague, Mr. Ferguson.

I actually see Mr. Martin getting ready to respond.

Mark Martin, Assembly budget.

Who would you like to respond?

I think, I will get back, I don't know the UC enrollment off the top of my head, but we can get that to you. But this is part of a multi year plan where UC is increasing enrollment each year for the next several years. The language allows them, we had set an enrollment target in June for them to grow by 7800 students in the next year. This language allows them to go past that cap. So we're trying to incentivize them to grow as much as they can. And so this would allow them to kind of go past the cap. And then next year, we would sort of settle up with them if they go over because we kind of have a multi year enrollment growth plan going for them. And so this would essentially allow them to we don't want to penalize them if they go over if they go over enrollment, that's a great thing for California. And we would settle up with them next year and sort of adjust the target.

I get that on the settle. But is it at their request because they anticipate to be at higher numbers and then kind of don't want to grow more than that in 24 25?

Yeah. UC asked for this language. They do think they may exceed the target that we set.

In my opinion, that's a good thing. If they exceed this year and they exceed next year, great. That's what we want them to do. So I'd be interested into how does this, I'll use the phrase disincentivize them to continue to exceed that going forward?

Well, I think if they go over their target, we usually, we provide them a set amount of money per student and set that target. So if they go over that target, they are essentially underfunded for enrollment. So this would allow them to next year, again, if they go over the target, then we can kind of recalibrate their target for the next year and account for those extra students that they enrolled.

Well, we can have that conversation in next year's budget for sure, but let's push them to always do more, is my opinion. My next question is on the state auditors, on Department of Public Health for emergency regulation on hospice providers. We're extending that. And obviously, as the chair of the Audit Committee, we've been having some oversight hearings and we'll continue to. But one of the things that we worry about often is extending and extending commitments and recommendations that were not implemented according to the auditors report. Can I just get an explanation on the reason why this is being pushed out for one year?

Department of Finance Nina Hong. The Legislature had proposed and the Administration agreed that the extension of the moratorium would allow the Legislature additional time to work with stakeholders on addressing some of the state auditor 2022 report recommendations, as well as also allowing the Department of Public Health more time to work on their emergency regulations and have a more robust stakeholder engagement process.

Do we know if that's happening today. Is there a bill that's been introduced? Is there a proposal from the Department?

Not at this time.

Okay, so how do we know then we're going to achieve this by 2025? If that hasn't begun, we can get back to if you don't have a response. Thank you. My next question is related to the fee increases. Just actually, this was a curiosity as a result of the residential outpatient program increases and then other fee increases that were mentioned earlier by the vice chair. I come from local government. In local government we had Prop 26 and you had to do cost of service studies for every fee increase. Does the state do the same? Do we have cost of service requirements? Cost of service study requirements for fee increases? No. It's a serious question. I don't know.

Guadalupe Manriquez, Department of Finance. We'll have to get back to you on that question.

Okay, thank you. I think I have like one more. Yes, this is on.

Sorry, LAO had...

Oh, thank you.

Sure. On the Prop 26 question, yes the state, the requirements for local governments in the state are not exactly parallel, but Prop 26 in terms of reasonable cost constraints around fee setting do apply to the state. There is litigation around exactly what that means, but there are those constraints around how the state can set fees.

And do you know whether full study is produced? I mean, we're doing fees at the local level. You have to put a pretty robust argument forward with a study.

The same level, I do not believe the same level that applies to the locals in terms of those studies is required, but there is like a requirement around the reasonable cost to administer the program. But not the same demonstration, I don't believe.

I'll still ask Guadalupe and the finance team to please provide more feedback. On the independent panel of experts related to the screenings, this was an issue and I just want to clarify and understand. So this is on SB 141. There's a reference to what was done in the Budget Act and I just want to make sure nothing's changing with the language that's before us today on ensuring that the panel of experts includes individuals who have expertise in bilingual education, particularly so that the ultimate assessment tool that's used does not misclassify English Language Learners as special education learners.

Yes, Assemblymember. Erin Gabel from the Assembly Budget Committee. The language in the budget does not change any of the statute around the screen. It's merely around how the funding that's allocated to the State Board for the selection of that panel giving them some flexibility to work with the Department of Education.

Okay. And the commitment still remains from everyone on ensuring that those panels are reflective of the English Language Learner pupils community?

I would let the Administration answer, but yes, they have been consistent in their commitment to us that they want to pick a panel that is representative and developmentally appropriate and is representative of the needs of English Language Learners.

Thank you.

Amber Alexander with the Department of Finance. I would just provide that confirmation on behalf of the Administration. There are no changes to the commitment that's been made or to the language regarding the involvement of representatives from the English Learner community.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. We're going to go to Mr. Bennett then Dr. Weber and then Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My question is for whoever is the most appropriate person from the Department of Finance. But following up on the questions about can departments raise fees as long as they stay within the statutory limits imposed? Like you can't raise fees beyond the cost of administering the program? Are there other examples where fees are raised and those fees don't come back to the Legislature for approval?

I will have to get back to you on the potential list of fees that meet that requirement.

But you don't have to give me the whole list. I just want to know whether there are other examples.

I don't have that.

Okay, great. Thank you. All right. But I think that's the question is, do we already have that as a policy or not? I find it hard to believe that every fee comes back to the Legislature for approval as long as it stays within its statutory limits that are out there. And I see some people in the audience shaking their head. So the second thing is, could whoever it is that's doing 143 and dealing with the goat herders come up please, discuss that? I just want to make sure we have accurate information in the record. What is the salary that the goat herders if this is extended, what is the salary that the goat herders will be receiving on a monthly basis?

Hi. Assemblymember Patrick Le with the Assembly Budget Committee, if that's okay. I'm going to provide a bit of background on the goat herder issue and kind of what's included in the trailer bill, just we're all clear. As you know, goat herders and sheep herders are a very unique kind of work. Herders are typically migrant workers on their H-2A visa, often working 24 hours, seven shifts, especially up now. Goats and sheeps are increasingly used for fire mitigation, including targeted grazing.

The herders have to be with the animal overnight, set up temporary fencing at stop locations, ward off predators. But it is essentially a 24 hours, seven job. In 2001, recognizing the really unique nature of sheep and goat herding, the Industrial Welfare Commission enacted a wage order to establish an alternative to the minimum wage. So that wage order states that as an alternative to applying minimum wage rules, herders can receive a monthly salary.

According to the Department of Industrial Relations, that monthly wage plus the required overtime was $2,954 per month in 2019. And keeping up with recent increases in the minimum wage, it is now $4,528 per month in 2023 for employers employing 25 or more. This all changed early last year when the Department of Natural Relations has changed its interpretation of that wage order.

In short, saying that because of the way the order was written, that alternative monthly salary only applies to sheep herders and does not apply to goat herders. And because the herding industry has largely been built on this alternative salary schedule, stakeholders have expressed significant concerns about the potential disruption in this industry.

So you may have seen reports in the LA Times and the Sacramento Bee quoting that if you were to apply hourly minimum wage laws to a 24 hours seven sheep for herders, the salary for a goat herder would be $15,925 per month or $191,000 per year. So, last year, the budget package included a temporary extension of goat herding monthly pay provisions, which is set to expire January 1, 2024, hoping to provide more time to find a more permanent policy solution.

So this trailer bill currently is extending those pay provisions until July 1, 2026. It also mandates, as my colleague Mr. March pointed out, it mandates the Department of Industrial Relations to develop a report on the employment of goat and sheep herders, including wage violations, minimum wage and overtime compliance with labor standards, demographic information, and the interplay with the H-2A visa program from the federal government.

Are there any benefits associated with the current monthly pay?

Under the H-2A program, meals and lodging are included, and that's separate and apart from the approximately $4,000 monthly minimum wage.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, may I respond to a question that Mr. Bennett raised in regards to fees? The Boards and Bureaus of the Consumer Affairs have fee ceilings in statute, and the Department raises them incrementally through regulations. When those ceilings are hit, then it comes back to the Legislature for a vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to go. Dr. Weber. And then Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to echo what my colleague, Assemblymember Alvarez, said concerning SB 137 and the extension for the hospice providers. I'm not quite sure when the Legislature was involved in the conversation to extend the implementation requirements from the state audit. I would like to get and if you don't have it now, please bring it to my office. When that occurred and what is the reason?

Considering the fact that this particular department has had the ability since 1991 to implement the changes and has not, I am a little concerned about the fact that we had a very concerning audit report about the hospice divisions in our state and specific recommendations as to what needed to be done by this particular date. And now we're extending it out. So if we don't have the answer today of why, that's okay, but I would like to know.

Department of Finance, Nina Hong. We'll provide you a written response.

Okay, thank you. I want to briefly talk about SB 138. First, I want to thank the Governor and his team for the equity and oversight piece. It's extremely important we must continue to recognize that we must eliminate all disparities and also standardize our data collections. And I really want to applaud everyone for the timeline that you have so that we're not only telling people what we need to be done, but we're giving them very clear direction on when we expect it to be done so we can hold people accountable.

So I want to really thank the Governor and his team for that. I also know there was some discussion on the Senate side concerning the complex needs residential program. And I just want to echo some of the comments from my colleagues on the Senate side. I too have been made aware of the fact that in June, there was, after a decision was made on the trailer boat language, that DDS and DOF asked for a brand new proposal on non emergent restraint policy. I hope this is a one off, that this isn't how things are usually done.

Because the one thing that we all have to remember is that here we work, or should be working in a partnership between ourselves and the governor's office. And that's actually what is expected of us from the people who sent us here to California to serve here in the state, in Sacramento, that we are working together and that we're engaging with all stakeholders and that we have transparency.

And so I get very concerned when I hear about language that has been agreed on and then at the last minute, new language that had not been discussed or agreed upon being tried to push over. Working together also prevents us from implementing policies that go against what data and research say we should be going in the direction of that prevents us from actually going in the opposite direction, prevents us from creating policies as a state that are backwards and regressive and harmful and traumatic.

And so was very disturbed about the new language that wanted to include non emergent restraints for this particular population. And I just want to echo what you probably heard in the Senate and just state that I'm very happy that it is not in what the final language is. Thank you.

And I'd just like to reiterate also that we want to work with Legislature on these as part of a team in regards to the final goal of all of these issues. Thank you.

Thank you.

Going to go to Mr. Muratsuchi and then Ms. Rivas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask a question to Department of Finance regarding SB 152, the provisions related to the technical changes to implement federal criminal history background check provisions for state employees and licensed applicants. I know that the Department of Justice has been communicating with the Assembly Education Committee staff. But I wanted to clarify for the public record that none of these technical changes will impact the criminal history background check provisions related to our schools or our school employees or any of the volunteers involved in school activities.

Charlene Manning, Department of Finance. The list of impacted departments does not include those types of employees.

Okay. And it's my understanding that the FBI has determined that certain state entities have insufficient statutory authority to obtain federal background check information, but that there may be need for subsequent legislation to clarify that statutory authority as it relates to our schools and school employees.

I can't speak to the specifics of those employees, but this trailer bill only talks about has specific statutory changes for other departments. But we'll have to get back to you on that.

I see Ms. Gabel, do you have any further information on that?

Yes, sir. Erin Gabel, Assembly Budget Committee. So there are a number of different agencies that utilizing the Department of Justice fingerprinting and background check that are impacted by the changes from FBI. And it is our understanding there will be a more comprehensive vehicle next year to make sure that all of those agencies also have their statutes updated. There's not a deadline imminently for those agencies, so we have until next year to make those changes.

All right, thank you very much.

Ms. Rivas. And then Ms. Bonta.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start with SB 143. I have questions on the goat herder. I know you probably thought we were done with that, but my question is, can someone explain why we are continuing the goat herder pay extension via the budget and not in the Policy Committee? Because I believe addressing this in the budget doesn't provide opportunity to bring up concerns with this structure.

Yeah. Andrew March, Department of Finance. So the current law was established last year via budget trailer bill AB 156. Additionally, besides the extension in statute today, there's also the appropriation and the requirement for DIR and EDD to do the study.

But so, that's why we're doing it through the budget, like, why we couldn't do this through a policy bill?

I'm going to give Ms. Dahle a point of personal privilege because she had a bill on the subject, so I think she wants to say something.

Thank you for the opportunity. So I agree. I would not like to do this through the policy process. And I did have abBill specifically so we could have more comprehensive conversations and Policy Committee, but it was not set for a hearing in Labor Committee. So I would also like, if this is I would appreciate everyone an aye vote right now to move this forward and then next year we can have that comprehensive conversation and not just keep extending this year to year. So thank you.

Thank you for sharing that. I didn't know that, I'm not on Labor Committee anymore. Thank you. So that's all I had on the questions. I mean, a lot of times we do policy in the budget and I always noticed the natural resources issues that get put in the budget, but this is one that I also noticed in this one. So thank you.

Thank you. We're going to go to Miss...

I just want to make one more comment. So sorry. The comment I want to make, it's general comment regarding a letter that members of the Los Angeles County Delegation sent regarding transit funding. And I know that's something from the last budget votes that we did. But first, I want to thank Budget Chair Ting for your leadership on this issue to ensure that our state transit funding, that there's accountability with the transit funding.

But as a delegation, we've asked for changes that clarify language around the SB 125 budget bill to ensure that local regional transportation planning agencies like LA Metro that serves our region retain control of their financial decisions and remain accountable to residents of Los Angeles County and our voters.

I understand that our letter has helped guide the development of regulations at the California Transportation Agency and would like to note that we will continue to monitor these developments moving forward to ensure we're addressing the concerns of our regional transportation entity, LA Metro, because a lot of us do hear from them on this issue. And I see you shaking your head. I know you're very familiar with our concerns, but thank you for addressing them.

Thank you. We're going to go to Ms. Bonta.

Thank you. I'll start with AB 104, picking up on a bit of the queries that were offered by Assemblymember Alvarez around the $50 million reversion on ADUs. I think the question that I didn't hear answered that he was asking really related to the fact that we did not actually have an opportunity to fund a very well used program.

So just to put that in context, we had over 2500 ADUs that were able to be built and that those funds were primarily for building out affordable housing for low income individuals and focusing on preservation. So I'm concerned about the complete reversion of those funds and dismissal of those funds when for the most part in most cities, those programs are incredibly oversubscribed. Can you comment on that reversion?

So the original $100 million that was provided for the program was used for $40,000 grants to homeowners. So a lot of those ADUs haven't necessarily been constructed yet. They may be in construction now. And as Chair Ting mentioned earlier, the original intent of the $50 million was for a slightly different program than the $40,000 predevelopment grants that were being provided via the $100 million that was previously provided for the program.

But we could have used those $50 million for the application of the very successful use of the ADU funding that was, as Chair Ting indicated, already spent. We just made a different choice.

The previous agreement with the $50 million was that it was going to be used for something slightly different than the previous $100 million. As part of that last year in the budget, CalHFA did a working group and a report, as Chair Ting mentioned earlier, around sort of the feasibility of some of these options, and the conclusions were that some of these alternative options weren't as feasible. And so the decision was made to repurpose this funding for some of the other affordable housing programs and homeownership programs.

$25 million going to affordable housing construction through the Multifamily Housing Program, which is the flagship, affordable housing program in the state. And then also $20 million to the Dream For All program, which is a new shared appreciation loan down payment program, which saw a lot of success earlier this year.

I would just like to note that it typically takes less than a year to put up an ADU to house somebody, and it takes ten years to be able to build the kinds of housing that those programs apply to. I'll move on. I did want to stick with AB 104 a bit and talk about the allocation or the acceptance of the Department of Technology's $73 million federal grant funding for the Middle-Mile Broadband infrastructure.

Now, we know just as recently as today that there are still underserved and unserved urban neighborhoods in particular who are not actually able to access the Middle-Mile in the way that they need to, which will lead to, particularly for communities like mine, many households without full access to broadband.

I want to get a sense of what kind of additional steps we will be taking from the DOF's perspective to be able to address the maps that the CPUC has allocated that still remain insufficient to be able to fully ensure access to broadband internet for every single individual in unserved communities.

Thank you for that question, member. Danielle Brandon with the Department of Finance. I am going to have to get back to you with specific details on the mapping.

All right. It continues to remain very problematic, and I was in a CNC meeting where I essentially said, if we accept this money, this $73 million in federal grant funding, we need to ensure that all of our communities have the resources that they need. And with this acceptance, I'm still not seeing the kind of changes that we need to make to ensure that that's possible.

Ms. Monta, I just want to comment that the budget also includes some reporting language that we put in at the assistance of the Assembly in particular, to try to have more follow up on these issues because of concerns that members had about the expenditures.

I appreciate that very much. I think the challenge is that there's a timing issue with being able to fully allocate those funds as they're received from the federal government and being able to make use of them with a bit of a ticking time bomb in terms of when we can actually make use of those funds. So I'm very fearful that we're going to miss an opportunity to be able to support everyone.

I'll move on to AB 140 and just wanted to share that there are many provisions in AB 140 that actually address some of the concerns that we've raised as a Legislature, particularly the Women's Caucus around ensuring that we have a mixed delivery system. Wanted to point out just that we were able to, through much of this language, be able to clarify definitions around part time and full time care, being able to establish a cost of care plus rate for family childcare providers and childcare centers, and also to establish a retirement trust and a healthcare benefits trust for childcare providers.

And just to provide some good news, those are things that we've been fighting for, for a very long time and moves us to be able to have a mixed delivery system. So I wanted to allow for our sub chair consultant to be able to comment just on the movement that you've been able to make with this budget trailer language around these issues.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Erin Gabel from the Assembly budget committee. So, as was said by the Department of Finance, what the bill does is it ratifies the agreement with childcare providers United California and then extends parity for all of those policies and the cost of care plus rate across the entire childcare and preschool system. So we will be seeing a rate increase that's in the form of a payment on top of their existing rate based off of regions and regional costs. And that will start on January 1st of 2024 and then extend through 2025.

At that time, we are hoping you'll see elsewhere in the bill the authority for an alternative methodology for how we determine childcare payments and reimbursement rates in California. We are hoping at that time that we will have received federal approval for this alternative methodology and then we'll be able to talk about how to fund towards that kind of a rate system in the future.

Thank you. And I just want to quickly move on to AB 141 and just dive a little bit more into early literacy. There are a couple of measures in here. One is the allocation of funds to the State Board of Education to identify an approved list of screening instruments. Wanted to ask a clarifying question around the extent to which those screening instruments will actually apply to very early learners in the three to four year old category, because that's such an incredible necessity and we've been pretty reticent as a state to focus in on that age group in terms of literacy and screening.

I would defer to the Department of Finance if I get this wrong, but my understanding is the intent of the State Board, because the jurisdiction of their work here is around TK through grade twelve, that the screener would not be for preschool, for the state preschool programs.

Amber Alexander with the Department of Finance. I think a lot of the conversations around use of the screening tools will be determined after the panel has been convened and they've began having their discussions. But the intent is that the screening tools, as part of that process, there would be an evaluation in terms of appropriate grade spans for which those tools would be applied, as well as age of students in which those tools would be applied. There's nothing in the language currently that would require that the tools be used on those students.

But to the extent that through the panel process, there was an evaluation of the tool and it was found to be appropriate through that process, that is something that could be considered down the road.

Now that we've essentially moved so strongly in the space of TK, I think one of the opportunities that we have is to ensure that we're providing screening instruments to be able to address the early learning needs of our TK students that are now in our TK-12 system. So I'm hoping that that will be considered by the panel.

And further, AssemblyMember, If I could just add, we have in prior years, authorized funding for an early literacy screener specific for the state program, for the state preschool program. So we can get back to you with the timing on when the Department was going to be releasing that information.

Thank you. And then just a final question on the provision that prohibits funds to be used for literacy coaches, existing literacy coaches and reading specialists with the grant program. Can you clarify why there was a need to ensure that we were making that prohibition?

Yes. So that was a request we had heard during the budget negotiations earlier this year. The hope to make sure we were not supplanting funding at the local level that may have already been contributing in particular to the salaries of our teachers and to employees who are providing similar literacy coaching activities. So we saw this as cleanup because we had originally rejected the literacy coaching funding in this part of the June budget, and so we had missed this cleanup piece when we decided to put it back in.

Thank you so much. That's it.

Great. Any other comments, thoughts from the dias? Okay, not seeing any. We're going to go to public comment. Any public comment, please come forward to the microphone. We're going to go 1 minute each for public comment.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the Transformative In-Prison Workgroup, making comment on the Unit Six MOA for the CCPOA. Wanted to just highlight that the amount agreed upon for that contract would be 16 times the amount committed. To rehabilitative programs in CDCR and represents five times the amount that we spend on food, clothing, cognitive behavioral therapy and many other services received by incarcerated people.

So if we want to move in a different direction in California, we need to also be investing in those services and support and not overinvesting in the security parts of what CDCR is meant to be providing. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Members, Malik Bynum with United Domestic Workers and Child Care Providers United here in support of ABSB 104 and ABSB 140.

Specifically, in ABSB 104, we would uplift the four items pertaining to both IHSS and childcare, and we especially appreciate the work done on all fronts to put the childcare contract in ABSB 140 in front of you, which includes overdue subsidy rate increases on a per child basis, a first of its kind retirement benefit for our providers, continued investment in the healthcare space as well as the training space and moving us towards an alternative methodology to account for the true cost of childcare in the state. Thank you and appreciate your aye vote on these if you want to give the aye vote on this.

Good afternoon. Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, ditto to everything that Mr. Bynum had just previously mentioned about the childcare providers. Thank you for your work and supporting the providers and who are the backbone of our economy. Also wanted to make quick mention of ABSB 148.

This is in regards to bargaining unit 19 we represent, Ask Me Local 2620, who represents nearly 5000 health and social services professionals throughout the state of California, the TA's result of many months of collective bargaining. The workforce has changed quite a bit since COVID vacancy rates have grown by double digits in the past few years. These are modest COLA increases that we've requested, and there are also special salary adjustments for certain classifications, and these are for the positions that have been really difficult to recruit and retain. So thank you and urge your aye vote.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. I'm Raquel Yaffe with Thriving Families California, formerly known as CAPPA. We would like to express our gratitude to the Legislature for designating funding an SB 104 for the 2023 through 25 CCPU agreement, while also continuing to fully Fund our community agencies to enroll, support and lift up families. This budget package reflects the need to continue ensuring families have stable access to childcare while providing much needed stipends and supplemental pay to providers who are the backbone of a healthy and stable economy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, Matt Cremins here on behalf of the International Union of Operating Engineers, on behalf of our Members in state Bargaining units Twelve and 13. We'd like to offer our support for ABSB 148 and urge your approval. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. My name is Louis Mirante. On behalf of the Bay Area Council, the Casita Coalition and many Members of the ADU industry, we're asking for the Assembly to maintain the funding currently being reverted to ADU expenditures in AB 104. The ADU industry has seen tremendous success from the existing CalHFA program. It's funded about 2400 homes. 40% of those have been in communities that have been economically disinvested.

40% of the amount of the appropriate amount of money has gone to low income families, the rest to moderate income families, and the grant programs spent money in 50 of California's 58 counties. I strongly urge your support for the ADU money and ask that you reject the reversion. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee Members. Matt Easley, representing the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. I'd like to speak in support of AB and SB 151 and thank the Governor's Administration for their negotiations and as well as the Budget Committee for your consideration. The mental health and wellness funding that's in this MoU is definitely the most important provision for us at this time, and we definitely thank everyone involved for recognizing the struggles and difficulties that our membership goes through on a day to day basis.

I mentioned in the Senate Budget Committee earlier today that this year alone we've already had eight suicides for our membership. And it's not a unique year, unfortunately. So we definitely appreciate that acknowledgment of those difficulties. We urge your support. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Ting. Committee Members. My name is Daniel Schoorl with SEIU Local 1000 in support of ABSB 148. We are very encouraged by this tentative agreement between the state and our Members at the great lengths that it goes to protect state workers, notably through the special salary adjustments, wage equity adjustments, and the continued health care insurance premium stipends, and we urge your support. Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. I'm Juliet Terry with the Childcare Resource Center. We would like to thank the Administration and Members of the Assembly who have acted as childcare champions recently and for the progress made in negotiations with childcare providers United of California made evident in ABSB 140.

CCRC supports key provisions in ABSB 140, including the investments in the ECE workforce salaries, wages, benefits, improvements made to the family fee schedule, modifying the definition of full time care, and reimbursing providers based on contract expenditures and maximum certified hours. Unfortunately, CCRC is very concerned with the administrative percentages proposed in ABSB 140 to support program distribution of the ongoing monthly stipends. The proposed 10% is insufficient for alternative payment programs to distribute these funds.

These percentages should be based on the current contract terms of 17 and a half percent for APS and 15% for Centers. We ask you or urge you for your support in making these necessary amendments to maintain these current levels of administrative percentages so we can effectively and efficiently process these payments. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Keith Dunn here on behalf of the Save Our Goats Coalition. No, I'm not talking about Joe Montana or Tom Brady. These are the four legged creatures that help keep our communities safe from fires. They are a great resource for battling climate change. When we can't use mechanized vehicles or pesticides which are damaging to our communities, this is a valuable tool that helps us fight fires. I encourage you to support ABSB 143. Thank you.

Any more public comment in the room? Great seeing none. We are going to go to our phone line. Operator, are you there?

I'm here.

Great. Why don't we start?

For any public comment, you may press one, then zero. We will go to line 20, your line is open. Line 20, your line is open.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, this is Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in today. We'd first of all like to thank the Administration and staff for the technical and clarifying amendment to the DELPI proposal, the Diverse Education Leaders Pipeline Initiative, which clarifies the main purpose of the Bill, which would provide for partnerships to ensure that students meet particular outcomes.

And in addition, we'd like to speak to AB 140, the Early Care and Education Bill. The single rate structure will support ECE in general and support our efforts to continuously increase compensation levels. Thank you very much for your support this year.

Thank you. Line 27, your line is open.

Good afternoon, committee Chair, committee Members and staff. My name is Ebony Wheaton, Director of Special Projects for the Diversity in Leadership Institute.

On behalf of hundreds of educators, parents, students, labor associations and advocates across the state, we want to express our deep appreciation to this committee, the Legislature and the Administration for its $10 million investment in the Diverse Education Leaders Pipeline Initiative. As you all know, this investment will help ensure that California creates pathways of advancement for diverse and culturally responsive educators, while also strengthening our school's ability to deliver for the next generation of leaders.

So today we're asking that you approve the language amendments put forward with respect to this initiative, and we thank you in advance for your continued support for K-12 educators in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 28. Line 28, your line is open. Do you have us on mute? We will go on to line 36.

Good afternoon, Connie Choi with Public Advocates in support of AB 141 to change the definition of long term English learners in the Education Code for the purpose of the state's accountability system. The old definition over identifies the number of English learners of LTEL with potential to harm students progress this change to seven plus years reduces its over identification significantly. Thank you so much for addressing this issue and ERID your aye. Thank you, line 39. This is Jennifer Baker with the California Association for Bilingual Education.

I'd like to affiliate my comments with the comments that were just made by public advocates in support of the change in the long term English learner definition in AB 141. Thank you.

Thank you, line 38.

Thank you, moderator. Good afternoon, chair and Members. Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT. Just wanted to thank the staff and all of you for your hard work to ensure in AB 141 that students can have up to have a substitute teacher up to 60 days.

And also in AB 142 that ensures part time faculty at community colleges can access CalPERS and counselors healthcare as envisioned by last year's great investment in part time faculty health care in community colleges. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Line 24.

Daniel Savino Association of Regional Center Agencies in support of ABSB 138 While we've already submitted a letter of support, we wanted to note our appreciation of its approach to measuring equity and its proposed codification of work ARCA and the regional centers are already doing to standardize vendorization processes and respite assessments. Thank you.

Thank you, line 46.

Jen Chase from the University of California, calling in support of ABSB 143. This Bill provides an extension for expiring physician postgraduate training licenses. We appreciate the work of the Legislature and Administration. This will ensure that UC medical trainees continue to provide clinical care to our patients while the medical board processes a backlog of applications. Thank you.

Thank you, line 48.

Good afternoon, this is Karina Laigo with the Childcare Law Center calling in support of ABSB 140. The policies in this Bill help both families and providers. We also support adding resources for contractors to be able to get the payments out to providers as well as implement these important policies. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 49.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU, California. I just want to echo the comments of my colleagues with UDW and SEIU Local 1000 on our appreciation for AB 104, 140 and 148, which are integral to lifting up workers voices and giving them the necessary wages they need. We also really want to appreciate the legislature's efforts to support workers and Administration and coming and meeting up on those MoUs and of course, the staff for making sure it looks correct. Thank you.

Thank you, line 51.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Paul Yoder, on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco and Mayor London Breed, I just want to thank you and the Governor for allowing the inclusion of the language relating to Hunters Point, the redevelopment there. It's going to get 10,000 much needed affordable units built not just in San Francisco, but the entire Bay Area. Thank you.

Thank you, line 14.

Good afternoon. This is Ana Fung from the Institute for College Access and Success delivering comments for a group of six organizations representing higher education, consumer protection, workforce, and affordability advocates on ABSB 142 pertaining to the Golden State Teacher Grant. Specifically, we are concerned of this growing trend where out of state institutions find new and inventive ways to stretch the boundaries of the protections meant to ensure that California's financial aid dollars serve students at in state high quality institutions with state oversight.

And we have serious concerns with any language that would allow out of state, online post secondary institutions to access the grants and the precedent this is set for the institutional access to California financial aid in General. We respectfully request that you reconsider all provisions which allow out of state, online post secondary education institutions to access the Golden State Teacher Grant.

We agree that growing and supporting our teacher pipeline is a critical state goal, but it should be done by building upon the good work our in state institutions are already doing and not come at the expense of providing future teacher candidates with a quality education that includes in person learning and skill development opportunities. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 34.

Hi, Kimberly Sanchez with...California calling in regards to SB 142 pertaining to the Golden State Teacher grant program modifications. We have joined with other higher education advocates in submitting a letter with our shared serious concerns with any language that would allow out of state online postsecondary institutions to access the golden state teacher grant program and the precedent this would set for financial aid access in California and threaten the state's reputation as a leader in protecting students and student borrowers. Respectfully request that you reconsider all provisions which allow these specific institutions access to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program in SB 142. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 47.

Hi. Yeah, this is Serena Lynn. I'm a mother of two children under six years of age and work at Educational Enrichment Systems. I just want to say a strong, strong thank you. Thank you for AB 140. It is crucial to support our childcare workforce that are serving our most vulnerable and young infants and toddlers. And as you know, the workforce is a majority of women, women of color, and I thank you for recognizing, seeing, and funding them. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 32.

Good afternoon, Chair Ting and Members, Annie Thomas on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, we are supportive of the language in SB 137 on the psychiatric residential treatment programs. California is in desperate need of programs that can treat youth for mental health crisis with spaces and treatments designed for their needs rather than languishing in emergency rooms. We must do everything we can to expand care options at a time of an unprecedented youth behavioral health crisis.

Additionally, we'd like to express appreciation and support to the Administration and Legislature for working with us on cleanup language to the adoption facilitator prohibition in SB 138 which will clarify the prohibition and target it to unscrupulptuous adoption facilitators while not impacting other key adoption service providers. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Line 16.

Hi, this is Ryan O'Connell calling on behalf of a community of over 30,000 California homeowners called How to ADU, calling about 104 and respectfully requesting that you maintain the $50 million in accessory dwelling unit incentive funding. CalHFA found a very cost effective and fast way to deploy the money in previous rounds, and their working group has come up with a plan to deploy that money again to real people, regular homeowners who are in fact finishing ADUs from that first round.

Just this morning, a national publication wrote up one family that was able to avoid moving across country and avoid moving half their family across country thanks to receiving the ADU grant last year and hope that we can continue that great work. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Bedy, and I'm the Director of the California Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs. I'm speaking in support of AB 135. Boys and Girls Clubs have 800 sites in the state of California, and we serve hundreds of thousands of kids every year. The State Department of justice does not currently have the authority to notify youth serving nonprofits such as ours when their employees are federally arrested for barrier crimes, which include serious offenses like kidnapping, among others.

Thank you. Line 45.

The California Department of Justice does currently share this vital information with state agencies and lead educational agencies about their employees. Boys and Girls Clubs began advocating to close the safety loophole earlier in 2023, and we want to thank staff and our legislative champions for ensuring there are amendments in this Bill that will give the DOJ authority to specifically contract with the FBI to share information about nonprofit employees subsequent federal arrests with their employers. We know that this is a vital and urgent fix that needs to be addressed immediately to ensure that millions of kids served by nonprofits in our state remain safe every day. Thank you for your support and action today.

Thank you. Line 30.

Thank you, Chair Ting, for today's Assembly budget hearing. My name is Valerie Denero. I'm the Director of policy and education for Every Child California, a statewide nonprofit. My comments are related to AB 140 Early Care and Education Trailer Bill. We thank the Administration and Legislature for prioritizing the whole early care and education system through the negotiations with the childcare provider United, including multi year commitments to support under resourced early care system. We urge the re examination of the contract rate percentage for the cost plus rates as this is below current standards and insufficient to do the work necessary to process the funds.

Modify the definition of full and part time care reimbursing providers based on contract expenditures and the maximum certified hours investing the ECE workforce salaries, wages and benefits to support, retaining, recruiting and training providers. However, we are very concerned about the insufficient administrative rate to support the processing of cost plus rates on a monthly basis. We ask instead that the current contract terms be utilized.

The administration's process 10% administrative percentages fail to take into account the accounting mandates, staffing needs and systems changes to ensure the funds are sent out accurately and efficiency. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Thank you. Line 40.

Good afternoon, Chair Ting and Members of the committee. My name is Steven Alari and I'm a proud Member of SEIU Local 1000. I'm calling today in support of our tentative agreement included in SBAB 148. The contract is a much needed investment in our civil service workforce. I strongly urge you to approve it when it reaches the Assembly Floor. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, line 42.

Good afternoon, chair, team and committee Members. My name is Dalia Jaramillo, and I too am a proud Member of SEIU Local 1000. I'm calling today in support of the tentative agreement included in AB 148. This contract is a much needed improvement in our civil service workforce and I strongly urge you to approve it when it reaches the Senate and Assembly Poll. Thank you very much for your time and wishing you a very relaxing evening.

Thank you, line 50.

Good afternoon, chair Ting and esteemed committee Members. My name is Denise Quinn Allen, and I am also a proud Member of SEIU Local 1000. I'm calling today in support of the tentative agreement included in AB 148. The contract is a much needed investment in our civil service workforce and I strongly urge you to approve it when it reaches the floor. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you, line 33.

Good afternoon, ...Ting and committee Members. My name is Sharon Mae King, and I'm also a proud Member of SEIU Local 1000. I'm calling today in support of the tentative agreement including AB 148. The contract is a much needed investment in our civil service workforce and I strongly urge you to approve it when it reaches the Assembly Floor. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, line 52.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Ting and committee Members. My name is Amy Valdez. I am yet another proud Member of SEIU Local 1000. I'm also calling in today in support of the tentative agreement included in AB 148. This contract, like everyone else said, is much needed investment in all of our civil service workforce. I strongly urge you to approve it when it reaches the Assembly Floor. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, line 43. Line 43, your line is open. Do you have us on mute?

My name is Eddie Isaacs. Good afternoon, chair Ting and committee Members. My name is...I'm a proud Member of SEIU Local 1000. I'm calling today in support of the ABSB 148 tentative agreement for...state workers. It's a must need investment in our civil service workforce. Recruitment and retention and I strongly urge you to approve it when it reaches the Assembly floor. And thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, committee chair and Members. My name is Jessica Maldonado. I am the Director of Advocacy with the Diversity and Leadership Institute, along with hundreds of educators, parents, students, labor associations and advocates across the state. I would like to thank the Legislature for its 10 million investment in the diverse Education Leaders Pipeline Initiative.

Thank you. Line 55, your line is open. Please go ahead.

I would also like to sincerely thank the sponsors of the initiative, Senator Bradford and Assemblymember Bonta, for making diverse and culturally responsive tk through twelve educators a priority. This initiative will ensure that California's public school leaders reflect and represent the rich diversity of our public school, students and families. It will also help close a long standing equity gap, especially for students who have been historically underserved.

For this reason, we are incredibly grateful for the support of the Legislature and ask for your vote in favor of the Diversity Education Leaders Pipeline Initiative. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 54.

Hi, Chair Members, Elizabeth Escovel with the California Association of School Business Officials in support of AB 141, specifically as it relates to the extending the authorization for a substitute to teach for 60 days in a single classroom through July 2024. Very much appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, that has concluded our public comment.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. It seeing no other public comment in the room. We will adjourn. Sure. Do you want to take picture?