Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation

The Senate Budget Subcommitee number five on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, labor and Transportation will now come to order. This says good morning, but actually it's now good afternoon. We've been working all day and night. They're putting sleeping bags in our office. I'm kidding. Good afternoon. We are holding today's Committee hearing here in the Capitol.

I ask that all Members of the Subcommitee be present in room 112 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing. Today's hearing will cover the Governor's May revision proposal and. And I want to restate the mayor's. Excuse me. The Governor's May revised proposal.

We are a three branch of government, so the whole reason why you're participating today is to share with us your feedback so then we can incorporate that in the legislative response. Today's hearing again will cover the Governor's May revision proposal across Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, labor and Transportation.

We will be joined by representatives from the Department of Finance, Legislative Analyst Office and departments and agencies covered by this Subcommitee number five. This is an informational hearing, so we will not be taking votes today. The hearing will start with transportation issues and conclude with Judiciary and Emergency Services issues.

We will take public comment after we complete all of the discussion on all of the items very important for you to know. We'll open it up for public comment once all of the issues have been covered.

To ensure we have time for everything on today's agenda, we're asking that presenters please keep your testimony to within three or so minutes. It says here five. I'm cutting you down to three. I would also ask that my fellow Committee Members, if we could keep our comments and questions concise and the responses concise as well.

Before we begin, do we want to call the roll? Okay.

[Roll Call]

All right. So with that, we're going to begin with our first issue. Our first issue today is an overview of the Governor's May revision proposal.

We have today with us James Moore with the Department of Finance. We have Matthew Macedo with the Department of Finance. And then Rachel. Rachel Ers Ethers Ehlers. Boy, I really messed it up with the Legislative Analyst Office. All the representatives are here, and we thank you for your testimony and all of your work with us today.

So let's get started. Are you going to go first?

Yes, I am, Chair.

All right.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is James Moore and I am with the Department of Finance. I, along with my colleague, Matt Macedo, will be giving a brief overview of the transportation portions of the May revision.

I'll focus on the portions related to Caltrans and the State Transportation Agency and my colleague will cover the rest of the Transportation departments. After our presentations. We'll be happy to answer any questions and and we have Department representatives here as well. First, I'll start with the Transportation Agency.

The most notable change to CALSTA and the May revision involves the reauthorization of the Cap and Trade program now called Cap and Invest. Since that was covered extensively in Senate sub 2 this morning, I will be brief here.

The intent of the Administration is to develop a multi year GGRF expenditure plan with the Legislature Fund shared priorities, but the Mayor vision does not include any of the discretionary GGRF included in last year's budget.

This includes $188 million in Formula Transit and Rail Intercity Capital Program, or TIRCP, $200 million in the competitive TIRCP and $690 million in the zero Emission Transit Capital Program. Calsta also requests 871,000 for three limited term positions and three permanent positions for its Office Office of Traffic Safety.

These resources will address increased grant management workloads stemming from the increase of federal traffic safety grants given to the Office of Traffic Safety by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Now I will move on to Caltrans. Caltrans is also impacted by the Cap and Invest proposal since the Mayor vision does not include any discretionary GGRF.

The $75 million planned to go to the Highways to Boulevards program is no longer in the budget. I want to reiterate that the intent of the Administration is to develop a multi year GGRF expenditure plan to Fund shared priorities which could include funding for transit and highways to boulevards pieces mentioned if that is agreed upon. Priority.

Caltrans also requests $27.7 million one time from the public Transportation account for the maintenance and overhaul of passenger rail equipment used by the state's three JPAs that support Amtrak service in California. These proposed expenditure levels are in line with previous year's expenditures in this area.

Caltrans also requests $17.6 million one time from the state highway account to support planning and design work related to the 2028 Olympic Games.

Most notably, this request includes staffing and operation resources associated with the games route network which will section off specific lanes on and off the State highway system to be reserved for Olympics vehicles carrying athletes and spectators and others to various sites.

There is also trailer bill language related to this request which specifically authorizes Caltrans and local agencies to use high occupancy vehicle and high occupancy toll lanes for the games route network.

Lastly, the Mayor revision prepares various technical changes to Caltrans budget including shifting some maintenance expenditures from the State Highway Account to the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account and increasing Federal authority for Federal grants awarded to Caltrans. With that, I will hand it off to my colleague who will provide a similar overview for the other transportation proposals.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. My name is Matthew Macedo.

In addition to the items my colleague just mentioned, the Mirivision includes items for the following for high speed rail at least $1 billion per year in GGRF allocations as part of the Cap and Invest reauthorization $2.1 million for the board of Pilot Commissioners from their special Fund to continue an IT project that will automate many of the Board's manual processes for the California Highway Patrol Federal Fund resources for an IT project to automate crash data that can be shared with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Additionally, a two year federal fund augmentation totaling $13.4 million for additional resources for commercial vehicle enforcement. In addition, one time motor vehicle account resources totaling 4.9 million to continue the Highway Violence Task Force which focuses on curbing violent crimes occurring on freeways.

Additionally, various capital allay related items including a shift of $7 million from the MVA to the General Fund for lease revenue payments for the Hayward and El Centro offices as well as funding for office and tower projects for the Department of Motor Vehicles $4.9 million and 19.4 positions in 25-26 from the truck Admission Check Fund to continue an existing IT project that allows DMV to withhold registration from trucks that fail emission compliance as required by SB210.

Additionally, $2,000,000 ongoing from the general fund for the maintenance and operation of an IT project that will comply with AB 796, the Motor Voter Program.

Additionally, $10 million and a trailer bill for the State to State IT project which allows DMV to upload its driver license and ID card data to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators Electronic Verification and History Exchange. This is required to prevent identification fraud and maintain real ID compliance with the Department of Homeland Security.

That BCP and trailer bill is subject to further deliberation and will be forthcoming. Next is resources for the El Centro Field Office replacement and finally some trailer bill.

There's two trailer bills that will delay recently enacted pieces of legislation to avoid short term cost pressures on the MVA and allow DMV to focus its efforts on completing DXP instead of building separate systems to accommodate these changes. These pieces of legislation will be integrated into the DXP modernization projects once the driver's license phase is completed.

Next, there's some trailer bill that re establishes $1 increase to the existing $3 business partner automation fee to raise an additional $22.9 million towards the business partner share of the vehicle registration phase of that DXP project I just mentioned that will bring in approximately $7 million per year.

Finally, there's a trailer bill that proposes to extend the ignition interlock pilot program to January 1, 2033 to prevent the existing program and avoid a rollback to pre AB91 DUI policies when the pilot sunsets on January 1, 2026.

This extension maintains public safety protections while giving DMV the time and flexibility to modernize its aging systems before implementing broader statutory changes. I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you from the LAO's office.

Good afternoon. Rachel Ehlers from the LAO so overall you're faced with a situation where General Fund, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and Motor Vehicle Account, which are three of the key funding sources for many transportation programs, all do not have sufficient resources to Fund all of the plans that are in place for them.

So you're faced with the decision of having to prioritize across these funds what your biggest transportation and other budget priorities are. So as the Administration indicated, the GGRF or Greenhouse Gas Reduction plan before you is a work in progress still with the intention to negotiate with you as a Legislature.

So technically what the Administration has done is eliminate all of the planned discretionary it's called pot of funding from ggrf, and the proposal reused most of that to achieve general fund solutions by funding a large portion of CAL FIRE's budget, which I know is not in the jurisdiction of this Committee, but it does affect the programs that are before you because the way the Administration kind of makes room for that General Fund solution is by defunding many programs, including funding for transit.

On the other side of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund are statutory or continuous appropriations. The Administration has not proposed any changes to those, but indicates that's on the table as well.

So this is a much larger discussion than you'll have just here today, but you probably will hear from folks who are very concerned about some of those transit funds being deprogrammed in the Administration's proposal.

So just highlighting that's part of a larger conversation where you will have to determine particularly if you want to use GGRF for Budget solution. What are your highest priorities and where does transit fall within that, within all of the other programs funded by that Fund. Source for just very brief specific comments on some of the specific proposals.

First, on high speed rail, as was indicated, the administration's proposal is two to rather than the existing 25% of those GGRF revenues in statute that that program gets to guarantee at least $1.0 billion annually, which in some years may be more than that 25%, some years may be less.

So our overall recommendation, we can talk in more detail if you have questions, is to withhold action on that until you get additional information about the status of that program. There's still key information missing about the scope, the cost, the plan for potentially securitizing a specific financial plan on that.

So really we think that's really essential information for you to have before you move forward with a longer term funding plan for that project. Second, there is trailer bill, as was noted about various changes in preparation for the Olympics in LA. That trailer bill is been released for maybe 36 hours now, not long.

So we're still reviewing it. But we don't see a super tight nexus with the budget in terms of passing and implementing your budget act, which is your immediate task for the next few weeks.

So we think you could defer action on that until give you a little bit more time to understand the policies before taking action on that. It's being presented as a trailer bill, but doesn't have a super close budget nexus.

Third, the proposal for the Highway Violence Task Force with CHP that is new spending, a new 5 $1.0 million allocation from the motor vehicle account. As you've discussed in previous hearings, that Fund already has a very significant shortfall to the degree it's having to get funds from other sources to Prop up its existing expenditures.

So just highlighting that the department's provided evidence that that has received resulted in some public safety benefits, but you are in the position of having to weigh new expenditures coming at the expense of other existing commitments.

And then finally, small issue, but on page four of your agenda there is a proposal from the Administration to shift $7 million in debt service from the MVA to the General Fund. And at this point, given the State of the General Fund, we would recommend against share shifting costs more costs onto the General Fund.

We think you have other options there where you could use GGRF or there's also a Fund source at the Air Resource Board, the Air Pollution Control Fund that could be used to move some costs around. We think we're happy to work with your staff, but we recommend against shifting more costs onto the General Fund at this point.

We've got colleagues here from the LAO on specific topics and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we go to Members, I understand the CEO of the High Speed Rail project may be present today. Is that correct? You want to come on up and answer questions yourself for your project?

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. What's your name, sir?

Ian Cheldrey.

Had the pleasure of meeting you yet?

Yes, Ian Cheldrey.

Okay, thank you. All right, Members, would you like to start off with some questions? Boy, write that down in the record. Senator Durazzo, thank you. Your first step.

And welcome, sir, to hear us out and to hear you out. So very, very pleased to meet you. I have some questions about the or comments a little first and then a couple of questions on the T.

RCP from the LA County point of view, we really need to maintain the TIRCP investments, especially the ones that have already been committed. And that includes not only the SB125 funding, but also commitments through the TRCP Cycles 56 and 7. So I just. Any comments or reactions to that?

The zero Emission Transit Capital program, again, we would like to continue or provide Metro, Louisiana Metro with the money to transition our buses and trains to zero emission. A very important goal that we all have. And then just generally comment on high speed rail.

We really need to see more of an equitable investment of the funds going into high speed rail throughout the state. With great respect and appreciation for the needs in the middle of the state.

We will not meet our climate goals if we don't connect and reach the largest county, one of the largest counties in the nation and move millions of people around. So we need that commitment. We need the ability to be able to count on that. Just in terms of some questions, I just, I'm trying to understand this.

Moving $1 billion from one pot to another pot and then I'm not sure where it ends up or if it gets split up or if it gets lost. But not more than 25% from the GGRF. It's been a little confusing to try and figure that out. Kind of, you know, where does this end up?

And frankly, specifically when will this benefit the County of Los Angeles? So if anybody has any answers for that.

Was that addressed at us? I'm happy to take a stab and perhaps the Administration can correct me if I'm wrong. So my understanding is that they don't have specific language for the high speed rail proposal that. Sorry, I did this this morning too.

Helen Kerstein with the Legislative Analyst Office, so eager to jump in that they don't have specific language yet for what their proposed changes are to the statute. Currently the project gets 25% of cap and trade.

And that has run from what to what, what amount?

So I think at the highest it's been close to a billion. But most years it's been less than that. I would say going forward, past experience may not be indicative of the future. So so far, the cap and trade program generally allowance prices have been at or near the price floor.

And the price floor and price ceiling will both go up over time as they do under current regulations. They go up at 5% plus inflation.

So over time, the revenues to cap and trade or to GGRF are likely to go up, particularly if prices for allowances start being pushed up above the price floor, which there's some indication that might happen if this program is reauthorized. So I think 25. If they were to receive. It's unclear what exactly the proposal is.

We know it's at least $1.0 billion, but if it were to be 25% or a billion, then 25% could. Could potentially be significantly more than a billion in a year. If it's less.

Describe the pot. It goes from one to another.

Sure. The CAL FIRE. Do you want me to talk about the Cal. Are you talking about the CAL FIRE proposal?

The 1 billion for high speed rail? It ends up in high speed rail. Sure.

Yes. So they get 20. It's taken from GGRF. Yep. So they get 25% and that sort of sits in. And basically in a set I think allocated. You can probably speak in more depth, but they actually that sort of is sitting there available for them until they are using it.

And so right now I think they have between 3 and 4 $1.0 billion of a cash balance from cap and trade monies that have already come in and they're set to get money through 2030. And should the Legislature approve this proposal, they would get money beyond 2030 to 2045.

Yeah.

Do you have anything else?

Chief financial officer for the High Speed Royal Authority? Just to help with that, we have a direct appropriation that comes to the High Speed Royal Authority right out of the GGRF Fund. So that money is. Sits in the Fund, but it's allocated to our project.

And as Helen mentioned, we have about $4.2 billion in that Fund currently that pays for our current expenditures, current costs, current contractors.

Right, but where does it. So you're getting money from GGRF?

Yes, but as has been historically.

Part of this. Part of this. Maybe the Administration could. Part of this is it's taking money from or to the General Fund.

No, that's not part of this proposal. High Speed Rail Authority does not get General Fund.

I can. I can explain. Maybe the. I think maybe the CAL FIRE piece is a little bit confusing. So as I understand it the governor's proposal would essentially take much of the General funds that we are currently paying to support CAL FIRE. Instead, under the governor's proposal, we would use GGRF to support those activities.

Okay, so that means there's less money that's in GGRF to support other activities. Mechanically, as I understand it, the way the Administration is doing that is that they're zeroing out all of the discretionary monies that were planned. We had actually provided, programmed out.

The Legislature and Governor had come to an agreement to program out the vast majority of the discretionary DGRF revenues for the next few years.

And so as part of this proposal, to kind of make the math pencil, the Governor zeroed out the discretionary allocations in the budget year to make room to use that money for CAL FIRE existing activities. So that's basically kind of what's going on there.

That's why you're seeing those TIRCP and other programs be zeroed out under this proposal. We understand that's up for negotiation, but that's what's going on there.

My understanding is the other piece of the proposal is that's been articulated is a priority for funding at least $1.0 billion a year from cap and trade for the high speed rail project. So that would, yeah, essentially replace their existing 25% with either. With whatever that ends up being. Does that help?

I just want. Are we going to end up with $1.0 billion less for local transit projects? Is there a cut of a billion for local transit projects?

I think the answer to that, Senator, is maybe. I mean, there's about $4 billion in the greenhouse gas reduction Fund each year. That is up to the legislation Legislature to decide how to spend. And up until now, 25% of that roughly 4 billion has gone to high speed rail.

And then there's been a whole list of other things that that funding has been used for, including, you know, transit, several different transit activities. So now the choice before you and the proposal before you is to take a look at all of that GGRF funding and how you want to use it.

The proposal for from the Governor is of that roughly 4 billion. Put a billion for high speed rail, 1.5 billion for CAL FIRE to achieve General Fund savings and then figure out what the rest of that pot will go for. So I think that that's the choice before you all.

How do you want to use that Fund source? You could use that same starting place that the Governor has offered you of a billion for high speed rail, 1.5 for CAL FIRE and General Fund solutions and figure out the rest. Or you can change that around too.

But that's really the choice before you is this pot of funding, how do you want to use it?

Yes.

James Moore with finance I just want to reiterate, I think that's the correct framing on this issue. I wouldn't take the administration's proposal is certainly not to keep all continuous appropriations as is cut everything that was in the discretionary ggrf.

It really is more of a wanting to work with the Legislature to develop this multi year plan that involves all of GGRF with our priorities being the 1 billion plus for high street rail and this CAL FIRE piece.

But certainly as these discussions develop and the Legislature and Administration continue to work on developing that plan, transit will be a large part of that discussion.

Yeah. If I may add this proposal for high speed rail historically I think recent averages as the LAO stated, high speed rail has gotten about $1.0 billion a year. And so the May revision proposes sort of extending that sort of at least a billion a year for high speed rail. So we're continuing an existing.

So no cuts to the high speed rail right now as proposed? No and no. Where do local. Where's local transit? Local transit projects. Where do you think that lies right now as far as to be included to be cut? Where do you see that going?

I think that we see that as an important priority of the Administration and one that will be an important part of conversations as the Legislature and Administration develop that multi year plan.

We haven't explicitly put it as one of our two priorities the way that we put high speed rail and CAL FIRE, but we expect that transit will be a large part of the discussions as we move forward.

Okay, thank you. And I just want to show appreciation for the streamlining trailer Bill. I know there's some people see problem with that, but we really need this to get and to be prepared for the Olympics. So I'm hoping that we get the support to be able to move that forward. And I think that's it.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Seyarto.

Thank you. And are we staying just on high speed rail right now? Are we? The whole section.

Issue one.

Yeah. I want to start with high speed rail so we don't keep people longer than they need to be kept. So I want to talk a little bit more about this $1.0 billion swap thing. When you're looking at securitizing loans, you need a stable Fund to do it. And that's what I think.

$1.0 billion would be more stable than GGRF funds. That are fluctuating. Is that correct?

Providing a than the 25%. Right, right. Obviously a percentage of an unknown amount is not as stable as a guaranteed.

Yeah. Because in the bigger picture of the high speed rail, there's going to be a have to find a substantial amount of money possibly to make up what the Federal Government won't give us or contribute to this Fund.

And the only way I can see doing that is if we come up with some kind of securitization and loan program which will add even more money to this program to any more costs to the high speed rail.

And I don't know that that's going to be looked upon favorably by the public because if you securitize $15 billion, you're looking at 5 over the life of the loan. You're looking at $5 billion of interest alone.

And so we're borrowing money for a project and we don't know what the interest rate's going to be because if it's a riskier project, which this probably is going to be classified as, the interest rates are going to be higher too.

So I kind of see this move as an attempt to try to create a, a stable, not fluctuating base that you can securitize money off of and then do a loan which is just going to make this whole thing worse in the long run. So I'm concerned about that.

I would rather you just the GGRF funds that are, if that's if we're doing 25%, then we do 25%. At some point we're going to have to make a decision about this project if it's viable.

And because it's becoming increasingly clear that unless we keep borrowing money on top of the money we've already kind of spent and are going to have to spend, I don't know that this thing ever gets built. And that's what people are concerned about out there.

And there are a lot of things that we are foregoing right now in terms of projects and things that the public needs in California, our infrastructure needs that are being foregone because we're putting billions into a project that we don't know is going to come to fruition. So that's my concern with that.

Any comments sir, from you about am I off base as far as my concerns about whether this is just an easier way to securitize a loan?

The project actually in the past has suffered from gaps, stop and go funding, federal clawbacks back five years ago. And that creates the challenge of certainty around cost and schedule because if you keep doing that then it becomes even more difficult.

Comparatively this program is cost wise is very, very similar to what you do in Western Europe takes time. These are longer programs. The cost is less than what we are doing in for example high speed 2 program in UK it's roughly 40% cheaper for the way we are doing it.

Our problem has been challenges that we had initially the way we started construction and then second the stop and go funding. So with this approach, yes, you're right to say that cost of borrowing will be there. Whatever the rate will be depend on how the banks are going to evaluate that.

But it does create an environment in which bond or Ref loans or private sector investments would be more attractive to make us to go build more. And our current strategy is take out all the commoditized materials out of the General contracting world and go and purchase those materials.

So remove the 101215% interest rate that goes with it and then pull the schedule back for building tracks by two years so we can actually expedite laying tracks some point next year.

The way to do that is we go purchase with our own funds what we can and then bring the private sector in if we need to through public private partnership discussion to build the 119 mile that is under construction now to lay tracks on that cost of borrowing is always going to be there. Yeah.

All right, well thank you very much. And I do understand that you guys have been brought on board and are trying to right the ship, so to speak. And I always keep that in mind. But I still have concerns about how viable this is given the environment that California offers to do projects like this.

And so with that, did you have other ones besides high speed rail or did you want to cover those?

Madam Chair, I asked about the local transit.

Yeah, on high speed rail specific. So I'll switch, let you go, come back.

Thank you. Well, my colleagues have, are a little more. Maybe it's. We haven't had our coffee, I don't know, but a little. The gentlemen who were here a couple months ago certainly got the brunt end of it. Let me speak very frankly to you.

I would in no way support $1.0 billion a year for high speed rail. And I certainly wouldn't support giving you 20 years of money with no action with the Legislature and interaction not speaking to you. Sir, I realize you're the new CEO, but I don't believe the credibility is there. The results are there.

So I plan on doing what I can to prohibit it. And I'm just being very Frank, with you, I'm a very straight shooter. I don't lie. I don't say, zero, I'm with you. I'm not. If I'm not, I'm not. And the gentleman here will tell you I said that then and I'm saying the exact same thing now.

When we're considering cuts to medical transit dollars, frankly, where I have along my freeways, where there's trash buses that we need to run, those are real things that I see that are working and I do not see that your program is working effectively. Okay? So I am completely opposed to both models.

I understand why you need a consistent financial stream because that's how you can sell your project to investors. I get it. I have an mba. I understand that. But I don't think for Californians, it's in our best interest to take that risk, to be very frankly with you.

So with that in mind, when the gentlemen were here last time, we were told we were going to have a report and I don't think we've gotten that report or update. Is there a status on that?

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark Tolleson, the Chief of Staff with the High Speed Rail Authority. So what we committed to was providing additional information as it became available. So what we did provide this week was an update on the Merced to Bakersfield segment.

So at this point we do have updated numbers for that that we have shared with the Committee. So we are looking at a $34.9 billion at the low end to $38.5 billion on the high end to complete that segment.

Still within the window of completion between 2030 to 2033, assuming that we are able to, you know, stabilize the financing, work with the private sector or look at other financing options to get us into that window.

Ultimately, with the governor's proposal, with the $15 billion, $1.0 billion minimum per year through 2045, that will provide enough funding to complete the project that will give us 44 billion against that higher range of costs at the 38.5 billion.

So we believe even with financing costs associated with that, we will have enough to complete Merced to Bakersfield, as well as look at opportunities to either go north further up to Gilroy or continue to work, you know, going south to Palmdale.

So why did you wait till last week to give it to us, the update?

Because you knew you were coming here to ask for money or justify your project. Why did, why did you wait months?

So we wanted to make.

This was a full bottom up estimate that has not been done for the program in a very long time. So the team went through every little nuts, bolts, cement, commodities and consulted with the industry. That's why it took the time. When we did the supplemental PUR project update report, we said we will bring it in this summer.

But we advanced Merced Bakersfield because that was in good shape. So we were able to share with you there was a lot of work that went behind that.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, for $1 billion a year for the next 20 plus years, when you say the project would be completed, you're talking about Merced to Bakersfield. You're not talking about other lines to save San Francisco or San Diego or anyplace else. You're just talking about to Bakersfield and Merced.

That's right. With the ability to continue to do some of that early work getting beyond Merced Bakersfield to either Gilroy or to Palmdale. But you're correct. Yeah. That would provide an operational segment between Merced and Bakersfield within that window of 2030 to 2033.

And how much have we already expended.

Senator? We've expended almost $14 billion. I just want to add one more thing to my colleague here. That cost estimate total does also include our local support to the LA Union Station Improvement Project. $423 million going to that project.

And that does include the already spent funds that went to the Caltrain modernization project was about $714 million of our funding.

So $14 billion plus how much more?

So we'll need 38 and a half billion on the high end to complete all of Merced to Bakersfield.

So 52 billion.

Oh, no, the total. Yeah, the inclusive. So 38.5 billion total.

So 38 minus 14 means 24. Right.

That's the estimate to go.

So that's the estimate of the 1 billion per year for the next.

No, that's the funding side. The funding side. Picture shows with all of the funding, we have about $44 billion available to us through 2045 with this proposal. Our cost estimate, our CapEx, is 38.5 billion. So we have a Reserve, a certain amount of money. That money, though, is for various purposes.

If we want to stay on schedule, we have to securitize that funding. If it was put into place, there will be some borrowing costs for that. And then there could be, if there is, if we get favorable terms, there could be funding allowing us to do geotechnical work going towards Gilroy and going south towards Palmdale.

It just depends on what kind of terms we get if the proposal is adopted.

Yeah, those routes sound equally exciting.

If I may, there are just a few points I might be able to add in terms of clarification, perhaps. So I think one of the things I wanted to mention is that we did receive some information last week from the authorities, so that was helpful.

It was an update to the cost estimate from Merced to Bakersfield, but it was pretty modest. I mean, it's a one page document and there's not a ton of detail and there hasn't been a lot of time to vet that information. It's also not complete. It's not the full project update report.

So it doesn't include updates for other segments in terms of cost. It doesn't include schedule updates. So there is some information that still we think should come forward that's required under the project update report.

Moreover, we think it's really important for the Legislature to understand this plan for securitization because this could potentially be very important piece of understanding whether this project is, you know, what. What the state is going to be committing to with this project.

So we think really understanding specifically what the plan is, whether there are statutory changes that would be necessary, whether a secondary funding stream would be necessary to make this a form of funding that would be one that would be able to be borrowed against at reasonable terms would be really critical.

I think a couple other points I just wanted to maybe clarify. I know there was a lot of numbers going, going back and forth and just wanted to make sure to kind of clarify because I think the 14 billion is what has been spent.

But if you actually look at sort of the budget, how much money they have kind of planned in terms of their funding and planned in terms of their costs, there's about a $10 billion discrepancy between those two. The reason. So in part of that's because they haven't spent all of the money that's budgeted.

Part of that is because they're still anticipating like those budgeted numbers anticipate that they will get GGRF of $1.0 billion a year through 2030. So even if they get that $1.0 billion a year through 2030, they still have a $10 billion funding gap under their current numbers.

That's assuming they keep all of the federal funding and there's over $3 billion of federal funding that's potentially at stake. So if the Federal Government decides that they don't want to support this project anymore, they could be looking at potentially $13, $14 billion funding gap.

So I think one of the things to really think about is, you know, this additional revenue. You're being asked to make this decision about at least $1.0 billion a year up through 2045. You know, what will that get you? Will that get you Merced to Bakersfield?

I think there are some questions because I think it depends on whether we keep the federal funding. It depends on what the plan for securitization is. It depends on if this project continues to see cost increases and it depends on if they're able to bring in private sector financing or participation.

And there's a lot of uncertainty about what that would look like. So I know that was a lot, but I think there's. I know there's a lot going on here. So. Happy to answer any other questions, if there are any.

Do we have all of what you just said in writing?

Yes, we did provide a sort of, again, relatively brief because of the timeline of the May revision, some comments in writing and they're also up on our website as well that do relate to this project, but I'm not sure if they cover the entirety of that.

But happy, if there are points that you'd like in writing, we're happy to provide them that are beyond what we have.

What you just said. So you provided one page to ask for $1.0 billion a year for the next 20 plus years. Years. And that was the report that we got that we have been waiting for since a couple months ago, right?

Yeah. We committed to providing updates of those numbers from Merced to Bakersfield as we continue to work towards the additional information which we had indicated we would be providing during the summertime where we'd have full costing of Gilroy to Palmdale as well as updates on our ridership numbers.

How many sections are proposed for the high speed rail project? Overall.

The way we have programmed it, we are looking at in the phase one, connecting LA to San Francisco. But we split that into how quick we can build and commercialize assets so we can generate revenues. We are looking at Bakersfield to Gilroy so we can interconnect with Caltrain at that end.

Then Bakersfield to Merced where we can interconnect with San Joaquin and then from Bakersfield towards Palmdale where we can connect with the future high desert corridor that is being built there or programmed now, which in turn connects to Brightline west at Victor Valley. Yeah, at the Victor Valley station. So phase one, LA to San Francisco.

We are looking at which section can be built faster so that we can, instead of always funding the program, we can commercialize services sooner so that we can start generating revenue to put back into the capital to build more. That's how we have divided the phase one.

So if we have spent approximately you're proposing 38 billion for one portion, would it be safe to say how much are you thinking we're going to need to complete all these phases?

That is the estimation that is going on right now. We will have the numbers on that I think by July, early July, where we will have full details.

This 38 billion we have to also, and I keep that in mind, this was done in a way that is not any longer the way we are doing now going forward.

And all the cost that incurred due to the delays in disputes and litigations and right away acquisition, we are kind of streamlining all that for the next phases. And so taking this number of 38 billion from Merced to Bakersfield and then applying the logic to the go, how many miles are we going on?

The other sections will not be the right metrics. We rather prefer to give you with confidence level of above 90% a full bottom up estimate with the schedule in July so that we can look at the cost differently than the way we did the Central Valley portion. It had many challenges that we are hoping not to repeat.

Okay. But unfortunately July we might have already done our budget. Mr. Siardo, did you have some other questions? Yes. Or did you have any more with High speed Rail?

Thank you. All right, so these are admin questions on the transit cuts. The zero emission transit capital program cutting 230 million in 2627460 and 27-28. And although I wasn't a big fan of the bailout part, that's what this was part of.

And what this is doing is funding this conversion for a lot of our transit agencies, you know, RCTC among them. And what they're, they're using that money to try to make and meet the mandate.

Well, are they going to undo the mandates if they undo the funding that's helping them meet the mandate or is there any plan for that or are they just going to leave them hanging on their own and have to try to still come up with money to meet mandates that were already questionable, whether they can get there because that's where they're left right now with this cut is how are we going to even attempt to try to address the mandate issue if the mandates are still there but the funding is taken away?

I can say at this time that there is no consideration from the Administration of waiving or delaying those mandates.

So if they want to. And I don't say if because they need to cut this money. They need to adjust the mandate. That's an unrealistic position for the people that wind up paying for this, which is taxpayers.

So, yeah, we need to hear that the mandates are going to be adjusted accordingly in order to be able to support that particular cut. And it needs to be made. It should be made. Next one, the inner city passenger rail program. So they're going to overhaul existing locomotives for Amtrak and those. Is that what this is about?

Yes. Caltrans owns most of the locomotives that the three JPAs in California use. And each year there's a cost around the mid 20 millions. This is the budget year cost associated with that.

And how long does that extend the life of those locomotives for?

I don't have that information with me, but I am happy to follow up with the agency.

Yeah, if we could get that. Because, you know, right now they're trying to get rid of diesel locomotives.

And if we're going to spend $20 million a year and extend the life of a locomotive for 10 to 15 to 20 years, and then we're going to take them offline in five, it doesn't make sense to be spending money to do this.

So again, if we need to keep these locomotives going, they need to be able to be operational until their life is over the next time, not spend $20 million getting something fixed up so it can last two years before we take it offline and throw it to the junkyard, because that winds up being a waste of money.

So again, the mandate on the other side of this needs to make sense for what we are spending money on in that thing. So that's hard to support without the mandate being adjusted so that we can get the full life out of these locomotives that we want to.

And I would suspect that by the time the locomotive is down, its full life is over. I don't know that we'll be there yet with the technology to replace them. Let's talk about Olympics, the transportation network. We want to spend $17.6 million from the state highway account. There's a lot of projects that could be funded with this.

Now, this isn't about not wanting the Olympics in La. It's about how we manage it. We've had the Olympics in LA before, and we managed it without spending a bunch of money on transportation projects. We did it by asking the cooperation, just like when we had Carmageddon about 10 years ago.

That was when they shut down the 405, the main arterial between the San Fernando Valley and LA. And we thought it was going to be a huge mess. But we asked for some cooperation from the public during the few weeks that the Carmageddon was going on. And they did cooperate and we didn't have the traffic jams.

In fact, it was probably the most delightful time to drive around LA ever. Why are they not taking that approach?

Why are they not taking a, you know, asking employers to be remote working for anybody that can for those two weeks while we have the Olympics so that we can continue to spend our dollars on some of the road improvement projects that are needed instead of taking away from that account and doing it that way?

Have they talked to LA about this? Because I don't know if we shouldn't be paying for that.

The IOC and their generation of the monies that they get from the Olympics should be paying because if they did that cooperation, they'd still get the benefit of people coming and visiting, but it would just be the people coming and visiting that's generating some of that people movement.

But doing $17 million on temporary two week projects is concerning to me. I think we can do it better and I think they need to do that. Have you had any good discussions about alternative ways to do this other than taking lanes off existing freeways and trying to make that the lane for going to the Olympics?

I think we have representatives from caltrance here who can answer some of the problematic questions. I know that there's been extensive coordination with the LA 28 and the. Yeah, I'll defer to Caltrans on this.

Good afternoon, Keith Duncan, Caltrans budgets. In relation to the specific funds, the 17.6 million being requested, it is specifically for the highway system and it's for a lot of the traffic management system signage, a lot of traffic guidance which would be part of the highway system operations.

As it is, we are in regular. We work regularly with the LA28 Committee as well as as cities and counties within the area that are responsible for the overall games route network. And for that temporary.

The system that's going to be put there and then removed once the games are done, that's going to be part of the overall funding that will be coming from the LA 28 Committee. That's the general plan at this point in time. The funding that we're requesting is just for Caltrans needs. That would just be for the highway system.

Won't say regardless of the Olympics, but it is. There needs to be a focused effort on making sure that we have the necessary Traffic management system systems, as well as the signage to be able to accommodate the amount of traffic that's expected.

Well, I would imagine that the traffic management systems that are needed outside of the Olympics would already be done through our budget, otherwise we wouldn't. I mean, that's what our budget is for, is getting those things done. Yes. So this is $17 million in addition to what we already spend.

And what I'm saying, are we going to get our money's worth or is this for two weeks of a little what we think might be easier traffic? That can probably be achieved by just getting the cooperation of the public.

And LA 28 has not done themselves any favor by focusing some of their events on LA and keeping it in LA instead of having it in different regions, like the Equestrian thing.

The intent of the investments with the 17.6, it's intended to meet level of service needs within our maintenance program and as well as part of the SB1, where there's traffic management system requirements. So it is part of meeting some of those goals. But there is funding that's gonna be dedicated to part of the tier 4.

You talk about LOS, as in like 1234 ABCD. I remember the LOS was out long ago.

Well, we still operate through that on some of the items. Do you still do that still? To a certain extent.

Zero, I thought it was tossed. So, anyway. Well, thank you. Thank you for that. I still don't think we need to spend that money. I think there are other ways to manage this. And so I think those. zero, yeah, I think that is the extent of those comments. We're not doing this yet.

Senator Durazzo. Yeah, I just. If I can add and you can help me fill in the numbers here is this Olympics is obviously something much bigger than what it was in 1984, which was the last time. The number of people coming into the Los Angeles region is millions. It's not what it was before.

The number of venues that will be accommodating all of the Games and all the sports is far bigger. To get from SOFI Stadium and Inglewood to whatever are all the other venues for the Games is far more than what it ever had been in 1984.

So maybe that could be part of the answer is the breadth and the depth that is going to be. That's a massive challenge. And I'm glad to see there's thinking. We're thinking about it beforehand to make sure that it gets done right, which is why I appreciate the streamlining part of it.

Not the transportation, but the Streamlining to build these. The temporary venues that are going to be needed. But I should have had in front of me the number of people coming in from all over the world.

It's also both the Olympics and the Paralympics so that the length of time that people will be in the region is far greater. And let's just say, I mean billions of dollars are going to be spent one way or another. That's an investment. Taxes will be paid from that.

There's just going to be an enormous, enormous boost to the economy, which is what we need not just in Los Angeles, but throughout the state. But I think you and I should make sure we have these numbers ready to be able to explain how much bigger this is. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator, I have a question. We had made a request to the Administration regarding FIFA that's actually coming before the Olympics. FIFA's coming, then we have the super bowl and then we have the Olympics. So was there any discussion about similar needs required for FIFA.

Included in the request? It's part of like a stage.

We know that we're going the, the end game is the Olympics in 2028, but we also know we have major sporting events that are coming down and that's part of within our LA District 7 working with the local cities and counties to be able to do the necessary traffic management.

So part of the 17.6 men, when we're talking about road guidance signage, freeway markings, traffic management systems, it's part of that step by step process which is going to help us when it comes to the super bowl, when it comes to the World World Cup.

It's going to be able to provide those opportunities for like a lessons learned as we're getting to the games route network which is for the Olympics. But prior to. We know that traffic management systems are critical which is part of what we're trying to accomplish.

We know that this will help the World cup effort, but it will lead to the greater benefit when it comes to the Olympics as well.

So will these funds be used to help with traffic management with the World Cup?

It's intended to do the traffic management system for the freeway system within that the area. Is it specifically for the World Cup? No, it's for the specific highway system. We're just having that focused investment on that, that region for the.

But will it be ready for the World Cup?

The efforts that we're working putting in the associated with this BCP? Yes, this all. It's a 17.61 million one time investment for the budget year all of that will be completed by the end of the year.

Okay.

You probably should say that in here because it's going to be significant. Quite a lot of people and the security required. We had originally asked for, I believe, 50 million in Northern California and 50 million in Southern California. So it's a pretty big lift in terms of the responsibilities that's going to be required. Required. Okay.

Can I just add. Madam Chair.

Yes, Senator Durazo, A quick.

I just found my pamphlet here on the numbers Games by the numbers. There will be 15 million spectators will be expected. 11,000 Olympic athletes, 4,000 Paralympic athletes, 30,000 accredited broadcast and media personnel. The equivalent of seven Super Bowls a day. That's what we're talking about.

That's the number of people that we're talking about moving in the smoothest possible way every single day for 30 days of competition. So thank you.

That's all right. Just kidding. Yeah. It's as if 15,000. It says 15,000 athletes. Says 15,000 athletes and a million, millions of spectators. But they don't specify how many millions it is. But the 1984 Olympics was 6 million. That's how many came. So there's, there's. I don't know that it's going to be twice as much as that.

But the bottom line is we were more than able to handle the 6 million when they were here, especially because they're different days. And that was my point is I think there's a different way to manage it than spending $17 million on very short term fixes for two weeks. That's all. Thanks.

Do you also handle the CHP budget? You do? Okay. Are you aware if there's any funding in there related to the murder and missing children's?

The May revision doesn't propose any augmentations for that. However, I think someone from CHP is here to maybe shed light.

Hi. Thank you for coming again. It's good to see you.

Good to see you.

Yes, ma' am. So, the question was, in your budget, were there any changes or additions to the Murder and Missing Children's Fund?

There was nothing for the May Revise, no.

There's nothing in it at all, to your knowledge?

Not to my knowledge. I can, I can find out. But no, there was not.

Okay. And was the same amount of money also last time when you were here were regarding the computer information, regarding the sexually exploited children's system that you run? Were there any changes to that? I know we're looking to—I'm looking to submit a request for an increase. But was—were there any changes?

No, the May Revision did not propose any changes to that.

And is the current amount around a million dollars?

The Governor's Budget proposed $5 million ongoing.

Okay. And is that what it was last year?

This is a new program. CHP does have a existing program that's a little bit different, that they can speak to.

Okay. So, this was an addition to the program we had. This was to focus on the child sexual abuse material, as opposed to just our computer crimes investigation. So, this was to enhance that program, and that's what the $5 million was for.

Okay. And it's currently in the budget?

Correct.

That's what we need to know. Okay. Any other questions, Members? Was there anything else from the CHP perspective that you wanted us to keep our eyes on, that maybe was in there or was not in there, or?

We have, we have the three BCPs, two of them that are federally funded, that we were just asking for spending authority, and then, the Highway Violence Task Force that we were asking for, to continue from our previous years.

Okay. All right. Got it.

Would you like anything on that or are you?

Sure. Sure. You're here. Thank you.

So, I didn't—as I came up, I didn't introduce myself, but I'm Robin Johnson. I'm the Assistant Commissioner. And with me is Ty Meeks. He's our Special Representative to the Legislature. Thank you. And thank you to the Committee Members for having us here and hearing us out and for all your support.

I will—I'll talk to you about the Highway Violence, our BCP for the Highway Violence Task Force. So, the Highway Patrol is requesting $4.9 million in fiscal year '25-'26 from the Motor Vehicle Account to address violent crimes occurring on state highways through a Highway Violence Task Force.

This request is for continuation of the funding obtained through the 2022 Budget Act. The Highway Violence Task Force was originally created when the Legislature approved and passed the Highway Violence Task Force Act of 2022. Initial funding set forth in the Highway Violence Task Force Act sunsets in June of 2025.

The collaborated efforts between the Administration, the California Highway Patrol, and the Legislature, excuse me, has significantly increased public safety. From 2019 to 2021, the state of California identified a 96% increase in freeway shootings.

Since the initial inception of the Highway Violence Task Force in 2022, the Department has seen an average 10% decrease, year after year, in freeway shootings. From its peak in 2021-2024, there's been a 30% total decrease in freeway shootings. With the original funding, the Department was able to install 190 automated license plate recognition cameras in the Bay Area.

We purchased four national Integrated Ballistic Information Network Terminals. What that is is a ballistic database that records bullet casings—markings which are specific to each firearm. Firearm examiners or technicians enter the cartridge casing evidence into a ballistic system. These images are correlated against the database.

Law enforcement can search against evidence from their jurisdiction, neighboring jurisdictions, and others across the country, and this allows law enforcement to identify a firearm that may have been utilized to commit a crime in another city, county, state.

And it provides training to investigators, the funding, and detectives on the preservation and collection of evidence at scenes, hires crime analysts to analyze crime data and conduct criminal analytics and research, and funds enforcement campaigns directed at eliminating highway violence.

This BCP will allow the Department to maintain the 190 existing cameras that we have, add additional cameras, fund seven Crime Analyst positions, which are the Department's firearms examiners and technicians, provide additional training to personnel, invest in other crime solving and crime-deterring technology similar to the National Ballistic Information Network Terminals, and conduct enforcement campaigns.

Although our collaborated efforts from the Highway Violence Task Force Act of 2022 have yielded tremendous progress, continued investment in the Highway Violence Task Force is a direct commitment to the safety of our communities.

This budget change proposal is essential in maintaining the momentum we've accomplished together in deterring highway violence and ultimately, saving the lives of Californians and those visiting our state.

So, is that program—did we need to do anything legislatively to extend it since it was expiring in June of 2025?

To approve this BCP in the May Revision.

And that would suffice to carry us through how far?

One year.

One year. Okay.

And before, how many years did it cover for?

It was previously approved for three years.

Okay. Anything else, sir?

Not unless you want to hear the, the federal grants that we're just asking for the spending authority for.

No.

You're good with that? Okay. Nothing else. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Sorry I went a little out of order but wanted to cover it within this section.

That's okay, I understand. Thank you.

Seeing nothing else. All right, we're going to move on to Issue Number 2.

Issue Number 2 is the overview of the Governor's May Revision proposals for a couple specific areas.

We'll start with the Department of Finance. Nice to see you too, again.

Hello. Good afternoon, Senator.

Yes.

We'll start with that person, the Judicial.

Yes. Yes. We'll start with the Judicial Council, yes.

We were going to defer to the Department of Finance to provide their over—overview—of the May Revision and we're here for any questions that you may have.

Okay. There you go.

Good afternoon. Henry Ng, Department of Finance.

The May Revision includes a one-time resources to implement the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act, or SB 549, a one-time reduction of $20 million General Fund to backfill the State Court Facilities and Construction Fund, statutory changes to courthouse surplus property disposition, and various reappropriations for existing projects and provisional language changes.

The budget also includes a few General Fund solutions to address the projected budget shortfall, and these include a $20 million reduction to the Pre-Trial Release Program and a reversion of up to $20 million in the current year.

There is also a reversion of up to $27.5 million of unspent funds for the Jury Duty Pilot Program, pursuant to AB 1981. The budget also includes statutory changes to eliminate this pilot program.

There is a one-time reversion of $38 million of the unrestricted fund balance in the Child Court Trust Fund, a transfer of $34.3 million from the Court Facilities Architectural Revolving Fund to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, reducing the General Fund backfill need, but that same amount.

And finally, there is a withdrawal of the $2.9 million that was originally proposed in the Governor's Budget for the New Tracy courthouse and a $500,000 for the advanced planning and budget studies. These are just some of the important adjustments included in the May Revision.

I am joined by my colleagues at the Department of Finance and the Judicial Branch, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you want to add?

Anita Lee with the Legislative Analyst Office. So, we have comments for two of the May Revision proposals that are listed on Page 7of your agenda, if you'd like to follow along.

The first set of comments for your consideration are related to the $38 million one-time transfer of unrestricted monies from the Trial Court Trust Fund to the General Fund. We don't have concerns with the dollar value, but we would note for the Committee that there is no change to the budget bill language that was proposed in January, that provides the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Judicial Branch, complete flexibility in determining how much to transfer.

And so, because of that, we do continue to recommend two modifications to that language to improve legislative oversight. The first modification would be to specify guidance, in terms of what sources of funds should be considered for transfer and/or how that calculation should occur.

And the second modification would be to require 30-day notification to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee before any transfer occurs, so it's clear how much is being transferred, if there's been any changes, etc. The—our second set of comments relates to the $20 million reduction to the Pre-Trial Release Program.

We would also note that as part of the proposal, there is a proposal for modifying the budget bill language that would allow for money—unspent monies—to be shifted between the trial courts, as well as to require that Judicial Branch report on those reallocations.

So, we do think the modified budget bill language merits approval because it would ensure that we maximize the use of the dollars and that there's appropriate legislative oversight, so that you get that information.

Specifically related to that ongoing $20 million reduction, we did want to note for the Committee that it could reduce service levels provided by the program, even though we have regularly reverted money prior to '24-'25.

In conversations with the Judicial Branch and looking in '24-'25, the year that we're in now, it does look like we might be on track to spend more, if not most, of the allocated funding.

And so, if that is true, a reduction could mean that it would impact whether and how long individuals are detained pretrial. And so, while this is a solution, and because of the state's fiscal condition, it does merit consideration.

That is a tradeoff that you might want to consider as you're weighing your other priorities. And, you know, consistent with sort of our other recommendations, if there are things that the Legislature would like to change, in terms of the dollar amounts or undo, our Office obviously is available to provide assistance with alternatives, if that becomes necessary.

Thank you. Happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.

I have a very specific question on the court interpreters, court reporters language. I guess my question is why are you proposing to remove that requirement that interpreter coordinators be certified or registered court reporters?

Mark Jimenez, Department of Finance. Sorry to surprise you. So this is more of a technical correction. We see it as a technical correction. This was not included in the Budget Act of 2021. It was inadvertently added back in Budget Act of 22 and ongoing.

So removing this would be consistent with their existing historical practice of using the fundings to support court interpreters, not necessarily registered as court interpreters. And I think from a practical matter, a coordinator doesn't need to be a registered court interpreter to coordinate court interpreters.

And I think from a practical stand up point of view, it's you would want to have registered court interpreters out in the field doing the actual court interpreting rather than having to coordinate schedules. And so for us it's both a technical correction but also a matter of kind of just we think it's a practical change.

So the information I've been provided is that there have been problems and complaints with multiple courts. This is a requirement right now, you know, to have a certified interpreter be the coordinator. And information has been brought to me about how there have been violations of this. That requirement has not been met.

And so this is just, and there are multiple reasons why interpreters themselves believe that you should be an interpreter, you know, if you want to be a good coordinator. So I just, I don't see the compelling reason when I hear the other side of the equation. I don't see a compelling reason for making this kind of change.

So I would urge you to reconsider and not make that, not make that change. And then someone made a remark or maybe it was about the General Fund, the reduction of a 20. There's a reversion of 20 million in the pretrial services. There's a reversion and then there's a reduction. What does that end up being in net?

So... Anita Lee with the LAO. That leaves $50 million in ongoing funding for the program. When this program was initially operationalized, I think back in 2021-22, there was some one time monies also put in to basically get all of the courts up because we had started initially with a pilot prior to that, and so there was like a one time infusion of close in total. It was 140 in total, but the ongoing piece was 70 million. And that's what you are talking about now. So currently, if you made no changes, it's $70 million. This would reduce it by 20 million and bring it to 50 million on an ongoing basis.

But it says reversion and then it says reduction.

So it's a reversion for the, for 24-25... The proposal. And sorry, Finance may be better to answer this question.

So those are a bit of technical terms. So reversion means the money... Oh, yeah, sorry. So the reversion would just be for the current year, and then the $20 million reduction would be for budget year and ongoing. So it's, we're effectively just reducing the 70 million down to 50 million starting this year, starting in the 24-25 fiscal year, and then the reduction applies to budget year and ongoing. And so, you know, when we made this reduction, we examined the historical expenditure patterns. Right.

For the pretrial program, what we saw was, you know, a reversion, a return to the General Fund of $90 million. And to us, that clued us in that, hey, there's some unspent funds here. And, you know, we're in a tight budget environment right now, and so we're looking for some savings.

This $20 million reduction aligns the pretrial program funding closer to the past spending, the past spending. And past spending shows that they've really been spending about $50 million for the program, and so the budget reflects that right sizing to the past spending practice.

So you don't expect that there's going to be a reduction in service levels?

I will, we see it as more of the status quo. I think the point that the LAO was making is more speculative. Right. So I think, you know, it could be, it could be that there could be low... To the extent that they are able to actually change how they spend the money this year to actually maybe be poised to spend the full 70 million, they could be, you know, there could be some service level changes. However, that's not what history has, their historical spending practice has been. It's been about at the $50 million level, which is where we are right sizing the funding to be.

Yeah, I don't know how those, how that reduction of 20 million will be carried out and implemented. There may be some areas that won't need, like you said, maybe won't need that, however it gets distributed. There may be other areas that have a greater need. So I'm hoping that this really is not going to impact the service level. If you make that, if you take that into account. Because we don't want to, you know, because of certain areas might need it far more than other areas.

And that's why we added provisional language to move money around. So exactly to your point, to the extent there are any unused savings in certain counties, we have provisional language to move that money to other counties that may need the money. So we understand. We hear you.

Madam Chair, if I might respond to Senator Durazo's question related to service impacts. So one of the, when we, when we were looking at this proposal, the part of the conversation is we did ask why in the past did you have this reversion of money? And part of the conversation is that there were reversions or delays in the spending of the funding because the programs were ramping up and there were other issues like hiring challenges, which are all, I think in the conversation, very reasonable. So in conversations with the judicial branch in 2024-25, the year that you are in. Right.

You are, the part of the proposal is to revert 20 million. Part of the impetus is basically these programs are now a little bit more in a steady state. They know what they're doing. They know kind of how they're moving moving forward. So it is fair to say exactly how much they're going to use this year is speculative. We don't know. But from the conversations from the individuals who are running the programs, all of the indications is pointing to they are spending more, if not most of the allocation.

And so as part of your considerations of this, it would become a trade off for you in terms of the number of people that are served for the program. So I just wanted to provide that clarification for specifically related to like why, yes, there was reversions in the past and how that might not necessarily be a fair benchmark for service levels moving forward. So I just wanted to add that clarification. Thank you.

Did the Judicial Council, did you guys, either one of you want to weigh in of any questions on this conversation since you'd be implementing it?

Yes, yes, I agree. Oh, hi. I'm Francine Byrne. I'm the Director of Criminal Justice Services with the council. Nice to see you all again. I do believe that the reduction, the ongoing reduction would reduce services. We don't know the exact amount, but as Ms. Lee said, there is, it took a while to ramp up.

Perhaps those early implementation startup dollars were not completely utilized, but at this point, we are on track to pretty much use most of the funding. So some hard decisions will have to be made if we take a $20 million hit on that program. And having, oh yes, having the language though, to be able to move it around would be greatly appreciated and would help a lot.

And Zlatko Theodorovic with the Judicial Council. Because not every county is and program is fully expanding, so there have been instances where counties are under what their allocations are. So that will help the ability to move the funding from those courts, those counties that are not spending their full allocation to those that are.

Thank you. Nothing further, Ms. Durazo? Okay. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I appreciate it. So, you know, we've talked about this issue a little bit, and I just want to highlight this. I think that the judicial branch is incredibly important, and I also think that the funding around it is far more limited than some of our other efforts and projects when we're talking about public safety as a whole.

So I am deeply concerned about a couple of things. One, the health benefits is one thing, right? You know, just making sure that our staff, the jobs that they applied for, the guarantees that were they were given, that they are protected and made whole. I will say this on every single item that comes up, this is important to me. As far as the reporters language, you know, you know, which basically removes the requirement that coordinators must be certified or registered court interpreters. I think, I think it's a problem to some degree.

Granted, I understand that in certain communities, certain languages, it's a little bit more difficult to obtain the person that could potentially speak and translate and interpret whatever that case may be. I will say that I just want to make sure that when we're talking about legal services, and I want to highlight this. In my experience, that if you have a individual that speaks Farsi, and people will say, oh, I speak Farsi. For example, I'm Afghan, right? So if you ask many Afghans, they'll say, yes, we speak Farsi, but technically it's Dari, right? Which is a more formal version, right? It's a court driven language.

And if you have somebody of a different ethnic background that's not Afghan that is interpreting for an Afghan that speaks Dari, certain words do get impacted very negatively and could damage the individual that is needing the assistance and what is necessarily being asked of them and said of them and representing them.

And I will say this from personal experience in my own family, I've seen the devastation of having an individual that doesn't speak the actual language. And if we were talking about crimes being committed, family law issues, or anything like that, I want to say it does impact people, right?

And Dari is, you know, just one language to highlight. But in my community it's 55% Asian Americans, many different languages being spoken. Right. Many different dialects, some that are minorities amongst their own community. Right. And so I really just want to push back on, you know, loosening requirements or not fully investing in a broader scope. Right.

So I say that as one of the big concerns regarding the diversity of our population and how much we have to serve, especially when it comes to areas of court. Right. If it was at the DMV, it's slightly different. If it's at Safe Way, different. But when it's in a court legal case, it's deeply impactful.

So I just want to highlight the importance there. The other piece is the $20 million reduction in the judicial branch pretrial services ongoing. We have made law after law after law about diversion programs. Right. We have also passed Prop 36. We have a huge expectation of what's going to happen at the local level, what is going to happen in court.

And I will also push back in the reduction here. When it comes to our public safety sector, that not only includes law enforcement personnel and much more in public safety as a whole, but also the systems of which justice is provided need to be prioritized across the board in our budget. Right.

And I understand that everyone's supposed to take a little bit of a hit, especially in this economic time, but I do just need to highlight that this is something that I have trouble swallowing just because of the fact that it's so detrimental. The legal field as a whole, public safety as a whole, can either help people or do significant damage, not only to that individual, but their entire families for generations.

That is what we are talking about when we're talking about these people's lives and whether they have assistance, don't have assistance, have interpretation, don't have interpretation, have a record, or can prevent some negative thing on their record. So I just highlight that. I will say I'm a Bay Area Member.

Granted, Tracy's not in my district. But the funding for the new courthouse, this was a little bit lower tier for me compared to the first two items I've talked about. But I do just want to highlight that if we are investing in the infrastructure and we know that some of these buildings are almost ancient, right.

We do have to just also prioritize this, especially in areas that are prone to wildfire issues, earthquakes. For example, my district's very earthquake heavy in the sense of Hayward Fault and much more. And flooding zones. So infrastructure needs to be kind of prioritized.

It's the thing that can potentially take the hit, but it also has to be looked at as where is a priority, which building do we need to focus on, and also the timeline wise. So those are my statements there. If you guys want to respond, happy to hear it. Thank you.

Mark Jimenez, Department of Finance. I'd like to. For the health benefit adjustment, that's a technical adjustment to really to align the backfill to align with the current estimates. So it's really to make, it's not cutting back on trial court employee health benefits. It's to give them exactly what they need, not any more.

And so there shouldn't be any harm towards that group. The court interpreter, the court interpreters. I would say that the language is that the proposed language changes are consistent to the points that you were making. Right. Like it makes the funding, it allows the Judicial Council to maximize the funding available, the limited funding available for the court interpreter programs.

And in addition to removing that requirement that a court interpreter coordinator be a registered court interpreter. One, that there's already a benefit to that such that they may not need to spend more on a court interpreter who is presumably, where you may need to pay more for that court interpreter coordinator to be a registered court interpreter.

That's, there's some savings there. But also the removal of this requirement that restricts the funding that limits like the number of coordinators in each district or in each county. So there's removing, the proposed budget bill language allows the Judicial Council more flexibility to do more with what they have.

And so I would say that the proposed language is consistent with all the points that you were making, and we hear what you're saying. With the pretrial program, again, this, you know, we view it as a right sizing. It's really just, it's really just maintaining the status quo.

Sure, there may have been, programs may have matured and have been more established and they may be more poised to spend down more of their funding. But that's not what past spending shows. Right. And so we're also, we're trying to find some solutions but also trying to maintain and protect their core services.

So the only reason about that particular piece is, you know, again, we've in the recent years that I've been here passed a lot of diversion programs, number one. And then with Prop 36 in play, that there's going to be more of an effort to put the, I'm gonna say burden on the counties and the local courts to figure this out. We just had an info hearing that clearly multiple different counties, 58 counties, and all of their efforts. First off, some counties are not wealthy In California. Some are, right. And maintaining status quo, not necessarily an appropriate move considering we had this ballot measure supported by Californians and a commitment to fund it.

And if we are not able to sustain or expand or pivot to the changes that are going to take place in our localities, we are doing a disservice to the community, a disservice to the voters that voted for it, and a disservice to the justice system. So I do just want to highlight, it's not about just holding the line, especially when there's been so many changes in the county aspect of it. Right.

And so the courthouses, for example, I represent Santa Clara County and Alameda County. Two very different counties, very different income levels, very different affluence levels, education levels, and much more. And so when we're talking about some of the counties all the way up north, some of the poorest counties or even one of the largest counties. Right. How are we maintaining the expansion of these expectations and not holding people longer just because they are waiting for a day to be in court? That is my concern.

We, again, I don't want us to be ruining lives just because we are saying we're going to maintain the status quo or we don't have enough money. On the public safety side as a whole, right. The justice system, everything. We actually have to think broader and again, how we're expediting things and much more so. I appreciate your statement on the interpreters. Like I said, if there are interpretations of court legal jargon, we could be harming people. So that is my final statement. But thank you.

I agree with both of my colleagues on that particular issue. And I just want to reiterate that I would not support that approach to finding money because it's not found money. It's money that next year we're going to be wondering, you know, where we're going to get it.

We've already had that where we've estimated that we're going to do two and a half, we're going to get two and a half billion dollars of savings from personnel cuts and then we wind up with 1.5 and we have a hole to fill. So I think that one's not very safe to be calling a place to cut a budget because of the needs expressed very well by my colleagues. So that's it for that subject. Thank you.

Bipartisan. You see that?

Senators, question or thoughts on Tracy. My name's Phil Osborn with the Department of Finance and the cap outlay. And I just wanted to say, when it comes to the Tracy cap outlay project that was withdrawn, it's a one year kind of a pause on the cap outlay.

It was a new project that was moved forward in the Governor's Budget. We have several other continuing projects that are in the Governor's Budget that we are not withdrawing. And so it's in the hopes that the next year we get a better revenue picture and Tracy would move forward. So.

You talk about several other projects. San Bernardino has a, a youth facility that's being built. I imagine there's no cuts to that. There was some concerns about that. San Bernardino, the juvenile, the juvenile court shouldn't be any changes to that. So that's going forward because they're like halfway in the middle of it. So I would.

Okay, thank you.

The gentleman from the Department of Finance said that all the projects that are in process are continuing. It was the new Tracy courthouse as a new project that is being paused for a year. And in terms of the court interpreters, we do, you know, absolutely care and we work hard to get.

These are folks that are not in the courtroom. They are coordinating the staff. And so the opportunity of having as many certified interpreters in a courtroom is critical. And this will ensure that we can maximize the number of certified court interpreters the courtroom.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Alrighty then. I have a couple questions regarding the state court facilities construction Fund. I had the opportunity to go to the court in my district, Compton, and got a chance to meet the Chief Justice and talk about the list and the whole thing. And I'm just kind of concerned.

I'm glad that the funds were maintained, so that's a positive. However, in light of your outstanding list of courthouses that need to be either improved or redone or whatever, how long would that take us at our existing budget?

You say how long to.

So if you were to keep the existing budget that you have and then looking at your outstanding list, courthouses that need to be either repaired, demolished, redone and so on at your current rate, how many years would it take to get to all of those courthouses?

It's entirely in terms of new courthouse construction. It's entirely dependent on the budget path. And so we have a multi year assessed plan, but it's again subject to available funds in the budget. We used to have a self funded program that was based on civil filings and criminal penalties.

Because of the important and appropriate changes that have been made in criminal penalties, we were no longer able to Fund that by ourselves. So we're now dependent on the General Fund. And we appreciate the support of the Legislature and the government doing that. But it'll be a years long project by project. As Mr.

Osborne described, it's subject to available funds. As far as the deferred maintenance, there's no new money in the budget for that three and a half billion, $4 billion list of deferred maintenance. We are currently just managing to the point of, you know, run to failure.

But we understand that there are sort of critical expenditures that we do make as best we can, but we are focused on overall maintenance of our facilities. But that's limited to the amount of funding we have.

And the budget doesn't enhance that, but it certainly doesn't pull back from that because all those funding levels are contained continue in the budget.

So I get that part. Let me rephrase. Maybe I'm like really tired, as I'm sure most of all of us are here. Let me rephrase my question.

If you were to based upon the money that you have and you have a deferred maintenance list, if you only got the same little amount of money every year, how many years would it take you to do all of the deferred maintenance that you have pending?

And my same question is for if there are any courthouses that need to just be completely redone of that list of the money that if you got the same amount of money every year, how long would it take you?

The challenge is that we do not have a deferred maintenance budget. Those come as the budgets as a state have overall been able to afford. We've been receiving sort of single one year, couple of year large investments where we do make some progress because that it stands now there isn't a budget.

So the thing that's growing is the list of deferred maintenance, not our, our progress towards reducing it because there isn't. There aren't funds appropriated for deferred maintenance.

And in our budget, do we have any deferred maintenance money that's going the.

We don't have any new deferred maintenance funding for the judicial branch in the Governor's Budget or in the May revision. But we did provide the judicial branch. I about 100 million in the 20. I think it was a 21 budget act for deferred maintenance, but not, not anything new.

Okay. I colleagues, I don't know if you've had an opportunity to go to the courthouses in your district. I went to one in my district and from a safety perspective, from an experience of, you know, people are there and, you know, waiting to have justice done. And I mean, in my district, literally, they have two vending machines.

They don't even have a cafeteria where they had water damage from a serious leak in the walls. I mean, you've got, you know, ceiling panels that are coming down. I mean, it's just not acceptable. So is there a list that you have of outstanding deferred maintenance that's needed? You do.

There's a manual report that we Submit to the State of that list.

If you could submit to the Committee the list of deferred maintenance that's outstanding and that your list of escorthouses are being replaced. How many, how much are those and how many there are. I really think. I don't. The likelihood of this year is not high.

But if we could certainly educate and start working towards that in the next. Just a second, sir. In the next fiscal year, I really think we need to get at this because it's dangerous, it's not appropriate. I mean, there's just nothing good about it.

And at this pace, it's only just going to keep getting worse, just like anything else. You know, if you don't fix something and you let it keep leaking, you let it keep leaking, let it keep leaking, I mean, eventually the whole thing's going to fall apart.

And it's my understanding the courthouse in my district, when they had the problems, I mean, literally people went outside and set up tables and tried to provide adequate justice to people. And there was a period of time where they weren't able to service the people. And it just is not.

We're not providing the justice that we guarantee people that they're going to have. So if I continue to maintain in this role, which it looks like I might get a congratulations, we'll see if I pass at the end.

But if you could provide to the Committee that information, and I'd like to work with my colleagues on raising the level and the understanding that this really is a very serious problem. We need to start allocating resources appropriately.

We appreciate that, Senator. It's not only funding the staff that do the work, it's ensuring that their workplace for both those that come into the courthouses and those that work in the courthouse, is safe and secure.

Right, right. Madam Chair, I actually have those numbers, so I will forward that information to you.

Okay, thank you. With the bill for us to work on to fund them. All right.

You got the bill form yet? But that's something that we should all.

Okay, well, count me in. All right. And lastly, I believe was it you guys who told us about the weight of the appellate folks, the court appointed.

Council and the projects and panel attorneys? Yeah. And I believe there, there's a lot of representatives here for public comment. Yes.

Okay. Is that at the same funding level? Yes.

There's no change from the Governor's Budget at the 6 months million range, but not at, not at the. Not at the original request that was identified by Justice Boy Yuri at our prior hearing, which was in the 25 $1.0 million range.

It was originally requested. 25.

Yeah. We can get you the specific amount at the time that we submitted, but we are supportive and appreciate the $6 million continuing in the May revision.

Okay. And we'll follow up on that as well. Okay, thank you. Did you want to add something, sir?

Just wanted to. We separate from the deferred maintenance we did. We do have in the Judicial Branch's budget $80 million ongoing for facility modifications to address, you know, what you're describing.

It's not to say that that covers everything, but I just want to make sure that that's known because we do recognize that there is a need for, you know, to improve the facility, to improve courts facilities. And we have made investments, modest investments in the past to address the facility needs of the courts.

I just wanted to make sure that. Just to add some detail to the.

Picture, to add a fine point. There is a difference between sort of regular maintenance, significant projects, and then deferred maintenance and then new construction. So I appreciate his point. We do have a budget for a certain level, but it is lagging behind, especially if we don't build new.

Then the existing inventory gets nothing but older and it needs more maintenance. So it's a. It's a tough balance.

He answered you nicer than I would answer. I, I understand what you're saying. The point is, is that any one courthouse, to replace one courthouse today could be more than $80 million. And so that's why I asked him the question.

If you were to keep the same amount of money, $80 million a year, and you look at the list of what you have, how long would it take you to get to that list? And my guess is the answer is probably going to be 2030 however many years. Well, by then the list restarts again.

So the point is we need more than 80 million. We need substantially more than 80 million to get at that list. But yes, we're glad there has been some funds set aside or maintained is probably the better term. But additional funds are certainly required and we could use your assistance in sharing that feedback with the Administration.

And if you have not been to a tour recently, I would welcome to invite your staff to come and see what these courthouses are dealing with. I mean, it is just not. It's amazing that they provide the services that they do, the employees, in such a pleasant and doing the best that they can. But any other.

It would be very difficult to provide justice for anybody in those surroundings. And we must do better is the point. Okay, thank you. All right. Any other comments. Mr. Seyarto gave you a good example. It's like, you know your credit card, you owe $2,000 and every month you only make the minimum payment.

You'll be paying on that credit card for 10 years instead still owe $2,000. So at some point we gotta up what we're putting in of our minimum payment. You're giving me a minimum payment? I need a big payment. Yes. Okay, it looks like I think you've answered all of our questions.

Thank you for being here and thank you for your work.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you. All right, with that we're going to go to issue number three. Nora said this was going to be a fast, easy. She was wrong. Issue number three is an overview of the Governor's May revision proposal. More specifically focusing on the Office of Emergency Services. I've seen you before.

I've been here a time or two.

Yes, you have.

Hi, I'm Eric Swanson. I'm the Deputy Director of Finance and Logistics Administration at Cal OES and I'm going to go over really quickly our summary of our proposals.

We're asking for a net increase of 23.2 million General Fund to address costs of special equipment to traverse narrow and remote access roads as well as changes in our remote our Red Mountain proposal. This is needed for construction and to provide on site materials for tower Assembly.

We've proposed a one time increase of 1.2 billion Federal Trust Fund authority to reflect updated projections for reimbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. For eligible disaster costs. We're requesting $605,000 in state operations and 11.5 million in local assistance. This as federal funds for another one time federal Fund funded grant for state and local cybersecurity grant programs.

The Administration itself is requesting that Control Section 90 be added to authorize the Department of Finance to augment any state Department or agency appropriation for costs necessary during the 2025-26 budget to continue recovery efforts related to damage caused by the Eaton fire and Palisades fire in January of 2025.

And then the Office of Emergency Services is also requesting provisional budget bill language to ensure the amount available to expenditure from the state emergency telephone account is sufficient to support the next generation 911 emergency communication system.

And we've specified that no augmentation can result in in the monthly 911 surcharge exceeding the rate in effect of January 1, 2025, which is $0.41 per month per phone line. We have one reduction in our budget as well which is A reduction of $49.71 million one time proposed for the Flexible Cash Assistance for Survivors of Crime grant.

This was a $50 million one time General Fund that was appropriated in the 2022 budget act. And I'm here as well as my colleagues for any questions you may have.

Okay. Members. Oh, I'm sorry. LAO's office. Do you have some comments to share with us?

Sure. Hi. Heather Gonzalez with the LAO yes. Of the Office of Emergency Services may revise proposals before you today. We have comments on 4 as follows.

With respect to the Section 90 changes they've proposed, we don't have any problems with this proposal, but we would like to see expenditure reports, if not monthly, at least quarterly, to show us how the money's being spent with respect to the state and local cybersecurity program.

Again, no concerns about the proposal other than the risk of the loss of federal matching funds since this is a program with a large federal share. And we recommend that you ask OES to prepare options for the program if federal funds are reduced with respect to next generation 911 and the Sedna Augmentation Authority. Salud.

Excuse me.

Bless you. We recommend that you adopt this proposal because to not do so could place the functioning of the 911 system in jeopardy or further delay rollout of the next generation system.

However, we think you could get closer to an actual estimate of the funds needed by asking asking OES to provide information on what they think it will cost to maintain the legacy 911 for another year and then an update once they have completed discussions with their vendors and have a better sense of what the improvements to the next generation system will cost.

In addition, we recommend provisional language to require quarterly progress reports on this project as it has faced some challenges and may face more.

And then finally, with respect to the federal trust fund authority adjustment they've asked for, we think this is a reasonable proposal, but we would recommend modifying the language to ensure that it's clear that this authority enables reimbursements only and no new money at all.

Thank you. Tess Shirkenbach for the Department of Finance. Just wanted to take a moment to respond to some of the LAO's comments and recommendations.

So just wanted to group two of the issues together as they have kind of the similar recommendation on reporting requirements, that being the state emergency telephone number account augmentation as well as the Control Section 90 issue.

So as far as the reporting requirements recommendation, we are happy to engage with the LAO on you know what that would look like and ensure that discussion and conversation so Totally open to that conversation.

And then on the state and local cybersecurity grant program funding authority, just wanted to note that we have a number of Department staff here that are able to kind of, you know, speak to any of those kind of more programmatic questions on, you know, if federal funding was eliminated.

So we can certainly, you know, answer any questions about that. And then also on the Federal Trust Fund authority adjustment in response to the provisional language. We think the existing provisional language that is in the items already contains the specificity that the LAO is looking for.

The funding that is flowing through this item is already limited to only reimbursements related to disaster response and recovery. So certainly happy to engage the LAO and discuss that further about, you know, what, what the current language does capture. So thank you. Yes definitely.

Okay, sounds good. All right Members. Senator Durazo.

Excuse me. Thank you, Madam Chair. With regards to the flexible cash assistance, when you say you're going to revert, does that mean you're sort of pulling back and not going to allow that expenditure or is that a permanent, is that just this one year describe what it means to revert it.

I'm very concerned about survivors of crime not having having such a huge cut into their available funds.

Again, tester back with Department of Finance. Yes. So what that General Fund solution is seeking to accomplish, it would be a, this was a one time funding that was added to the budget. So, so yes, this would be a reversion one time of that funding taking the entirety funding for that program away.

So in essence no more funding would. Remain for that program, but just this.

One year or ongoing forever.

This was one time money. So there's only one time amount of funding to take from it. So that's what the reversion would do. Take the funding that was given one.

Time that's left at zero. Yes. Next year it doesn't. There was no funding for this ongoing. If we redo it, if we want it, we have to put it back in the budget next year, we lose it completely. That's a, that's a huge change.

And anyway, the whole amount to be taken away from this, I think it was a very successful, very important program to be able to help these survivors of crime. I don't know take that into consideration. What's needed for them. Second question on Control, Section 90.

Just a couple of questions on what's included in that, in the, what we've already authorized as far as the Eaton fire, the Palisade's fire. So one question is there was wildfire recovery request made from the City of la.

Do you know if and if that has been included in this has been already approved or what's the process to make sure that this funding that's available actually gets into the city?

Yes. So happy to give you. Maybe it might be helpful to give you an overview of kind of the Control section funding for the Eaton Palisades fire that has happened so far because it's been a journey.

So originally control Section 90 and 9001 were proposed in the special session and they provided $2.5 billion for state agency response costs through April 30th of 2025.

Then there was AB100 and that was an early action issue that amended those control Section 90 and 9001 to extend that funding availability through June 30th of 2025 for the state agency response costs. And then it also covers recovery costs for locals and also a property tax backfill.

So I think directly to your question, Senator Durazzo, about the. The LA local funding request, AB100 specifically expand has that pot of money of $2.5 billion and set up a process for the locals to. To receive that recovery cost. Exactly.

So they would apply to this work.

Directly with Cal OES. Exactly. And, and, and work to receive that funding. So what this control Section 90 is doing is kind of taking what's the unmet need. We had state agency costs covered and then AB100 covered the local costs.

And so what this is doing is providing ongoing, sorry just recovery costs for state agencies in the budget year since the funding was under what we previously did expires June 30th of 2025. So without this control section, we won't have that critical recovery funding in the budget year.

Okay. And do you know if it covers lost revenues from waived permit fees for rebuilding?

I might have to defer to the Department on that. We have some staff here, I think that are more. Can anybody answer that?

I think as far as what Cal OES can cover, we can cover things that are can be reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Authority. But I'm not sure if law. If permit fees can be in that category, I could let you know or if somebody knows from our back smart folks, then they can let me know.

But I. We can look into that if you want. There is a separate part of control Section 90 that is directly. It doesn't go through Cal OES but it goes through finance to cover lost revenue associated with property tax and that kind of thing.

Okay. If you could find out on that. Yeah, appreciate that. And then do you know if the cost of undergrounding power lines would, would be included.

At the local level? I think that is something that from what I remember is allowable under the, the control section.

So the, the city and county could cover that with state costs as long as we, we know each time we're going to do a little determination to see if we can cover it with female could be FEMA reimbursed. But I think that was one of the examples of things that could come up.

And then another item, the federal Fund authority. Can you tell me what kind of local assistance can be taken from this Fund?

Yeah, right. That includes both. I think it's sort of our estimate of what we think will be authority we need both for the locals and for the state for all disasters in the next fiscal year.

Because it says 573 for local assistance and 654 for state operations.

I'm happy to chime in on this. Tesha back Department of Finance, please. So I just want to make sure that it's clear that this, this request is, is for authority only. This Fund serves essentially as a pass through and so for the receipt of Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA funding and just reimbursements.

So it's essentially a pass through without actual funding from that federal, from the Federal Government coming in. In FEMA reimbursements, there's nothing that can be done with the authority because the cash behind this authority comes from that federal funding.

So if the federal funding didn't materialize, let's say there's nothing that the Department can do to like spend this authority because it's purely there as like, you know, pass through for reimbursements, if that makes sense.

Can I add maybe some context to this? Heather Gonzalez with the lao. So. When we get. So there's a. At the federal level under FEMA we have what's called the Disaster Relief Fund and that's where we get our reimbursements for most of our federal money.

When we have a disaster of some kind and it goes back years, we have disasters, we're still getting money from, through reimbursement through the Disaster Relief Fund, going to like 2018.

So every year as this money's coming through, we have set essentially an amount at the beginning of the year that we give them authority to receive that we give OES authority, receive from that, from those payments. And then if they get an amount of money that's over that because it's set relatively low.

If they get an amount that's over that they have to go through a process where they notify us and we have to approve it. And we go through this process.

As I understand it from OES and as it was explained to me, they are somewhat comfortable that they can anticipate the actual amount of money they're going to get so that we don't have to continually go through this process of upping their authority throughout the year so they can look at that disaster relief fund and say, okay, the feds have budgeted us for this.

We have these reimbursements out there. We think we're going to get X amount of money.

And so that will be the new amount that every year they will come to you and ask for and they will say, this is the amount of money that we think we need that we're going to get back in reimbursements for these activities. And then you set it at that.

And then it kind of cuts us out of having to constantly reapprove new budget authority.

It does, however, theoretically leave you in a position where at the beginning of the budget year it is theoretically possible that they will have a lot of federal trust Fund authority that at least theoretically could be used for funds other than what we're talking about.

We are in discussions with finance about how to craft that language to make sure it says exactly what we all agree we want to do. But other than that, it's my understanding that that's the process that we're trying to correct for.

Okay, okay, got it. Thank you, Mr.

Sigardo.

We're just going to talk about one issue and that's the next gen.

I'm going to phone a friend for this one.

Okay, bring them on. So anyway, while your friend is getting settled, I do, you know, I kind of prepared for this one a little bit because I didn't. You could definitely go rambling on this. So I wanted to make it so.

In November of 2024, new news reports were surfacing that we were having some major problems with the PSAPs, which is the public safety answering system for those who don't know, that had transitioned already to the next gen 911 network.

And some whistleblowers made claims that vendors weren't communicating with each other and required testing of critical equipment may have been bypassed or shortcut. NextGen rollout was suspended around that time and has yet to resume. And I am familiar with some of these type of issues in the fire Service.

Then on January 141 of the Senators had sent a letter to the OES Director asking some of the questions, including the reasons for the pause when the rollout would resume and the risks to public safety and the status of vendor contracts. And she didn't really get a. A response that was particularly transparent or even helpful.

And so I'm going to ask a few questions in that regard today because this is concerning to me. Out of 438 PSAPs in the state, we've only got 23 up, and now the program has been suspended.

And so we need some reassurances that, you know, we've had a funding stream for about six to seven years now, and now we're being asked to add to it.

So in 2018, when we were seeking the funding for this, the Legislature was told that the wire, the current copper legacy system, that's what we call that the legacy system, was failing.

But here we are six years later, and then we want to fund the continuation of using the legacy system because we don't have anything to replace it with. Are we having a struggle with the. Are we struggling with its reliability? And is that putting the public safety public at risk for when they're dialing 911 to get help?

There have been improvements to the system. Maybe. I don't know.

So, Senator, I'm Lisa Mangat. I'm Chief Deputy Director of Cal OES. Thank you for having me here today. So I think you've shared a lot of information, so maybe let me give a little bit of an overview of where we are, and then I want to make sure to kind of circle back to that. So you're correct.

We started this. There's been a national focus to upgrade legacy 911 systems across the state. California has been no exception. We, over the last several years, we've been installing through a network of vendors the necessary infrastructure across the 447 PSAPs that are locally operated across the state.

And I think you're very familiar with how diverse each of these PSAPs are. When I say infrastructure, I'm really referring to the electric, the structural, the hardware, software, even the undergrounding to implant the fiber optics that would ultimately replace the copper systems. So all of that has been put in place.

Then we began, really, the initial beginning of the next phase, which was the migration of the PSAPs to the new NG911 network. With the infrastructure already in place, what we found is that that migration was more labor intensive for the PSAPs and was taking longer than we anticipated.

So with that, we paused the additional migration of additional PSAPs so that we could spend time with the PSAPs to make sure that we understood the impacts to their operations and also speak with the vendors with the aim of identifying solutions to ease that migration in the future and make sure that we understood the interdependencies that are built between the vendors under the current framework.

So that's where we are. I think the team. We've also been looking at what other states have been doing compared to California, and we get that we're a complex state, but you can still learn a lot from some of these other states.

One example of a solution that we've been talking about, and I might end up phoning a friend too if we get into deeper details, but it's called a transitional element. So let me talk about what that is.

So right now, if I'm at a call handling center and I get a call in, the 911 legacy system is still supporting the entire system.

So if I'm at a call handling center at one of the 23 that have been migrated, I could get a call on either the NG911 system or the legacy system, which then puts it on the call handler to make a decision on how to, like a technical decision about how to adjudicate that there are things that we can do, just like every other state in the country, put in this transitional element, which is a technical solution that stops that from landing on the plate of the psap, but actually sorts all of that out.

And it's not just the vendors that are supporting NG91, but the carrier vendors and sorts all of that out so that that doesn't land on the lap of the psap. So that is something that we want to talk to the vendors about.

The other thing is we're taking a really close look at these interdependencies that we've built between the vendors. And if there's a way to streamline that in terms of our budget request here, for one thing we know is that we're going to need the continued support of the legacy system through the, through this upcoming year.

The piece that, as I sit here before you today, that I'm not really sure on yet, is these. And that dollar amount is dependent upon future conversations with these vendors on what does it look like to do a transitional element and how do we address some of these interdependence dependencies.

And we're really before you today as we're having those conversations and we're on the initial stages of those conversations and also making sure that we're doing this in a manner that's consistent with all of the state contracting rules. So that's where we are today.

Now when I talk about then you asked a really good question about, you know, we're all of course concerned about making sure that the 911 system is a resilient, robust system in the State of California. And I think I would answer it this way. The network and technology itself is stable.