Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

I know my colleagues have a ton of places they all need to be, so we're going to move through as quickly as we can. We'll come back and establish a quorum as soon as that is possible for us. But we do have Senator Laird here.

So, Senator Laird, would you please start us off? Would that be okay? Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm here to present Senate Bill 1064. It's a bill that aims to modernize the state licensing structure for cannabis. The bill represents a crucial step forward in achieving key objectives to help to support the state's legal and regulated industry.

I'd like to thank the Committee consultant for the thorough analysis, and our goal is to modernize the current licensing structure and not create unintended consequences.

If you look at the Department of Cannabis control's 2003 annual report, and these are cited in the analysis, the processing times for the current different licenses are for cultivation, 221 days. For manufacturing, 180 days.

For distribution, 287 days. For testing laboratory licenses, 851 days. For retailer licenses, 183 days. For micro business licenses, 244 days. For event organizer licenses, 153 days. And for just a temporary cannabis event license, it's 59 days. These many times, people have to apply for multiple ones in however they do it.

The system is cumbersome, and it is just not working. And so it's our goal with the Bill that these times can be reduced, which is a benefit for the applicant, saving them time and money, and it's a benefit for the state and local jurisdiction, and it gives certainty for both the applicant, the governing authority, and the public in what to expect and minimizes the places that they have to interface to deal with these issues.

And it further clarifies the role of state and local governments in the licensing and oversight of cannabis businesses, eliminating duplication. And I want to respond to four specific suggestions that were in the analysis.

It states, the author should continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure that any changes to the current regulatory structure do not have unintended legislative challenges later. I commit to doing that. The author should continue to work with stakeholders to address any necessary technical changes. I commit to doing that.

The author should continue to work with stakeholders in revising provisions of Proposition 64. I commit to doing that. And the author should consider extending the implementation date upon consultation with the Department of Cannabis Control, DCC, I'm following my own thing about defining the acronym before you use it to ensure a smooth and successful licensing transition.

I will consult with them and see if that works with all these other things and is possible. And so there are lots of. When you read the analysis, it just looks very complex, because it looks like, well, you're changing this. You're doing this if you're really trying to consolidate into two categories of license and you're trying to define clear the roles.

That's why it looks complex. But it is with those goals in mind, and that's why it's important to commit to the things that were outlined in the analysis, which we will do.

The licensing reform framework within this bill was developed from recommendations within the recent California Cannabis report, licensing and market access, published by the Cannabis Policy Lab. There is no registered opposition at this point.

My witnesses were stuck in the long line outside, so at least one of them has arrived here. Both. Joining me in support is Christina Dempsey with the Cannabis Policy lab and Sarah Duquette, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California.

At the appropriate time, when you have a quorum, I would respectfully request, an aye vote on this bill.

Great. And welcome to you two. You'll each get two minutes. Thanks for braving the swing space elevators. So join us today. We're happy to have you.

Good morning, Chair Members. Sarah Dukett with the Rural County Representatives of California. A little bit of background on this bill. We've been working on ideas to make this a streamlined process, and that's how we really worked on these ideas.

One of the key points that I'd like to bring up is the lack of kind of clarity between the state role and the local roles. When this licensing scheme started, we were doing dual licensing. Right.

Locals are trying to come on board with the state trying to come on board, which resulted in a lot of the same work being done at the local level and the state level. So this really splits up the licensing into three parts. One is the initial operator license, and that's where the applicant is fully vetted.

So by the time they get to a local government, they have their state license, they can operate, they've gone through their background check, they've been vetted, they comply with the state law, and then it makes it easier for us locals to know who they are, and then we have that role of the land use, the site specific location review, and then once they make it through that, they go back to the state for that final process, which is really licensing the premise.

Which is the actual activity going on at that location, which they're the subject matter experts on. We believe that this new framework will allow those roles to be really clear. It will also reduce the amount of work locals are doing that's duplicative above the state, and hopefully we'll be able to get folks through a lot quicker.

And also, for jurisdictions that haven't made that step forward in really allowing a retail or certain activities, allow them to kind of have a clear understanding of what they're getting themselves into.

Okay, so it's zoning code, it's general plan, it's land use. I don't have to worry about all these other things. They come to me fully vetted. They're licensed and ready to go. So we do think that we will see an improvement on those coming on board and allowing activities like retail. With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague.

Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Christina Dempsey, and I'm the founder of the Cannabis Policy Lab. We are a nonpartisan, research based organization that supports government officials in the development and refinement of cannabis policy. I worked for California State cannabis programs for nearly six years, from 2017 until 2023.

I helped stand up the Department of Public Health's cannabis program, served on the Department of Cannabis Control's initial executive team, and ended my service as the first policy director for the Department.

After I left the Department, I spent four months talking to stakeholders about how the statutes could be improved. One of the recurring issues raised in those conversations is how inefficient the licensing process is.

Businesses are often reviewed for the same criteria at the local and state levels as Sarah was describing, and because a separate state license is required for each activity conducted, the legal business entity and its financial parties are sometimes reviewed by the state multiple times.

This duplication increases administrative costs for government and makes cities and counties hesitant to create cannabis permitting programs. It's confusing for businesses, who often have to submit the same information multiple times to different layers of government or to different state analysts.

SB 1064 is a substantial effort to reimagine what an improved cannabis licensing process could look like. By allowing the state to issue operator licenses separately from the location license, it would create a single state review of the business entity and its owners, eliminating repetitive reviews.

SB 1064 requires the state to establish specific criteria for reviewing a proposed location for the business to operate and to conduct its review ministerially. This allows local governments to decide the appropriateness of a site location within the community, aligning with their expertise in time, place, and manner.

And it allows the state to focus its review on whether the applicants are eligible to participate in the market, aligning with their role of setting statewide marketplace standards.

SB 1064 is a meaningful step forward in addressing the unnecessary duplication and complexity in the cannabis licensing process and in removing the barriers.

Give us your final thought there.

And in removing the barriers that prevent businesses from becoming legal operators.

All right, very good. Thank you so much. Are there others in the room who would like to join in? Me too testimony in support of SB 1064. Now would be the time.

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. Members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, co-sponsor of the bill and strong support. Thank you.

Alicia Priego here on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association, and also Kiva Confections in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Sam Rodriguez, on behalf of Good Farmers Great Neigbors based in Santa Barbara County. We're in strong support, and we also want to applaud Senator John Laird.

His experience in local and state governing executive branch is the right person for the right time for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jerred Kiloh, on behalf of the United Cannabis Business Association, who represents hundreds of retailers throughout the state, and strong support.

Okay. All right. That's it for testimony and support. Great. Then do we have opposition? And if there's lead opposition you can come on forward. We'll give you a couple minutes. Seeing none. Are there folks who would like to just comment as me too, to opposition? Seeing none in the room. We'll bring it back to the dais. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I thought this had to do with just about everything in government, but I guess we're just focusing on this industry. And I'm joshing because there's so many things that have the same issue. But when we talk about 16 different categories, let me have you address that? First of all, if you have 16 different categories, I would think if you were able to condense it, it would be cultivation. I would think. Of course, transportation would be one.

Another might be the retail sales, but from 16 down to two. But I think you should be able to address that because I'm concerned about the cultivation and certainly, the transportation and of course the testing in the retail. That would be my four, that something has been in the vetting that takes place. Then you get back over here to the other side of 851 days to get a license testing, which is obviously a crucial part of all this, but yet the temporary is 59 days.

So what kind of a timeframe we'll be looking at if you are able to get this thing through and, and get it done at the other end?

There were a lot of questions in there, and so let me try in a simple way to do it. And I believe the first witness really lined it out. And if you are really trying to do, it's categorized differently than you just categorized to be able to address every issue that you just listed. So that if you have a vetting of the applicant, then you have the local permitting process, and then you have the state part, you're consolidating all the different things in that.

And that way, if there's transportation and that's a site issue, the locals deal with it in certain pieces of cultivation, it's local issues and it's dealt with there. The person's vetted before, the state issues are dealt with afterwards, and everything is put into that process. And the reason I committed to everything that was in the analysis is because that isn't going to be as easy as it sounds in making sure there's no unintended consequences and making sure that everything is addressed.

And on some of the things you said, this is Bob Wykowski, the former Senator, said to me once, oh, a Senator from Santa Cruz, you have to do a cannabis bill every year. And the thing is that this is the fourth one, and they have all addressed these things that are parts of it, but in many ways are on the periphery.

We did not have an educational leaflet that is handed out to a first time buyer to let them know about what some of the concerns are. Did that Bill last year. It was signed. There was no standards for the testing labs that were common between the labs. I did a Bill that standardized it so that it could be tested against a common framework.

And as we tried to make the legal work to try to discourage the illegal, there was this loophole in the law that if a sheriff and Fish and Wildlife went in to bust an illegal grow, if the Water Board went with them, they were supposed to give them 24 hours notice which would allow them to clear out and clean everything up. I did a bill that changed the notice requirement for the Water Board to the same for a sheriff for Fish and Wildlife.

And in the course of doing all this, it became really clear that the licensing process was inhibiting people and driving them out, and, frankly, is driving out the smaller people to benefit the bigger people. And that is not what should be happening here. So by consolidating it, you actually address every issue. But in that sequence that was named, and I would like to be able to tell you how many days it's going to take.

I can't, but I can tell you it will be less, and that is the goal of the Bill.

Well, I think if even we're 50% less, that's a movement. I'll move the Bill when it's appropriate.

All right. Thank you very much, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the adages of legislation, or the deliberation of legislation, is that you can't make a bad bill better merely by changing pieces of it. I'm not referring to your Bill. I'm referring to Proposition 64. It is, unfortunately, the law, and it is a totally dysfunctional law, which is why we continue to see proposals like yours trying to improve things more or less at the edges. You're being so darn agreeable with regard to things pointed out in the analysis.

I just have to vote yes on your Bill, which I will. Kind of reluctantly, though, because we can't fix Proposition 64. I have concluded it is impossible. That Proposition was developed to try to please everybody. And a great man once said, you cannot please all the people all the time.

And in this case, that attempt was made, and it is becoming, I think, a failed experience, and as is pointed out in Senator Bradford's 1059, the item before yours on the agenda dealing, and yet again with reform with regard to cannabis. Both of these modifications of Proposition 64 really beg the question of a comprehensive discussion of the foundational and structural challenges of Proposition 64 as a whole.

And I've become of the opinion the only way this can be fixed is if the Legislature addresses that question and puts a Proposition on the ballot, because that's the only way we can change 64 to fix what is fundamentally dysfunctional piece of public policy. I was opposed to Proposition 64 to begin with, and I still don't particularly like it. And I find myself voting for all of these measures to improve it, and it frustrates the heck out of me.

But it is the law of the land. We're not going to repeal it, but it needs to be fixed in a much more comprehensive way than we're going about it here. So, as I said, I'll unsatisfyingly support your proposal, but I think we need to take a much different approach to this horribly dysfunctional system.

I think I'll address that in my close.

Sounds good.

In case there's any other comments.

I have a comment on a question on this one, and it lends itself nicely to some of the comments from my colleague here, Senator Niello. I, you know, perfect or not perfect, Prop 64 is the law of the land. And so I'm a bit reluctant sometimes, especially in this Committee, to take bills that I think could potentially change what voters have already weighed in on unless it's going back to the ballot.

So it's my one warning shot over the bow here on your Bill, and I am supporting it today because it doesn't actually change what the voters asked for yet. But I'm asking you to keep that in mind as you move along. Cause I'll be watching carefully for that piece. And the other part of this, for me is probably author driven.

I think I was convinced to support because of who the author is, because this Bill in its current form could be dangerous if somebody wasn't of the mind to work with the Department and the stakeholders, especially the Department, though. But I know you, and you are not going to jam up another Department head. You've been there yourself. You know what that feels like, and you're going to include them. I know that to be true.

And so, for that reason primarily, and because I'm asking you to make sure you keep those voters in mind and get the stakeholders involved as you go through, as much as you can. And being the Member that you are, I know that you will do that. So, I'm going to support it today. But I do think it's a little loose because you're really asking for permission to move forward and do something that does need to be done.

Clearly, there is order, and you really laid it out nicely. I come from local government very recently, so it's only been like 18 months since I was sitting on a council dais, trying to figure out how what we're doing in the City of Sacramento lines up with what's happening with the state on cannabis. And there are so many questions to be answered around cannabis implementation, and it is a struggle. So it would be good for the groups to all be working together.

I just want to make sure the Department is in a leadership role in that discussion, but I trust you will do that. Okay, we're gonna. Senator Roth, are you good? Okay, so, Senator Archuleta, for one final thought, and then we're gonna hand it back to you. Senator Laird.

Senator, you brought up one very small point about the illegal side of this whole industry, and I'm hoping, as a pioneer you are, and straightening this thing out as you're saying, that we turn the screws up a little bit on the illegal side of all this, working with law enforcement, working with municipalities, anything we can do to strengthen that, because these are people that you're talking about, hard working businesspeople, and we're trying to share the wealth and share the opportunity, but we have this terrible side, which is the illegal side.

So I'm hoping that maybe you can join with me in the future and all the others that want to see an end to that. So I'm just throwing that out there. And I thank you for the Bill. As I said, I will move it.

Excellent point. Okay, Senator Laird, you can give us a close, and then, you know, we'll have to wait for a quorum. We don't quite have one yet. We're getting close, but big Committee, so we need a couple more.

I really appreciate the discussion and a lot of the issues that are the background issues came up in the discussion. And the one thing I've thought that if you actually make the legal process work and you make it advantageous for people to use it rather than the illegal one, right now, there's not an economic incentive for some people that are on the illegal side to move into the legal side. And, yes, I think they both need to go hand-in-hand.

But if we can make the legal side work, that's part of the incentive that addresses that. And I was trying to figure out a diplomatic way to comment on the Chair's comment, because one of the strangest things about being in an administration is when you might be the person behind a bill, but you are not authorized by the Governor to take a position or let anybody know or make a public statement. So just trust me.

I am and will work with the Department because I think they really want to make it work. And I appreciate Senator Niello's comments, and I'm very happy, because when you tote up yes votes, it doesn't say begrudging, it just says yes. So I am very grateful for that. But I think there's a real element of truth to his frustration.

And I tried, in addition to the bills I mentioned, I tried this Bill the last two years and just got stopped in the Assembly, because right now, under licensing, you have to do an EIR on the same project twice. That is just ridiculous. And that really works against the people that are the small licensees and those that are trying to break into the system. And it might mean people of color in central Los Angeles.

It might mean small people, growers in more rural parts of the state. And so I think this is a more logical way to go around it. And frankly, if we can't make things like this work, it makes the case for your overall point. And sometimes you have to fail at making a system work for people to realize they want to change the system. I think this will make it substantially better if we can streamline the process, and I think it is really worth an attempt.

And that's why I would respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

All right, thank you very much. Sounds like you already have a motion for when we get there, so thank you very much, Senator Laird. All right. Senator Durazo. My birthday twin. We're twins, in case you guys didn't know. We're the same age, we have the same birthday. That's all that matters. Yeah. Welcome, Senator Durazo. Nice to see you. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. First, I want to thank Madam Chair and your staff, Committee staff for working with me and my staff on this Bill, and I'm accepting the amendments. Thank you for all the work. Again, these are all the amendments already outlined in the Committee analysis. SB 1490 will strengthen the Fair Food Delivery act by requiring food delivery platforms to disclose the consumers to consumers the actual costs involved in online food order and delivery.

The Bill requires platforms to create optional mechanisms for restaurants to remove themselves from the apps and disclose to customers all fees charged to the restaurant, including any additional delivery fee. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, restaurants experienced a significant revenue shift from traditional in person dining to online orders, which now average 30% to 40% of restaurant revenue. Restaurants pay a delivery company a commission on their sales and listing marketing and processing fees for listing them on their platforms.

However, third party food delivery platforms have used and often abused their their leverage to impose high and hidden fees and actively cut restaurants off from their own customers. I look with these changes, ensure transparency, and provide additional opportunity for restaurants to have clear information about food delivery platform processes. I look forward to continued engagement with stakeholders. I am committed to further clarifying where needed to protect small restaurants from being unfairly treated on the apps.

And today I have with me two witnesses in support of this Bill, chef Keith Corbin, Executive chef and co-owner of Alta Adams in Los Angeles, and Kareem Webb, restaurateur and co founder of PCF Management. Thank you very much Madam Chair and I respectfully ask for your aye ivote.

Thank you so much. Welcome. Thanks for making your way up to be with us today. You each get two minutes whenever you're ready.

Chair Members, my name is Karim Webb. I'm a restaurateur and co-founder of PCF Restaurant Management. I've dedicated my life to advocating and advancing a more equitable restaurant industry and removing barriers, especially for black and Latino communities seeking entrepreneurship opportunities. I grew up in the restaurant business. As a teen, I worked at my parents Mcdonald's franchises in the Inland Empire in San Gabriel Valley, training on all aspects of running a business.

I then opened my first full service restaurant in south LA after the LA uprising, which was my first Buffalo Wild Wings location in Baldwin Hills, California. Since then, I've opened additional units in Torrance, Carson, Chinatown and Koreatown. Over 25% of my restaurant sales come from online orders. With this digital shift, a power shift has occurred where the big three delivery platforms have cornered the online order and delivery market.

Third party delivery platforms have also leveraged this power to impose increasingly higher fees on restaurants and consumers and engage in behaviors that are driving small business restaurants out of business. For example, restaurants are repeatedly hit with the chargebacks for errors that occur through no fault of their own. The legislation includes important provisions such as prohibiting third party delivery platforms from limiting the value or number of transactions that we can dispute.

Restaurants, particularly small shops such as my friend Keith Corbin and Alta, find themselves overwhelmed by complex app contracts that makes them feel pressured to sign if just to ensure that they have a chance to make it in such a difficult environment. You can't be in business, or it's very difficult to be in business and compete if you're not signed up with these third party apps. This legislation would allow restaurants to use third party consultants to work on their behalf and negotiate on their behalf.

Sort of like I have buffalo wild wings, where we have our franchisor negotiate much better terms than would be the case for Alta and many other small and independent restaurants. SB 1490 would help to balance the power in the dynamic in these situations and protect our local restaurants and consumers from harmful business practices. And for these reasons, I ask for your support in this critical issue.

Great. Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Chair and Members, my name is Keith Corbin. I'm the Executive chef and co-owner of Alta Adams in LA. I grew up in a Jordan Downs housing projects in Watts, ran with some guys, eventually wound up going to prison. It was in prison when I first started cooking and working in kitchens. I eventually landed a job with local restaurant group run by chef Roy Choi and Daniel Patterson.

From there, I partnered with Daniel on Alta Adams to create a California soul food restaurant where I used local, healthier ingredients to put my own spin on the food. I grew up cooking and eating with my grandmother. As a chef and Restaurateur owner. As a chef and restaurant owner, I support SB 1490 in the protections that provide our restaurant industry. At Alta Adams, we cannot afford to use the delivery platforms

due to the high cost and unfair pricing impacting consumers and customers. It was not feasible for us to absorb the high fees. It literally was asked for 30%. That 30%. If I tacked that onto my prices, I wouldn't sell on that platform anyway. And then people would get a misconception about what our real prices is in the restaurant and probably not even come in person. And so I chose not to go with the platforms.

Many small independent restaurants in our community do not have the luxury of quitting the delivery apps. Now, over 40% of restaurant sales come from online orders. The third party delivery platforms take advantage of small, family owned restaurants that don't have the time to read the fine print or the resources to have lawyers negotiate for a fair deal. In most parts, they won't talk to lawyers anyway. They only want to deal with the restaurant operator.

They get stuck with the Commission and fees that take away a large chunk of their restaurant revenue. Similarly, the platforms trick consumers who have no idea they are paying more for their food to cover these exhibit fees. Exorbitant fees, especially when the consumer has signed up to become a monthly Member, believing they are not being charged additional delivery fees. They often place blame on restaurants for rising prices and don't return. SB 1490 will help level the playing field for our local restaurants and customers.

For these reasons, I ask for support of this critical measure. Thank you.

You did a great job, chef. I'm glad you came up today. Thanks for testifying on behalf of the Bill. All right, now would be the time that anybody else in the room who is. Me too. You can stay. You guys can stay there for a minute. Me too. Testimony in favor could come to the mic, name, organization, and position on the Bill. All right. If there's opposition to the Bill or tweeners on the Bill or lead opposition, let me know. Are you lead?

Yes.

Go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair Members, author. Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce. We are respectfully opposed to SB 1490 at this time. I want to be very clear, and I want to thank staff, a sponsor, author, for what has been, I know it very difficult, 72 hours working on amends on this, and we appreciate a lot of those amends that have addressed a lot of our concerns.

I'm still waiting for full feedback from Members and getting through that analysis myself, so we can't at this point, you know, move off that. But I do want to underline how much we appreciate those. As previously, our concerns with this Bill were never around. Kind of the core goals, transparency, you know, supporting small restaurants. We obviously have restaurant Members and support that. Our concerns have been around the specific language and how we were concerned.

Some of that language was vague, unclear, and potentially unnecessary with existing protections in law, which I think the staff analysis flagged really well. The lengthy existing laws on this topic. I won't go through more detail given that the amends really are the center of attention. So with that, I'll pass it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee. Andrea Devoe. On behalf of Technet, we also remain opposed only because we need time to review the amendments. We know that if any concerns remain, that we will continue to work with the Senator and this Committee. Really want to thank you all for the exhaustive work over the weekend and appreciate the work on the Bill. So thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right, me too testimony.

Austin here on behalf of Uber and Uber Eats. We really appreciate the work on the amendments and the Committee, and once we see them in print, we may be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm chair Member Shane Levine. On behalf of Doordash, we are neutral. Thank you for all the work of the chair of the staff and the author at this point and we'll continue to watch as it moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Bring it back to the Committee here. Go ahead, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. Of course, equality and fairness is so important to all of us and especially in some of the communities that you and I both represent. My question is clarity.

If we have the restaurant making the food and it's got to be delivered because the consumer wants it delivered, are we looking at a disclosure of the difference if you pick it up versus the delivery or the company that is actually picking up the food and picking up the tips and so on? Can you clarify the steps for me? Walk me through where you feel it's out of line.

Do you feel like.

That we can answer that question. Yeah, I think generally, yeah. The consumer is confused, necessarily, about the fees, generally. What Keith is talking about and what happens here is that as a restaurateur, you're forced, really, to kind of inflate your cost as it relates to delivery, specifically because what you pay on the apps.

For instance, at Buffalo Wild Wings, I have a national brand negotiating for me we pay 20%. For Keith's restaurant, he would have to pay 30%. That's the deal with the deliverers.

And so you have to pass that cost on to the consumer. So if you go on the Buffalo Wild Wings website and you order six wings, you're going to pay 30% more than you would pay if you called the restaurant and ordered wings and came and picked them up. On top of that, you're going to pay the delivery fee and the tip.

And so what Keith is talking about is asking for real transparency with respect to what those fees are, because they're charging us, in addition to the fact that they want to charge you to advertise on the app and they own the data.

And as I understand in the amendment, the data has come out of the b ill, but they own the data. So we don't even know necessarily, who our customer is, and they have the ability to then go sell that customer to our competitor.

So what they're doing is they're really kind of monopolizing the marketplace in a way that makes it very difficult, in an already very difficult post COVID environment, for restaurateurs to take the risk of being entrepreneurs and to hiring people in our community and to being the stewards of our community and what's in the interest of our community, which is why it's so important for us to have local franchisees and local restaurant owners.

Because in a capitalistic democracy, the people that take the risk have to be rewarded. And these apps are standing in the way from us having a direct relationship with our consumer and standing in the way of the consumer really knowing how much they're paying to who.

Madam Chair, may I continue? You mentioned the word inflation. Obviously, it's been inflated at the other end. So we're looking at a platform that discloses the difference between the two that you can come and pick it up versus what you're paying here.

And to negotiate on the behalf of people who don't have a Buffalo wild Wings corporate and a big apparatus to negotiate with.

You're not asking to eliminate them. You're looking for a better policy to come to an agreement and negotiate.

Yeah. To have the ability to negotiate on the behalf of the operator, I can choose, you know, what a. That I want, if I go to hire an attorney or what repair person that I want, if I need to have my HVC repaired or what supplier or produce supplier or whatever it is that I want to use to supply my business, we're asking to be able to also have an intermediary with these third party apps.

Senator Archuleta, can I go on to your colleagues here? All right, Senator Becker.

Thank you. I just remember voting on the Gonzales Bill and then the Lee Bill, and I was looking through the analysis. Maybe the Lee Bill was vetoed. I was trying to remember exactly what happened with all that. She was asking the Senator, could you walk us through what was some of the past actions? Did they not have the effect that was hoped or any insight into that?

Yeah, let me just find there. So what SB 1490 is doing is providing a mechanism for restaurants that have rights already under the Assembly Member Gonzalez, for the food facility to direct that the food delivery platform disclose to customers the delivery fee charged to the food facility and each fee commission, or cost charged to the food facility.

So, for example, it might say zero delivery fees, when in fact, restaurants are being charged fees for meal delivery. Right. I mean, it's what it says. In fact, the restaurants are having to pick up that delivery fee. So it's clarifying and it's strengthening the assemblymember Gonzalez Bill.

Okay, so your view is building on that?

Yes, yes.

Okay. And then the conversations. So it sounds like the conversation, I'm sorry I missed the beginning of the presentation, but the conversations have gone well with opposition and.

Yes, yes, I understand. I took here that DoorDash went neutral. Did I get that right? DoorDash went neutral. As a result, the amendments and the others are looking at the amendments to decide what position they take.

Several of them moved to neutral, and the others are all just need a little more time to review it. Her and her staff have done an incredible job with this Bill. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, would you like.

And I would just like to say that Senator Durazzo, she walks the walk in this building, and her and her staff treat Committee staff with tremendous respect. And because of that, they really enjoy working with you and your team.

And I also think because of that, your bills come out really well vetted. And so I appreciate you so much. You're a very hard working Senator. This is a good Bill. I'm proud to offer my support to it today. Thank you. We might have a quorum.

If can you all ask Senator Nguyen to come back in so we could establish a quorum, and we'll ask you to close while she comes in. Then I'll take the roll call, and then we'll be able to take a vote on your bill.

Great. Well, I'm glad that we have witnesses here who can. Who actually do the work every day and who understand the industry and what's needed, both for business and for consumers. And thank you all. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and your staff, and would appreciate an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Durazzo. Well done. Okay, can we please establish a quorum here? And then we'll take up Senator Durazzo's Bill.

[Roll Call]

Great. We have a motion, aye believe, from Senator Archuleta on this Bill on Senator Durazzo's SB 1490. Let's call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

Okay, that's 5-0. So we'll put it on call for the rest of the Members to get here. Thank you very much, Senator Durazzo.

All right, yeah, we can take a. Let's go ahead and we already have a motion on Senator Laird's 1064. I believe that came from Senator Archuleta. Can we go ahead and call the roll on that one?

Yes. SB 1064 motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

That is six to zero. We'll leave that on call also for the rest of the Members to get here. Those are the only two bills that we have heard so far. I did see Senator Bradford in the back of the room. Senator Bradford, are you prepared? Ready to go? You're always prepared. Always. Stay ready.

Stay ready. Stay ready you, don't have to get ready.

All right, whenever you are ready, Senator Bradford.

Well, good morning, Senator, Chair, and Members. I'm here to present 1059, which will assist legal cannabis industry by alleviating some of the tremendous tax burdens that are placed on this industry. Here's an industry that's just seven years in existence, and it's struggling to survive. It's struggling because of the high taxes, the excessive regulatory hurdles, and various challenges that the cannabis business faces that have done little to help the legal cannabis market succeed the way the voters had tended with Prop 64 eight years ago.

This Bill does two things specifically. It prohibits a local jurisdiction from including the state's excess tax and sales tax, from their definition of gross receipts for the purpose of local cannabis taxes. This would eliminate the local government's collection of a tax on a tax no other industry has a tax on a tax. Taxing the tax and ultimately increasing prices, purchase prices, I should say, pushes consumers away from the legal retailers and only worsens the continued struggle of the cannabis retailers.

Currently, it's almost a 47% markup versus legal versus illegal. Secondary, the Bill eliminates the authority of the CDTFA to impose a 50% penalty on cannabis licensees' delinquent taxes. This 50% penalty is on top of other penalties that the licensees already must pay, including a 10% fee for failing to file a return or filing late, a 25% penalty for fraud or intent to evade regulations, and a $500 penalty for failing to furnish a return or a report. This 50% penalty is punitive.

It creates a significant hardship for licensees who are already struggling with the various changes, I should say, to the cannabis laws, and has not been successful in increasing compliance. The Legislature has made changes to Prop 64 before, as recently as 2022, when we stopped the collection of the cultivation tax. Although the voters approved this penalty in Prop 64, it is clear to me and all the legal operators in this industry that this penalty is not helping the cannabis market succeed.

It's only aiding in the overly excessive penalties to this business that are already overtaxed and overburdened. All that being said, I understand the Committee's concerns, and I will be willing to accept your amendments. And I thank you for your aye vote today, and we have two witnesses here willing to testify.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Bradford. Witnesses, you'll each have two minutes. I'm going to step out for just a moment, so Vice Chair Nguyen's going to take over. I'll be right back. Please come forward.

Sure. Please let me apologize for the amount of information I feel I need to give every committee hearing so that we are all in the same context of what the problems are, what the environment looks like, what the future holds if we continue at this trajectory. AB 195 changed everything when it came to the purpose and intent of the voters of Prop 64.

We eliminated the cultivation tax collection, moved the collection of excise tax away from the distributor license, moved the calculation of excise tax from the wholesale price level to a gross receipts level. When we changed that collection, the excise tax was charged and calculated to including taxing other taxes. All taxes are due and remitted by the retailer now, under this new law. This undue hardship and stress is exacerbated by the threat and the implementation of a 50% penalty on any late or underpaid taxes.

AB 195 was unanimously voted in by the Senate and the Assembly. CDTFA just recently stated that 15% of cannabis operators were in default of sales and tax obligations, sales and use tax obligations, with another 15% that were late or in existing payment programs. CDTFA just estimated that over 15% are in default of excise tax obligations, with another 15% that are late or in payment programs. That is $300 million in default back taxes and 300 million in late taxes or in payment programs.

If we add a 50% penalty to $600 million in back taxes, we now have close to $1.0 billion of debt and taxes that are owed, including penalties and fees. The DCC just estimated that 40% of licensees will go 15 days beyond their contract with accounts receivable for vendor payments, and another 40% of that 40% will be over a year late. I'm saying all this so we can understand the level of debt that this industry is currently in.

And exacerbating that with a 50% penalty is doing nothing to support the industry's growth and to support the fact that we're trying to eliminate the illegal market. What does a medium or large-size dispensary.

If you can wrap it up, please.

Sure.

A medium and large-size dispensary has $10 million in revenue. That is a $1.5 million in excise tax, $1 million in sales tax, and $1 million in local taxes. Any of those that are underpaid or not paid, you lose your license, or you have $750,000 in penalties and fees. We need to rein this in, and I think passing this Bill will at least put us in a good direction. I apologize. I thought that was two minutes.

That's past two minutes. Actually, I don't think you mentioned your name. Did you mention your name and organization?

Jerred Kiloh with the United Cannabis Business Association.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please stick with two minutes, please.

Yes, Madam Chair and Members, Amy Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, I will be brief. I think what Mister Kiloh said, I'll just emphasize we are in a state of crisis. Recent data from CDTFA does paint a fairly bleak picture. Our tax balance, as we understand it, is $287 million and growing. We are estimating a total 600 million, which I think Mister Kiloh mentioned.

We're increasingly listed on CDTFA's list of top 500 sales and use tax delinquencies. I think the primary goal, I'll just emphasize, of Proposition 64, which was referenced first in no less than five additional times. Again, voter intent and purpose was to get rid of the illicit market. More specifically, to establish tax measures that undermine illicit sales, deter legal production and distribution, and present the unlawful diversion of cannabis, and to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in new state revenue annually.

It ought to be self-evident, but that is not happening, and that is why this Bill is here today before you. For these reasons, CCIA wholeheartedly supports this Bill as a proud co-sponsor and thanks the author for his leadership on this critical issue. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, any witnesses in support please come forward. Please state your name, affiliation and your position.

Alicia Priego, on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association and also Kiva Confections, in strong support.

Talia D'Amato on behalf of California NORML, in support.

Kristen Heidelbach, on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, in support.

Good morning, Committee Members. Sam Rodriguez, on behalf of Good Farmers Great Neighbors based in Santa Barbara County, and also want to applaud the career and leadership of Senator Bradford on tax fairness and equity in strong support.

Members, George Miller, on behalf of Weed Maps in strong support.

Ryan Elaine. On behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, any witnesses in opposition? Any individual who would like to state in opposition. Seeing none at this time, we'll move to Members. Colleagues? Senator Becker

Sure. I'll just say that whenever this topic comes up, I know it needs to be fixed and I'm glad there are people working on fixing it and just appreciate it. I'll move the Bill in appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Avoiding charging a tax on a tax is sensible and very good tax policy, which we don't practice all the time, by the way, like on gasoline. But I digress. Under the heading of the Department of Redundancy Department. You weren't here when we heard Senator Laird's Bill, but my comment is the same. I will support this legislation, but we are attempting to fix an unfixable thing, Proposition 64.

It has been mentioned that it's in crisis situation, and I don't think we can change that under the details of Prop 64, as is stated in this analysis, to and the Department of Redundancy Department. But I said this before, it begs the question of a comprehensive discussion of the foundational and structural challenges of Proposition 64 as a whole. And any tinkering around the edges of the current system will continue to have a dysfunctional current system.

And I think the only real cure to that is a fundamental change to 64, which we would have to put on the ballot. As I mentioned before, I did not support Proposition 64, and I wouldn't support it today if it was up for the first time. But it is the law of the land, and the only way we can change it to try to make it functional is if the Legislature puts a proposition on the ballot to do that.

All of these changes really beg that fundamental question.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward. And, you know, I believe when voters speak, voters speak, and it's our job to make Prop 64 work. And this is an example of the work that continues. My question is, you know, I understand the debt. My question is, how do you all? Do you have challenges in trying to calculate what the tax burden is?

I'm curious how you do that in terms of how do you calculate how much is owed and what level of burden is it to even come up with that number? I'm curious how that happens.

As an operator and someone who has been a part of this regulatory process for the last seven years. When the law changed under AB 195, we asked for clarity, not only from our city, but from our state. And November, I think it was the 24th of the year before it's going to change in January, we were giving a little bit of guidance, but that guidance was actually in conflict with local law.

So then we had CDTFA communicate, especially to the LA Office of Finance, to say, who is going to be the last tax? You both have claimed you're the last tax and you're taxing other taxes. How do we do this? It is only recently in the last month that the Office of Finance in Los Angeles finally gave out, now we're talking like we're almost a year into this, that they finally gave guidance on what they would like you to do to estimate your taxes.

The state gave guidance, I think it was in April of this year, to also give guidance, which is five to 11 months past when we were supposed to start calculating it. It is not only confusing for even the government agencies, but very confusing for the operators. And anything we do wrong is a penalty, it's a fee, or it's a threat of your license being removed. All of those things add stress not only to the employees, but also to the business owners and the community in general. Like, we don't know what to do.

And, you know, and even what we got as guidance from the Office of Finance said, well, instead of charging 10% gross receipts tax, because you have to tax the excise tax, charge 12.99% to make sure you cover your butt for the Office of Finance, well, guess what they said to do with excise tax at the state-level, instead of charging 15%, charge 16.5% to the customer so that you are covering your butt for the state, thus increasing the taxes on the taxes, which is why we're here.

And this is the second time we've run this Bill, because it's not only confusing, it's punitive, and it doesn't even make sense at this point that we're taxing things that aren't even services or goods.

Well, thank you for that in depth overview. And the complexity really reinforces the need for this Bill and for us to continue to do the work. So thank you again to Senator Bradford.

All right, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator Bradford for bringing this forward, obviously, there's a problem in the industry, and I don't think when we pass Prop 64 was to be punitive to the business owner, to be punitive for those that wanted to expand their horizons and be part of the business community, to be punitive for those that are trying to provide for their families. And I think that now we analyze what we've done, we've got to clarify it and level the ship.

And to a degree, when we hear about tax upon tax, and again, that's a problem. And, of course, where you get deeper and deeper and deeper in debt and eventually your doors close, because that's what's going to happen to the small business owner, those that we're trying to protect in the inner cities, those that we're trying to be part of the equality in this. So I think that we have to go along with this Bill because it'll straighten the ship out somewhat.

It's not going to be perfect. And I'm sure there's amendments to follow. And I know you're going to probably talk about the repealing the current penalty, but making some adjustments, and I'm sure you're going to be working with the Committee on that. So I think we have a movement on the Bill.

I believe we do. I think we have a.

I will be supporting the bill.

Motion from Senator Becker. All right, did you want an opportunity to close Senator Bradford?

Yes. I just want to thank the Chair and the Committee for working with me on this issue. And as you heard from the witnesses, this is a very onerous situation that we find ourselves in because we were so desperate on passing Prop 64 that we took a proposition that was really poorly written, that was laden with a whole lot of pitfalls, that really didn't help stand up to industry. But we were just so desperate for passing something to legalize what is a plant.

And what we really need to do is get past the stigma of calling what was God-made a drug versus what is man-made, which is truly a drug. This is a plant that was here before all of us. And some of the owner's penalties on this is because of stigmas that we still have as it relates to cannabis. This is a straightforward measure, and I would just say one of the previous witnesses on a previous issue was in this industry two years ago.

They're no longer in this industry because of these exorbitant attacks. This industry has not grown legally. It's only grown illegally. For that reason, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. And thanks for working so well with Committee, too, Senator Bradford. Really appreciate you. Let's call the roll here.

Motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Seven to zero, but we'll still leave it on call. It's out with seven. Thank you. But we'll leave it on call for the other membership.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. Okay. Seeing no Non-Committee authors, Senator Roth, you want to present? Sure. You have your witnesses and everything that you need? All right, well, he doesn't need witnesses. It's the General we're talking about. Let's go. All right, Senator Roth, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill requires all nursing programs in the State of California to report their clinical placement needs to the Board of Registered Nursing. Likewise, the bill also requires licensed Department of Health Care Access and Information health facilities and clinics to report on clinical placement slots for nursing students.

The bill would also authorize the Board of Registered Nursing at its option upon request by a nursing school or program to assist in finding clinical placement slots to meet the clinical placement needs of that particular school or program. Remember, this is permissive on the part of the BRN, not required, and if the Board receives such requests from schools and decides to participate, the Board is required to prioritize the request from public nursing programs with the Board's assistance.

As you may know, one of the major bottlenecks to growing capacity in our nursing programs is the challenge of locating and securing the clinical placement slots necessary to provide clinical training required to obtain a nursing degree. The 2020 State Auditor Report on the Board of Registered Nursing found that due to a lack of reliable data, the Board lacked critical information about the location and availability of clinical placement slots in order to make enrollment decisions.

This bill does just that. By collecting data on nursing programs' clinical placement needs and collecting data from health facilities and clinics on clinical placement slots, the Board and HCAI will have the data necessary to better understand where clinical placement slots currently exist and where they can potentially be created. The information will also assist the Board in working to identify additional clinical placement slots in a broader range of health care facilities and clinics, not just acute care general hospitals.

I'm continuing to work with stakeholders to address the opposition's concerns. I'm confident if the bill is voted out of this Committee and allowed to move through the process, we will resolve as many of those concerns as we can and the considerations outlined in the analysis.

With respect to enforcement, that was a conscious decision made not to place enforcement measures in the bill at this particular point of time, one: from a funding and cost standpoint in terms of HCAI, and two: frankly, I wanted to see if the health facilities and clinics would voluntarily report this data, voluntarily in the sense that they're required to do it, but get the data in, and then, let's see, which health facilities and clinics, which type of health facility or clinic was having trouble with the data.

And if it's a problem with the bill, we'll fix the bill as opposed to simply having a fine process and we start levying fines. So we are working to refine the reporting time. It will probably be--almost certainly be an annual report, I think, at this point in time. The question is when we require that.

Okay, Senator Roth. And you don't have lead witnesses with you?

Nope.

All right, then we will ask if there are folks in the room in support who would like to come up and let us know that you're in support. Go right ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Pat Whalen, Ellison Wilson Advocacy, here on behalf of UNAC, in strong support of the bill.

Great. Thank you.

Good morning. Daniel Pearl, on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in support.

Thank you.

Toni Trigueiro, on behalf of the California Teachers Association and our credentialed school nurses, in support of the bill. Thank the author.

All right. Thank you. All right. Are there lead witnesses who are opposed to the bill who'd like to come forward? If you're not lead, but you just want to say a couple of words, that's okay, too. Go ahead.

We were quickly fighting over who would not be lead.

Yeah, I could see. Rochambeau for not lead, but--got it.

Thank you so much. Alex Graves, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. We represent 90 accredited private, nonprofit colleges in the state. We are currently in an opposed unless amended position.

I will note that that letter was based on the language prior to these most recent amendments, which we are reviewing, but would just reiterate our court position on this, which is, one: we very much appreciate and support the work to try and get better placement data that we completely concur with and think that would be very helpful in the broader landscape.

Our concern really boils down to just ensuring that we are not intentionally or unintentionally creating prioritization in terms of which programs and which segments of higher education kind of get first crack at getting those needs met because placements are something all nursing programs at CSUs, UCs, our programs are all trying to get more of, and so appreciate the Senator's engagement on this so far and hope that we can resolve that moving forward.

Great. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Awet Kidane, representing the California Children's Hospital Association. I definitely want to echo the sentiment of my colleague. Prior to me, the General has done a masterful job of acknowledging the nuances of our eight freestanding children's hospitals and the unique requirements associated with them. With that, although we are concerned, we have the utmost faith that he and his staff will continue to work with us and work on those unique nuances. So I definitely appreciate the General for his work. With that, thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, here respectfully with an opposed unless amended position. Echo the comments made by AICCU and the Children's Hospitals. Look forward to continue to work with the author and sponsors. Thank you.

Great. All right, bring it back to the dais. Senator Eggman.

Thank you. Good morning. I am most impressed with this because it was last year, I think, when you and I had different roles, when we first started talking about this bill, which was a smaller issue to try to get at exactly what we're talking about here, and who gets first crack at those placements, who gets first in line and not to create an unlevel playing field.

And so what we talked about, and you decided, was to say, we don't even know where the placements are before we can say who gets prioritized, where are the placements, and how many placements do we need? So I think it's masterful, the way you've put it together to really back up and try to solve the problem. What would you say to some opposition that says it might be duplicative with which HCAI is already supposed to be doing some of this kind of work?

Well, HCAI does not collect this specific data, number one. It's not reported. There are some regional consortia around the state. Those tend to be sort of voluntary collaborations. I've never, you know, I chaired this particular Committee for three years, and we conducted numerous hearings, sunset and otherwise, with respect to the Board of Registered Nursing, the nursing crisis in the state, workforce issues and school issues and the like.

And I never saw a report or any data coming out of the consortia that one of the groups mentioned. I'm not criticizing that. I think that's wonderful. I think there's one in Orange County, maybe in the LA Basin. It's a wonderful thing, but we really need to do it on a more organized, regimented basis with specific data points that are correlated between the Board and HCAI, and numbers are crunched, to see where additional placements may be found, because that's--

I'm going to mention it in the close, but that's really the focus of the bill, is to try to locate additional clinical placements in hospitals, if there are any, that still have not been identified, but also in clinics, FQHCs, outpatient surgery centers. We're starting with health facilities and clinics that are licensed by HCAI, but there are a whole variety of those that are not licensed by HCAI.

But again, from a cost standpoint, we tried to limit this to facilities that are already licensed, that already have a relationship with HCAI, where HCAI already collects some data, and these are additional data points to add to the report.

Spoken like a General. I'll move the bill when they're--oh.

Senator Niello.

The provision of data collection, of course, is a very positive one, but I'm troubled by the prioritization. The Bureau of Registered Nursing is a regulatory body that is regulating broad industry, and it's not typically our practice for us to direct that a regulatory body give priority to some of the entities that are regulated, but not all of them--or involved. And so I'm troubled by the prioritization, the reason for the Independent Colleges and Universities opposing them. I tend to be very sympathetic to their arguments and have trouble supporting the bill because of that. Can you respond to my discomfort?

Well, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding in the stakeholder community out there as to what the prioritization really is all about. The prioritization--first of all, this is permissive. The Board may or may not elect to respond to requests for assistance, because once again, in a perfect world, I would have required that.

But it's a funding issue and a staffing issue, and somebody will have to pay for it, either the General Fund or the schools and the nurses that are licensed and regulated by the Board. So I decided to make it permissive and the prioritization has to do with prioritizing the request for assistance.

So if they get two, one from a private for-profit and one from a public community college, the bill requires the Board to prioritize the request from the community college before moving staffing to the private for-profit school's request. And that's clear. And that was specifically intended for a variety of reasons. One: the private for-profits, for example, typically have--are not resource-challenged and the community colleges frequently are.

Our community college programs are--right now--we have a bill to try to modify that a little bit--but right now, producing associate degree nurses where the hospitals and health care facilities, because of a national movement, are prioritizing Bachelor of Science degree nurses in terms of their hiring. So right there, there is an issue, and so the thought was, we'll give the community colleges--if there is any opportunity for the Board to assist--to assist the community colleges with respect to their clinical placement needs.

I will share with you one of the opposition letters. In fact, there were a couple that made the same point talking about the bill. 'The bill would inappropriately urge the BRN to interfere with decisions by health facilities about how many clinical placements they can accommodate and when, as well as what degree category of nursing students they should prioritize for those placements.' Sort of supporting the argument for the Bachelor of Science degree program at community colleges. So our health care facilities are prioritizing the hiring of BSNs.

Our community colleges historically have produced about 40 percent of the nursing students in the State of California, nurses in the State of California. So it's a priority only to respond to the request for assistance, not to prioritize placement slots for community colleges or public or the CSUs. Does that answer the question?

Are you good there, Senator Niello? What you need?

It is an answer to the question. I don't find it entirely satisfying, though. All due respect.

Okay. Any other questions from the dais? All right, do we have a motion? I think Senator Eggman already made a motion. All right, then we're going to call the roll.

Well--

Oh, I'm sorry. Opportunity to close. I'm sorry.

You know, I can only emphasize that it's only to prioritize responding to requests for assistance, not to do anything else. It is a permissive bill, not a mandatory bill by the Board. I will tell you, and I'm sure you all know, the Board of Registered Nursing has absolutely no authority over any HCAI licensed health care facility or clinic and no opportunity to tell a health care facility or a clinic one single thing.

The Board's function under this particular bill is simply to act as a facilitator to try to bring the parties, the nursing schools or programs, and the health care facilities and clinics to the table to discuss whether there are any additional clinical placement slots available to satisfy the needs of nursing students in these programs.

I will tell you, it's referenced in the analysis, but semester after semester, quarter after quarter, year after year, there are nursing students who are admitted or about to be admitted into nursing programs because the school is approved for 50 students or 100 students, and they lose ten clinical placement slots. They can't, even in a nursing crisis, they cannot admit 100 students or 50 students. They admit 40 or 90 because you have to have a clinical placement slot when you enter the program.

And so, however we do this, a placement inventory, an accurate placement inventory that is utilized by someone to act as a facilitator to put the parties together and match up new clinical placement slots is absolutely essential.

And as--I want to emphasize this: the intent of the bill is to focus on new clinical placement slots, not to rearrange the deck chairs with respect to slots that are already utilized by one school or another. And with that, thank you for listening to me and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Now we'll call the roll. Thank you, Senator Roth.

Motion is 'do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

That's seven. We'll leave it on call, though. That is enough. All right, and then we are going to move to our next author here. Senator Dodd, I know you have just arrived, but are you prepared to present? Do you need a minute? Are you good? All right. Always ready. This is SB 1071 by Senator Dodd. When you are ready, Senator.

SB 1071.

So, Madam Chair and Members, I'm presenting SB 1071. It's a very, very short presentation. I've been working with the Chair and Committee staff on amendments. I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. No witnesses here for this one or there are. Okay, come on forward. Those in support, come forward. And seeing none, those in opposition, come on forward.

Good morning, chair. Vice Chair and Members. Mike Jamnetski for the Contractors State License Board. I originally came to communicate a pose on the existing text, but with the amendment Tamir SB 1455, a Bill the board does support. The concerns with the existing language are addressed. So the board is not opposing 1071 today. Thank you very much to Senator Dodd. And the board is happy to continue its work with the chair, the Senator and the Committee on the Issue of small contractor businesses. Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in the room? All right, then we'll bring it back to the dias. Anybody have any questions? All right then. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great, I'll move this Bill. Call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended. Ascendant Appropriations Committee. Ashby? Ashby, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gill? Alvarado-Gill, aye. Archuleta? Archuleta, aye. Becker? Dodd? Dodd, aye. Eggman? Eggman, aye. Glazer?Menjivar? Niello? Niello, aye. Roth? Roth, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wilk?

Nine, right? That's nine to zero. Hold on one second. Okay. All right, we're going to have. Senator Archuleta, you have a comment? You want to move the Bill?

If you were not authorized to move the Bill?

If that is true, I will move the Bill.

That sounds great. Thank you for your help. We'll recall the roll just to make sure we're nice and clear. Okay.

Ashby? Ashby, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gill? Alvarado-Gill, aye. Archuleta? Archuleta, aye. Becker? Dodd? Dodd, aye. Eggman?Eggman, aye. Glazer? Minjivar? Niello? Niello, aye. Roth? Roth, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wilk?

Alright, nine to zero. Keep it clean. Perfect. Thank you, Senator Archuleta. And we will move on. Senator Niello, are you prepared to present for Senator Wilk?

All right, great. Let's do it. We're on a roll. Help me keep moving here. This is Senate Bill 1233 from Senator Wilk, but presented by Senator Niello. When you are ready, sir.

Madam Chair, I was born ready. Second time I've use that line in two weeks, I apologize. I am presenting Senate Bill 1233 on behalf of my friend and colleague, Senator Wilk, who is out somewhere goofing off. Just joking. He has a bunch of conflicts today, and I'm happy to do this for him. As you know, reducing pet overpopulation in shelters is a crucial part of preventing unnecessary pet euthanizations.

To accomplish this, SB 1233 creates the first high-quality, high-volume spay and neuter certification program for veterinary students and professionals, to be administered by UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine and Western University College of Veterinary Medicine in Pomona. High-quality, high-volume spay and neuter is a surgical technique which enables veterinarians to perform minimally invasive procedures in a safe and cost effective manner.

While some vets learn this technique later in their careers, there is currently no official course offered by veterinary schools to teach this method. Considering the shortage of veterinarians available to perform spay and neuter services, this program would benefit shelters by providing a safe and effective technique to address unwanted breeding. By employing this more efficient method in a greater number of shelters, pet owners access to low and no cost spays and neuters will expand dramatically.

There is no opposition to the bill, and the author has been actively working with the deans of the two schools for months to develop the measure before you. With me today to testify and support is Dr. Grant Miller, the Regulatory Director for the California Veterinary Medical School Association, who is sponsor of the bill, and Dr. Siperstein-Cook, who is a shelter veterinarian at the local Sacramento County SPCA right here in yours and my districts, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Nielo, and thank you.

Yeah, welcome. You each have two minutes. Thanks for being here.

Thank you, Senator Ashby and Members of the Senate Business and Professions Committee. Dr. Grant Miller from the California Veterinary Medical Association. We're very proud to sponsor this bill. And as Senator Niello mentioned, we reached out to the veterinary schools very early on to try to tackle the problem of pet overpopulation, to see what the veterinarians and the technicians could do to do their part. And they were very enthusiastic about the concept of a spay neuter certification program.

Western University wants to expand their program to the North Central Animal Shelter, which is in downtown Los Angeles. That's a veterinary desert where there's a great need for this type of service. UC Davis wants to work in conjunction with Yolo County Animal Services so that people who have socioeconomic challenges can obtain some of these low cost or no cost, high-quality, high-volume spay neuter resources. So we're very excited about the prospect of making this program go.

60% of the veterinary students in school would like to-- Well, 100% of them would like to do this. Only about 60% get the chance to do this high-quality, high-volume spay neuter. So our goal is to make sure that every veterinarian has the ability to do it. So, short term benefit, we create two epicenters that offer these surgeries to thousands of people both in northern and southern California. Long term benefit is that our veterinary workforce will be competent, all of us in being able to do this.

For some of the old timers like me, I can come back and get certified, I can take it as continuing education, come back and learn the techniques, and I can take a shift in the shelter myself. So I thank you for your consideration. I'd like to give a little bit of time to Dr. Siperstein-Cook, who is an expert in this and greatly appreciate your consideration.

Yeah, she gets two minutes as well. Welcome. Thank you for being here.

Thank you very much. Chairperson-- Oh, Chairperson Ashby and members of this Committee. I am Dr. Laurie Siperstein-Cook and I'm the Chief Shelter Medicine Veterinarian at the Sacramento SBCA. Last year alone, our clinic spayed and neutered over 20,000 animals. Despite these high numbers, we have a five month waiting list of animals needing these services.

I know that many of our counterparts in other parts of the state are experiencing the same high demand that we are, and that's why we are excited that your Committee is considering this important bill today, since it will help to fill the gap in the number of qualified veterinary professionals needed to provide high-quality, high-volume spay and neuter services to California's pet owners. High-quality, high-volume spay and neuter involves specialized approaches has been said to spaying and neutering cats and dogs.

It focuses on refined surgical techniques and highly trained and efficient personnel providing high quality patient care. In this setting, a veterinary surgeon can safely spay or neuter upwards of 30 animals in one day. Here's some examples of how we achieve this efficiency. We make very small incisions, we use standardized drug protocols for the majority of our patients, and we limit our owned patients to young and healthy animals. Most importantly, by consecutive repetition of specific procedures, our surgeons develop a very high level of proficiency.

It's a common misperception, including among some of our colleagues in the veterinary community, that high volume must mean low quality. This couldnt be further from the truth. In fact, these clinics actually experience a significantly lower complication rate than the same procedures in private practices. If these methods were taught in our veterinary schools. It would help new graduates and others to understand how these numbers can be achieved. Without sacrificing patients patient care. Not only will we benefit from trained surgeons in our clinics, but private practitioners can incorporate these techniques into their regular practices. Thank you very much.

Perfect. Right on time. Good job. All right, others in the room who are in support, me-too testimony. Tell us your name, organization, and position on the bill. Go ahead.

Madam Chair and Members, Monica Miller, representing Fix Our Shelters, in support. Thank you.

Nickolaus Sackett, for Social Compassion in Legislation, in support.

Thank you very much. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, in support. Thank you.

Estella Drake. And I'm speaking on behalf of our fur babies, our voiceless animals in the State of California. Definitely in support. And thank you for doing this.

Nice to see you, Ms. Drake.

Lisa Kurt, community cat trapper, 10,000 cats in 20 years. Definitely in support. Contra Costa County, 450,000 estimated indoor/outdoor cats, no low cost spay/neuters.

Daniel Aderholt, founder and CEO of American River Homeless Crews and Invisible Paws Rescue. We definitely support this. We need this out more than ever with everybody to help animals out here with spay and neuters. Because right now the waiting list is six months or longer. And we're talking three or four more litters. But in time. SBCA, right on target.

And thanks for your great work. A lot of Sacramento folks in that lineup, got it. Okay. Are there any people here in opposition to the bill? If so, now would be the time to come forward, lead or otherwise? No? All right, we'll bring it back to the dais. Okay. It's been moved. Senator Eggman?

Just a question. In looking through-- and I know this is not your bill and perhaps the doctors-- there is training both for the techs as well as for the doctors, can both perform the procedure? What it looks like to me is like the tech can perform some of the lead up, the anesthesia and stuff, but not the actual procedure. Is that correct?

Thank you, Dr. Eggman. Yes, that's a good question. So the way this bill is structured, it would uphold current state law, which is that veterinarians perform the surgical procedure itself. But we cannot underscore enough the importance of the registered veterinary technician in ensuring that all of the preoperative and post-operative procedures are followed, which includes, actually, for the RVTs, some of the closure that's done. Our RVTs are absolutely pivotal in what we're doing with this program. And there will be room for training for them as well.

Okay. And I know you probably won't like this, but I say it every time I get an opportunity. I think they can do the surgeries as well. I think there's a lot of documentation as for people and for everybody else that advanced people can do these kinds of things. So not today, not this year, but going forward, people keep that in mind.

Thanks for those comments. It's good to see you.

All right, we have a motion. Would you like an opportunity to close Senator Niello on behalf of Senator Wilk?

On behalf of Senator Wilk, I thank the witnesses in favor, all of them, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, we have our motion. I think this is due pass to Appropriations. It is. We'll call the roll.

[Roll call]

I think that's eight. It's enough to get out, but we'll leave it open. Hopefully, Senator Wilk makes it here to vote on his own bill. Okay, great. Put that on call. Senator Nguyen, you ready? You got a couple up here. Going to hear from Senator Nguyen on SB 1459 and then SB 1478. We'll start with 1459. Senator Nguyen, when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. SB 1459 has two equally important parts.

First, it will standardize reporting requirements for animal shelters in counties with population greater than 400,000. This is intended to facilitate easy comparisons between the good shelters and the not so good shelters in an effort to stimulate competition and generate public pressure for improvements by subpar shelters. SB 1459 requires animal shelters to monthly and post a list of basic data points that are indicative of how the shelter is managed and operated.

Second, SB 1459 removes any ambiguity in the law requiring the trap, neuter, return, or what they call TNR programs. These programs are highly effective ways to produce the population of fertile or community cats. In those programs, individual catch these cats and have them sterilize and then return them to the location where they were caught. Penal code Section 597 makes it a crime to abandon any animal.

Some counties have curtailed their TNR programs in fear that the participants might be charged with animal abandonment under the penal code. Others are relentless to Institute such programs for the same reason. So SB 1459 clarifies that persons participating in TNR programs are not subject to the provision of Penal Code Section 597. Currently, there is a similar provision that exempts Fish and Wildlife workers who trap and release wild animals in the regular course of their work from being guilty of animal abandonment.

I also have here with me, Madam Chair, is Doctor Kate Hurley, Director of UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program, the first such program of its kind in the country. Here to testify and answer any questions as well.

Great. Thank you. Senator Nguyen, you have a couple minutes. Thanks for being here.

Thanks. Good morning. I'm Doctor Kate Hurley and I'm the Director of the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program.

And I speak today with respect to section two of SB 1459, which relates to Penal Code 597s and would make existing law clear that sterilization and return of community cats does not constitute criminal abandonment. For over 20 years, I have studied and consulted on methods to manage the many free roaming cats found in virtually every community.

The most practical and humane strategy is known as trap, neuter, return, or TNR, and involves returning cats to their outdoor homes after a quick vet exam and sterilization. This makes the individual cats much healthier, reduces nuisance behaviors, eliminates reproduction, prevents the vacuum effect associated with removal, and provides an alternative for cats that otherwise would be euthanized at animals shelters. Under this Bill section two would make it clear that TNR does not constitute criminal abandonment under California law.

This is an important clarification that will allow TNR to be added to the toolbox of management strategies for those who previously might not have been sure of its legality. And on a personal note, I worked as an animal control officer for five years before entering vet school. And in addition to enforcing Penal Code 597s on animal abandonment, I picked up and brought community cats into the animal shelter, and I euthanized them myself if we weren't able to place them for adoption.

So I know it would have meant the world to me to be able to see those cats sterilized and returned instead. And I thank you for considering this legislation.

All right. Thank you so much for your testimony here today, Senator Nguyen. No other lead? Okay, so anybody in the room in support who'd like to me too testimony come forward? Name, organization and position on the Bill.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, currently supportive if amended for the reasons outlined in the analysis.

All right, thank you very much. So, do we have opposition in the room? Okay, if there's a lead opposition. Only, everybody can't talk for two minutes. But if you, the first person, maybe have a couple minutes to make your opposition argument. Go right ahead.

Absolutely. So I'm kind of a tweener. So, Madam Chair, Members, I represent Fix Our Shelters, Monica Miller. And we have opposed unless amended. We've had some great conversations with the Senator staff. We'll continue to have those.

Definitely want to work on the definition of community cats. That's something we're very concerned about. But again, thank you. And the Senator and her staff and your staff at the time today. Thank you.

All right, great.

Hello. Good morning or afternoon. My name is Sharon Logan. I am a constituent of Janet Nguyen. I live in her district. I came down here from Orange County today. I successfully sued OC animal care in 2014 for their high euthanasia rates.

So as it is written, this Bill is a license to dump animals. This Bill can and must be amended despite excellent intentions. As written, the Bill will create horrific unintended consequences, causing more suffering than prevents. Community cat definition is far too over inclusive. The term community cats can too easily include cats who are owned or adoptable or who lack the skills to survive on their own outdoors.

There is currently a pending lawsuit against San Diego Humane Society because we have documented evidence of cats suffering horrific tragedies and death because the shelter abandoned these non feral, healthy cats under the Community Cat Program. No environmental impact report has been done to determine the impact on local wildlife or the local environment for this new, over inclusive definition of community cat. Thus, this law is ripe for legal challenge. Historically, TNR has been for feral cats.

If the bill's true concern is that shelters are afraid to implement TNR, then the law should be amended to serve that stated purpose, that the law should be rewritten to provide that TNR for feral cats does not constitute abandonment under PC 597. But do not expand this concept of TNR to include cats lacking the ability to find their own food, water, or shelter.

Currently, I'm opposed to this Bill, but if it may be written or amended to specify this is only for feral cats or true community cats, not healthy, adoptable, non feral friendly cats that should be adopted out by the shelter, I will support this Bill. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. All right. For everybody else in line, we're at the me too testimony now, so we can't read a statement. It'll be your name, your organization, and your position on the Bill. Okay, go ahead.

My name is Dan Aderholt. Invisible Paws Rescue and American Rivers Homeless Crew. And I oppose this because it needs to be amended on certain things. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

My name is Wendy Aragon, representing Pet Assistance Foundation. We were founded in 1955 to address the tragedy of pet overpopulation, and here we are today. And I believe this Bill is, it doesn't really deal with the problem of pet overpopulation.

So you oppose now?

We oppose.

All right. Thank you very much and thank you for your testimony. All right.

Hello. Nicholas Sackett for Social Compassion in Legislation opposed on the community cat piece. Thank you.

My name is Claudia Cardoza, and I represent Animal Network Welfare Alliance Group. I oppose currently, but with few amendments in the wording, probably in the future.

All right, thank you very much.

Estella Drake, and I am the voice for the voiceless animals of California, and I'm 50/50 here, and I think it just needs to be cleaned up. You guys can make it happen. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much.

Lisa Kirk, community cat trapper. I would like to see it amended, the community cat description, and I would like to talk to some of the authors about what actually.

So you're opposed for now, but looking for amendments. Okay. All right, we will. That's it for folks testifying in the room. Got it. Sounds like a pretty clear direction. Anybody from the dais have any comments? Okay, go ahead, Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Senator Nguyen, would you briefly just speak on some of the concerns from the opposition in terms of your willingness or ability to take amendments to make this Bill more palatable for some of the opposition?

I think, I mean, we're open to working with organization individuals to look at what we can work on. The reason for the legislation or the TNR part is that right now shelters are not, a lot of shelters are not accepting any cats being turned into the shelters.

And so what you're having is that instead is they're just released out there, but it's overpopulation is the cause at this time. And so if we can allow shelters to accept these cats, fertile or community cats, then they can at least neuter it. And if they're not adoptable, they can release it back to the community where it came from versus right now a lot of shelters are not even allowing you to bring in any fertile or community cats into the shelters at all.

I just have one comment. I'm going to support the Bill today because I think there's a lot of good in there. But I'd love for you to continue working with the opponents, particularly on that definition of feral cat versus adoptable cat. So if you can work on that, you got a little more time. We've got some more committees to go, and you can talk to some of the folks that showed up here today. I think you might have broad support by the end. Thank you.

All right. Need a motion.

Move the Bill.

So moved by Senator Niello. I think this is going to approp's next. We'll call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Ashby? Ashby, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta? Archuleta, aye. Becker? Dodd? Dodd, aye. Eggman? Eggman, aye. Glazer? Glazer, aye. Menjivar? Niello?

Niello, aye. Roth? Roth, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk?

Nine, right? We got 9-0, so it's enough, but we'll leave it on call anyway. Senator Nguyen, for our colleagues when they come back, and we'll move on to your next Bill. SB 1478, you ready?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues. SB 1478 provides guidance to veterinarians who practice in animal shelters by outlying basic, but essential elements necessary for the proper and safe care of animals that are being housed in animal shelters.

This was brought to my attention a few months ago when I was looking into the different shelters. There are animals out there. Like an example I was shown was a husky who was injured and basically bleed to death for three days in the shelter. There's no record on what happened to the dog. There's no medical record, nothing on the dog. I mean, not even a record to show that he was given any pain meds.

Then there's a cat, a kitten who had half a limb left and was bleeding. But there was no care. There's nothing there that anybody knew about. And so this in itself, brought to my attention by lots of volunteers, and this is how this Bill was born was that animal care in shelters varies widely, and there have been reports of inexcusable conditions and avoidable animal outcomes in several animal shelters in California. SB 17.

I'm sorry, 1478 places in statue a template for animal care that contains the following elements. One, time periods within which animals must be assessed at intake and regularly monitor. Two, protocols for treating common medical conditions. Three, protocols for controlling infectious diseases and preventing environmental contamination. Four, how to manage acute pain. Five, communication standards between technicians and veterinarians. And this is so critical because some shelters, and when you hear from the volunteers, that communication is not happening.

And a lot of times, the technician sees these animals and can get the attention of veterinarians, and sometimes vice versa, and that's not happening. Six, criteria for medically related euthanization cases. And at this time, we also have Doctor Kate Hurley to also speak on this issue as well. All right. Or answer any questions.

That's perfect.

I didn't prepare any remarks on that one, but I'm happy to answer any questions

Any technical questions we may have. That's great, okay. Are there folks here in the audience in support who would like to come forward? Go ahead. And you can just give us your name in your organization. We'll move through this one pretty quickly. Go ahead. Mm hmm.

Hello. Thank you again. Sharon Logan out of Orange County. I do support this Bill. I do think transparency is needed in all our shelters, and I thank the Senator for bringing this Bill forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Estella Drake, the voice for the voiceless animals in California. And I support this because these animals need our help.

All right, thank you.

Hello again. Dan Aderholt, American Rivers Homeless Crew and Invisible Paws Rescue, nonprofit. And I support this Bill because animal's definitely near our help, big time. Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

And Claudia Cardoza, animal Network Welfare alliance. We support this Bill.

All right, are there any folks in the room who oppose the Bill? Now would be the time to come forward, seeing no one, we will come back to the dais. Colleagues, anything here? All right, then. Moved by. Senator Niello, would you like an opportunity to close. Senator Nguyen?

I respectfully ask for your aye support.

All right, we have a motion. This is also do pass to appropriations. We'll call the roll.

Ashby? Ashby, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta? Archuleta, aye. Becker? Dodd? Dodd, aye. Eggman? Eggman. aye. Glazer? Menjivar? Niello? Niello, aye. Roth? Roth, aye. Smallwood,-Cuevas? Wilk?

Aye think that's eight to zero. That's enough, but we'll leave it on call for you. Senator Nguyen, aye need to trade places with you so that aye can present four bills. Are you up for it? These are our Committee bills. Let's see if we can get through them quickly and get everybody out of here.

She's hustling to her seat. We're going to start with 1451 witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Please go forward.

All right. Thank you so much. I am here to present SB 1451. It's the annual business Professions Code Omnibus Bill that makes various changes to the practice acts of a number of programs, programs which have recently been subject to the Committee's Sunset review oversight process. This bill specifically contains provisions that empower female dominant health professions to safely and successfully increase access to care for California patients.

SB 1451 allows a registered dental hygienist in alternative practice to continue serving patients in an office, even if a dental health professional shortage area designation is removed. I'm continuing to work with the hygienist, California Dental Association and other important stakeholders to ensure that we maximize collaboration between providers and connect patients to quality care. The bill also eliminates barriers to nurse practitioners practicing independently by making various clarifying changes in the process.

You don't need me to tell you this, but where things stand in our state's ability to effectively provide primary care to millions of Californians without access, these women are educated, trained, and have clinical experience to safely and effectively play a key part in our overall healthcare delivery system.

SB 1451 refines provisions in the Medical Practice Act to ensure that individuals who are not medical doctors and osteopathic doctors cannot call themselves Doctor or give the impression that they are a physician, particularly in a healthy facility like a hospital. This is a simple and fair protection to individuals who have put in hours of education and training to attain this title.

This bill also makes clarifying changes to the Respiratory Care Practice Act to authorize licensed vocational nurses who have met certain training and education requirements that can provide limited respiratory services to California patients in a very limited and specific settings. The bill also updates language in the Barbering and Cosmetology act to clarify that a hairstylist license fee is the same as other beautification service providers. SB 1451 additionally makes changes to highlight the importance of structural pest control, continuing education.

Obviously, I did not bring you experts in every single one of those areas. So with me in support today is Christi Delemos, the Chief of Advanced Practice at UC Davis Medical Center. Elena Francisco, Program Director for the University of Pacific's Registered Dental Hygienists in Alternative Practice Programs, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1451, our omnibus bill.

You have two minutes each.

I don't know if that's working. Yep. I want to thank Senator Ashby and the Members of the Senate for the opportunity to speak in support of Senate Bill 1451. My name is Christi Delemos and I'm an acute care nurse practitioner. I completed my training at UCSF in 2002 and began my career working with a team of physicians caring for patients with acute stroke. Acute care nurse practitioners work in hospitals and hospital based clinics where provider shortages are impactful.

I work at UC Davis Health as the Chief of Advanced Practice and I oversee 458 advanced practice providers. Because I'm in a leadership role, I followed AB 890 very closely. I still remember being on the public call with the BRN when I learned that I would be excluded from licensing to practice as a 103 nurse practitioner. I've worked as a nurse practitioner providing high quality care for 22 years. To be excluded while people that I trained were able to be licensed was a disappointment.

But I'm not alone. There are many advanced practice nurses whose board certification was retired who are in the same situation that I am in. An exam that I took more than 20 years ago does not define my level of experience or my commitment to safe patient care, including advanced practice providers who are experienced with this cleanup bill will ensure that they can practice to top of scope and help create access to care for California.

Healthcare organizations across California are struggling with delays in care that are often related to too few providers. Now is the time to use every team Member. I urge you to support this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is this on? Thank you Chair and Members. My name is Elena Francisco. I live in the Central Valley in Stockton and spent most of my 48 years practicing dental hygiene and teaching in Stockton, California. I'm the Director of the RDHAP program at the University of the Pacific, Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry, and I'm also an RDHAP. There is a great need for RDHAP's to provide patient care in the many dental deserts in California.

An RDHAP is a dental hygienist who is educated and licensed to provide dental hygiene care in areas that lack access to dental care. We treat patients with physical and or cognitive disabilities in their residence, schools, residential and other living facilities, dental offices, and in freestanding dental hygiene offices in dental health professional shortage areas. RDHAP's are a vital link between these patients and the dental home. We connect patients to a dentist who is willing to treat them.

RDHAP's see patients, regardless of insurance, within the scope of our practice. Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas, or DHPSA's, are areas that lack dental professionals in relation to the populations. They're found in urban, rural and suburban settings. Many of the rural residents in my area have difficulty accessing dental care. We need all type of dental providers in dental deserts.

We support amending the statute to grandfather in RDHAP's with brick and mortar practices if the DPSA designation is removed, allowing RDHAP's to continue to see patients in these areas. This fix will remove barriers to RDHAP's who are investing in their communities. We request your support for Senate Bill 1451. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, if there's anyone who would like to support, please come up. State your name, affiliation and your position.

Good morning Chair and Members. Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Read and Associates on behalf of the California Dental Hygienists Association in support.

Madam Chair and Members. Darby Kernan for LeadingAge California in support. Thank you.

Mel Osagai for the California Association of Orthodontists. We're in support. We have some questions about how the bill will be implemented, but we'll work with the Committee and the board. Thank you very much.

Matt Lege, on behalf of SEIU California with these amendments, we move to support. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kenny Chen. I'm a 103 family nurse practitioner and I work for LA County Health Services. And I support the bill.

Patti Gurney, Immediate Past President of California Association for Nurse Practitioners and we support. Thank you Senator.

I'm Danise Cedars, Director of Advanced Practice. At UC Davis Health and an acute care nurse practitioner of 12 years in emergency medicine and pulmonary critical care. And I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Sarah Bridge on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts in support. Thank you.

Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association here in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Justin Fanslau, on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology in support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Stephanie Gordillo, I'm an RDHAP and co founder of SMYLE Essentials dental hygiene practice and I'm here in full support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cynthia Dillon, registered dental hygienist in alternative practice and co founder of SMYLE Essentials in Hayward, in support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members, Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association. We're a bit of a tweener, but we are optimistic about ongoing discussions about RDHAP licensure and our ongoing concerns. Hoping we can get to a place and looking forward to working with the Chair and Committee staff. Thank you.

Seeing no more support, is there any lead witnesses, opposition? Please come forward. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Doctor Elisa Cicerone, I'm a licensed naturopathic Doctor and I'm the Chair of the Legislative Committee for the California Naturopathic Doctors Association. We'd like to thank the author and your staff for proposing amendments to ensure that naturopathic doctors are still able to use the title of Doctor, as long as we continue to use the accurate designation of ND after our name.

Without these proposed amendments, SB 1451 would remove the ability of licensed naturopathic doctors to identify ourselves as doctors, despite having doctoral level training and licensing as primary care doctors in the State of California. We're also concerned about the broad way in which the term reasonable patient could be interpreted and used to launch investigations into doctors who are practicing within their scope. We understand this may not be the intention of the bill, but multiple legal opinions indicate that this could be an unintended consequence.

So because of these significant concerns, we remain opposed unless amended. But we look forward to working with the author and staff to solidify the proposed amendments. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

George Soares is with the California Medical Association. We do not have an official position and a bit of, you know, kind of mixed views on some of the stuff in the bill, but appreciate working with the Senator and all the staff here and the Members of the Committee. But we have concerns specifically relating to the provisions around the three year transition to practice for nurse practitioners.

The three year transition was included to ensure clinical competency for independent practice, and just for being employed for three years does not guarantee sufficient patient safety and training. So we'd like to continue to work on that. We're supportive of the section as it relates to the usage of the term Doctor and the rest of the bill as it goes with the recent amendments, we'll continue to review them and weigh in with everyone, but thank you.

Thank you. At this time, if I can have any other opposition, please state your name, affiliation and your position.

Don Schinske, on behalf of the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, we are opposed unless amend as of today.

Thank you. Seeing no more colleagues bringing back any questions, there's a motion by Senator Archuleta. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

I know you guys know these omnibus bills are hard. They're full of a lot of things. I urge and aye vote and thank you all for your help.

The motion is moved by Senator Archuleta. Motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriation. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

There's nine votes to get out, but we'll keep the roll call open for other Members. At this time, Madam Chair, we will move on to SB 1453.

Great, thank you. SB 1453 is the dental board sunset bill. Got a couple of witnesses, I think without legislation, the board expires on January 1, 2025. Obviously, we don't want that to happen. The bill will be amended following today's hearing to reflect some necessary changes stemming from the sunset review oversight discussions that occurred.

SB 1453 will extend the board for four years, provide expanded care opportunities for dental assistance, clarify provisions related to pediatric sedation, make necessary changes to fully implement Senator Glazer's SB 501, and make various other updates to the Dental Practice Act. With me today is Tracy Montez, who is the Executive Director of the Dental Board of California.

Please proceed.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Again, I am Tracy Montez, Executive Officer on behalf of the Dental Board of California, and the Board supports its extension of the sunset date as well as the 12 legislative proposals that are included in the bill. We were very pleased to see that moving forward for consideration, and then the board, obviously, will be reviewing the full bill at its May 14 and 15th meeting.

And we just would like to thank Senator Ashby for extending the sunset date and working with us.

Thank you. Seeing no other lead witnesses in support, any individual would like to come forward and state a support? Seeing none, any lead witnesses in opposition? Please come forward.

Sorry, we are not in opposition. Jessica Randall, the California Dental Association. We are in support and appreciative of the language involving a dental assisting pathways. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Colleagues, there is a motion by Senator Glazer. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

The motion is moved by Senator Glazer. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Please call roll.

[Roll Call]

There's nine votes to get the bill out, but we will leave the call open. We will now move on to SB 1455. Madam Chair, please proceed.

All right. Thank you so much. 1455 is the contractor state license board sunset extension bill. It addresses issues discussed during the sunset review hearing on that subject matter and includes also information shared in the sunset review report and the Committee's sunset review background paper. This bill extends the operations of the license board and its authority to appoint a registrar of contractors by four years, taking us to January 1, 2029. It also makes changes to the exam fee schedule, allowing a licensed applicant to pay the exam provider directly.

Additionally, SB 1455 establishes a route for federally recognized tribes in California to become licensed contractors. This is in line with the authority provided by SB 1454 for the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, which was approved by this Committee last week. This bill would authorize the license board to recoup enforcement expenses when it must use an industry expert to review and assess consumer complaints. It clarifies that an awarding authority for a public contract must abide by the current classification under the contractor's state license law.

Lastly, this bill provides an additional two year delay for the implementation of the requirement for all contractors, regardless of employee status, to obtain workers' compensation coverage. I do plan to amend the bill to require the license board to create criteria which would allow for those licensees who have no employees to be exempt from the workers' compensation requirement prior to the implementation of SB 216. The delay gives us a little more time to do that.

The changes in this bill aim to improve the overall operations of the contractor's license board and ensure a healthy and efficient contract workforce in California. I know there were other issues raised in the background paper and I am committed to continue working with the stakeholders, as is our Committee, as always. And I know my Assembly Business and Professions colleagues will continue to work on these issues with us as well.

Today we have with us, Mike, I have no idea how to say your last name from the contract state license board and he'll answer all your hard questions.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Mike Jamnetski for the Contractors Board. The board is in support of SB 1455, which does extend the board for another four years so that it may continue to fulfill its consumer protection mandate in the construction industry. The bill also does address several important new issues raised by the board in its sunset report, which in print currently does include some of the items already mentioned by the honorable Chair.

The pathway to licensure for tribes Examination Administration fees to be collected at cost by the examination vendor, as well as recouping costs to CSLB of industry expert inspections in appropriate cases. The board does look forward to continuing its work with the Committee on any technical aspects of any existing language or any new forthcoming language. Also, thank you very much to the Chair and the Committee staff for all of their hard work on this measure and the sunset process.

With that, thank you very much for your time, and back to the Vice Chair.

Thank you. At this time, any other individuals who would like to state a support, please come forward.

Hi. Annalise Rivera with California Trout in strong support of this, particularly the issuance of licenses to tribes. Thank you.

Thank you. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any individual who would like to state in opposition, seeing none? Bring it back to my colleagues. Questions, motions? There's a motion by Senator Roth. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

I urge an aye vote. Thank you so much.

The motion has been moved by Senator Roth. The motion is do pass to Senate Committee on Appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

There's nine votes, but we'll keep the roll call open for other Members. Madam Chair, please. At this time, we'll move to SB 1456.

All right, last one, colleagues. SB 1456. I think we do have a consent calendar, though. But this is my last one here. All right.

SB 1456 is the sunset bill for the California State Athletic Commission. The Commission expires on January 12025. This bill is necessary to ensure that the Commission can continue to operate and do its mission critical work protecting the health, safety, and welfare of California's boxers and mixed martial arts athletes. The bill will be amended following today's hearing to reflect necessary changes stemming from the sunset review oversight discussion that you all participated in earlier this year. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

At this time, we'll hear from any lead witnesses in support. Seeing none. Any individual who would like to state a support position? Any lead witnesses in opposition? Any individual like to oppose, as well? Seeing none. Colleagues, the bill-- The bill is motioned by Senator Roth.

Madam Chair, would you like to close?

Urge an aye vote. One more time.

The bill has been moved by Senator Roth. The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriation. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, that's nine to none. Bill gets out. But of course, we'll leave it open for another moment here so we can call the roll in a minute for our colleagues who aren't here. I think we do have a consent agenda here, so we're probably going to need a motion for that. Way to go, Senator Dodd. Out in front. There we go. Senator Dodd moves consent.

I think we do have a consent agenda here, so we're probably going to need a motion for that. Way to go, Senator Dodd, out front, there we go. Senator Dodd moves consent. Call the role.

SB-1526. [Roll Call]

Nine also. All right, 9-0 is also out, but we will put it on call. Give me just one second.

All right, I'm going to take a page from some of my colleague's book here. And note to any Senators who are in the building. Now would be the time to come down. We're going to go ahead and call the roll because most of the Committee is here and there are a few of you who would still need to vote on a couple of the earlier items. So let's take up item one first. Senator Bradford, which right now sits at 7-0.

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

9-0. We'll leave it on call.

Okay, item number two, SB 1064. Motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote, six to zero, with chair voting aye.

This is Senator Laird's bill, you guys, okay?

[Roll call]

Okay, that's 10-0 enough to get out, but we'll leave it on call for another moment here. We'll go to item three. This is Senator Durazo's SB 1490. It sits at 5-0 right now.

Motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Floor with the Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

Okay, that's 9-0. We'll leave it on call. Move to file item four, which is Senator Roth's SB 1042, which sits at 7-0 right now.

Move to file item 4, which is Senator Roth's, SB-1042 which sits at 7-0 right now.

Okay, motion is do-pass the Senate Appropriations Committee with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

So that's 9-0. We'll leave it on call.

Motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations, with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

That's 10. We'll leave it on call. Next, item six, Senator Wilk's SB 1233, sitting at eight votes right now.

Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee, with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll. Call]

That moves to 10-0. We'll leave it on call. File item seven. Senator Nguyen's SB 1459, has nine votes in favor right now, none in opposition.

Okay, motion is do pass as amended as Senate Appropriations Committee, with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call].

10-0 we'll leave it on call. Move to file item eight. Also by Senator Nguyen. SB 1478, sitting with eight votes right now.

Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee, with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, that has 10. We'll leave it on call. We're going to move to file item nine, which is authored by me, but on behalf of the Committee. SB 1451, our omnibus bill. I'm not sure. I think it has nine votes right now.

Motion is due pass the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That's 11. We'll leave it on call. Moving to file item 10, also authored by me, but on behalf of the Committee. This is the dentistry bill. SB 1453 believe. Also has nine votes right now.

Okay, motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee, with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Okay, that's 11. We'll leave it on call. File item number 11, which is also authored by me. This is another Committee Bill. SB 1455 has nine votes, which is.

File item number 11, which is also authored by me. This is another Committee Bill. SB-1455 has 9 votes.

The motion is do-pass the Senate Appropriations Committee, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That's 11. We'll leave it on call and go to the next item.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, that has 12. We'll leave it on call and move to consent, which is file item 13, SB 1526.

Votes are nine to zero. [Roll Call]. All right, that's 12. We'll leave it on call. Thank you to the Members who are here. I'm gonna wait for just a second, Senator Becker. No, you're fine.

Okay, we're going to go through this roll one more time for the three of you who are here. This is going to be our last time through the roll, so hopefully we've got everybody who hoped to cast a vote in Business, Professions and Economic Development today. Let's start off with File Item One.

SB 1059 for Senator Bradford, which currently has nine votes and is headed to Appropes.

Okay. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Okay, that's 10-0. The bill is out. Item two. Senator Laird's SB 1064 has 10 votes and is headed to a probe.

Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

All right, that's 11. That bill is out. File item three, Senator Durazo's SB 1490, has nine votes in favor, none opposed, is also headed to Approps.

Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

All right, that bill has nine votes and is out. File item four, Senator Roth's SB 1042, currently has nine votes and is headed to Approps.

File item 4. Senator Roth's SB-1042. Currently has 9 votes and is headed into appropriations.

Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, 11. That Bill is out.

Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

All right, 12 votes. That bill is out. File item six. This is Senator Wilk's SB 1233, ably presented by Senator Niello in Senator Wilk's absence, has 10 votes already, no nos, headed to Approps.

[Roll Call]. All right, that's 12 votes. That bill is out with its author's vote. Excellent work. All right, File Item Seven: Senator Nguyen's SB 1459. This has ten votes, and is also headed to Approps.

Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

All right, 12 votes. That one gets out. File item eight, SB 1478, also by Senator Nguyen, has 10 votes and is headed to Approps.

File item 8, SB-1478 also by Senator Nguyen has 10 votes and is headed to appropriations.

Chair and Vice Chair. Voting aye. [Roll Call]

12. That Bill is out.

[Roll Call]. Alright, that's 12. That bill gets out. Also, Committee Bill SB 1453 has 11 votes, is headed to Approps next.

[Roll call]

All right, 12 votes. That one is out. Item 11, SB 1455, also a Committee Bill, has 11 votes, no votes against.

[Roll call]

All right, 12. That is out as well. File item 12, SB 1456, this is the final Committee Bill here that was heard today. On state Athletic Commission, has 12 votes, headed to Approps.

Menjivar.

That one's out. 12 to nothing. And then the consent calendar, SB 1526 one last time, has 12 votes headed to Appropriations.

[Roll Call]. All right, 12 votes. That one's out. We're going to close this hearing.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, thank you.