Assembly Standing Committee on Budget

Good morning everybody. Welcome to today's informational hearing of the Assembly Budget Committee. Today's informational hearing is going to go over our budget bill and the trailer bills which are reflective of our final three party agreement with the Governor's office. And we expect votes on these bills on the floor on Friday and also on next Monday.

For today, we will hear from Jessica Holmes from the Department of Finance who will present on the bills. We also have an opportunity for Ross Brown from the Legislative Analyst Office to comment. We will then open it up to questions and comments from Members of the Committee. And finally, we will conclude with an opportunity for public comment.

Before we do begin, I just wanted to share a few brief thoughts. First of all, mostly just thank yous to those who have brought us to this moment.

And I want to thank our partners at the Department of Finance for their collaboration in this work, for partnering with us on an approach that would ground it in our twin goals of compassion and fiscal responsibility.

And I also want to thank them because when we gathered last time to discuss our legislative budget, we talked about the need to continue to protect our most vulnerable communities while also making more progress on our out year challenges. And I'm glad that our final agreement does that.

And so I want to thank again all of the staff at the Department of Finance for their hard work, their collaboration, and if Joe Stepenshaw is watching, just want to particularly thank him for his partnership on this effort.

As always, want to thank our exceptionally talented and hardworking budget sub chairs who have been the centerpiece of this effort from the very beginning. I know many of them were required to make tough choices and balance a lot of competing interests.

And I just want to thank you for the thoughtfulness and the scale with which you have approached this challenging task. And then also, of course, a thank you to all of the staff that have worked day and night over the past couple weeks to finalize this agreement.

So thank you, of course, to our very talented and hardworking Assembly Budget Committee staff, to the Republican staff who have worked hard on this process, the staff in many of our personal offices, and then of course the folks at the Department of Finance and ledge counsel who are working late into the night, many hours to make this possible.

As I said when we gathered last time to discuss our legislative budget, this is a product of a lot of tough choices. As I mentioned, it was at times an agonizing process as we grappled with the choices in front of us.

But I am, I do feel really good about the work that we did to ground this in both compassion and fiscal responsibility to make sure that we are protecting our safety net programs for the most vulnerable and at the same time putting our state on a stronger path to fiscal resiliency and also preserving flexibility.

As we have discussed from the very beginning of this year, we know that there are tremendous challenges ahead of us, particularly challenges from Washington D.C. that may be coming our way. And so the work we have done to preserve flexibility and prepare ourselves for those challenges ahead is important.

So with that, I want to again thank everybody who's been part of this process. Also thank the sergeants as always for taking such good care of us. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to our Vice Chair for any opening remarks.

There we are. Just want to say thank you to the chair, to all of our colleagues, and certainly a shout out to the Republican staff that worked their tails off over the last 24 hours.

When you have, you know, 20 plus Trailer bills dropped on you, it's a lot of effort and I can't imagine drafting those in the first place, but I just simply reviewing them takes a lot of effort. So to the staff, thank you for your service. We appreciate that very much. To Joe, thank you.

And to the dental crack staff, this has not been easy for you. I want to acknowledge that, you know, there may be things in here that I don't necessarily agree with or love, but I know that the hearts are in the right spot.

And we talked about the last budget cycle where doing the most amount of good for the most amount of people. And I think hopefully as we go through these trailer bills we will see that. And with that I just appreciate everybody's time. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember and with that I will turn it over to the Department of Finance for the presentation of the bills.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair Gabriel and Vice Chair Flora and Members of the Budget Committee. Jessica Holmes with the Department of Finance to present on the budget agreement between the Administration and the Legislature as identified at the May revision, California was and continues to face uncertain economic and fiscal times.

After two years of solving for multibillion dollar budget deficits, we are once again dealing with the situation that requires additional solutions to balance our budget. We have pulled back a lot of our one time investments as well as made other reductions with the goal to maintain our priority investments.

Program costs have continued to outpace revenues at the same time that we face the threat of significant reductions in federal support and therefore we had to make very difficult decisions to balance this budget in the next fiscal year as well as Address growing costs.

The budget agreement includes significant ongoing reductions to some of the costliest of our state programs, including. However, it maintains investments to the core of our health and safety net programs that support Californians that need them the most. It takes a balanced approach given the economic uncertainty driven by federal policies. With that, Mr.

Chair, would you like me to begin with AB and SB102?

That would be great. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. A.B. I'm sorry. A.B. 102 budget Bill junior this is. This Bill is a budget Bill junior that amends SB 101, the Legislature's proposed budget for 2025 and includes many significant adjustments. I'll highlight a few in each budget.

Area in natural resources environmental protection, the budget includes a shift of 1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse gas reduction Fund to support CAL FIRE's fire protection activities in 2025-26.

The budget includes 39 million General Fund in 2025-26 and 78 million General Fund in 2026-27 and ongoing to begin transitioning a portion of Firefighter 1 positions assigned to hand crews within the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to a permanent firefighter employment classification.

It includes approximately 170 million in accelerated climate bond funding to conservancies from forest and vegetation management. Across the state. Yeah, across the state. In education, the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee for 2025-26 is 114.6 billion total. But however, I would note that total Proposition 98 appropriations for 2025 are approximately 118 billion.

The budget creates a $1.9 billion settle up obligation in 202425. Also in education, the budget provides 2.1 billion ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to support universal transitional kindergarten making TK available to all 4 year olds in the 25-26 school year. In higher education, the University of California has 129.71,000,000 one time General Fund deferred.

This is in relation to a 3% reduction that was proposed at May revision. This comes a deferral from 25-26 to 26-27. Likewise for the California State University, the budget includes a one time deferral of the 3% CSU baseline at 143,800,000 one time.

Both UC and CSU have provisional language to authorize them to request a no interest short term cash flow loan from the General Fund to remediate the impacts of this deferral in the budget year.

In housing, this Bill includes 4.2 million to support the reorganization of the business, consumer services and housing agency that's 4.2 million in the budget year and 6.4 million ongoing.

In relation to collective bargaining, the budget includes 213.6 million for employee compensation, health care costs for active state employees and retiree health care pre funding contributions for active employees in 2025-26.

In transportation, the budget includes 25 million in 2025-26 to establish the Clean California Community Cleanup and Employment Pathway Grant program, which will address litter and Graffiti abatement efforts, foster community engagement and create career pathways.

In General government, the budget includes 79 million General Fund in 2025-26 to backfill insufficient ERAF amounts from 23-24 in Alpine, Mono and San Mateo counties for cannabis control, the Bill effectuates statutory changes included in AB/SB 141 by shifting resources from the Cannabis Control Fund to the Cannabis Tax Fund to allow the Department of Cannabis Control to sustain existing enforcement activities without imposing fee increases on existing licensees.

In the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency space contingent upon the 2025 governor's reorganization plan taking effect, the Bill includes funds to support the reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency and the creation of the Housing Development and Finance Committee in addition to the Business and Consumer Services agency, the budget includes 51,000,000 one time General Fund in 2025 to expand the College Corps, an 84 million General Fund in 2026-27 and ongoing for the continuation of the program.

In Human services, the budget includes funding to continue implementing the foster Care tiered rate structure which includes resources for state operations as well as local assistance, funding for child and adolescent needs and strengths, Fidelity tools and training activities.

It also includes one time allocations of 83.8 million General Fund for the Home Safe program, 81 million General Fund for bringing families home and and 44.6 million General Fund for HDAP in corrections and public safety.

The budget provides 1001,000,000 one time General Fund to be spent across three years to multiple departments to Fund Proposition 36 implementation in health, the Bill Implements various General Fund solutions in the MEDI Cal program, including savings from the implementation of a rebate aggregator to secure state rebates for MEDI Cal Members with Unsatisfactory Immigration status and ongoing General Fund savings associated with the elimination of specialty weight loss drugs effective January 1, 2026 including glucod, GLP1.

Finally, in the health space, the Budget and Proposition 35 Expenditure Plan includes 303.9 million total Fund in 2025-26 for reproductive health programs. That concludes my presentation. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much. Now ask our friends at the Department of Finance if they have any Oh , did you want to go ahead and go through the rest of the trailer bills? Let's do that.

Certainly. Okay. I'll start with SB/AB 103. This is the 2024 Budget Bill Junior Budget Bill Junior Number Nine.

This Bill includes several amendments to the 2024 Budget act, including in relation to sections 90 and 91 of the Budget Act of 2024, which authorized augmentations of up to 22.5 billion for response and recovery efforts related to the Eaton and Palisades fire.

And in January 2025, this Bill makes amendments to expand eligibility to these to these funds under the property tax backfill provisions to include dependent special districts in addition to independent special districts for Clean Cars for All, this Bill eliminates the requirement for the Air Resources Board to allocate a minimum of 125 million for the statewide clean cars for all in the 2022 budget.

And in Education, this Bill adjusts funding for special education financial financial aid programs to better align with needs. The Bill includes reappropriations totaling 357.8 million from the 2022 and 2023 budget acts to allow the Department of Corrections to cover a current year deficiency.

Additionally, the Bill includes a net zero shift of expenditure authority in the current year to support two items where deficiencies exist. And finally, the Bill allocates existing funds totaling 12 million for reparations to implement related legislation and to educate the public on the findings of the California Reparations Task Force Report.

Moving on to AB/SB116 the 2025 Health Omnibus Bill this Bill institutes an enrollment freeze for full scope Medi Cal expansion for adults 19 and older beginning January 1, 2026. The Bill includes ongoing General Fund savings associated with the implementation of a $30 monthly premium per individual for adults age 19 to 59 with unsatisfactory immigration status.

Effective July 1, 2027. The budget includes ongoing General Fund savings associated with the elimination of dental benefits for adults age 19 and older with unsatisfactory immigration status. Effective July 1, 2027. The Bill includes prospective payment system payments to federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics.

The Bill includes effective January 1, 2026 requires MEDI Cal Members to obtain a drug removed from the contracted drug list through the prior authorization process. Effective January 1, 2026.

The Bill reinstates the MEDI Cal asset limit at $130,000 for an individual and 65,000 DOL additional household number when determining medi Cal eligibility for applicants or Members whose eligibility is not based on modified adjusted gross income.

Financial Methods in the Department of Public Health, it requires the Department of Public Health to adopt emergency regulations to establish staffing ratio requirements for acute psychiatric hospitals no later than January 31, 2027 and to make permanent those regulations by July 30, 31st, 2027 or sooner. Moving on to AB 118.

The Human Services Omnibus this Bill proposes revisions to the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant formula commencing in 26-27.

The revisions include new variables that capture youth who are not committed to secure youth treatment facilities and youth who are transferred from a secure youth treatment facility to an LRP, differentiating between Title 15 LRPs, LRPs licensed by the Board of State and Community corrections and non title 15 LRPs community, which are community based LRPs not licensed by the Board of State and Community Corrections.

It includes statutory changes to clarify the use of Adoption Assistance Program funds for out of home placements in out of state residential treatment facilities.

It requires the state and counties to pay 50% of the amount of lost enhanced federal financial participation due to late reassessments for the Community First Choice Option program for fiscal year 2025-26, and it requires counties to pay 100% of the lost enhanced federal financial participation from the late Community First Choice Option reassessments beginning on July 12026.

Moving on to AB120. This is the Early Learning and Child Care Omnibus.

This bill includes this bill includes statutory cost of living I'm sorry. This bill suspends the statutory cost of living adjustment for child care programs but extends and increases the monthly cost of care plus payments for all subsidized child care providers through June 30, 2026.

It extends the existing reimbursement based on enrollment policy for all subsidized child care providers through June 30, 2026 and suspends the statutory cost of living adjustment for 2025-26 and codifies that funding for future cost of living adjustments will be implemented as a rate increase for all subsidized child care providers.

AB121 Education Finance this is the Education Omnibus Budget Trailer Bill. This bill allocates 1.7 billion one time Prop 98 General Fund for the Student Support and Professional development discretionary block GR to provide LEAs with additional fiscal support to address rising costs as well as Fund statewide priorities.

This bill provides 480 million one time Prop 98 General Fund to support literacy instruction aligned with the English Language Arts English Language Development Framework for all students, including for literacy coaches at high need schools, evidence based professional learning and literacy for elementary school teachers and screening kindergarten through second grade students for risk of reading difficulties.

The bill includes 400 million one time Prop 98 General Fund to support teachers and improve access to the educator pipeline. Provides 160 million one time Prop 98 General Fund to support the implementation of universal school meals including funds for infrastructure and training, healthy food procurement and recruitment and retention of food service workers.

The Bill lowers the average student to adult ratio from 12 to 1 to 10 to 1 in every TK classroom and includes intent language that allocates up to 1.9 billion in 2024-25 Prop 98 settle up funds to reduce ongoing deficits and protect core program funding for school districts and community colleges.

Relatedly, AB123 defers 408.4 million of student centered funding formula apportionments to community colleges. This deferral is scheduled for repayment in July 2026 and helps avoid cuts to community college base funding.

The bill appropriates 60 million one time Prop 98 General Fund to establish the Student Support Block Grant for community college districts to support student needs, including assistance to students with food, housing, transportation and other basic needs.

It provides 25 million one time Prop 98 General Fund to develop a career passport that provides individuals with a secure digital tool that displays their preparation for employment, academic records and credit for prior learning. It also provides 15 million one time Prop.

98 General Fund for the Credit for Prior Learning Initiative A community college system wide initiative to award degree applicable or certificate applicable credit for prior student learning at each campus. AB124 is the resources and Environmental Protection Trailer Bill. This bill would enact various changes related to resources and environmental protection programs.

Most notably, it increases the forester registration fees and begins transitioning a portion of seasonal firefighter positions within the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to a permanent classification starting with those assigned to hand crews, and expresses the Legislature's intent to transition the remainder of the seasonal firefighter positions to a permanent classification upon appropriation of funding for that purpose.

It also makes various other changes to the Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Parks and Recreation and Bay Conservation and development Commission statutes AB127 is the Energy and Climate Trailer Bill.

This bill would enact various changes related to energy and climate programs, most notably including a fee restructuring of the Clean Energy Commission's opt in and application for certification permitting programs, an expansion of the Energy Commission's ability to contract with new types of block grant administrators for its Clean Transportation Program and various technical cleanup to the Energy Commission, Department of Water Resources and California Air Resources Board statutes.

The Bill also appropriates 132 million from the Air Pollution Control Fund in 2025-26 to the California Air Resources Board for the Hybrid and Zero Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive project from settlement funds resulting from the Hinu motors consent decree. AB127. Oh, I'm sorry, I just did that one. Moving on to AB128, the transportation trailer Bill.

This bill would make various changes related to transportation. Most notably, the Trailer Bill includes provisions related to streamlining in advance of the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, delays of certain DMV activities in light of the Motor Vehicle Account Fund condition, and reestablishing a fee needed to support the DMV's digital experience platform project.

It also includes an appropriation for Caltrans to begin to to begin up to 20 million in Olympics related capital work in 2025-26 if capital needs are identified. AB129 is the labor Trailer Bill. This bill implements the following notable labor proposals.

It requires the Department of Human Resources, in collaboration with the Department of Social Services to appoint a statewide bargaining Advisory Committee to review the full cost of care for in home supportive services under a statewide collective bargaining model and for the Committee to submit a series of reports on key issues associated with any transition to statewide bargaining.

Among other things, ensures that specified State employees specifically CEAs are eligible for non industrial disability insurance benefits as of July 1, 2025 and makes 584 million supplemental pension payment to CalPERS in partial fulfillment of Prop. 2 debt repayment obligations. AB130 is the housing and Homelessness Trailer Bill.

This streamlines housing production including creating a statewide Vehicle miles Traveled Mitigation banking program as a flexible option for developers to meet existing CEQA obligations.

Under this option, developers could pay a fee that will support vehicle miles travel deficient affordable housing near transit Expanding existing CEQA streamlining tools to accelerate infill housing production including the provision of AB 609 modifying the renter's Credit the budget Specifically the budget agreement includes a trigger item whereby if specified in a future budget Bill with an appropriation potentially beginning with tax year 2026, the renter's credit would be modified as follows.

The existing non refundable credit amounts would be increased from their current levels of $60 for single filers and and 120 for joint filers to 250 for renters with no dependents and 500 for renters with at least one dependent regardless of filing status.

Imposing a moratorium on the adoption of new state and local building standards affecting residential units for six years through 2031 with certain exemptions. Addressing affordability for tenants and homeowners through a number of provisions that restrict monetary penalties by homeowners associations and protect homeowners from harm on mortgage debts they think were closed.

Enabling the Department of Housing and Community Development to recycle previous funding by enabling developers to withdraw cash from existing HCD projects to promote the preservation, rehabilitation or development of additional affordable housing projects.

Would note that there will be another housing Trailer Bill AB131 that will include provisions to improve the clarity and efficiency of CEQA processes and additional homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program Appropriation Details AB132 is a tax omnibus bill.

This bill includes several tax policies and does the following for the covered battery Embedded Waste Recycling Fee Requires marketplace facilitators to remit this fee to the Department of Tax and Fee Administration on behalf of marketplace sellers for the Film Tax Credit expansion Increases the allocation cap under the film tax credit program 4.0 from 330 million per year to 750 million per year from 2025-26 to 202930 excludes from income tax for state tax purposes up to $20,000 in military retirement income from tax for tax years 2025 through 2029 for military retirees below a certain certain income threshold and excludes from income for state tax purposes all wildfire settlement payments paid from 2021 through 2029.

The bill also includes a mandatory single sales factor for financial institutions. Moves financial institutions from three factor to single sales factor apportionment beginning in tax year 2025. Moving on to AB 134. This is the Public Safety Trailer Bill.

The Public Safety Trailer Bill authorizes the Board and State of Community Corrections in cases where the BSCC does not accept a county's corrective action plan to bring civil action against a county to enforce compliance with minimum standards for juvenile facilities in the Superior Court in the county in which a facility is located.

It appropriates 51 million one time General Fund to the Department of Justice to establish the Tribal Police Pilot Program which grants tribal law enforcement officers of specified tribes State peace officer authority on Indian land and elsewhere in the state under specified circumstances.

It also provides incarcerated full time college students with the same privileges received by incarcerated full time workers which allows these students to work or participate in additional programming beyond their college classes. AB 136 is the courts Trailer Bill.

This Trailer Bill streamlines additional judicial branch reports to consolidate those submitted to the Legislature, eliminates the jury duty Pilot program consistent to address the budget shortfall, authorizes the sale of four judicial branch buildings and appropriates 4.71 million one time General Fund to backfill the State Court facilities construction Fund. AB 137 is the General Government Trailer Bill.

This Trailer Bill increases the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation's fees across various programs to sustain the Department's operations and program costs and to address the long term solvency of the Financial Protection Fund.

Extends the sunset for the Climate Catalyst Program that provides financing and credit support for eligible infrastructure projects consistent with the state's climate goals through December 31, 2031. AB 139 is the Trailer Bill for state bargaining units 9 and 12.

This bill makes necessary statutory changes to ratify and implement a memorandum of understanding between the State and bargaining units nine, the professional engineers and an addendum to an MOU between the state and budget I'm sorry bargaining unit 12, the operating engineers. AB 140 is the Trailer Bill for state bargaining unit six.

This bill makes necessary statutory changes to ratify and implement a memorandum of understanding between the State and bargaining unit 6 which are for correctional officers. AB141 is the cannabis Trailer Bill.

This bill authorizes the Department of Cannabis Control to receive cannabis tax funding to support the reasonable cost for enforcement against unauthorized commercial cannabis activity and and the Track and Trace program. This allows the Department to sustain existing enforcement activities without imposing fee increases on existing licensees. It amends the Cannabis Tax Fund, which is Prop.

64 amends those grants issued by the Board of State and Community Corrections to be awarded to local governments if it either allows the retail sale of cannabis in storefronts or allows for cannabis delivery in jurisdictions that serve both medicinal and adult use consumers with a population of 10,000 instead of 3,500 residents or less, and requires the Board of State and Community Corrections to prioritize grant awards for local government whose grant application includes illicit cannabis enforcement.

AB142 is the second energy Trailer Bill. This bill extends the surcharge supporting the deaf and disabled telecommunications program at the CPUC until December 31, 2024. The surcharge expired on January 1, 2025. And I believe that brings us to the last Trailer Bill that we have on the agenda today.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We will now have an opportunity for Ross Brown from the LAO's office any observations you'd wish to share.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair and Members. Ross Brown with the LAO. We don't have any prepared remarks today. But I'm here with some of our. Staff and we're available for questions.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I also do want to acknowledge that we have Christian Griffith with the Assembly Budget Committee who's here to help answer questions as well. With that, I want to bring it back to Members of the Committee for questions or comments. I know that Mr. Ramos and Mr. Lee

Well, thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you to the staff that's there. And certainly as Chair of sub 6 and Public Safety Committee, I want to thank Jennifer Kim and Bernie Orozco for all the hard work we've done this year.

And I want to thank Chair Gabriel and the speaker and the Senate Pro Tem and the Governor's office for all the work that's gone into this budget.

In this final budget, this plan largely preserves many of the investments for public safety that was part of the Legislature's plan, including funding for Proposition 36 that supports behavioral health courts and probation. The funding includes data requirements so that we can get a sense of the impact to the counties.

Also, this plan also maintains, through bipartisan effort, $100 million for Voca and adds $10 million for family justice centers statewide.

We also preserved funding for rehabilitative programs through the Wright Grant, also funding to address sexual abuse inside women's prisons, which we had a hearing on, and resources to help CDCR reduce its reception processing time to get people into programming faster, which would generate savings for the State of California.

This plan also preserves ongoing funding for the California Highway Patrol and the Internet Crimes Against Children's Task Forces to address child sexual abuse material.

Also, the Public Safety Trailer Bill includes an important component for California's first people in helping to address the missing and murdered Indigenous women's crisis by moving forward on a public safety on tribal lands through a pilot tribal pilot program that would deal with PL 280 and jurisdictional divides in these times of fiscal challenges and political uncertainty.

I am thankful that this plan preserves many of the priorities that are important to the people of the State of California. We also want to highlight the work that's been done to make sure that we have a military tax exemption for our veterans who retire in the State of California.

Also acknowledging funding for California Indian Nations College to make sure that we do have a tribal college here in the State of California that has the highest population of Native Americans in any other state in the nation.

Also highlighting foster families 31.5 million to stabilize the foster family agencies across the State of California and also another really important issue for California's first people is the maintaining of the tribal monument on the Capitol grounds.

We also were involved in the CEQA component, dealing with the housing component, working on the priority from the Assembly and the Senate and the Governor's Office on making sure that housing moved forward. Four weeks ago, the question on Cultural Resources Protection if CEQA would be exempted came up in a meeting.

After bringing this forward, I immediately started working on this issue and negotiation took place. What is on this issue today and what was heard in AB130 I immediately started working to address those issues to make sure that there was a voice of California's first people during this process.

Negotiation took place and the Trailer Bill Language is the result of this hard work. Upon reaching agreement on components, I emailed language out to several tribal governments and several letters of support came in to support the work that was being done and different tribal letters came in and others also were negotiating.

In negotiations we always don't get everything we want, but this is a great step forward. It does not solve all issues, but it is a great compromise that allows a state to move forward to fulfill the state's responsibility to provide affordable housing to those in the State of California.

Components agreed upon with input from tribes include areas to protect AB52 process with some additional components While there are some who feel we didn't go far enough, we also need to make sure that when we negotiate issues, negotiation is a process of give and take.

And as a Member, as a Member of a California Indian tribe who still conducts reburials, we know that that voice is important to make sure that our voices are being heard. When four weeks ago we weren't even acknowledged in this Bill.

Today we have components that move forward and we believe we address those issues moving forward, which was only done when we actually come together and start to work in areas that we worked on, including in this area in the overviews.

Have binding conditions of approval when these projects move forward, which include for the first time tribal monitoring that would be paid by the developer. Project applicant would pay for these monitoring costs. Avoidance of tribal cultural resources where feasible, cultural appropriate treatment and documentation.

Making sure that record search are being done and to adhere to the Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission. Compliance with Health and Safety code for human remains and reburials. We still conduct reburials for our tribe. I did a reburial when we were on spring break.

So these are things that are very, very close to me and personal. In the application of tribal ecological knowledge in habitat restoration. There is a consultation time frame that starts to move forward because it is a streamlining component, one once approved from the local agency. They have 14 days.

The developer has 14 days to notify tribes and formally notify them of the project. The tribes then have 60 days to respond. And I believe that 60 days up front gives us all a better chance to negotiate things moving forward.

An initiation within 30 days of consultation is requested and then conclusion of those treatments within 45 to 60 days where the tribe has a 15 day extension solely on their part. These areas, we believe that if there is ongoing discussion can move forward and be able to have the voices moving forward.

These areas are things that we worked on. Well, some might say it didn't go far enough. We do have support from those throughout tribal communities. Tribal support that's there that include letters of support from the Yurok Tribe, the largest tribe in the State of California.

Table Mountain Rancheria, Tule River Indian Tribe of California, the Yehaviethum of the Sam Manuel Nation, San Yanez Band of Chumash Indians, Takun Taruk Band of Ohlone, Costa Noan Indians of Big Sur, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Redding Rancheria. So it shows that there is ongoing support for the things that we came together on.

Again, there was no mention of protection of resources four weeks ago, but today we reached a compromise. Does it do everything that we want in compromise and negotiation, no one ever gets 100%.

But I believe it is a step in the right direction to preserve California's first people and to make sure that monitors are paid for by the developers to ensure that inadvertent discovery of human remains, there's a process for reburial. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I just want to thank you again for your very able leadership of our budget Subcommitee to guide us on critical public safety issues. And then, of course, to thank you for the incredible work you have done to uplift the voices of our tribal communities and our first people.

And really, I think I speak for all of my colleagues to say it's an honor to serve with you in the way that you have brought the voice of the tribal communities into our policy process. So thank you. With that, now I want to turn to another one of our talented budget Subcommitee Chairs, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I first want to start with thanking all the Budget Committee team and staff. As you would say, they have worked tirelessly from all committees. I'm blessed to have several that I can call or text at any time and say, go to bed.

But the point is that they work hour after hour trying to take in what comes through our budget committees. I have the opportunity to chair budget sub 5, which is state Administration. And we are, as was noted by my colleague, we don't get everything we want in a budget, and we fight for much.

And with that, we are certainly happy to have moved the needle on housing and homeless dollars this year, where we started out with a.00 dollars put into housing.

And we highly disagreed with that initial number and are pleased to see over a billion and a half dollars put back into housing, including funding for the low income housing tax credit, funding for the multifamily program, and H HAPP Dollars included in the 2026 budget. We know that there's still a lot of work to do.

Every poll out there shows Californians saying housing is just too darn high, and this is taking a majority of their own budgets. And so we must build, we must build faster.

There's not always agreement on every piece of language, but certainly we know that across the spectrum, when we talk about affordability, Californians are saying, we want to stay here, we want to work here, but we need housing and we need it faster. So we are pleased with the movement on streamlining.

We know there's not always agreement there, but we certainly want to see housing built at a quicker pace. With that, it was Also mentioned, we were able to finally make some relief for retired veterans to get some type of response for the retirement.

We know that they serve, we have big bases here with Pendleton and we want them to stay in California. So we were able to make progress there. Another major area that we've made some progress, we want to see more progress is on cannabis.

Early on in our Budget Committee we had informational hearings that talked about the State of cannabis and some of you may not follow it, but certainly we there was predictions that we would have many billions of dollars coming in the state. That in fact has not happened.

And we know that from pandemic levels where there was much higher use as you, it has dropped off significantly. But the progress that we have made is enforcement and we want to see this enforcement so that the legal cannabis owners can have some success.

We still have work to do on that, but we certainly are pleased with that outcome.

One of the things that you may not know as budget sub chairs is not only do we work in our own, but we also work with the other sub chairs, not only having regular meetings but also going to them and talking about our priorities. And so I'm pleased to see the work under public safety.

We thank the budget chair for listening to the women, the Women's Caucus who said that women incarceration are an area that we want to be very intentional about.

And we are pleased that he did hosted an informational hearing and now there are dollars to address some of the pending issues in our two California women's prison, particularly around sexual assault. As we know that is absolutely not acceptable.

In addition, I personally as an educator for almost 30 years, I'm very happy to see some progress on the COLA for child care. We know that we have work to do on the child care slots, but certainly the COLA is something that our child care providers have been asking for.

And this is important as we know that in order to sustain California as the fourth largest economy, we need to have good, safe child care. But with that, again, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to enroll to work under some very invested sub chairs and of course under the leadership of our budget chair. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Chair Quicksilvan. Let me also compliment you for so ably handling some very tough issues this year. I think it's been clear to anyone who's been watching our budget process over the last years that housing and homelessness and making progress on those issues are a top priority for the Assembly.

You have really been our leader and our champion in that respect. And as I have told you privately, your fingerprints are all over this budget and really the work to move us in a better direction on housing and particularly the funding for some really critical affordable housing programs to make sure that we make progress on that.

So thank you for your good work there and also for your collaboration with the other sub chairs. With that next on my list I. Have Mr. Lee.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I have quick comments and then I have two questions on two different topic areas. So be prepared.

DOF so I just want to thank of course our budget team so much for your constant round the clock work as well as Department of Finance and supporting getting this three party agreement as well to our budget sub Chairs and our Budget Chair for the able leadership.

I am very pleased to see that the Wright grants and the hire program and the funding for incarcerated firefighters made it into the three party agreement which was a big priority for the Legislative Progressive Caucus. In making sure that we are supporting folks leaving the carceral system and reintegrating in society to be productive Members of society.

It was really important that those funding, while relatively small in the budget was able to support folks that productive lives leaving our carceral system. So I'm really pleased to see overall movement we have in the budget. I do have two questions.

My first one is about SB AB 130 on the housing bond housing measure which I broadly overall have been very supportive of all the policy measures put in there. It is the first time I've ever seen the entire budget Bill contingent on being enacted on two policy bills about housing.

But that shows how serious it is we are about getting more housing built and how dire the housing crisis is.

However, I did notice while again I'm reiterating that I'm very broadly supportive of most of the things in there and I author on several of these bills I noticed that there are new construction minimum wage standards put in there that I have not seen beforehand.

And I noticed that my counties are the highest minimum wage, which is good in that regard. But I wanted to understand the rationale for creating a under the guise of the CEQA streamlining measure. What this minimum wage rationale is, how much does it deviate from what the wages are?

I just don't understand where the 60% breaking by counties comes from and what the logic and rationale that is. So if I can ask the OF to explain that rationale for us so I can better understand.

Yes, thank you Assemblymember Megan Tokonaga Block Department of Finance the wage rates that you're referring to are related to a new CEQA streamlining option. So these are for market rate developments that are not currently paying prevailing wages. Otherwise, it creates an option for developers to use and go through CEQA streamlining.

And so these projects would otherwise be paying set market rates and the rates that you refer to are higher than the market would pay otherwise. If a project is already required to pay prevailing wages, this new proposal does not exempt them from those existing wage requirements.

Sorry, can you repeat that last part, what you just said?

If a project is already required to pay prevailing wages, the proposal before you does not exempt them from those existing requirements.

Okay, but can you also explain, I just don't understand the 60% rational. So if these are different types of projects, where does the number come from for the counties? And why is it like 60% of the workforce? It's just this is all very new policy to me.

Sure. So the intent was to make sure that the wages that are set are higher than market rates. And so there's two thresholds as part of the Bill. First is a 60%.

And then so the requirement for the highest wage counties is that 60% of the construction workers will be paid a rate of no less than $40 per hour and that 100% of the workers would be paid a rate of $27 per hour. And then there's a tiering system for other counties that are not the highest level.

And then there's three tiers overall.

Right. And I understand that is the $40 rate for my counties that I live in and I represent as well. I would just appreciate offline to just getting more information about this logic behind this policy. ASHENOL and so better understand that. So that would be really appreciated.

But it is surprising to me to see in the bill language because it wasn't present in other housing bills that I had previously voted for. The second thing I want to ask about moving on to a different topic altogether is the film tax credit.

So now that we are, as I understand it, for the film tax rate 4.0, are we doubling it from what we had in the previous proposal from 3:30 every year to 770? Or is that the agreement from before that we were going to go to 770?

Jacob Kern, Department of Finance so in the 2023 Budget act, the Program 4.0 was established to run from 25-26 to 2930 at $330 million a year. This proposal in the budget is just to increase that 330 million to 750 million for those five years. That program 4.0 is in effect.

Okay. And over the time of the. So we're not changing the time in which 4.0's duration. So it's still technically expired in the 2030, correct? That's right, yeah. So over that time period now with a new number, how much would that cost California?

So within the budget window it, it's scored at less than 20 million. There is, there are obviously 20 million or 20 billion. 20 million because the fiscal impact is delayed.

You've got rounds of awards given out and then those awards take some amount of time for the production to happen, for the award to get certified and then there's often a, a delay after that as well in terms of when the production company can actually claim the award.

But the total cost over the course of the program would be about 2 billion in additional cost from this increase.

From 330 to 752 billion over duration till the end of this.

Well, basically, yeah, technically there are some small costs out into the 2000-40s, but the majority of the costs are within the next 10 years. The years of highest cost are 282929303031 and then 3132 and it's about 250 million in those years.

Okay. I don't know if our through the chair for our budget staff wanted to comment. I don't know if. No, no comment. Okay.

I would just direct you to page 63 of the analysis that shows the out year costs on it on 63. It shows how it grows over time. What he was explaining the bigger costs are in 2030.

Okay. Correct. Thank you. Well, I am glad to see that of course we are prioritizing our cultural capital and factory of Hollywood to make sure we prioritize that in California.

I just want to point out that while we are growing this tax credit we still have suspended and I've had some conversations my colleague that we still have the suspension of the R and D tax credit which is a broad swath of industry we also lead in.

So I think it's something we should think about as we make lots of different choices that we should continue to explore all our options holistically. So I appreciate the answers and all those things and thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember. We will now go. Okay then we are going to go to Assemblymember Petrie-Norris.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I also have some questions regarding ABSB 130, the housing Trailer Bill, some follow ups related to Mr. Lee's questions. Okay.

So I think that you said in response to Assemblymember Lee's questions that the goal of these new wage standards was to address sort of a gap in the market where currently neither prevailing wage requirements or skilled and trained requirements would apply. I believe is what you said.

Yes. Megan tokonoga, Block, Department of Finance Typically, projects that are market rate are not subject to prevailing wage requirements, and this is creating a path for a CEQA exemption for projects otherwise not.

Abel, I understand that's the intent, and I think that's also, I think that's our intent, but the language as drafted, it's not at all clear to me that that's what it does because we now have a totally new wage scale that can be applied to projects which right now, in order to receive a CEQA exemption, would need to pay prevailing wage or skilled and trained meet skilled and trained requirements.

Correct.

Typically, prevailing wage rates apply to projects that are receiving public subsidy. And if a project's set to pay those prevailing wages, otherwise they have to pay those and still receive the streamlining.

Right. But this Legislature has passed bills that require private developers to meet prevailing wage requirements in order to receive a CEQA exemption. So. And can you just walk us through what these new minimum wage requirements would be?

Certainly. So the bill before you sets dollar wage floors in different tiers by county. And so for the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Francisco, the following wage rates apply. 60% of the construction workers shall be paid $40 per hour and 100% shall be paid $27 per hour.

The next tier of counties is for Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma and Ventura. And for 60% of those counties, those workers, the rate of $36 applies. And for 100% of those workers, the rate of $24 per hour applies.

And then for all other counties, for 60% of workers, the rate is $28 per hour and for 100% of workers, $20 per hour.

Okay, and how would that 6040% possibly be determined or enforced?

Excuse me. Genevieve Morales, Assembly Budget Committee I'd like to point to you to two sections. First, that is in AB130, Section 57, there is a notwithstanding clause in there that protects the current prevailing wage rates.

And second, to answer your question, on that second piece of that question is there is a calculation that is done to determine the prevailing rage weight rate. Sorry, prevailing rage weight at the local level, there's that calculation that's done. What this bill does is it takes out the.

The housing component of it and then allows them to calculate the rate without that housing piece on it and thereby, like, sets the floors based on the numbers that are in there. So everything that you see in the language, it sets floors and the calculation is done without the housing element, the housing component in it.

That makes this calculation a little bit different. That would change. It changes it based on where you are at the local level. So that's. That's the difference. But there is a notwithstanding clause that wouldn't affect other prevailing rates, and that is in Section 57.

So that's how we ensure that we don't mess up calculations from laws that we've seen in the past. So I would direct you back to that. To that okay. Language.

And then it also provides, if I'm reading it correctly, some sort of deduction for health care contributions. Correct. Which. Have we ever done that before? That. That seemed unusual to me.

Let me get you an answer on that one, and I will follow up on that.

On that piece of it. Okay. And then I think it also does something. It does change requirements for projects over 85ft. Correct.

I don't have that at my fingertips. I can follow up and get back to you. Apologies.

Okay. And I think just, you know, to be clear in terms of my line of questioning, I think that I, and I imagine others on the Committee, just want to make sure that we understand the implications of any changes that we are making to labor standards, to wage standards.

If the goal is to kind of provide, you know, actually sort of a backstop for a section of housing for which there is none, I'm very supportive. If we're unraveling, you know, long standing labor protections and standards, I think that that's concerning.

I think the goal is what you stated currently, and I think that the language that's included In Labor Section 61770.1, I think it's Section 54, is there to protect those long-standing labor standards that are there. So, I would direct you there. If you have additional questions, we're happy to help you.

All right, thank you so much.

Okay, I think we're going to go now to Mr. Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you very much and thank you all for the work that you do. Really, really appreciate you. I think I'll make some very brief remarks about the education budget as presented today. We talked a lot about the priorities in the last hearing when we discussed budget, so I won't go into details.

I think one of the things, as I've talked to several superintendents of education from throughout different parts of the state, actually on their concerns with the funding for education, I think this budget certainly is reflective of those changes.

But I think it's important for me to say here today, as I mentioned to each of them individually, while this is most definitely a very strong budget for education, the years ahead are going to be challenging.

And there are funds in this budget that should be spent wisely, thoughtfully, and not with the anticipation that this is long-term sustainable because years ahead are difficult. And so, I just want to make sure that that's acknowledged because that's important.

I have a couple of questions about a few other things, though, that I'd like to ask, and I'm trying to identify which Bill it is, but I haven't been able to.

Our summary mentions that there is funding for Child Youth Behavioral Initiative, which was funded quite substantially a few years ago, and I'm curious as to what this funding is particularly about. And I'm more concerned about the status of what I keep hearing from our schools, that this funding is actually not funding from a few years ago has not been, has not reached schools.

Which means, I think all of us have heard that mental health for our children is becoming a bigger and bigger challenge in our schools. And it sounds like this funding has not been deployed yet.

So, I'd like to know what this funding in this year's budget and what's the status of the prior year's allocations?

Can I please clarify, Chair Alvarez?

Yes, please.

Are you referring to the 20 million for the CYBHI and the property?

No, I'm looking at the summary page 2, bar agenda item number 11, under the health, so that'd probably be the right Senate Bill. The health summary number 11 provides $127 million in '25-'26 for behavioral health virtual services platform. I don't know what that is, platform, and then it says under the Children Youth Behavioral Health Initiative.

Laura Ayala, Department of Finance. Yes, the budget maintains funding for the—it's called a virtual platform—and it was part of the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative that was implemented a few years back and that includes a few different contracts, but primarily, there's two contracts that provide virtual behavioral health services and coaching to—for—children.

I'm familiar with those, so I think I know what you're talking about. What is the status of the actual rest of the funding, the non virtual, the funding that was supposed to be deployed so that students had access to mental health services at schools?

The—I think you're referring to the school, the vendor for the school fee schedule, and that is something that the Department of Healthcare Services is continuing to work with schools and the vendor on, in order to reimburse for those claims.

I'm also referring to the Children Youth Behavioral Health Initiative generally, which I understand has not been deployed to schools. Is that correct?

There are many different pieces of the Children Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. So, I think you're referring to specifically the funding to reimburse the services for schools and I would say that overall, I think that a small portion has gone out, but the Department of Healthcare Services continue to work with schools.

And that was budgeted which year?

I believe it was in 2022, around there.

Okay. I want to raise a serious concern about that, at this moment going forward. It's, it's been three years of that allocation, and I just keep hearing from all school districts, you know, the onetime money's gone away, we need to provide health mental health services to our students, and we have no funding to do so.

That's why they push so hard to all the funding that we have in education, this year's budget, in order to allow that the 20 million allocation which the Legislature put in, as to support that.

I think this is something we need to just pay closer attention to and make sure it gets deployed and that schools are receiving these services.

Yes, we acknowledge that and just wanted to flag that we are working with legislative staff on additional trailer bill language to increase accountability for the vendor to get those, those—that—funding out.

I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for giving us that information. On Senate Bill 124, I assume this is where I would find—and I could be wrong—there was previously exemptions to SRIA, Senate Bill from 2011. I believe that's no longer in in the budget from what I'm reading.

And can I just get that confirmation from staff?

I believe you're referring to the public safety trailer bill.

It probably would have been the resources, I assume.

Shy Forbes, Assembly Budget Committee. There are no exemptions to SRIA in this budget package. Okay.

Thank you for the clarity and I want to thank members of the Problem Solvers Caucus. We've been working on trying to figure out how to create more accountability and I think that's an important process. So, thank you for confirming that.

My next question is on the Clean Cars for All, so I may have to make you come right back up. I'm sorry. I should have said that. Item number eight in the summary expands the requirements from Clean Cars for All and there's a '21 to '22 mention.

Can you tell me, is this because there's resources from '21-'22 that have not been deployed yet? People are not utilizing this program? Is that the reason why?

Shy Forbes, again, Assembly Budget Committee. That is correct, Assemblymember. There is money that was appropriated in 2021 and 2022 that CARB is still rolling out. CARB has some money already committed.

It is not fully committed yet and so there are stakeholders and Assembly Members who wanted that to be available to be shifted to the district-based Clean Cars for All Programs. So, this language would enable that to happen if CARB chooses to do that through their public process later in the year.

How much funding are we talking about financing in this program?

Erin Carson, Department of Finance. I have to get back to you with exact numbers on what funding is still remaining from prior years.

Do you happen to know that?

I'll need to get back to you with certainty, but I believe it's around $260 million and that funding has already technically been encumbered and has been given to the third-party implementer to implement. But it's individual car purchasers and given that they're low income and there are lots of requirements, this program, it does take a long time for them to choose the person, get the car, do the grant agreements, etc.

And that's already ongoing at CARB, which is why the language that we adopted is the way that we adopted it.

Thank you. Appreciate you both. Just comment for us. I think any program that's, you know, reaching five year milestone and we still have hundreds of millions of dollars I think there's something to be, be revisited there. My last question is on the California film and tax—Film and Television Tax Credit Expansion.

I'd be interested in understanding whether this expansion is going to include an increase to the out of market producers and also, to the independent producers. Is that part of this budget today?

Jacob Kern, Department of Finance. So, this budget proposal only increases the increase from 330 million to 750 million in yearly allocations. It doesn't include any other programmatic changes. I assume by out of market you mean outside of the LA region?

Correct.

Yeah. That is not in here.

So, if those changes do not occur, this program will continue to offer the tax credits as is?

That's correct.

Is there an intent to make changes to this program that are coming forward to the Legislature?

So, the Administration, you know, when drafting this budget proposal, kept in mind that in the 2023 Budget Act, the Program 4.0 was established and some changes were made to the program at that time, including adding a partial refundability option to the tax credits, introducing some new diversity requirements.

And given that those changes haven't gone into effect yet, we thought the best approach was to wait until the program could begin, in order to see what the effect of those would be on the program and if changes were still needed.

That being said, you know, we are aware of a few policy bills that make some of those changes and we're, we're watching those and we're, you know, the Administration's interested in, but there's part of the negotiation.

There's no specific commitments to addressing those changes that the Legislature is seeking?

Not in the budget now.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I, of course, just want to thank you for your very able leadership of the Subcommittee and also for your sincere and obvious commitment to oversight and accountability and making sure that we are doing the best that we can with scarce resources. So, thank you very much, Member.

I want to go now to Assemblymember Solache. I know he has another Committee he needs to be in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have to go to the Senate Labor Committee and present a Bill that I have, but, but I didn't want to leave without making a quick comment. First and foremost, I want to amplify the work that the Budget Committee and Mr. Chair has done with the healthcare, with education, obviously priorities for California values.

And I want to make sure that, you know, all Californians feel supported by our state. I did have a concern regarding, you know, the housing trailer bill. I've expressed some concern. The, you know, the Building Trades have shared some concerns with me.

I know Mr. Lee and other folks have asked questions, but definitely, if we're going to have a conversation later today about this, because I know we have a budget to approve on Friday, I want to be part of those conversations.

It's confusing to me, the formula and to all respect, to all the amazing staff that we have in the state working on this, it's confusing to me, the percent of workers earning different wages. It's just—counties. It doesn't make sense to me. It sounds like a logistical nightmare, to be honest with you.

And more importantly, you know, we're creating, you know, a slippery slope in the wage conversation. So, again, be respectful of the process. I want to make sure I learn more, understand it more. But as we have to approve this on Friday, I want to make sure that, you know, some of my more questions are detailed, are answered.

I know that Mr. Lee and others already asked questions, but I am concerned that we're creating possible, a nightmare for our Building Trades and our employees. And, you know, this is over 100, almost 100 years of prevailing wage that we've always respected.

I know most of us, when we run for office, we talk about prevailing wage and the importance of that. And so, I've been in local government for 21 years and we've always respected our quality of work that we bring to our projects, our construction building projects in our communities.

And so, I want to make sure that that process is respected. And again, I just want to make sure that I understand it more. So, I look forward to additional conversations today and thank again, the process of this Committee.

I know that the state has a lot more than this conversation and that's why I want to thank the process, but I definitely want to add my concerns of this part. And you know, we do such a great work in Committee, in space, and adding it to the budget trailers.

It's a new process for me and it's a little confusing. So, just want to understand that. And again, hopefully, we could iron this out and not affect our employees. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Now we are going to go to Mr. Ward.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to our staff for endless hours of their hard work on this. There's a lot here to sift through and certainly, we'll continue to do so ahead of our votes this coming week. First, I just wanted to provide some general thanks and comments.

As the Chair of our LGBT Caucus, in both our principal budget bill as well as some elements here in the budget trailer bills, I want to be thankful for, I think, the attention and the needs that we have specifically to the challenges that our community is facing, areas of healthcare and public safety.

I see some recognition of our very modest request to be able to have California be able to support the very direct and specific needs that members of our community are facing. And I appreciate our Budget Committee, especially with our chair and our budget staff, for hearing those requests.

I, as also Chair of the Assembly's Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism Committee, want to commend and thank several elements here for the assistance for upcoming major sports events and the games and the planning and the safety that need to go into those for the respective home communities across California and for the work on the Film Tax Credit as well, that has been iterative and ongoing.

But I think we'll come to a really healthy close here as we as we approve this Bill coming up forward in the coming days, as well. I want to commend, as well, the leadership of Assemblyman Ramos for his work on military retirement exclusion and that we're able to make some significant progress here.

It's not everything that I think we'd hope to get through I think his effort and the Bill and the work that we've been working on for several years, but it is a meaningful step to help to get California in the direction that is better in alignment with what most states are able to do for veterans and those that have served our country and the deservedness that they need for being able to have, I think, parity in that exclusion and importantly, to be able to keep them here in California so we don't lose them to other communities across the country.

I've got one—two—specific questions, and then I want to come back and close in on the housing conversation as well. Under SB 128 and the transportation trailer bill, I'm curious about the delay of AB 3 from 2021 that would delay the implementation of the ability to prosecute sideshow activities.

That was something that I remember voting on as well, and I'm just curious why we are extending that now to 2029?

Yeah. Eamonn Albin, Department of Finance. So, AB 3, as proposed, would require DMV to build a new IT system outside of its core legacy system and resulting in additional costs for the MVA that couldn't be supported at the moment.

So, that's why we're proposing the delay right now, to give them time to build their core or build the replacement of the core legacy system, which is through DXP, and then, add on this functionality.

Wait a minute. How does that relate, though, to enforcement of violations related to sideshows?

Shy Forbes, Assembly Budget Committee. So, they need to complete the data system upgrade, which is on driver's licenses, before they can implement the legislation. There were three pieces of legislation in that trailer bill that were delayed because of that data system delay.

So, it's not a policy decision, it's just that we haven't completed the tech project that's needed before we can fully implement that bill. Since it deals with the driver's licenses, it's suspending the person's driver's license if they are involved in sideshow activity.

And additionally, there were four other sideshow bills that passed since then that are fully implemented, that are not implicated in that data system, that are fully on track.

Good to hear. Okay, thank you for the clarification. That's an important context. Back to SB 120, on early care and education. It's something I want to dig into a little bit more as well. There's a significant amount here to workers and in an industry that is severely impacted.

And I wonder if you could just elaborate a little bit more when we're talking about, you know, on one hand, you know, not suspending a cost of living allowance, but on another hand, providing a cost of living allowance for certain childcare and preschool programs.

Can you maybe just broadly summarize the impact that we have to workers here through this trailer bill?

...Department of Finance. So, the crux of the issue is that there is an existing requirement under sort of state law for implementing the COLA in a very particular way. In past years, there's been concern expressed by the Legislature in the way current law distributes the COLA funding.

And so, what this does, it suspends the current law COLA and allocates sort of a similar amount of money for a COLA in a new way that results in more rate increases across providers.

Okay. So, when I go back and I talk to my childcare workers in the district, we could affirmatively say that we are going to be able to see modest support for them in the coming year because of this?

I just don't want to see one element of this trailer bill counts as something else out that is going to set them back further.

So, across the Department of Social Services and CDE program, there's about 88 million for cost of living adjustments in the budget year.

Okay, great to hear. And then, on one of the bigger topics of conversation that's going to be coming up, I want to focus on SB 130, but first, I wanted to jump ahead to SB 131, which we haven't discussed much here. I know it's not in print and I'm wondering what content we can expect to see given that, especially we are also considering double jointing language on Friday that would invalidate the entire budget if both of these are not approved.

But this may not be in print until Friday. And while I'm, you know, highly supportive of the need for housing support and reforms, it is a little bit tenuous, I think in our responsibility. We really need to get some clarity on what's coming forward for us.

Megan Tokonaga Block, Department of Finance. So, we can expect AB—SB 131—to include two general components. One is a future Homeless Housing Assistance Program allocation, with some accountability measures outlined. And the second is further CEQA streamlining, in the vein of SB 607, as the Governor identified as a key priority, back when the May Revision was released.

Okay, so that's the SB 607 component. I'm aware of the HAPP conversation because that also is reflected in SB 102, is that correct? It was one of these, one of these trailers.

If I can clarify, those are the two housing elements that we're expecting as part of that future legislation.

Got it. For, for SB 131? Got it. So, on SB 130, you know, there's a lot of information now that is coming before us as well that we need to reconcile and decide whether or not the facts are right.

I appreciate and I think I align my comments very strongly with Assemblymember Lee and others, that, one, this seems very reflective of AB 609, which the Assembly has already passed overwhelmingly.

And is there anything else in addition to the policy and the substance that is here in SB 130 that was not considered by AB 609, with respect to the CEQA exemptions?

Genevieve Morales, Assembly Budget Committee. There are the two components that are different from 609 that ran through the Policy Committee and was voted off the floor and what you see in 130 and the two elements we talked about is the prevailing wages and also the tribal consultation that's included in there. So, those are the two differences that were negotiated after the Bill went off of the floor, that are included in SB 130.

The policy consideration, the exemption, is consistent with 609?

Yes.

And that you've already answered the question as well too that, with a notwithstanding clause in this language here too, that we could affirmatively say that this is not going to exempt existing criteria for prevailing wage and other existing programs as that are out there, but rather, for additional projects here that would be subject to this new CEQA exemption, that we are lifting the floor for prevailing wages that don't exist today.

We're not, we're not going to be dialing back any other existing prevailing wage requirements in certain counties that are currently at a more appropriate and higher level.

Yeah, we're, we—the intent of that is to set floors for market rate development that don't exist currently and that also to unionize where there have been unions before, to make sure that when we move forward, all of these good components that we have are in—that apply to prevailing wages are started in that market rate space.

And what is the response to questions about enforcement of this, of these new provisions, that been alleged that there's no—or there's a broad inability for us to be able to enforce and track compliance with these with this level of prevailing wage requirements?

I think the goal is to get to that enforcement in this space. And I would have to get back to you on the specific requirements that are there, if they exist in this trailer bill, on the enforcement piece of it, because I don't know it off the top of my head.

Okay. I think these are all important dots to connect as well to make sure that we're all operating off of similar facts. But I, you know, remain very interested in receiving a lot of this information to make sure that we're getting this right.

We know sometimes things can go awry in a budget trailer bill and this is important. It is important to get right, and it would have major impact as well on our ability to produce more housing opportunities here in California.

But I think that we're going to be all hands on deck right now trying to make sure that we dot all of our I's, cross all of our T's, and that we're faithful, I think, to the principles that I think all of us are trying to be able to exercise here through these decisions.

I want to thank you for a lot of this hard work. I look forward to working with you in the coming days.

Thank you very much. I think we're gonna go Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you very much, Chair Gabriel. I'll be very brief. We've already reached a tipping point when it comes to wildfires as a result of climate change. But there will come a moment when, in California, we will reach a tipping point where we will have the younger generation saying to us, did you do enough? Did we do our part?

Did we do our share to try to address climate change?

And I think that the number one activity that we're doing in California to try to do that is with the Cap and Trade Fund and the revenues that are generated from that, the GGRF funds, as we refer to them, to the extent that those—that the Cap and Trade program—and the GGRF funds collected from that are the major effort that California is making to do our share to address climate change and to address carbon emissions, to the extent that that is being undermined by moving those funds to fund the normal operations and activities of CAL FIRE, I think it reduces the ability for us to say we have done the appropriate things and taken the appropriate steps.

So, I look forward, and I want to just try to highlight the fact that we do have $1.25 billion going into coming from the GGRF Fund, to fund the normal operations of CAL FIRE, and we should as quickly possible reverse that and move back to normal operations where we fund CAL FIRE, which is an essential California service, through the General Fund, and we do the appropriate activities, so that we can look our grandchildren in the face and say, while we had the ability to do something, we did do what we should have been doing to try to protect us from the ravages of climate change.

If California doesn't do our share, we can't exercise world leadership to try to have other people do their share. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It does look like there's less funding in the budget now dedicated to implementing the voters will as it relates to Proposition 36. And I just wondered in General terms, how much does this budget package include and for what programs are being addressed?

Hi, Assemblymember Jennifer Kim with the Assembly Budget Committee. There's $50 million for behavioral health, for grants to the counties. There's an additional $20 million for courts to address judicial workload. And there's $15 million for pretrial services that primarily will support probation.

Okay, so in total, what does that amount to? About $85 million as opposed to the proposed 400 million that we were told it would take to Fund this. This Proposition. I don't expect you to make a comment about that. That's my job. But I will tell you that that is extremely disappointing.

And finally, my last point is, what, if anything, does this negotiated budget package do to reduce gas prices and avoid the $8 gallon gas price that we believe is coming? Is there anything. Thank you.

Amin Albin, Department of Finance, apologies. Would you repeat your question?

Yeah, certainly. What, if anything, does this negotiated budget package due to reduce gas prices and avoid the $8 gallon price that's looming?

I. There 's nothing in the budget right now that addresses that.

Oh. Thank you. That's all I got.

Okay. Assemblymember Rogers,

Thank you as much. Mr. Chair, I mostly have comments and I want to align them with some of the things that have already been said and maybe just be very direct about it. I didn't come to Sacramento to cut people's wages.

I didn't sit through months of Budget Committee hearings talking about how to preserve our social safety net to then at the 11th hour, potentially kick more people onto it.

And when we talk about affordable housing and the housing crisis in the state, we can't solve that problem if the people building the houses are the ones who qualify for them. I know that there's continued conversation that needs to happen. I'm hearing that perhaps there's some misinformation about it.

That's what happens when you drop a Bill like this at the last minute and don't involve the people who are impacted.

So if what I'm hearing is that this is going to be really good for California's workers, but the Labor Fed and the building trades weren't invited to the table to talk about it and instead have concerns and say that it's going to impact their workers, then I don't believe you. So spend some time have those conversations.

Don't try to put Members in a position where we have to decide between people who can't afford housing and people who can't afford groceries. And let's actually have real conversations about this, not hide it in the budget.

Thank you, Assemblymember Schiavo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I first want to say as someone on the budget sub two Health Committee, there's been incredible progress on addressing health. There's a lot of good, good stuff in this budget that we fought very hard for.

I want to thank the speaker and the budget chair and our budget sub one or sub two chair as well, and all of the staff who work so hard. I know people were sleeping on sofas and making huge, huge sacrifices to get to where we've gotten today and I'm grateful for that.

The work to change the asset test to make sure that people are not kicked off medical because they have two cars, for example, to take their disabled child to Doctor's appointments is huge progress.

The Voca funding for Victim of Crimes act to make sure that when people make a call and need help immediately that they are getting that help is is important that we do not ever leave them out.

Title 10 Family Planning dollars to make sure that people can have the health care they need and women have that care when they need it. Tax relief for people who are suffering in my community of a burning landfill that will be burning for 20 years and is making them sick.

And you know, I share concerns around the Prop 36 funding, disappointed to see that that was reduced. And you know, I know that this is not a perfect budget, but I also want to, you know, in a difficult year. But I also want to share the concerns of my colleague, Assembly Member Rogers just expressed.

And you know, as someone who worked for 20 years in the labor movement and has fought for prevailing wage, this is one of the reasons we don't like to do policy in the budget. And it's incredibly problematic that the trades have not been at the table in this conversation and it does not feel like there are safeguards.

We've all fought and supported lifting the floor, fighting for minimum wages, all of those things. But the other pieces make it feel very, very tenuous. When, you know, if there's a requirement for health care, do we know what standard of health care that there's a requirement for? How much is the out of pocket going to be?

I mean it could be a situation where you're getting $40 an hour, but you're having to pay so much for health care. You're barely making more than a fast food worker.

And the whole point of of us making sure that there are living and prevailing wages for people in construction is that they can actually afford the housing that they're building. And so I share the concerns that have been expressed today.

I think it's critical that the trades are in this conversation and that we go back to work on this piece because we cannot do something that really undercuts where folks are going to be in terms of prevailing wages and making sure that they can put food on the table.

In my district already, people are having to live so far away from where they're working, driving 1 and 2 or more hours a day just to get to work and then having to do the same thing again.

More than half of their day is sometimes spent in the car to drive because they can't afford to live in the communities that they're working in. And this is one of the reasons that we have an affordability crisis.

And I appreciate that there's an effort to kind of be a part of that solution, but it does not feel like, at least in terms of clarity and understanding, that we are there yet.

And I hope that there are important conversations that include all of the voices and especially those who are going to be impacted by this in figuring out the right balance and making sure that we get it right. So I want to thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember, any other Members, any other Members of the Committee that wish to. Let's go. Assembly Member Hart and Assemblymember Patel.

Yeah, I just want to add my voice to the questions that Members have had about the sections of 130 relating to the trades and the prevailing wage issues. You know, there's a lot of policy that has to be confirmed in the conversations that Members have raised.

The questions that Members have raised about, you know, the applicability of this. Is it really going to apply to new projects that haven't previously been subject to prevailing wage, or is it going to have an impact on the protections that we expect?

There's also provision in this section of the the budget two that affects builders remedy projects in my district that are really, I think, dramatically wrong. They are not designed to provide housing to folks. They are, they are really abuses of the process.

And the only protection that the local governments in my district have is the CEQA process that looks like it is going to be exempt from. And I'm very concerned about that as it pertains specifically to my district for those builders or any projects under five.

Under five acres and so I wanted to have some greater clarity about that as we move forward.

Did you want a response?

I know it's very fine grained question, but if you have anything to add otherwise we can get.

Megan Tokonaga Block Department of Finance I don't have that detail at my fingertips, but we can follow up with your staff.

All right, we will circle back on that one. Member Patel

Thank you very much. As a Member of Budget Sub-3, I'm happy to sit on this Budget Committee as well. And as a new Member, all of this is coming fast and furious as I'm learning how to interpret all of these policies that are put in a budget trailer set of bills.

I do want to express deep gratitude to staff and to the budget chairs that have been working tirelessly to make sure that our community's values are heard and met as best as possible in a very tight budget year, specifically around progress we've made in the healthcare area, preserving education funding, strengthening it, looking at fire safety as well as so many other things that impact my constituents at home in the 76th Assembly District.

But I do want to share some concerns with my colleagues that I have heard up here on the dais. One is around the Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. I want to echo the concerns of my budget chair, Assemblymember Alvarez.

Our school districts and I've spoken with many across San Diego have not received the funding that they thought would be coming their way and it's crucial funding. As the COVID intervention dollars got wound down, those were one time buckets of funding.

They were really hoping to fill those gaps with the Youth Behavioral Health Initiative funding and we're just not seeing that money coming in. I have asked and will be chairing am chairing a Select Committee on Youth Behavioral health and access and treatment opportunities.

And this is one of the main questions that we're going to be asking is where is that money and how can we get our children the intervention and the supports and services that they so desperately need.

Additionally, I want to highlight some of the concerns around the prevailing wage and making sure that our workers are at the table. When we're talking about making changes to the way that our workers receive compensation for contributing to our strong economies and our strong communities. Also want to echo concerns around affordability.

When we talk about affordability from the dais, when we talk about affordability in our communities, it ties into a huge web of contributions from different workers of different classes. It includes the child care sector.

It includes the in home health services, in home health care providers and all of these things, when we look at the progress we've made in the budget here, we're seeing some, but it's not enough.

If we want to make sure that all of our workers can realize all of their potential, we we need to make sure that our budget reflects that and they're receiving all the supports that they need to do it effectively.

So I'm hoping to see some movement in that direction if at all possible, but certainly focus around the accountability and oversight as part of our duties here. Want to make sure that we can partner and get the services and supports rolled out from budgets passed in previous years as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much Assemblymember. I think Assemblymember Fong

Thank you so much, Chair Gabriel, and thank you so much to Chair and to the leadership and to all the Budget Committee staff for their tremendous work and efforts on this budget.

Also just want to amplify and highlight the thank you so much, my colleagues, for the work and efforts to push back against the proposed cuts to the University of California and the CSU system and the working efforts to continue to advocate for higher education here in California and also for our community colleges with a block grant program to provide additional resources for our students in these challenging times.

Also want to echo the concerns of a number of my colleagues regarding the prevailing wage issue and really want to amplify those concerns around that and really have a deeper conversation around the proposed prevailing wage issues and the different standards that would be proposed to be created.

And really do you have a number of concerns just on the language that has been put forth and so just want to up those comments, but really appreciate the work and efforts of our chair and to leadership and to everyone. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Assemblymer Connolly

Thank you. Chair Good morning everyone. Apologies for being at a couple other hearings, but have been kind of keeping track of the robust discussion that has been going on around this and just really wanted to echo some of the concerns that have been raised.

In my case, some of those concerns started with the original Bill, AB 609 on the merits. In conversations with the author, with interested stakeholders, my hope was that that was going to continue through the policy process, that we could continue to talk through the issues in kind of a more robust way.

But we find ourselves now again looking at the prospect of enacting or deciding on serious policy through a budget trailer process. In this case, with just hours of review and questioning possible, I find that inadequate, to say the least.

So I'm going to continue to be thinking, thinking through those concerns Those include, as I think it was Assemblymember Hart mentioned CEQA and kind of the ability of local communities to be heard on relevant issues. I fully support colleagues who have spoken up and it sounds like there have been many on the issue of wages.

This proposal, I will say now, not having even had a chance to read it in full, is confusing at best. And it sounds like there are real concerns that it could result in substandard wages or certainly not prevailing wages, which is an important goal that we want to achieve.

So I'm going to leave it at that right now. I know we have a lot of work to do over the next couple days, but. But just want to at least be on record as conveying those concerns at this time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other Members of the Committee? Oh yes,

Thank you so much. For me, I want to echo the sentiments of all of my colleagues in regards to how we're moving forward and particularly looking at Absburg. What I want to say is that if our budget is truly a reflection of our values, then our process and creating the budget must be an all inclusive process.

I've said that from time to time again that everyone should have a seat at the table as we continue to move forward. And to hear that a number of our workers voices have been deliberately kept out of conversations as it, as it deals with their pay. I find it to be appalling as something that is not acceptable.

Now we just recently released a report from the Policy and Research Division to talk about accountability. Well, to talk about affordability within itself and the rising cost of living within the State of California.

That report clearly, clearly highlights 20 counties along with another 14 counties based on the minimum wage itself and the amount that it takes for people to live.

I want us to go back to look at those, you know that actual report that was given to all of my colleagues and then as we continue to move forward to have conversations about the budget and prevailing wages and minimum wage.

No one understand that the reports it actually says that our current wages is not enough at all for people to survive here within the State of California.

So when we have these dialogues, keep people in mind, be sure to humanize the current situation and make sure that we are keeping people at the forefront and stick to exactly what we are talking about.

Making sure that we can make California affordable and keeping people able to keep food on their table, be able to afford childcare, be able to afford to get prices and accept your.

I am a proud union Member as well and I want to make sure that all of us, all of our colleagues and everyone else definitely have a seat at the table at all times.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember any all right, Mr. Schultz,

thank you very much. Mr. Chair. Just wanted to echo the comments of my colleagues. Before I do, I just want to thank you and your staff. I know it's been quite a lift to get to this point. I also want to thank my budget sub-chair, Assemblymember Ramos.

I will just say on that note, in terms of sub 6, I know that while it's a relatively smaller portion of the budget, a substantial factor in balancing or attempting to balance the budget is the cost savings that CDCR is seeking to implement.

And I think it's fair to say that they did not achieve the cost savings in the last budget that they set out to do.

So I just want to put CDCR on notice that next year, as we approach that budget, I will be looking to see if they are actually following through on the cost savings that they promise because their ability to do that or their failure to do that is going to drive what next year's budget looks like.

So it's very important that when we set targets for reducing expense or saving costs that we are making meaningful strides to achieve that. With regards to what so many of my colleagues have said so eloquently, I have a concern about process. I will continue to be looking closely at Bill number 130, SB 130.

I just wanted to note that my concern from process comes from the fact that SB130 includes provisions of my Bill, AB306, and yet I found out that it was included in SB130 when environmental voters called me to say, hey, your bill's in SB130.

And I think the point I'm trying to make is that clearly there needs to be better communication in the days ahead. We have less than 48 hours before a floor vote, and I strongly encourage the Administration to be working with all stakeholders.

I think that what you're hearing from the dais up here is a lot of questions and a lot of concerns, and I think the process could have been improved. But with that, thank you very much for your leadership, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Anybody else? Once? Twice. All right. With that, I will thank all of my colleagues for their thoughtful comments, questions, for all of the hard work.

I know that it has been quite a journey, and I just again want to appreciate everybody who sat through the many budget Subcommitee hearings, the many hours of public comment, and all the hard work to bring us to this point. So with that, we are going to go now to the public comment portion of our hearing.

And I know that we have quite a few people who have joined us to share quite a few Members of the public who have joined us to share comments. So we'll ask for folks to keep it brief with your name, your organization and your position, please.

Thank you. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters I'm going to talk quickly because there's a lot to say. We are of course concerned about the use of $1.0 billion from GGRF to General Fund and the out year shifts from GGRF General Fund Fund.

I want to point out the connection between the clawing back of federal funding for healthcare and health and human services funding even at the state level, and the degrading of our federal EPA and of our of our funding for environmental and health protections. Those things are connected very much to human health and quality of life.

So really important that we continue to Fund those things. The environmental community has proposed solutions for those significant concerns about SB607 being part of the budget and that AB 131 has not gone into print yet. We were working with the author on amendments. We had a pose unless amended position on that.

And we are just, you know, waiting for that language to go into print. And we'll be getting back to you on our position if that warrants an opposed position, although this is the last part part we can comment. So we'll say that. One last thing.

I want to appreciate Assemblymember Schultz for what he said, and we are concerned about AB306 going into the budget process. We do oppose the inclusion of that in the budget in AB 130. And we were in active discussions about very reasonable changes to that and so want to impose that.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair and Member Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the Elevator Constructors Union.

In my 37 years, I have never seen a minimum wage adopted for the purposes of suppressing wages, not lifting workers up. We have never had a Bill introduced to allow employers to force employees to pay for their own health care without having a say or representation. This is the most outrageous, abusive process that I've ever witnessed.

Make no mistake, this Bill was amended this late and connected to the budget with a poison pill to force every Member of this Legislature to vote for things that their conscience would never allow them to do otherwise.

It's shameful and it will leave a black mark on this Legislature and anybody who votes for it for the rest of your career.

Thank you Bob Drew on behalf of the Painters and Allied trades, we oppose AB130 and we also have particular heartburn over AB102 which you're going to vote for today, which basically impregnates all of you without having seen AB131.

The entire budget is predicated on AB131 which has yet to be revealed to any of you, but you're told to go up on the budget regardless or you'll lose Committee assignments or whatever. So we oppose AB102 and that or that provision of AB102 and we we oppose AB130. We will oppose AB131 once we see it with the rest of the public.

Good morning Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty. We appreciate some pieces of the budget, specifically the rejection of cuts to older adults and people with disabilities through reinstatement of the asset limit at a more reasonable amount, rejection of the cuts to IHSS and Long Term Care as well as efforts to reimagine CalWORKS to make more family centered.

However, overall the budget still balances on the backs of low income immigrant families. In particular, the budget cuts makes discriminatory medi Cal cuts to immigrant families, creating a two tier Medi Cal system which will result in people losing health coverage due to enrollment lockouts that permanently exclude these individuals as well as unaffordable premiums.

Making these cuts, while without consideration to meaningful revenue solutions, does not protect vulnerable Californians, many of whom are already targeted by a hostile Federal Government and does not align with California values. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I just, I know everybody has really thoughtful comments and you've all heard this. I just want to encourage folks to be just a little bit more brief and their comments because you have a lot of folks behind you.

Thank you. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. CSAC is appreciative of some investments and funding preservations in a difficult budget situation. This includes for Voca Home Safe Bringing Families Home and HDAP Public Health Infrastructure, the state level VMT Mitigation Bank Program, Affordable Housing Program and the Wildfire County Coordinator Program.

CISAC does continue to have significant concerns about the lack of any funding for HAPP in 25-26 which will have detrimental impacts to local homelessness efforts. And then finally, CSAC is grateful for the Legislature's effort to get some funding for Prop 36, some critical funding, but do have concerns remaining about the overall insufficient funding, hampering implementation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahino on behalf of a couple clients this morning for Calpace, we deeply appreciate the Legislature's modifications to pace cuts and look forward to working with DHCs very soon to to ensure that they have the resources they need to administer and oversee care for frail elderly seniors.

On behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, we appreciate the inclusion of the $10 million increase for both legal services and Chirp. We continue to ask for the to remove the carve out and the Equal Access Fund given the specious arrests going on with Ayes raids statewide now and then.

On behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians, we're grateful for the preservation of Prop 56. Thank you.

Hi Chair and Committee Member Johnny Pineda on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Health California, thank you for your hard work balancing this budget and for also defending immigrant communities across the state.

Unfortunately, however, you know, this budget includes, you know, harmful policies that will negatively impact Latino communities across the state, such as, you know, the freezing and premiums.

So LCHC remains opposed to, you know, to the freezes and premiums and it looks forward to continue to work with you on, you know, sustainable and equitable solutions to create more revenue in the state to eventually eliminate these freezes and premiums. Thank you.

Good morning. Josh Gauger, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California. Unfortunately, we are very disappointed in this budget agreement. Last November, 70% of voters sent the message that they wanted a greater emphasis on public safety. The Legislature and governor's response in this budget is to one, provide zero funding for probation to implement Proposition 36.

The entity and activity that each court or public safety expert testified was key to ensuring accountability in the new mandated treatment process. Two, cut probation by 5 million next year and 20 million ongoing to provide pretrial services that help individuals that cannot afford bail with release pretrial and and ensure their return to court.

Three, defund secure youth treatment by conditioning state funds on judges ordering the most serious or violent youth cases into community settings prior to discharge of their baseline terms.

We are disappointed that this budget cuts public safety programs that work and fails to meet new voter mandates, but remain committed to our mission of improving public safety through alternatives to incarceration. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Martin Radosevich speaking on behalf of the following organizations in support of AB130. That includes the CEQA exemptions for housing projects for infill housing, SPUR, Abundant Housing LA, Buckeye properties and Sandhill Properties. Thank you.

Good morning. Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, we appreciate the challenges associated with creating a balanced budget given the state's fiscal situation, and we are grateful for the reappropriation of 10 million for law enforcement mutual aid. Regrettably, we still have significant concerns with a lack of full and appropriate funding to implement Proposition 36.

Unfortunately, though, the budget documents point to 100 million in funding. The budget before you includes zero new funding for county probation departments to supervise and connect individuals to treatment. There are no resources for frontline law enforcement to support interventions in the community, and there is no funding to house arrestees in county jails and provide in custody treatment.

We respectfully urge the continuation of this important conversation toward the end of fully funding Proposition 36. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Doughty with the California Dental Association we want to appreciate the Legislature standing up to protect Medi Cal Dental and staving off immediate cuts to provider rates.

However, we're disappointed with the loss of benefits for the undocumented adults next year and the shortening of the timeline of the elimination of Prop 56 supplemental rate eliminations to only one year.

The integrity of the Medi Cal Dental program hinges on the confidence of both patients and dentists that can rely on a program to serve the needs of the very vulnerable. And thank you for your work on this.

Kim Lewis on behalf of a couple clients for Apiranet, we really appreciate the final inclusion of 31.5 million for foster family agencies and the inclusion of the AAP changes to the trailer Bill that we worked on and look forward to be part of that stakeholder process.

On behalf of Children Now, appreciate the Legislature holding fast on the deep cut to the Emergency Child Care Bridge program and not harming it further. And on behalf of the California Coalition for Youth, we applaud the inclusion of the Voca funding and withhold our Congress comments on the HAPP funding until we can see 131. Thank you.

Christine Smith with Health Access California. We the budget deal breaks promises made by our state leaders. The freeze on new enrollment will result in people who lose coverage due to inability or inability to pay or other paperwork reasons losing further coverage.

So even if they temporarily leave the program due to increased income, they'll be unaccust to get unable to get further access to this crucial program.

On top of the attacks and fear faced by our immigrant communities at the hands of the Federal Government, undocumented Californians will now face impossible choices at the hands of our state government being between paying unaffordable premiums for their coverage or risk losing care altogether.

Many will go uninsured, forcing them to the ER for basic care or dying younger from preventable illnesses. We also we do appreciate the rejection of the proposed IHSS and long term care services cuts and the funding for premium subsidies for Covered California from the Healthcare Affordability Reserve Fund.

But we will continue to call upon legislators to restore these cuts as soon as possible. And we ask that you consider revenue solutions that will uphold our values of care equity and access for all. Thank you.

Good morning Chairmembers. Nico Molina on behalf of the NRDC Action Fund. We want to express strong opposition to moving controversial and consequential policy bills such as AB306 and SB607 into the budget. The public deserves transparency and a voice in decisions that will shape the future of our air, water, buildings and communities. Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy and Earth Justice. We're would echo the comments of the previous speaker as it relates to bringing AB 306 into the budget. We think there are amendments that could play out in the policy arena to move new housing construction forward while allowing for decarbonization our existing buildings. Thank you.

Good morning. Paul Shafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing. We are in support of SB130, particularly the inclusion of language from Senator Reyes SB 686 that allows for the early repayment of HCD loans. Thank you Mr.

Chair. Members Scott Governor on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in support of the CEQA provisions for tribal resources. We understand the language is imperfect and there is opposition. Nevertheless, we do believe it's an improvement over existing law.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Brennan Napicki on behalf of VIA Transportation here in support of CARB's equity focused clean Transit Grants. These are very popular programs that support clean transit options in disadvantaged communities during upcoming cap and trade negotiations. Urge the Legislature to support this funding. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members Dylan Hoffman on behalf of a couple of clients expressing our appreciation for this Committee and your leadership. Mr. Chair on a couple of issues for the California Arts advocates appreciate this Committee's rejection of the proposed cuts to the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund which supports a thriving performing arts community and as well on behalf of the Center for Employment Opportunities.

This Committee's inclusion of funding for the higher program which provides funding for justice impacted individuals returning from incarceration. I want to provide a very special thank you to our Assembly champion for her tireless advocacy. Assembly Member Sharpe Collins. So thank you very much.

Hi. I'm Natalie Brown. I'm speaking for Planning and Conservation League, Defenders of Wildlife, Sonoma Land Trust and the California Native Plant Society. Californians are facing an onslaught of federal policy specifically targeted at the disenfranchisement of people of color, immigrants, the environment and frontline communities.

Now, as we most urgently need our state level representatives to see Stand up for Democracy, we are incredibly concerned about anticipated budget trailer Bill Language that would fundamentally destroy the protections of the California Environmental Quality act which is moving without a single public hearing on the Bill in print, which means zero opportunity for the public to weigh in beyond housing.

Anticipated but still unknown proposals would have grave consequences for a wide swath of project types that would go without needed review even with established potential harms.

This is devastating for the environment, particularly for community Members who are having their sole opportunity for transparency and to engage in local democratic decision making completely destroyed in a non transparent state level process without opportunity for engagement. It's for these reasons we oppose efforts to roll back CEQA via sweeping policy change in the budget process. Thank you so much.

Thank you Mr. Chair Raquel Mason on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance. Similar comments to my colleague before me. We strongly oppose efforts to roll back CEQA and behind closed door deals and the budget process and appreciate all the comments shared today expressing concern with this process.

Equally if not more concerning is the process around SB AB131 which still isn't in print and we anticipate will include additional major rollbacks to CEQA and will not have and none of the key stakeholders have been involved in those conversations as well.

And this is the last hearing where we would even have a chance to discuss what would be included in there. CEQA is all about public process. This process provides environmental justice communities a voice. This is how we build trust in projects.

This type of backdoor deal is exactly an example of why what the mistrust that can come if we don't have stakeholders at the table. We don't have a public process around big big changes. For these reasons we oppose efforts to roll back CET in the state budget.

Thank you Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. We vehemently oppose efforts to roll back bedrock environmental law in California. CEQA behind closed doors at the last minute through the state budget process.

Making funding of critical state resources like healthcare and affordable housing dependent on gutting CEQA harms low income communities of color that need that funding the most and that need CEQA to have any seat at the table on the polluting or risky developments that disproportionately fall in their neighborhoods.

A rollback of CEQA will come at great cost of California's right to know about the impacts of development that will have on their health, a cost that we will bear immediately and over the long term with resulting environmental degradation that will be extremely costly if not impossible to undo. Further, CEQA does not hold back development.

The largest battery storage facility in the country and the largest solar farm in state history went through full environmental review in just eight months. However, that review was incredibly important for surrounding communities to ensure the project is built safely. For these reasons, we oppose efforts to roll back CEQA in the state budget. Thank you.

Good morning Chairmembers Gabriella Fasio with Sierra Club California. I'm here to strongly oppose efforts to roll back CEQA and freeze building code statewide in the state budget and the inclusion of this language in accompanying budget trailer bills. CEQA is not the reason for the delays in development and building codes are not the reason for rising housing costs.

Gutting CEQA and the placing of a moratorium on building codes will make reaching affordability in the long term extremely difficult and strip communities from having their voices and concerns heard in projects that disproportionately land in their neighborhoods.

It is extremely disappointing and unacceptable that these major statewide policy decisions are being pushed through the back door of the budget process with no policy hearing, no stakeholder input, and no public debate. Californians deserve transparency.

At the very least, this language must be pulled from the budget and returned to the regular policy process where it can be debated in the light of day. Do not, don't let this set a precedent for overriding public input on major climate and housing policy.

For these reasons, we strongly oppose a rollback of CEQA and the freeze on statewide building codes in the state budget. Thank you.

Good morning. Garrett Hamilton on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, we want to thank the Legislature for recognizing the need to Fund Proposition 36. We are, however, disappointed that in the final package no funding was provided for supervision, which is a key component to ensuring people complete court mandated treatment.

We have deep concerns about the local match requirement given the significant funding cuts that counties face from the Federal Government, and we look forward to further discussing all of this in the fall.

Hi, my name is John McCue. I'm a mechanical engineer. I've been involved in the last 30 years of developing energy codes in America, Canada as well as in California.

I'm disappointed to see that AB130 appears to circumvent the due diligence at the Senate Housing Committee and Senate Local Government Committee should be providing on AB 306 and the state building standards. The text of AB 306 is buried in sections 29 through 41 of AB 130.

My recommendation is to strike those sections from AB 130 and actually have a full accounting of the problems with that standard. There is no emergency in terms of the timing as this affects local government codes adopted after October 1st in the future. Title 24, Part 6, Energy Code that is effective January 1st, 2029.

We were supposed to have a hearing on this next week for the Senate Housing Committee and then I think it was a week later for local governments. The rush to judgment is not in the State of California's best interest. Let the Senate committees advise on the advisability of these sections.

This standard is, and these sections are based on a misunderstanding of the cost and benefit of energy codes. The Proponents fact sheet on AB306 claims that state policies over the past 15 years result in $50,000 to $100,000 of cost.

However, if you look at the CBIA estimates that this was based on energy codes, which is the only thing that this is affecting at a $20,000 cost. And over that same time period the cost of housing increased $500,000. So the idea that something that has a 3% cost impact affects the.

Sir, I'm informed we have a bunch of folks outside behind you, so we appreciate it. I know that there's a lot of people here that want to share their opinion, so just, just want to be fair to everybody in terms of time.

Yeah. What I'd like to do is then I have detailed comments that I'd like to pass on to your staff and, and I'd love to talk with you or your staff individually at your convenience.

Sounds great. Thank you so much.

Good morning. My name is Pete Wohlgezogen and I'm here to represent 6,800 Members of the UA Local 250 Steamfitters and Refrigeration and the UA as a whole. The middle class workers already face challenging times to keep up with affordability in California. We are going to work every day to support our families.

If we're lucky enough to be able to send our kids to College. All this while challenging. All this will be challenging when we are already facing opposition in industrial sectors here in California. And now there's this Bill which is looking to reduce our wages.

The average blue collar worker can't afford to have their jobs in the industrial sectors cut but then also have the wages reduced in the industrial, the residential sectors. Excuse me.

The proposed wages at $36 an hour for Southern California actually puts you at about $74,000 a year which technically is considered low income for a family of four in LA County based on a single income. This information is pulled from planning.lacounty.gov I ask for your support in opposing this senseless and misguided Bill. Thank you.

Good morning great elected leaders. I wish there was more of you guys in the front here to hear all of our public comments. My name is Sean Ellis. I'm a political organizer, community organizer and labor organizer for San Diego, the UA.

I'm here representing the UA as a whole, the building trades, our local union and all workers union. And not at the end of the day, prevailing wage sets the standard for all workers across our great region.

I go to a lot of these meetings and I hear every time that we talk about compassion, we talk about low income housing. How do we make the precedence of California being the best state in the union? Well, I oppose AB 130. It literally brings us all the way down to $24 an hour.

Let me, let me just hit that real quick. That's $49,000 a year which puts you at 50% of the AMI in our region. Is that really helping out our community? It isn't.

We will be rolling back decades and decades of union leadership here with great leaders of the Democratic Party and the Republicans to set the standard for the workers that build this great state and where our people will live there.

So I urge you to to have some leadership stand strong and demand that these prevailing wages are actually meeting living wages so that our people can be happy, they can thrive and reach the ladder of opportunity once again. My name is Sean Ellis, community organizer for the United Association.

Thank you for your time and God bless you guys.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Graciela Castillo Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, All Home Enterprise community partners. I'm going to have to disagree with some of the Members of the public. We actually think that this is an improvement for actual workers.

Remember this actual provision is for market rate development that currently does not actually pay prevailing wage. We think that they should pay more. It might not be prevailing wage. But this is a new standard that can put more people into work and also create the communities that we want.

Workers should not have to be driving two hours because that's all they can afford. They actually should be able to walk to work. They should be able to come home and put their kids to bed. And we think that the solutions are in 130. So thank you for that piece of legislation and we stand in support.

Good morning Mr. Chairmember. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council, the Housing Action Coalition and the Chamber of Progress want to echo the comments of my colleague Graciela and also mention that the we're here in strong support of AB130, particularly the CEQA provisions which we think strike the right balance between encouraging infill development which is the most environmentally friendly type of development where we need to be building and and also helping us to address the urgency of our housing crisis in a way that's balanced and protects the environment and also leads to smart development.

So appreciate your support. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members Sosan Madanat, W Strategies here on behalf of UnidosUS and I'm also giving a courtesy me too for the Inner City Law Center in support of AB130. Lining my comments with my colleagues ahead of me.

And I'm also here on behalf of the Certified California Nurse Midwives Association here to urge continued support for the nurse midwifery workforce development. Thank you.

Good morning. Kimberly Sanchez with NextGen in California on transportation and climate. We thank the Legislature and the Governor for fully protecting 1.1 billion in prior transit relief and and extending a 7,750 million loan to Bay Area transit agencies.

We're also grateful for limiting the use of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Dollars for General Fund solutions to 1 billion this fiscal year in a tough budget year. We appreciate the commitment to these essential climate investments and their deal in the final but and and their inclusion in the final budget deal on higher ed.

We thank the Legislature and the Governor for fully funding Cal Grant and middle class scholarships, allocating 20 million for emergency financial aid at community colleges, 15 million for dream resource liaisons and adopting the continued use of the 2020 cohort default rates.

These are critical and and much needed investments to support our most vulnerable students in a year where they and their families are facing multiple crises. Thank you for the investments in the final budget agreement.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Corey Brown with Resources Legacy Fund also speaking on behalf of Public Health Institute. We we strongly oppose the AB 141 Cannabis Trailer Bill. That measure would divert over $700 million away from child care, youth, drug dependency, environmental restoration in order to avoid increases in fees by the cannabis industry.

Voters got it right. Department of Cannabis Control's budget is supposed to be paid entirely out of fees on the industry, not by taking money away from child care and environmental restoration. This Bill clearly violates voter intent with Proposition 64. We urge you to reject it. This Bill is not needed to bring a balanced budget.

We urge you to instead do what the voter said. Have the Department of Cannabis Control through its regulations raise the money it's supposed to from fees to pay for its costs. Prioritize kids in the environment, not Canada's best industry profits. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Tona Miranda and I'm here on behalf of Youth Forward and the 50 tribal partners throughout the state that have received funding from Tier 3 of Prop 64. By cutting these funds at the rate suggested in AB141 would be absolutely devastating to tribal California.

To date there has been over $40 million put back into tribal communities for youth substance abuse funds. The cannabis industry has thrived on the backs of tribal lands and people. Please support the most vulnerable on this issue. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIRLA. We would like to thank the Legislature for the additional $10 million for immigrant legal services. We would also like to thank the Legislature for the one time funding for Dream Resource liaisons at the community colleges.

But we urge the Legislature to pass a Budget Trailer Bill that will include funding for AB278 which was signed into law in 2023 and created a high school Dream Resource Center center the High School Dream Resource Centers. With the attack on immigrants at the federal by the Federal Administration, it is now more than ever important that we continue to support our immigrant communities during this difficult time.

We also oppose the proposed cuts to Medi Cal and align our comments with the with Health access. And we urge the Legislature and the Governor to rethink that proposal. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair Gabriel Janice o' Malley with AFSCME California. Appreciate the work and leadership of the Chair and the chairs of the subcommittees on finding balance and developing a budget in challenging times, particularly ensuring that our state workers have the ability to bargain in good faith without the process being usurped.

We're also grateful for emergency funding for transit in LA County. But unfortunately we want to express our vehement opposition to AB129 related to the establishment of an HSS Advisory Committee.

This language was not agreed upon by our Members of Local 3930 UDW and we ask that you reject this rush proposal until we can have further conversations with the Administration. Thank you.