Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

I would like to remind the public that for this and future hearings, testimony will be in person, as we are no longer using a moderated telephone service. We also accept written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. I would also like to go over our ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and Floor proceedings in the last few years. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening, or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussion of matter not related to the subject of the hearing or bill, and any other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps. If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruption may result in removal from the capitol building.

I will also document on the record that individual involved in the nature of the disrupted conduct. I may temporarily resist the hearing if the conduct does not stop. I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol building. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome a couple of people I was not able to welcome at our last meeting. Well, Assembly Essayli is not here yet, but he'll be here in a few minutes.

Also, I would like to welcome Claire Norton, my Assembly fellow, who will also be taking on some consultant duties this year. She was not present during our hearing in January when I welcomed her, so I wanted to do so again. Welcome, Claire. Today, we have six items on the agenda. Two of these items are proposed for consent, item one, AB 1852, by Assembly Member Pacheco, and item five, AB 1958, by Assembly Member Berman.

Given that we don't have a quorum yet, we will not be taking action on those items until we have a quorum. We will hear all other bills in order shown on an agenda, unless otherwise noted. We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony.

All subsequent witnesses should state their name their organization and their position on the bill only since we don't have a quorum, we will operate as a subcommittee until we are able to establish a quorum. The first item on our agenda is AB 1853 by Assembly Member Villapudua. Assembly Member, please proceed when you are ready. Step forward.

Thank you chair Members, I'm proud to present AB 1853 today to update San Joaquin Regional Transit District aligned with the agency authorities with the authorities of the familiar size agency, this bill would advance two changes. First, it would bring more equitable pay scale to San Joaquin Regional Transit District in comparison to the 24 other regional transit districts in California, San Joaquin RTD currently ranks among the bottom three districts for comparison compensation.

That is, board members may receive for attendance for each board meeting on their total monthly compensation. Specifically, this bill would increase the sum that each member of the RTD board may receive for attendance at each board and committee meeting from $50 to $100 and increase the monthly gap for the sum of $100 to $500. Second, the bill would provide RTD a greater flexibility to invest its reverse investment option that maximize return.

Specifically, this bill would authorize RTD to also invest in an investment or deposit that the city, county or local public agency may place in reserve, while including appropriate limits to apply to these other districts. With me today to testify is Alex Clifford, CEO of the San Joaquin Regional Transit District.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Alex Clifford, the CEO of San Joaquin RTD. I'm here today to urge support for AB 1853, a RTD sponsored bill that would make minor changes to RTD's authorizing statutes to further improve RTD's governance and fiscal management.

Specifically, as highlighted by Assembly Member Villapudua, this bill would adjust for inflation the compensation level that each member of the RTD board may receive for their attendance at each board meeting and each committee meeting, and expand the list of investment options available to RTD for the purposes of our reserves.

These updates to RTD's authorizing statutes would bring our board compensation levels closer to the board compensation levels of other similar size transit agencies and better ensure that RTD board members are fairly compensated for their official work on behalf of our agency. Our board compensation levels have not been adjusted since our authorizing statutes went into effect in 1994.

These updates would also provide us the same investment flexibility enjoyed by many other transit agencies and municipalities across the state and position RTD to take advantage of investment options and maximize returns to our agency. Again, I urge an aye vote thank you for your consideration and I'm here to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, now seeing no second principal witness, do you have anybody else? How about in the audience that wants to testify in support of this bill? Not seen anyone.

Any principal witnesses in opposition of the bill? Not seen anyone. How about members of the public to testify on the bill? Not seen anyone? I'd like to open that to the Committee Members, if you have any questions or comments on the proposal in front of us. Nobody has anything. We cannot take any action because we don't have a quorum at this point. Can I read this? Do you have any closing.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Members. In closing, these changes would improve the ongoing management of RTD and ensure RTD's authority are consistent with the other familiar size transit agencies. With that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And thank you for bringing this bill forward today and for working with the Committee early to provide additional clarification. I will be making a recommendation for an aye vote, but we cannot do that until we have a quorum. Thank you. And we'll move on to the item number three on the agenda.

Thank you. And that is AB 1855 by Assembly Member Arambula. Assembly Member, when you're ready.

It thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I will begin by thanking the Committee staff for the recommended amendments which I accept. Students should be able to participate in their student body associations without threat to safety, privacy, or accessibility. AB 1855 will modernize the Brown act for community college student body associations during the COVID-19 public health emergency, audio and video teleconferencing was successfully used to increase participation and to protect the health and safety of civil servants and the public.

However, current provisions of the Brown act require Members of the legislative body to participate in the meetings of the legislative body by teleconference for no more than 20% of the regular meetings. This is a barrier for students who are disabled, who have limited access to transportation, or who are otherwise unable to participate in meetings in person. AB 1855 protects public's access and allows an eligible legislative body of a student organization to use alternate teleconferencing provisions.

If approved by the board of trustees and adopted by the eligible body, it is time to update the act to reflect modern times and new challenges faced by our students. Testifying in support of AB 1855 is Cole Miletano from Butte College and Jerry Reyes from Fresno City College.

Thank you for that. Before we go into the witnesses recognizing that we have a quorum now, Madam Secretary, if you could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Good afternoon chair and Committee Members. My name is Cole Militano and I am the President of the Associated Students at Butte Community College and the Legislative Affairs Director for the far north region of California up to the Oregon border. The AB 1855 would modernize the Ralph M. Brown act for the benefit of community college student body associations across California, especially in the rural regions of the state.

The far north, as well as the eastern parts of the state, with its vast rural landscapes, presents unique challenges in accessibility and participation in student government activities. Transportation limitations and the pressing demands of student life often prevent valuable voices from being heard.

AB 1855 seeks to address these barriers head on by allowing for increased use of teleconferencing in student government meetings, ensuring that every student, irrespective of their physical location or personal circumstances, can engage and contribute I would like to share the story of a student Senator from San Diego who is justice impacted and in a transition program. She asked to remain anonymous and is not allowed to travel up here to testify, but she is allowed to attend school and participate in her student government, but with restrictions.

While she's impacted by incarceration, she is often unable to attend her local and statewide student body Association meetings as releasing her address creates a risk to those who are in the same program with her. Given her background and experiences, she is in a position to represent folks who are often woefully underrepresented in student body associations, but she has restrictions on travel and cannot put her address down as a public domain.

This Bill empowers student bodies by allowing them to adopt teleconferencing provisions with the approval of their board of trustees, thereby ensuring that all meetings are accessible, inclusive, and reflective of diverse student body of a diverse student body, which includes student parents, students in all parts of the state, justice involved students and more. It guarantees public access to meetings and accommodates real time public comments, ensuring that our governance processes remain transparent and accountable.

I urge you to consider the profound impact that AB 1855 will have on enhancing the democratic engagement of community college students across California. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good afternoon chair Members. My name is Jerry Reyes. I'm a student at Frederick City College. I'm the student trustee for State Center Community College District and I'm also legislative affairs Director for Region Five, that is the Central Valley area. In my capacity, in my roles, I have witnessed the importance of student participation in student governance.

Our colleges are located in very rural areas and in the heart of the Central Valley, which includes cities, Fresno, Madeira, Reedley, and Clovis. Our students come from diverse backgrounds, which includes dual enrolled students and underage students under the age of 18 transitioning from high school to college. When it comes to student participation in student governance, students face several challenges, including accessibility, issues at home, concerns about privacy and safety, particularly those who are dual enrolled. As I mentioned before, under 18.

These issues underscore the urgent need for solutions that promote inclusivity and protect the rights of students as wise support. AB 1855 by authorizing California community college student body associations to utilize alternative teleconference provisions, we could break down barriers to participation, ensure that every student has a voice in shaping our collective future. As a student trustee, I'm committed to upholding the values and transparency of accountability and governance.

This Bill aligns with the constitutional provisions that safeguard the right to access of public meetings and records, reinforcing our commitment to democratic principles. In closing, I urge you esteemed Members to support this Bill. Let us stand together and champion diversity, accessibility and student rights. Thank you.

The Association of the California Community Colleges in strong support of this Bill? Thank you.

Stephanie Goldman, on behalf of the Student Center for California Community Colleges, proud to sponsor this Bill.

Thank you. Any principal witnesses in opposition of the measure?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Brittney Barsotti with the California News Publishers Association. I know over the years we've had a few conversations about Brown act bills, so I will try and keep it. I applaud the goal. Right. The goal of the Bill is to expand access. Right. And that is important. And providing remote access for students who can't participate.

I want to recognize that the author has taken some amendments to try and create some of the guardrails that we have addressed last year. I want to note that SB 544 was a Senate Bill that we worked with to allow folks with disabilities to participate and still count towards an in person quorum. We have no concerns with that, but our primary concern is the in person quorum for this Bill.

Also, we've also encouraged the author before to work with the framework of AB 2449 from a couple of years ago, which has just cause exemptions. We are not opposed to a Bill that actually wants to increase the cap on those number of meetings, just so folks know. And we're willing to work on additional categories of just cause, like a minor. Absolutely. They should be able to participate without disclosing their location. If there's someone with a DV order, formerly incarcerated students. I can appreciate that.

San Francisco State had a great program called Project Rebound that got those students back into education, and those are wonderful goals that we should support. But unfortunately, we do have concerns, our primary concern being the in person quorum. But I will commit to working with the author's office to see if we can resolve that.

Thank you. Are there any Members of the public that want to state your opposition to the Bill? Not seeing anyone. I'll open it to the Committee Members if you have any questions or comments on the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senbre Arambula, for bringing this forward. I really respect, there's a common sentiment of concern, transparency and openness. I think all of us need to be cognizant of that. I think given the narrowness of this, and especially we see a lot of iterations of this.

But I think given the fact this is narrowly drafted and that it's enacted for a year, I think it gives us an opportunity to really see if some of the concerns are realized or the benefits are realized. And I think that the fact that it's narrow and it's a short timeline makes me more comfortable with it, because I do share some of the concerns when we have these broader no pilot, no sunset.

And I know during the pandemic it was a different situation that kind of forced our hand to some extent, and there's certainly a value for in person representation of public bodies. But I'm certainly comfortable doing this, given how narrow it is. Let's come back and let's see. In this narrow setting, is it something we'd want to expand, or are there issues that came up that we can fix or work on, or is it something that we don't want to do anymore? That's all within our purview.

And so I appreciate the opportunity for us to actually, let's see how this actually operates in real time with the concerns put out there, with the benefits put out there, and let's see it work and come back and take a look at it.

Assembly Member Ward

Yeah, thank you. I want to echo the comments as well. I think that a lot of the work that's been done on these types of issues, sort of stemming from EB 2449 had a lot of negotiated content and sort of narrowed parameters. I see a lot of that. It's my interpretation, a lot of that's incorporated in this Bill as well. So I appreciate you for thinking ahead of that, because so much time and effort and thoughtfulness went into that.

And I guess to the opposition, I guess what specifically noting that you were at the table and key part of that negotiation, what do you feel is still missing that is undercutting the intent of being able to have reasonable and full access?

Sure. So I think our primary concern, we would say, is the in person quorum piece, which 2449 has and allows the other pieces, the other qualifications of just cause to be utilized. So caregiving is already within there. Again, we're willing to accept increasing the number of those meetings, but we'd prefer to have address some of these categories in terms of like if minors, folks with a disability.

It was unfortunate that we were unable to get language into 449 that did account for disabilities because that is important. But it is also part of this trend of carving out different categories of bodies from the Brown act that we find concerning.

Well, I hear you, but I would maybe just sort of look at it through a different lens, is that we've got certainly a lot of great public discussions that are out there on different layers of government and now within our educational communities as well. And if lessons are learned here that are working well, that don't undercut our need for access and transparency and the way we go about doing public business, transferring those in lessons right.

To some of these other bills that are being coming forward and everything seems like a reasonable next step with those protections in mind. But our in person requirements here to ensure at least a quorum is present as part of this Bill as well.

But that's only once a year, the in person quorum, sorry, the in person quorum is only once per year for the meetings. As I read the Bill.

My understanding is we'll require 50% plus one Members who will be present at each meeting. We will have that space. We will allow for those who want to teleconference. But you still need a quorum. You still need the majority as is present within 2449.

Yeah. Always a work in progress. But I appreciate your input on this and I'll be happy to support the Bill today.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you to the author to bringing this forward to be consistent or to allow it to be consistent with other bodies that we've allowed to be able to do this and have this requirement to allow people to not be present until a conference in. And so just speaking to you, the opposition, and to my colleagues on the Committee, thinking through the things that we addressed during the pandemic made perfect sense. We were in the middle of the pandemic.

And as I'm speaking to what my colleagues just said a moment ago, that there are lessons to be learned from that on a go forward, or how we can adjust and adapt some really great things that came out of realizing the teleconference ability and how much it expanded access, not only for Members who sat on the dais, but for also community Members to participate and be involved and engaged in whatever the governing body was doing, whether it was a local municipality, their school board, their college, wherever.

At the same time, though, there is an importance for access and transparency that comes from being in person. When you think about as much as legislators might not like it when we leave this building or we leave a certain space, we have reporters right there asking us questions. That happens at all different levels of agencies.

We have community Members who, the only time they can see us is when we're present at a meeting and they want to talk to us about the decisions that we just made. If we're not regularly not there, then that's not a good thing. And if people who, even if you're disabled, you shall still be accessible to Members of the public, even if you're someone who was incarcerated, if you're representing a body, you have to be accessible to Members of the public.

And so my comments are really centered around, as this is, aligning it with timelines of other bills related to this or things that have already been chaptered, is that we really need to think about is what does the future look like, what does the go forward look like, and how do we balance both, as was stated by my colleagues across the way, that we really have to think through all of that and deal with these together, because it is important for our meetings to be accessible not only from Members of the dais who are governing, but also from the public.

And the same weight and accommodation that we're giving to people who are serving should be the same weight and accommodation that we're giving to Members of the public. And we have to balance both of those. So I just encourage, I've been supportive of some of these things, but I am very much of when it comes to government, stuff in person should be the way of the go, and it should be an exception, not the rule, when it comes to remote as it relates to government activities.

Thank you for that, Ms. .... Not seeing anybody else wanting to comment. Assemblymen Arambula, would you like to close?

I'd like to first start by thanking the students for bringing this forward and being persistent to elevating their voice to ensuring that we provide the representation that they deserve within the Student Body Association.

Representation matters, and it's important for us to be as inclusive as we can and to make sure that we have our disability community, those who are dual enrolled, those who are suffering from domestic violence, those who are justice involved, to make sure that we provide opportunities and give them space to have a voice in this process and appreciate the conversation that we've had here today and look forward to working together as this process goes forward. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there a motion for anybody okay with that? Thank you, Assembly Member Arambula, for working with the Committee on this Bill and for accepting the Committee's amendments as a line on the analysis. With that, I will be supporting the Bill. The motion is to pass, as amended, to the Higher Education Committee. 50. We leave the roll open for those Members that want to add on since we have a quorum. Also now can you call the roll? For AB 1853, we need a motion for the first Bill moved by Assemblyman Ward, second by Pacheco. You please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The Bill moves. 5-0. Can we also get a motion for the consent calendar items at this time? Is there a second for the two consent calendar items? First by Assembly Member Pacheco, seconded by Assembly Member Ward? Please call the Roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill moves on with 5-0, and we'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on. With that, we move on to agenda item number four, AB 1924 by Assembly Member Stephanie Nguyen, the Sacramento Regional Transit District. Assembly Member, when you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I am pleased to introduce AB 1924, which authorizes the Sacramento Regional Transit District, also known as SacRT, to include any portion of Sacramento County in its defined service territory if a jurisdiction chooses to opt in and be included. SacRT currently provides transportation in the community now for those in need of transportation. The service areas include many of the incorporated cities but much of the unincorporated counties that are already here.

This will potentially bring expansion and be greater connectivity to the region and provide clean transportation solutions to those without good access. And here to testify in support of this Bill in less than three minutes is SacRT's Senior Community Relations Officer, Greg Fishman.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Don't say anything anymore. She just moved it and second. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding.

You threw me. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Greg Fishman. I am the Senior Community Relations Officer for Sacramento Regional Transit in support of AB 1924. SacRT provides light rail, bus, paratransit, and microtransit services for most of Sacramento County and most of the cities within the county. We're before you with this Bill today specifically because we've been asked to explore the possibility of expanding our coverage area and offering transit services to the City of Galt in southwestern Sacramento County.

Galt currently receives transit services through Sacramento County. There may be some economies of scale to be gained by having RT Serve Galt. This Bill would amend our enabling legislation to allow us to work with Galt on that possibility. Notably, the Bill does not require or call for actually annexing Galt. It merely gives us the authority to do so if the governing bodies involved approve that at some point in the future. We have letters of support on file from the City of Galt.

All five Members of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, including Supervisor Pat Hume, who represents the Galt area, and he also sits on Sac RT's Board of Directors. We know of no opposition to the Bill, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any Members from the audience that want to testify in support of this Bill? Not seen anyone. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition of the Bill? Not seeing anyone. I'll open it to the Committee Members if you have any questions. Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. You know, when it comes to transportation, a lot of times we have a lot of different agencies across the state and there is a cost of Administration. And so whenever there's an opportunity for someone to graft into already a built-in structure and have those savings from that, creating a new Administration go directly into operations or capital projects infrastructure is definitely a good thing, and that's why, you know, I'm happy to support this today.

Thank you. Absolutely.

Not seeing any other Committee Members. Assembly Member Nguyen, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you for working with the Committee to clarify the annexation process for member agencies. I will vote in Aye today. Do we have a motion? Was there a motion done? Wilson made a motion. Second by Assembly Member Kalra. Please call the roll.

[Roll call].

With a 5-0. The Bill is out and we'll leave the roll open for the Members who want to add on later. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members.

The next item is by Assembly Member Bonta, who is not here yet. If the office of Assembly Member Bonta can hear us, can you please let her know that we are waiting for her to present AB 2157. Thank you.

Now moving on to item number six, AB 2157, by Assembly Member Bonta. When you are ready, Assembly Member.

Good afternoon. Afternoon, Chair and members. AB 2157 is an important bill for my district. This bill will help the City of Alameda Healthcare District secure financing for required seismic safety construction work at Alameda Hospital. By 2030, hospitals across the state are required to meet specific seismic safety standards. It will cost Alameda Hospital over $50 million to meet these standards that are so critically important, but we also need to ensure that we're not disrupting hospital services for several years.

Alameda Hospital is the only hospital on the island of Alameda and is licensed as an acute care facility with many skilled nursing and subacute beds that have served over 75,000 residents of Alameda and adjoining communities for over 100 years. Any temporary closure would be devastating to the residents of the island. AB 2157 will provide the hospital with the financing it needs, allowing it to come into compliance while limiting disruption to hospital services and workers. With me today is Matt Moretti with the City of Alameda Health Care District.

Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Matt Moretti with MJM advocacy on behalf of the City of Alameda Health Care District. And rather than be repetitive, and since the members are wanting to move on, I'll just say that this is not a new approach. SB 644 Hancock in 2011 and AB 582 by Levine in 2014, took the same approach and trying to secure financing. The big difference is that Alameda is trying to do it to meet state mandate and seismic standards for 2030. As the analysis indicated, there's no fiscal effects. We're sensitive to the fiscal situation for the state. Other than that, I just want to say thank you for your time, and hopefully you'll support AB 2157.

Thank you. Any members of the public want to testify in support of the bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts here, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Matt Lege, on behalf of SEIU California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition of the bill? Not seen one. Any members of the public that want to testify in opposition of the ill? Not seeing anyone. I turn it to the committee members. If anybody has any comments, we have a motion to move the bill by Vice Chair Waldron. Is there a second? Assemblymember Bonta, would you like to close?

mThank you, Members, for your patience. I was hearing a very compelling bill by Chairman Ramos in Education Committee. So appreciate your patience with me. With that, I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you for presenting your bill today. I will be voting aye. The motion is do pass. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

We did that just now. I think we had that. Thank you. We will leave the roll open for Members that are not here yet. Thank you. Without. We adjourn the meeting because we left it open. We cannot adjourn because the roll is still open for the additional Members. Thank you. Yes. With that, we will be adjourning the hearing. Thank you.