Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good morning. Welcome to our first hearing of Assembly bills. There are 24 bills on today's agenda. There are eight bills on consent. Those bills are item number 5, AB 2056 item number 7, AB 1346 item number 8, AB 1486, item number 15, AB 2726, item number 17, AB 1920, item number 20, AB 2148, item number 21, AB 2178, item number 23, AB 2455.

Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Seeing as we don't have a quorum, we'll go ahead and begin as a subcommittee with the first bill, and I do see that we have two authors in the audience. We will go ahead and get started first with AB 402 by Assembly Member Patel. And Assembly Member, you may begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning, everyone. Madam Chair and Members, today, I'm pleased to present AB 402. This bill will increase the Cal Grant award amount for private nonprofit colleges to facilitate student agency and opportunities with upward mobility. The Cal Grant program is a financial aid program administered by the California Student Aid Commission. These grants can be used at the California State University, University of California, and private colleges and universities such as Occidental College, Stanford University, National University, and many others.

This bill restores the Cal Grant a and b reward amounts to their 2,001 levels. It will also allow students who attend a community college to receive the Cal Grants Transfer Entitlement Award at private non profit institutions. It aims to make college more affordable for middle and low income students and give them more agency in their pursuit of a higher education. Just to remind everyone, the Cal Grant is awarded to the student whose eligibility is determined by need.

The Cal Grant program increases access for low and middle income students to education that can transform futures and careers.

Since a higher education degree remains one of the most effective ways to achieve upward mobility, creating more opportunities and removing barriers that limit how students reach their future goals is an essential part of helping them thrive. With that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, and I see that we have, presenters here. You may begin, and, we'll time you for two minutes each.

Hello? Alright. Good morning, Chair Perez and Members of the Senate Education Committee. I am Pedro Ybarra Mejia, born and raised in Tracy, California, and I am here in support of AB 402. When it came to college, I knew I wanted to stay in my county of San Joaquin County, which is why I attend the University of the Pacific, a private nonprofit institution.

However, since 2001, Cal Grant awards for students attending private nonprofit institutions has decreased for by 4%, while awards for UC and CSU students has increased significantly. Additionally, private nonprofits are excluded from transfer entitlements, limiting opportunities for community college students. To me, honorable members of the Senate Education Committee, this makes no sense because our degrees are no less or no better than those earned at a UC or CSU.

As a student who relies on financial aid, I can say that additional Cal Grant funding or really restoring it back to the 2,001, percentage makes a real difference. Attending a private nonprofit institution was actually the more affordable option for me because of merit scholarships and programs like Cal Grant.

Yet, students at private nonprofits continue to receive less support despite pursuing the same goal. This is especially important for transfer students and my friends at the University of the Pacific, who nearly half of them come from down the street from Delta College. Demonstrating the vital role that this private nonprofit institution plays in helping students earn a bachelor's degree close to home.

Because of financial aid, I have been able to thrive on my university and serve my community, which I did as a former intern for Assembly District 13. I've also been able to pursue various academic endeavors and extracurricular activities, such as serving as of as president of my fraternity and being an active student researcher.

With this said, I respectfully ask for your support of AB 402 and the students across California who would benefit from this legislation. Thank you.

Joe. Good morning, Chair Perez and Members of the committee. My name is Mark Milliron, and I am President of National University. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Patel for introducing this important measure. AB 402, along with the accompanying budget requests needed for implementation, would significantly increase access to higher education in California, but particularly for the state's nontraditional working and military students.

For nearly 55 +years, National University has specialized in serving nontraditional learners across California. The average age of our undergraduate student is 33 years old. Half of our students are parents. Almost all of our students work full time and about 80% of them are transfers from community colleges. We call our students Anders because their primary identity is not just as a student.

Our students are students and parents. They are students and employed, students and deployed, sometimes all of the above. As a veteran founded institution and the second largest non profit university in the state offering more than a 150 undergraduate and graduate academic programs, NU enrolls tens of thousands of Anders each year and designs our learning models and our support systems for those balancing higher education with the demands of work, family, and service. For them, choosing the right institution is not just a matter of preference.

It is often the key to whether they can enroll and persist at all.

These are Californians who will continue to drive our state's workforce and our economy, allowing them to retain their Cal Grant eligibility after they transfer to a nonprofit university will expand institutions like ours that are designed to serve non traditional students. AB 402 will ensure that financial aid follows hardworking eligible students as they pursue the educational pathways that work best for them.

This is a targeted, cost effective investment that promotes transfer success, degree completion, and educational opportunity for working adults, service members, parents, and other nontraditional learners across California. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this important measure to your attention and respectfully urge your support. Thanks.

Thank you for your presentation. Before we have additional witnesses begin to speak at the mic, we have a quorum. So secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

The secretary notes a quorum has been established. We'll now take additional witnesses and support at the mic at the railing. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Morning, Chair and Members. Alex Graves with the ICCU. We're the sponsors of the bill, and I'm available to answer technical questions.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. On behalf of the Southwestern San Diego and Los Angeles Community College Districts here in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Jack Worston from Nossaman on behalf of the North Orange County Community College District, Citrus College, and Mount San Antonio College in support.

Good morning. Monica Salas on behalf of Bay Area Council here in support.

Nathaniel Berry, California Indian Nations College. I'm in support of this as well. Thank you.

Seeing no additional witnesses in support, we'll move on to any witnesses in committee Members? Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the author and the and the and this is a a a couple a couple questions. So so the first is with respect to so so the just to wind back from what the analysis, describes in terms of what the what the deal was in terms of the the the last most recent change to the to the to the to the law. And I I was a staffer here when we first we're working on Cal grants for independent institutions.

I was here in 2021, when this was all set up. So I have a long history here, but the but the the point of the the most recent, augmentation was to advance the the state's, very critical policy interest in expanding the deployment of the associate degree for transfer, which has been an incredibly high priority at both UC and CSU. And part of the arrangement here was that independent institutions statewide would do the same.

The very substantial efforts that their public sector partners have been doing and essentially in exchange for accomplishing that, that there would be the increase to to the grant. And my understanding is we've not seen the I mean, those those those those statutory targets from the from the budget act haven't been haven't been accomplished and that we're and that we're still relatively small.

I'm understanding from the analysis, we're at a couple thousand ADTs statewide for the entire entire sector. What's the state of the of of the independent colleges commitment, progress, hard choices, you know, difficult conversations in academic Senate meetings and what have you in order to actually advance the associate degree for transfer that's been so successful at CSU and UC at really, dramatically increasing educational pathways and success for for students that begin their their careers in community colleges?

Well, certainly, through the chair. Certainly, there have been a lot of struggles and challenges with students accessing it and part of it is the financial aid component of it. Doctor. Milliron, if you would like to respond and also Alex is here to provide some more details around that.

I love this question and, I could not be more supportive of ADT. So National University, literally just about a month and a half ago, signed a statewide articulation agreement with the California community colleges. Actually just released a press release around it and part of it was completely mapping all of the ADTs into our programs and matching the, matching the tuition rates of the National University to increase the completion rates for folks who are coming in.

About 80% of our undergrads have come in with community college transcripts and our big thing is we wanna be the most transfer friendly institution in the state. So we are aggressively trying to make sure the ADT students in particular can be successful as they come in the national.

We've been doing it for fifty years, but this statewide articulation agreement I think is probably I think Sonia's off and the the chancellor's office has been really strong in working with us around this and we really wanna be a a a symbol to other private non profits out there that this can be done and be done effectively at scale.

But more importantly, I mean, 70% of our undergraduate students are diverse, over half of them are military affiliated, over half of them are parents, and 80% of them come from community colleges. What we know is our job is to be accessible, to make sure they don't lose any credits as they're coming over, and they can have an affordable pathway.

And again, Alex Reyes with the ICCU. I think there's a couple things embedded in your question. In terms of the commitment that was made under the prior administration when the ADT and Cal Grant kind of tie was made for our sector, The agreement was basically to set statutory targets, and that achievement of those targets was not followed by an increase to the Cal Grant award. It was just, achieving them was was attached to no potential trigger cut to the Cal Grant award.

We would certainly prefer to see an approach that promotes a growth mechanism than a cut.

For the ADT, since that agreement was made, we now have approximately 34 to 35 of our institutions that have active participation in MOU. When you look at our data from the community colleges on on kind of transfer volume to our institutions, what we find is that our institutions that already had strong transfer culture are largely the ones that are participating in ADT. I think in the last year, we welcomed something like 11,000 new community college students into our institutions.

And in terms of the ADT numbers year over year that have been measured, we've been pretty stable, year over year. We've generally been around 23, 2,400 new ADT admits, year to year, with minor variation, And there was something else embedded in your question, but I yeah.

I hope that's helpful.

Alright. Thanks. I mean, this is a very we are a very affirming committee.

However, ADTs are a great example of where intention and commitment and values do not automatically translate into actual degrees because there are a lot of incentives in the system for them not to proceed at scale, which is why we've taken pretty aggressive the language that mister Graves mentioned was pretty aggressive by by the state in order to make that happen because we realized that, you know, the undergraduate curriculum I'm I'm I'm just full disclosure, I'm the the one former faculty member here in the in the Senate, you know, that the internal, financial curriculum, departmental incentives to just keep keep your program the way it is and not and not bend to the to the to the statewide, you know, homogenization of the ADD ADT, which is for the student's benefit, is very strong.

And so it requires institutions to do things that they either don't want to do or have battles that they don't want to have, which is why we've created these kinds of triggers in order to accomplish that.

And so the fact that we're not making substantial progress here at this point, maybe national accounts for most of the 2,300, which is both good and bad news, obviously, that we're not getting that scale at institutions that don't have the either the commitment or the administrative capability or control in order to make that move forward. So to me, the imperative is just as strong now.

So if we were prepared before to say, do this like everyone else is doing in public higher ed, which is and and that's the argument for this bill is that we should be treated equivalent to public higher ed, they are doing it. And so if we were prepared to say we will cut your grants, which we didn't do, but we were we you know, the empty threat that we made was we will cut grants if things if the segment does not do this.

To me, it would be equally important to say if we're going to make an increase in the grant, that requirement still it holds that the segment has to, in a much in a bigger way now because ADTs are much more established and there's no excuse for an independent institution to say, oh, we're not sure about the quality or whatever.

Every every campus of CSU is doing it at scale, and many CSU campuses as well. So that that's not a that's not an acceptable, reason not to move forward. So to me, that's that's an important piece here is that with that, that that arrangement needs to at least be continued if not strengthened if we're talking about an increase. So that's one issue.

The second issue I just want to highlight because we often in our committee we're like, well, we'll leave the fiscal to later in the Appropriations Committee.

And as I think I'm the only one on the committee that's also on the Appropriations Committee. It's not cool. Like we have a responsibility here too to make these fiscal decisions. And I am concerned that we have passed the a major Cal Grant reform package, what now, three years ago, two years ago, and the Chair was super involved in this and we haven't funded it. And so, you know, we have to exercise some policy discipline, some strategy about like how we can't keep passing more things.

Oh, let's just add more to the Cal Grant, add more to the Cal Grant and leave behind the core funding excuse me strategy that came out of the Cal Grant reform process that was extremely extensive and really focused on the student, not on the institution. So I'm prepared to vote for the bill today. I'm partly signaling my own view in appropriations around these questions, but we have to grapple with that because it's we're not helping students by passing more bills that we that we have.

And I know the author has done led a like an an amazing effort to try to convince the budget committees and the governor in order to do that. That's still underway, and I'm supportive of that as well.

And at the same time, we have to make some choices here about what our priorities are. For me, my first priority is funding Cal Grant reform. This is an important step forward especially if the ADT piece is completed but we do need to also do that job as well. So I do appreciate the author's very thoughtful work on this. It is an important issue.

It has been for thirty five years and it's important. We also put need to put in the context of our resources and our our compelling interest to assure that more the community college students who are pursuing the associate degree for transfer with the hope that they might go to Sonoma State or to Cal State LA or whatever will also have the opportunity to go to to to Loma Linda and Pointe Nazarene and every and everywhere else.

That is that is the essential part of the policy agreement that we that we have insisted on, and I think this bill needs to reinforce that. But I'm look I'm voting for it today, and with the hope that the author can continue to improve the work and to try to account for some of these issues as we as it goes forward. Yeah.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Are there any other questions? Yes, Senator Choi.

Thank you, Chair. And I will be supporting this measure, which is important. And, basically, I see that that this is raising the maximum Cal Grant a and b tuition from 93 $9,358 to $9,708, which is increase of $350 per year. And this is only partial of the entire tuition because most of the especially non profit, private universities, tuition is more than this. So I think this is, in fact, keeping up with the all kinds of price increases and the tuition is much higher than this.

So this is essential. And then also the other important part is that the portability of this from community colleges to other independent private universities, which makes a question sense for the same person just because the person transfers another higher education that is blocked and that that doesn't make any sense. So based upon that, this is a basic step that we can encourage the students to continue and to finish their studying. So for that, I will support that.

And appropriate time, I would like to make a motion for this bill.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Are there any other questions or comments? Alrighty. A few things. And I think, Senator Cabaldon started touching on them, already.

One I appreciate that I think your, legislation Assemblymember Patel is highlighting the Associate Degree for Transfer program. I worked at the Campaign for College Opportunity, which helped to pass, the legislation by Senator Alex Padilla way back when that created the associate degree for transfer and we have continued, especially during my time working there, to try to promote it as the preferred pathway, and to encourage both, not just our CSU system but also the UC system, as well as our private institutions, to utilize it.

I recognize that, as Senator Cabaldon noted, there's, a number of institutions, that, do not promote it as the preferred pathway. The analysis notes that there's 32 institutions, as of last year that accepted ADTs. There's 80 AICCU institutions in the state, and so we still have work to do.

And this is something that we talked a lot about. I know the TV's just shut off. I don't know if they're still recording. I know that this is something that we talked a lot about, during my time at the campaign as we were doing research and looking at how we could improve transfer pathways for students across the state. And so, that's certainly work that we need to continue to, to build on.

And so I just want to note that I think that that's something that institutionally, there, there needs to be work on. In addition to that, the need to raise the Cal Grant Award is something that I entirely recognize.

As, Senator Cabaldon noted, I worked on the Cal Grant Equity Framework that was signed into law in 2022, with Senator Connie Leyva, who used to Chair this committee, and Assembly Member Jose Medina, who used to Chair Assembly Education, and was, you know, very excited when we got that done. We were told that the funding would be discussed in the previous year, in 2023, and now I'm sitting here in 2026, and I'm a Senator myself, and it has still not been funded.

And so we've also passed other legislation that has come from other, members of my house that are excellent bills that are looking to tie, the Cal Grant to inflation, to try to move the needle on that.

That is still, you know, something that needs to be funded. And so, and we've had many conversations with the governor's office about this. So, I think, the point that Senator Cabaldon raises in terms of trying to, make sure that we're not just continuing to pass policy that we're laying on top of one another and that we're actually sitting down and having a meaningful conversation about funding these things, right? Because ultimately, what the goal is is to get you more dollars as a student.

That's what needs to happen.

I want for our students that are receiving the ADT to have the dollars that they need to go to school, to pay for their housing, to pay for their transportation. And while we've passed, bills that have made statements that have said we want to do that, we need to put our money where our mouth is. And I think that that's gonna require a real push with whoever, our next governor might be.

I know we're all watching the, votes come in, and, you know, we'll see what happens there. So, I'm very supportive of the bill, and I'm very supportive of us increasing the Cal Grant amount.

I think that we should continue to encourage our institutions to produce more ADTs. Would love to see goals that go beyond just trying to exceed our year over year goal. I think, if I looked at the numbers, it was 2,345 ADTs that were produced overall for all of the AICCU institutions. It would be great to see that number raised even higher come next year. And we should all just try to do what's in the best interest of students.

And I think that, ultimately, for me as a Chair and for the rest of this committee, that's what we're always looking at, trying to deliver on. So, with that, I will turn it over to you, Assemblymember, to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair and, senators. I really wanna thank your, active participation in this bill hearing and the continued partnership and collaboration in making sure that the financial aid that our students receive follows them at whatever accredited institution they choose to take it to, and making sure that they have access and opportunities to university and higher education programs that meet their educational needs and their well-being needs that align with them and their personalities and help them pursue their dreams.

As a proud graduate of Occidental College who only was able to attend due to financial aid such as a Cal Grant, merit aid, work study, and everything else included, student loans, I understand the financial burdens that our students face when they choose to attend an institution of higher learning and know that they are committed to making good on that promise of the higher education achievement.

And so I offer partnership in looking at, Cal Grant reform and making sure that it's funded through appropriations and through the budget process and look forward to continuing working with you on on that pathway for our students. With that, I respectfully ask a Aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. And, do we Oh, we do have a motion from Senator Choi, and that motion for AB 402 is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Great. Thank you. And we will put that bill on call. I know, Assemblymember, you have another bill, AB 2067.

If you wanted to get started on presenting that, you may go ahead.

Go ahead.

Will do. Once again, good morning, Madam Chair and members. Today, I'm happy to present AB 2067 to the committee. This bill will extend the authorization of the competitive selection process to award lease-leaseback contracts for school construction projects to July 1st, 2032. Lease-leaseback, or LLB contracts, provide flexibility to school districts in delivering school construction projects so school districts can spread payments through a lease term rather than funding the full cost of the construction up front.

This framework allows school districts to incorporate pre-construction services into a contract, giving them, and especially small school districts, the benefit of expert guidance early in the process. Early collaboration amongst the district architect and contractor has improved constructability, strengthened cost estimation during the design phase, reduced exposure to change orders, which is critical, and enhanced schedule reliability.

For school projects constructed on occupied campuses, this delivery method provides greater risk mitigation and budget predictability rather than traditional low-bid procurement. AB 2067 would continue to provide school districts with a clear, transparent, and accountable framework for delivering critical school infrastructure projects. By preserving the competitive solicitation process based on best value principles, AB 2067 strengthens fiscal oversight while preserving local flexibility.

These contracts continue to preserve quality workmanship, strong safety records, and responsible contracting practices, which are essential to ensuring the delivery of facilities that serve students, educators, and communities. With widespread success for LOBs contracts historically, AB 2067 would allow California school districts to deliver high-quality facilities for our students and taxpayers while maintaining strong standards of transparency and fiscal accountability.

By extending LOB contracts for school construction, this bill is instrumental to students and school districts. For these reasons, I respectfully ask your aye vote today. And with me to testify today in support of the bill, I have Nancy Espinoza with California Coalition for Adequate School Housing and Melanie--sorry--Melanie Perron, on behalf of Associated General Contractors of California.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Nancy Chaires Espinoza, legislative advocate for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, our state's school facilities advocacy and professional association and a co-sponsor of this bill. Our members serve our state's 6 million students and over 10,000 TK-12 school facilities, and in order to deliver new and modernized facilities that our students and educators deserve, we need the ability to use the construction delivery process that AB 2067 would continue to authorize.

Lease-leaseback is often the best method to deliver new education facilities, sports fields, pools, performing arts centers, et cetera. It is essential to the success of complex modernization projects needed for our schools to meet the needs of current and future students. The competitive selection provisions of lease-leaseback, which this bill would extend, comprise a framework that ensures transparency and accountability to the public, to taxpayers, and protects all parties.

Specifically, they allow school districts to incorporate pre-construction service into the contract, giving them, and especially small school districts, the benefit of expert guidance early in the process.

Allows us to control costs by reducing the need for change orders throughout the construction period, requires full disclosure of pricing in an open meeting of the school district governing board, preserves skilled and trained labor requirements, and upholds protection for subcontractors, which my colleague, I'm sure, can elaborate on.

The bill, most importantly, would maintain a tool that school districts need to ensure that they can deliver projects on time and under budget. For these reasons, we thank the Assembly Member for her leadership on the issue and respectfully request an aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and members. Melanie Perron, here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California as a co-sponsor of AB 2067. AGC has been around for over a hundred years, representing over 800 contractors statewide. In fact, we're the only statewide organization representing contractors. While this bill is merely just a sunset extension bill, for us, it's critically important.

In addition to what was said by our author and my colleague sitting next to me, I wanna talk about the fact of what was-- what's absolutely important for us is this legal certainty this bill provides and the stability in school construction delivery and the financial tool this also provides us as success for both our school districts and for our contractors. For years, contractors have operated under significant legal uncertainty around lease-leaseback 10, 15 years ago.

There's been conflicting court decisions that created real risk for both our districts and builders. Even after the Legislature clarified this law, the construction under-- remembers how destabilizing this period was and the lawsuits that they faced and the concerns of engaging in this type of delivery method. AB 2067 ensures that we do not return to that uncertainty.

It keeps a clear, predictable, statutory authority in place so contractors can responsibly bid, plan, and deliver projects without fear that the delivery method will suddenly be questioned or expired or have to face more legal concerns. That stability is essential. As contractors, we commit bonding capacity, workforce, equipment, and capital months or years in advance of these projects. We cannot make those commitments when the legal framework is unstable. AB 2067 preserves this pathway, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear witnesses in support. If you could use the mic at the railing.

Good morning. Jennifer Baker, on behalf of the San Benito High School District in support.

Good morning. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Megan Baer, on behalf of the Oakland Unified School District in support. Thank you.

Sara Pietrowski, on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials in support.

Jalen Woodard with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Marissa Bismarck, on behalf of the California School Boards Association in support.

Excellent. Anybody else?

Alrighty. We will now hear any witnesses in opposition if there are any. Any witnesses in opposition?

Seeing nobody rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do any committee members have comments or questions?

Yes, Senator Gomez Reyes.

I'm not sure if you have the answer, but how often is this LLB, project delivery method used?

You know, I don't have an exact answer on that. I know in the school district where I was a school board trustee for eight years, we did use it after things got clarified in state law because it was very tricky for us prior to that. But maybe my witnesses have a response for you.

We endeavor to get that data. We don't have a reliable number for you. Just an anecdotal kind of polling of our members, some said that they thought maybe 30% of their projects were. Some said in some regions of the state, for example, Southern California, it might even be above 50%. So that's the best I have for now.

I know recently we passed, legislation here in this committee to allow for best value procurement for community colleges is already allowed for K through 12 UCs and CSUs. How often is that used? The best value procurement?

I don't have that information either. I unfortunately, I don't know in your experience.

Sure, Senator. I don't have those numbers off right here, but I'm happy to follow-up with your office to provide more information because there's several different delivery methods that are used for school projects and construction statewide. Best value being one of them, lease lease back, job order contracting, design build, progressive design build. There's a whole host. So there's different methods that are used and more that are newer than your traditional low bid than going to design build that has a long history here in the state.

And my final question is, does this provide for cost savings as opposed to, of course, the more traditional method? But for, when it was, lowest bid that always is a problem because of all the change orders. But with the best value procurement process versus the lease leaseback, is there a cost savings? Is that why it's preferred?

So each owner of a public project, will have to make a determination of why they think it's the best delivery method. When I think about what this bill is doing, it is really a financial tool when we think about school districts not having to have the capital available upfront to have to go and have these projects built. They're able to go and lease to a contractor at a low amount.

That contractor builds on that property and then does a leaseback over time. So that actually provides more fiscal sustainability for those school districts. Best value also serves its purpose in other arenas. But again, those are the public owners determinations of what's available and cash flow certainly, I think, would be a conversation that school districts would be having with this authority that gives them more leverage. It also brings us in earlier in that process too because of how this procurement works just like a best value.

So it does provide cost savings I would say generally across the board when you're able to have those contractors who have expertise, who have shown and won those bids to be able to step up and work with the public entity and go and deliver those projects.

So happy to work with your office to get you more information, but generally contractors as a whole we really do support alternative delivery methods because it does help us in seeing those cost savings, not having those change orders happen all the time.

I did say that was my last question but I did have one follow-up. Is this method available also for community colleges, UCs, and CSUs?

This bill in particular is for the K through 12 system, but I'm not as familiar with community colleges. I don't know that we do lease leaseback on community college campuses.

I don't believe we do. This is a tool that's been more very focused in this arena and again, happy to follow-up with your office.

Thank you. I'd love to get more information. Thank you. Thank you, Madam chair.

Thank you, Senator Gomez Reyes. Do you have any other questions or comments? Senator Choi.

Thank you. I would like to know what this means because your bill requires entities and the subcontractors to use, in quotation, skilled and trained workforce. That sounds like to utilize only union members in construction. If that is the case, this ultimately will restrict with whom the school district may contract with and who may be on the project, meaning that you are excluding general independent contractors.

There have to be certain specified group or that selectively that what you call is the which is not well defined here as skilled and trained workforce.

So doesn't it, do you think this is a fair practice?

So I appreciate the question. And just to clarify and provide some background, this doesn't change anything currently in existence, only extends the current provisions through the sunset period. So the current processes that are used for hiring workers will stay in place through the extension of the sunset. But perhaps my witnesses would like to offer any further comments to that?

Sure. For skilled and trained, the as the author stated, the skilled and trained workforce provisions were built in over ten years ago into this into statue for this type of delivery method. It does set forth requirements of the workforce that can be used on these projects, as you were asking.

To me, this is kinda unfair feeling to me. It's specifying a certain group of contractors who can apply for the contract bidding. And the overwhelming number of school districts are in support of this measure at the same time. And that has been, I guess, a practice that simply this one's this is trying to extend the sunset period, the 2032.

So it's troubling me at the same time puzzled why this meant method which appear to be a little bit unfair to me, but is a practice that and all embraced by so many school districts.

I think school districts are looking for some stability in their construction projects. LEAs face so many challenges right now with all kinds of changing regulatory landscapes that they're just looking for a way to build and have appropriate school housing for their students. And this is one more tool in their toolbox to help them provide high quality learning environments for their students in a way that's responsible to taxpayer investments in public education.

And while we're not touching that component, the labor component of the bill, we're just extending the sunset, I think it's very critical at this time with so many construction projects, coming forward, with schools aging, that we get this stability in place now. And perhaps at a future date, you can address that with a different piece of policy.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. I just wanted to also engage in this issue as, in terms of the the skilled and trained and the other elements. I mean, I very much appreciate that the author and the two sponsors have kept this bill just about the sunset. I'm sure there are lots of folks that came and said, hey, could you change this thing over here? What about this?

Or could you tip the scales, unskilled and trained one way or the other? And it's the discipline necessary in order to just bring us a clean sunset extension, for me is appreciated because we've had lots of debates about these issues. All this bill does is is extend one of the many, many existing tools that are available for project delivery. And school districts, the both the author and the chair and I all serve on the state allocation board.

I mean, I think we understand very clearly, the challenges both of cash, but also making sure that given limited dollars that we're delivering the most efficiently and the most effectively.

And that's gonna vary by situation, by funding source, by project type, by region, like all kinds of stuff. And so school districts need to have as many proven tools in order for that to be viable. And so this bill doesn't require any school district to do this. The bill doesn't require any school district to to use skilled and trained or to not use in skilled and trained.

It simply makes sure that one of the tools in the box, that is proven and has broad support among the school construction community, is viable and can continue and that folks can make use of the education bond proceeds that we that the voters approved and we can actually deliver the projects effectively because school districts and their partners are able to do so.

So I'm supportive of the bill and appreciate the author's work to make sure that this doesn't open up a can of worms but simply says let's keep this, let's keep this tool in the box so school districts can deliver what the voters voted for in the last election. Thanks so much, Madam chair.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. So, welcome. It's a pleasure, to have you here in committee. I am, so I understand that this is just an extension of a sunset bill.

But I think it's important to note that, you know, when you're extending a system, you're saying it's okay as for everything that's already in place moving forward, right? That we're saying okay, this all works and we're gonna move it forward. But I won't be able to support the bill today and I'm not gonna support the bill today or won't be able to support the bill today because of the skilled and trained component in there.

One of the concerns that I've expressed previously in this committee and, on the Senate floor with, in other areas is I'm trying to be as consistent as I can with bills that limit the opportunities for, for all contractors that have followed the law and are licensed in our state to be able to work in our state. We, you know, this body has continuously advocated for opportunity for all and they've always advocated for, you know, protecting jobs.

And I'm extremely concerned that with anything that has a skilled and trained component, because of some areas such as maybe steel construction, per se, don't have the ability to have apprenticeship programs that are for merit shops, for instance.

And so what happens is that with anything that has a skilled and trained component, what most people in school districts and people that are not in construction are not don't know is that when you have a skill entering component in bills, it means that you're excluding about 80% of contractors in the State of California. And when we're talking about the economy, when we're talking about our state and workforce in the state, we're trying to give everybody an opportunity a shot at working.

We fall into a place where unbeknownst to most legislators, unbeknownst to most school board members who are making these decisions to support such bills, is that they don't know that they're excluding so many contractors and workers from our state, the majority of contractors in our state.

And so that's why I feel so passionately about speaking and really informing the public about where we stand and what we're doing when we're including this.

And although this is just extending the the sunset, I get it, but it has that component that is excluding 80% according to the Black Chamber of Commerce Data and Statistics. So I think it's important to note that. So that's why I won't be able to support the bill, but I completely understand that you're just extending what current current statute is or code. And I understand that. But I feel passionately about just explaining why that is the case.

And I think that the more we educate and inform the public about the nuances that happened when we're doing this. I think, I'm hoping that we will, you know, redirect what we're doing in our state. So with that, I won't I respectfully won't be able to support the bill today.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Yes. Senator Gomez Reyes.

This issue comes up, a lot about skilled and trained and it is important to educate people. I have talked about this in the past. Section 2601 of the public contracts code defines skilled and trained workforce as one that meets the following. And it's in code. It isn't something that we have created here.

All the workers performing work on an apprenticeable occupation, in building its construction trades for which the division of apprenticeship standards, has an apprenticeship program, they have to actually go through the program. They have to be certified. They have to it has to be clear that they are qualified to be on this job. The I have had conversations with others about they say, well, but for this particular trade, there isn't an apprenticeship program. Well, then we need to work on getting an apprenticeship program.

But if the building trades jobs already have an apprenticeship program through the State of California, you have to go through the hours. You have to be under a journey person who's going to make sure that you understand the job that you are doing. And I think it is important that we that that the public be educated about what skilled and trained is. It doesn't necessarily mean just a union job.

But it just so happens that if you're part of a union, they take great pride in making sure that you will have the proper training.

But it isn't only union jobs. And I thank my friends from the building trades because they have, the issue has come up in some of our other bills and they have provided the information. And I know that they are here present. Madam President, if you'd like to have a comment from the building trades, which I think would be appropriate in light of two comments from two of our colleagues.

Certainly, I mean, if the building trades would like to make comment, I also I just wanna highlight as we're having discussion, and I'm happy to let members speak twice, but there is no opposition to this bill. And so, if you would like very briefly to speak at the railing.

Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Chair and members. Mike West with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. I completely agree with everything that the Senator had to say, but I would like to make one comment.

In addition to having copies of what I'm about to read to you and public contract code, which I'm happy to pass out to the committee, a skilled journey person must have graduated from a Department of Apprenticeship standard, state approved apprenticeship program, or have at least as many hours of on the job experience as required to graduate.

So on your question, anybody that has an equivalent number of hours in their trade do qualify under skilled and trained and can be on the job, under the skilled and trained statute. Thank you.

Okay. Yes. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So we're gonna open this door. So let's, it wasn't my plan to to ask so many questions on this particular bill, but now that we have sources on there. So questions, if I may, through the chair, through the witness that just spoke.

Yes.

So now that we have you here, we might as well just open it up and listen my plan but you know, it's here. So question or I can hold it off until next but you know, my colleague brought you up so I might as well just ask the questions now. So curious, when it comes to the apprenticeship programs in the State of California, you know, I understand that you said, you know, the equivalent number of hours for someone who has worked in the field.

When it comes to the contractors themselves, couple of questions.

One, do the apprentices automatically become or compelled or encouraged to become members of the union that they are representing or sponsoring the apprenticeship program in those particular fields?

There's no requirement for them to join the union when they've graduated from, say, an open shop.

An apprenticeship program.

That's right.

A licensed apprenticeship program.

There are both open shop and Union Department of Apprenticeship standards apprenticeship programs in the State of California.

But labor sponsored or union sponsored apprenticeship programs, are they required to join the union after they graduate from the not required, but compelled to to join the union?

If they are a part of a union apprenticeship program, they're already members of the union.

They're already members.

Okay. So they're already members of that. So for the contractors that hire, that are merit shops or Non Labor Union companies, right? When they are in the field for the skilled and trained component, are they able to bid on these jobs? And what are the requirements if they are allowed to bid on these jobs?

That's right.

They are absolutely allowed to bid on these jobs. And there is a process through the Department of Apprenticeship Standards called DAS 140 and 142, where they can request apprentices from the union programs to come and work for the merit shops, under current law. As a matter of fact, they have to when they are awarded a public works project, they have to submit the 140 form to the DAS identifying that they have received an award of that project.

And then, if they'd like to, they can receive the same composite rate as the union shops by employing apprentices that are a part of an open shop, recognized apprenticeship program or a union apprenticeship program. So the the answer is yes.

Yes. Okay. Are you, so in order to bid on some of these jobs with the apprenticeship programs that are required with the skilled and trained, are you or these merit shops, non union labored contracting companies, are they required to pay into the retirement plans of the project or the unions?

No. Those apprentices so, if let me put this correctly, so I wanna make sure and answer this properly. If an apprentice goes to work for a merit shop that is a part of a union apprenticeship program, they get those benefits paid to them, The fringe benefits on the check. They're not paid into the

That's if they're members of that merit, of that apprenticeship labor union group?

That's right.

Okay. But if they're not, the point I'm trying to make is that if these merit shops, if these contractors do not, are not members of the apprenticeship but they are required in order to bid for these jobs, they're required to pay twice for retirement plans, right?

They're supposed to the own merit shops, the nonunion, are supposed to pay into their employees' retirement system in addition to paying into the union representing that shop retirement system, in which now they're paying into two systems on there.

The point that I'm trying to make is that in order to have their members partake of that retirement system that they're paying the second one into the union, they don't get that back because they have to be vested about five years before they're able to pull from that retirement system.

So what happens is when these, these merit shops, non union contractors, are bidding for some of these jobs, they have to it costs them more to be able to bid on this job, kind of de incentivizing them from actually being able to bid on this jobs.

Number two, I'm not sure if you're familiar, but sometimes when you are not a member of the union group of that particular construction site, what happens is that you're required if you wanna take a bid, be able to bid, be able to work on these shops, you hire or you request these apprentices that are union.

They come into the shop and then what has happened and there's history of this and I can give you data and examples of this, but what happens is that now we have these contractors that are subjected to lawsuits? Which in the examples that I can give you, they end up winning at the at the very end, but they're subjected to that. And so it's almost like a Trojan horse coming into these merit shops.

And so that's why it also desensitizes companies from going into that.

So Senator Ochoa Bogh

I wanna be respectful in allowing you to be able to ask the representative questions because I know that Senator Gomez Reyes had also requested that he come up to speak. I do also wanna highlight that we have 16 bills on today's agenda. The assembly has sent us double the amount of bills that they sent us last year, so we're going to be very busy this season. And so if you wouldn't mind just wrapping up your statement, I would appreciate it just for, timeliness sake.

I know we have two authors in the room.

Absolutely. So we can continue this conversation off record and I can continue making the points that I'm making moving forward on that end. But, I respect the sunset bill. Completely respect it, but I did feel compelled to make those points. And we'll be happy to meet with you in my office and continue these conversations and explain to you the ongoing concerns that I've seen in the field in real life, on what's happening in our State of California.

I would appreciate the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing as we have no other comments or questions from committee members, Assemblymember, I'll have you close.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. As I stated in my introduction, this is simply a sunset extension and does not attempt to address all the challenges in school construction, but it does attempt to continue to provide our LEAs with tools in their toolbox to build beautiful learning environments for their students. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yeah. Thank you. And do we have a motion on the bill? We have a motion from Senator Gomez Reyes, and the motion for 26B7 is do passed. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Senators Perez?

Aye.

Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

No.

Ochoa Bogh, no. Cabaldon?

Cabaldon, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Aye.

Choi, aye. Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Reyes?

Aye.

Reyes, aye.

And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Patel. I see we have Assemblymember Rogers who has been here waiting.

I'm not sure, Assembly or you're fine with Assemblymember Alvarez going first? Okay. Assemblymember Alvarez. We will go ahead and have you I will let you both decide.

It's gonna be a long one.

Alrighty. And Assemblymember Alvarez, I know you have two bills. One is on consent, so, please feel free to get started whenever you're ready.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senators, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1204, and wanna thank your committee for the analysis and the work done to date on the bill. AB 1204 introduces essential reforms to California's Local Control Funding Formula.

It's a formula that we use to fund our schools. And our goal here is to address the diverse needs of vulnerable student populations while acknowledging that costs in different regions are-- there's disparities and that there are inflationary pressures that happen on a regular basis in our school districts that are not being captured by today's formula. So while California has made progress toward education equity through the LCFF a little over 10 years ago, there are still significant gaps that remain. One major gap is the 55% threshold for concentration grants.

Districts that fall just under the line of the 55% often still serve deeply disadvantaged communities and students who have a lot of needs. But, unfortunately, they do not qualify for that extra support that others do. And even though districts who do-- even the districts who do qualify, the 20% Supplemental Grant is not enough to meet the needs that our students are demanding these days.

At the same time, regional cost differences are ignored in the current formula and annual inflation adjustments have not kept up with pace, causing districts to lose purchasing power year after year. I think you see some of that being reflected in the May Revise where the COLA has now increased beyond the statutory COLA.

So this bill increases supplemental grants, introduces regional cost adjustments by the year 2030, and guarantees a 4% minimum annual inflation adjustment to help districts keep pace with the real costs that are rising all the time. This comes with a phase implementation over the course of five years, and it ensures a smooth transition as funding aligns with the actual cost of educating students. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to now turn it over to our witnesses.

All right. Is this on? Okay, yes. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Dr. Sierra Cook, the Director of Government Relations for the San Diego Unified School District. Thank you for the opportunity to share our strong support today for AB 1204, which strengthens the Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF, while upholding its core principles of equity, accountability, and local control. A little background on our district. We serve almost 95,000 students.

Twenty percent of those students have disabilities, 15% are English learners speaking over 68 different languages, 58% are low-income, and 9% are experiencing homelessness, a number which we've seen rise every year. Over the last 13 years, the LCFF has allowed us to maximize resources and meaningfully engage in our community through the LCAP process, leading to positive outcomes for our students. However, while the LCFF has contributed to our progress towards closing achievement gaps, persistent issues of equity and adequacy remain.

Primary among these is that the current funding formula does not take into account regional cost differences and their impact on the cost of staffing, operations, and student needs. In San Diego, the high cost of living puts enormous strain on our family and our-- on our families and on our operations. The threshold to count as low-income under the current funding formula is $60,000 for a family of four. In San Diego, the definition of low-income for the purpose of housing by the Department of Housing and Community Development is 140,000, more than double the LCFF threshold.

As a result, many of our families living at or near poverty aren't counted in the current formula and don't receive additional support through the funding formula. AB 1204 gets at this issue by adding a regional cost adjustment to the LCFF COLA to reflect regional needs.

It also makes other equity-focused, research-driven updates, including adjustments to the Supplemental and Concentration Grant and setting a minimum floor for COLA. Importantly, AB 1204 includes a hold harmless to ensure that no districts will lose funding as we shift to a more effective formula. These proposals reflect California's economic realities and better align resources with the needs that our families and districts are experiencing. This concludes my testimony.

Okay. Good morning, Chair Perez and members of the committee. My name is Rachel Ruffalo. I'm Deputy Director of Strategic Advocacy at Ed Trust-West, a data-driven advocacy organization committed to dismantling the racial and economic barriers embedded in California's education system. California stands at a critical crossroads in its approach to education funding.

Since the hallmark passage of Prop 30 and the enactment of the Local Control Funding Formula, funding for public education in California has significantly increased but we still see students' academic achievement either stagnate or improve at too slow a pace, especially for students furthest from opportunity.

After more than a decade of LCFF, the research is clear. The formula holds undeniable promise, but falls short of sufficiently resourcing students of color, multilingual learners, and those from low-income backgrounds. AB 1204 makes meaningful progress towards refining our state's school funding formula in several ways.

Unhoused students, who are disproportionately students of color, face the steepest barriers to learning, and their addition to the state's definition of unduplicated pupils ensures schools are more adequately resourced to meet their unique needs. Increasing supplemental grant funding and expanding concentration grant eligibility, plus the introduction of regional cost adjustments, will direct critical resources to districts serving high but previously unrecognized levels of student need.

And lastly, the establishment of a minimum COLA is an important step towards ensuring funding keeps pace with rising cost at a time when schools face mounting cost pressures and instability. Together the changes proposed in this bill move our sate closer to a funding system that is more equitable and more responsive to meeting the needs of students furthest from opportunity. We proudly support AB 1204 and thank Assembly Member Alvarez for introducing this measure. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from any other support witnesses that are in the room. Please use the mic at the railing.

Megan Baier, on behalf of the Oakland Unified School District in support. Thank you.

Sasha Horwitz, on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Good morning. Sara Bachez with Children Now in support.

Rachel Murphy with Public Advocates in support.

Xavier Maltese with the Charter Schools Association in support.

Excellent. Anybody else? Seeing no one else rising, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. If we have any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Oh, no; you could just move over one seat. Yeah.

And you can begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is David Roth. I am the superintendent for the Buckeye Union School District and the founder of the Raise the Base Coalition.

The Raise the Base Coalition consists of nearly 60 school districts serving through over 350,000 students. When the LCFF was adopted, only about five school districts were statistically underfunded. Today, that number has grown to more than one third of California's districts, serving over 1,200,000 students. Nearly 400,000 of these students are in districts your committee's members represent.

While Assemblymember Alvarez's intent to raise public school funding through AB 1204 is genuinely appreciated, many of our member districts oppose one of its most significant mechanisms, the proposed adjustments to the supplemental and concentration grants.

First, these adjustments would severely diminish the funds available to raise base funding for all districts, including the most underfunded. Second, they would cause more extreme funding disparities across the state. And third, where is the evidence that the current supplemental and concentration grants have meaningfully improved outcomes? Why would we expect that adding more dollars to these grants would produce a different result? New investments in public education must be financially sustainable and directed in ways that strengthen all districts while continuing to prioritize the highest needs students.

The Raizer Base Coalition believes improving the LCFF based grants remains the best strategy for fiscal sustainability, positive outcomes, and equity in California's public schools. We respectfully request you oppose AB 1204. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Maurice Ghysels, superintendent of Pleasanton Unified School District. Pleasanton Unified is one of 219 California school districts identified as underfunded, receiving less funding per student than the state median. We are concerned that AB 1204 would make that disparity even greater. It directs a large share of future funding growth away from the LCFF base and supports every student that supports every student across California.

In recent years, the contribution of low funding, the declining enrollment situation we face, and rising costs has created significant fiscal challenges for districts like ours. In Pleasant Unified, we are now going through our third consecutive year of budget reductions. We have laid off scores of teachers, reduced counseling services, and cut many valued student programs, including science and PE in our elementary schools. This bill would further jeopardize our ability to provide students with a quality education that they deserve. And we are not alone.

Similar stories are playing out in school districts across California as rising cost and declining enrollment continue to strain the budgets of the districts that are already underfunded. We agree. We agree that students need more funding and we support additional funding for higher need students. The solution, however, is not to widen existing funding disparities, but to strengthen the LCFS base grant that supports every classroom. I came out of retirement two years ago to be the interim superintendent, which I thought would be just a couple of months.

It's been two years now. I cannot leave. I started public education as a high school teacher on the heels of Prop 13. I've experienced business cycles. I've experienced the great recession and the list goes on and on.

I have never seen anything that has systematically dismantled public education funding as much as the erosion of what's going on based on declining enrollment and this disparity. We have to raise the base. We're dismantling Pleasant Unified along with almost a third of our public schools. This is not a trade off to equity. This is about all students.

Please raise the base. And I do want to thank, Mr. Alvarez for his advocacy also. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from additional witnesses in opposition. If you could please use the mic at the railing. Your name, organization, position on the bill.

Sara Pietrowski on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials and the California School Boards Association. We have an oppose unless amended position, and we think there are some some elements of the bill that are are wonderful and we wanna have further discussions on others. Thank you.

Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We align our position with CASBO and CSBA.

Jim Shoemake, superintendent Rescue Union School District opposed.

Evan Branning, president of the Association of Pleasanton Teachers and also representing CSEA chapter 155. While we feel the bill is very well meaning, we also oppose unless majorly amended.

Mary Jo Carreon, a teacher of thirty years, and I'm serving on the school board as a trustee, and I'm opposed to this measure. Thank you.

Shamalima Karan, parent of Pleasanton School Unified School District students, and I oppose.

President of the school board of Pleasanton and an educator for over thirty years teaching in Fremont. Opposed.

Ron Tanikawa, Livermore Educators Association, special ed rep at large, and I'm opposed to this bill.

Anybody else in opposition? Okay. Seeing nobody getting up, I'll now turn it back to committee members. Do you have questions or comments from the committee? Senator Choi?

I have some big concern about the LCFF from the fact that I come from North County City Of Irvine. I started my political career as a school board member. That district has been struggling over thirty years until now because of LCFF unfair allocation of first student funding for the school district. For example, in comparison to the neighboring school district, which is Newport Mesa Unified, that's district is on basic aid formula.

Whereas IUSD of Unified is on on non basic aid and as a result the actual funding per pupil is that while Newport Mesa just paid $17,521.81 per student.

And Irvine Unified students will get only $10,342.91. The disparity the difference comes out to be $7,178.90 per pupil. And this is one example of many, many school districts in non basic aid funding formula. And I wonder if this bill will benefit this school districts and non basic LCFF formula funding mechanism.

Thank you. So I would say the answer would be yes, but it depends on your district and what the population that they're serving. Just to remind us all, basic aid districts means they have plenty of tax dollars being created in their own community that they don't need funding from the state. And so your basic aid districts will always have more funding per students than your non basic aid districts in in your in your communities. And that is a disparity that's quite obvious.

When we went from, prior to LCFF to now LCFF, we have seen that, there have been gains across the board, whether you look at the 2021 PPIC report, the 2025 LPI report of which we had an extensive hearing joint hearing last about a year and a half ago.

So, you know, the testimony in opposition said there's no there's no evidence and yet we have seen two very reputable pieces of evidence showing that this much more equitable process through LCFF has been better for students that are more marginalized. And so I don't know this the demographics of your Irvine community district the district in Irvine.

But if they, for example, were to have more students who are English learners or who are lower income or if they're on the verge of the of the threshold that we are changing from 55% to 45%, they may they may see more resources going to them. And so it really depends on your student population, which I would not be able to tell you on the spot, but we could probably figure that out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Cabaldon?

Thank you, madam chair. So I I I wanna also emphasize on this bill that that because some folks have said in their private meetings with with my office that, you know, it's just all good stuff and deal with the fiscal part and appropriations. Just wanna emphasize, particularly when it comes to proposition 98 spending, there are no other there's no competition with any other part of the budget.

So in in some sense, this committee is is the suspense file for for proposition $98 and so it deserves our full our full attention. I I have a I just I think just one technical or question and that and that is that is with respect to, now that the bill doesn't deal doesn't specifically tackle the unduplicated student issue, which I I I hope even though I just did it. I hope we don't take a definition that we need for the statute just to make a funding formula work and actually keep calling people unduplicated students as though that exists as a category in life.

It's, you know, as a way to refer to folks that who are who are learning English or can't don't have enough money to eat or are homeless or aren't experiencing foster youth. It's an extremely antiseptic way, to to refer to them.

But that is that aside for a moment. Do we have any sense of how many this this so this bill at home at adds homelessness, but, without the provision the changes that were in the original version around double counting and triple counting, what percentage of homeless students do we imagine are not qualifying today for free and reduced price lunch?

I I don't have a a number for for you on that. I'll definitely get back to you on that. But but you're right in that there's been iterations of this as a result of conversations. And so, certainly, interested in in some of the concerns that were raised here today. But I I'll have to get back to you on that.

Okay and I ask because it see I mean, intuitively, and I I know I don't wanna pretend to have data that I don't have. It it it it seems unlikely that a significant number of homeless students are not going to be able to demonstrate their quote their their eligibility for free and reduced price lunch.

And so, you know, evaluating that because part of the, you know, any of these funding formula changes is a balloon and some, you know, there's winners and losers and trying to figure it out and what's the overall equity implications. And one of the areas where there that seemed like a clear equity win was was was potentially benefiting homeless students, but it's not clear to me that that that the bill accomplishes that.

It would have in its original version, but it would not now, given that it's highly likely that most homeless students either qualify for free and reduced price lunch or foster youth. So that, you know, the you know, I was here for LCFF. I was here for almost everything at some point. And I'm struggling here because it seems like a very substantial rewrite of LCFF, but without the research base or the broad based coalition that produced that.

Now, that process took like a decade plus depending on how you count, maybe two decades.

So we certainly don't have the time to be doing that.

But I am a bit concerned about just the the, you know, the the the stakeholders that are involved here because each of these is gonna, you know, have impacts, very very real impacts in terms of school funding and our priorities that that we don't have the the academic research that that or the, the stakeholder engagement that it that produced, that in addition to the political leadership that the governor had on LCFF and which mister Alvarez is doing today, that we that those are those are kind of important given the scale of the rewrite that's proposed here.

I also understand we're here in part because and I just wanna call this out because the the proposition 98, we we expect to have essentially more money per student be over many, many, many years. Because enrollment is declining that enroll that, you know, continued declines overall in enrollment are going to continue. State revenues are continued to rise, not enough to pay for the rest of our budget to continue to rise.

And so the formula will be the constitution will continue to produce funding increases for K-12 while enrollment's declining. That is, poses all kinds of challenges at the local level. But for the state, it's actually an incredibly important opportunity for us to say what, what should we be investing in, what should our education finance system look like to meet the meet the needs in the moment, particularly given the some of the challenges from artificial intelligence? But how do we meet that moment given that we have resources?

And so that's that's a policy opportunity for the entire state government to engage in with all of our with, you know, with communities and with others.

And so I my my I guess part of my my hesitation here is I wanna be careful about sort of eating up all of those dollars, now without having the the broader conversation about what what are we trying to accomplish here now that we may have some dollars finally to invest. And I, you know, I find the, like, increase the base argument is very compelling, but so is many of the provisions of this bill.

But those are central, like, existential questions about what what our strategy around K-12 finance is going to be. So that feels to me somewhat premature because this bill, you know, by by and I get for San Diego, it's just like this is a is a plus. Right?

It's It's the coastal, I mean, it's the regional cost differences, which will advantage parts of the state, including San Diego, and and the change in the in the concentration grant threshold will also. But that and and but then okay. But how does that relate to the its impacts everywhere else? And where if we have an incremental amount of money, where should that go? And it's not so clear to me that that's that that that should be, you know, these specific pieces as opposed to others.

In my own district, we have, you know, I have several several school districts, even a couple that are basic aid, but they're basic aid by, like, $100 per student, maybe a thousand dollars per student, but but, you know, they're they're not like brimming with money in Calistoga, which has an 80% concentration threshold, 80% in Calistoga. But they're they are basic aid by a little bit.

But so they're clear losers, but we've we've sort of consigned them to, well, you know, you're on your own because you have enough property tax. Well, if they were in LCFF in in full, they would be getting a lot more resources. So I'm not suggesting to build the amended fund Calistoga.

What I am saying is that these are some very big changes that do deserve info hearings and a lot more collaboration from my point of view. I think the other challenge for me is the COLA because I think one of the witnesses, this bill represents kind of California's economic reality, but California's economic reality isn't 4% forever on the LCFF.

I mean that's as an appropriations committee, I can't imagine voting for that that sort of ratchet over time combined with some of the other provisions that's built, but that in specific just doesn't feel like a like a serious budgeting technique. And I know I'm I'm in the presence of the two most important education budgeters, of the three, in in the legislature.

But it's hard to justify as we're making cuts to everything else, health clinics and everything else that we say that no matter what inflation is, even if inflation were to go down and we had a deflationary environment, we're still going to guarantee four percent every year.

That is deeply concerning to me as a fiscal proposition to create a ratchet of that scale. That's I mean, that doesn't take very long for funding to double at a 4% guaranteed annual increase. And so I'm struggling with it from a policy basis, a process basis, and a fiscal basis.

I don't have a specific question and certainly looking forward and I haven't made up my mind on the bill itself, but I'm looking forward to the author's close to see if there's something I'm missing here or what how the bill might be evolving in a way that would address some of these concerns about fiscal our fiscal policy, fiscal responsibility around the broad based, you know, kind of agreement or at least, you know, consultation and engagement of the of both stakeholders, not much just within K12 role, but in the state government as well.

And then some of these issues around how are we assuring that that, you know, a broader range of the of the of the needs and the opportunities that we have to meet them are addressed not only those that that are gonna are for the high cost districts that are right on the edge of that concentration fiscal cliff that the author has so eloquently described.

So thanks, Madam Chair. I look forward to the colleague's comments.

Great. Any other comments or questions from other members? Alrighty. Aye, a couple of things. I know Assemblymember Alvarez, we've you've talked a little bit about this bill already and about the local control funding formula more largely a very long time ago.

And governor Jerry Brown was still here, and I was, working at the time for the California Endowment and engaged a lot on the LCFF. And, and it was a, you know, very important piece of policy at that time. And I think, you know, the intentionality was to try to make sure that our schools were being equitably funded. I certainly think that it deserves some revisiting as we've discussed. I know that there, are a number of things that you're exploring in this bill.

You know, I appreciate, wanting to call out the challenges that students may be facing, right, with poverty, homelessness. I know, originally, the bill was looking at basically counting those students twice and giving them some additional funding and, I know that that was that portion of the bill was amended out. I did think that that, you know, was necessary just to recognize some of the, the overlapping issues that our our students are facing and the additional supports that our local education institutions need to provide them.

Your bill suggests lowering the concentration grant threshold from 55% to 45%. And while I understand what you're trying to do, I also could foresee a situation where that's not getting rid of the fiscal cliff, but simply just adjusting where the fiscal cliff is, and creating new challenges to then who who ends up being in in that situation.

And so I wanna wanna call that out as well, you know, hear from the folks that have raised concerns about raising the base. And I know that we've had COLA increases for the base every single year. And as the analysis notes, I think we've almost doubled that, you know, since, what is it, 2017, but can understand that there needs to be more largely this conversation, right, about the funding around Prop 98.

And I think that that's overall the desire that we wanna have here, and updating the local control funding formula, especially as we continue to see districts navigating declining enrollment and facing other fiscal challenges, whether it's with AB 218 cases, and other major challenges that our districts are facing. So I, as I've told you, Assemblymember Alvarez will be supporting the bill.

I think it's part of a more larger discussion that we need to have both with our education partners, as well as with other leaders in the space as we kind of figure out what is going to be largely our our our solutions to these challenges. And as, Senator noted, we are both the budget sub chairs, on this issue in both our houses too, so know that we'll continue to have conversations, there as well as as our local education institutions continue to navigate, these new challenges.

So, with that being said, appreciate the direction you're going with this bill, how you're trying to address and, you know, solve some of these challenges. I think it's part of a larger discussion, and we'll be supporting the bill. I will turn it over to you to close.

Thank you. Thank you very much, to to all of you. I'm gonna try to address, multiple of the points that were made and all were well taken. First and foremost, I'd say, this is a conversation that is really important, especially to senators, the chair, and and Senator Cabaldon, know the work that it took, over thirteen years ago now with LCFF and and how monumental that was. And I think, when we

had our hearing, on this about a year and a half ago on just the issue of where LCFF was, ten years in the in the rears, what what what what has worked, what has not, We identified a lot of the things that are in this bill. And so, this is a two year bill and it was for with with intention that we'd have all of last year, all of this year to engage. And I think we've we've done so.

You've seen, as you've noted, changes in the text as a result of that. And so I agree, we are we're the landscape is changing, and certainly, the chair and myself serving in the budget role are seeing what is happening with declining enrollment.

And I think, that does present, as was stated by Senator Cabaldon, a very important opportunity because this is only gonna continue. There's gonna be more money in education with less students to serve.

And I think we have to have a real conversation about what that means for locals and decisions that they're making to make sure that they are aligning their expenditures to that reality of their shrinking student population and how we as a state want to support those remaining students to the best extent possible, not just financially, but to obviously ultimately see student outcomes grow. And so I do think that's an important conversation.

I'll tell you, at least from our our house, and we should have further conversations, A declining enrollment conversation must happen in the state and it should happen soon because it's happening faster than we've been able to adjust to it and response to it.

What this bill is trying to do is trying to anticipate some of those changes and trying to make sure that the resources are going to the students that really need the support. And that's why you see the different the threshold. So for example, I know the chair raised the issue of the fifty-five to forty-five fiscal cliff as was mentioned.

Absolutely true that where you move that, you may have you may see the differences that you see today in the data in terms of student outcomes and performance, which do increase for those concentration schools above 55%. That may just move down to 45%.

You'll see the disparity there as well. That is absolutely something that's possible. So is there any hard facts? No. The only hard facts that we that we do have is that if you rate if you increase funding, just generally, for students who are in need, they're gonna perform better.

And so, we could go down to 5% as long as those dollars are being focused for those students that are in need, we will see I I believe we'll see better student outcomes.

So where you draw that line 45 to 55, it was based on the best information that we had at the time of of how do we include those that are on the cusp that we think where we start to see that that real change market change from from performing average to performing better than average. And so that's that's where that came from, but certainly acknowledge that that is a decision point that we can make.

On the issue of the high cost winners and losers to Senator Cabaldon, that was something I was really sensitive about. Because when we had a hearing on this issue informational hearing on this issue, there was a lot of concerns from people who just thought that that would be we should not be putting pitting folks against each other.

And so we attempted to do that in by a cup with a couple of things. One, the COLA issue, which I can get to as well, the percentage, whether it's the right one or not. The consistently the the testimony from districts across up and down the state, whether you're lower enrollment, declining enrollments, which most are or not, rural versus urban was the COLA current COLA, the saturated COLA is not truly acknowledging the increased cost in school districts.

And there are things as the chair raised like two eighteen that have significantly increased the cost, but others as well that are not, for some reason, factored into the COLA that should be because there are inflationary and and and rising costs, whether it's insurance or fuel or other things that for some reason are not being captured by the statutory COLA, which is the formula that's used. But we thought about revisiting the formula.

What's the what should the formula be? So I would just tell you, we came up with some number of 4% because it was in the range of what most districts, again, up and down the state that we heard from said, we're closer to four on an annual basis. And so that's reflective of that, but certainly can can appreciate that maybe another number or another formula may be the right one that we're capturing the real costs.

I also agree that and and so we have a whole harmless provision because we didn't wanna create, again, losers or the appearance that we're trying to pick winners here. And so no one is going to get less as a result of of hold harmless agreement that is in here.

Lastly, the thing I'll say because I've gone on here for too long is the leadership does matter. And as both the chair and Senator acknowledge, you know, Governor Brown was very engaged and brought folks to the table to have this conversation. Obviously, an assembly member does not have the same bully pulpit or the same reach as a governor does.

But we have attempted and and and all honesty and and generally and will continue to to try to address the the variety of perspectives that are brought forward here by folks that because we're not trying to dismantle LCFF or or or even rebuild it. Someone put it best at the informational hearing.

I can't recall who to who to credit for this, but we have a strong foundation. LCFF is is working. Now, we just gotta revisit the house and and remodel it and maybe add a room or do some things here and there to make it even better than it is today. And that's the approach. That is the attempt with today.

Certainly happy to continue to take that input and engage even more than we have. Happy to hear from more folks because it has been, just to be very honest, a little bit slow in reaction to our proposal. Again, we put it out last year hoping that we'd get more feedback, and now we're gonna continue to proactively seek folks to give us input. And hopefully, those realize that as Senator Cabaldon noted, we are seeing 98 grow.

We are seeing this this 98 dividend, which is money that's not being allocated through LCFF being allocated in other ways for other uses creating what some might think of as new categorical grants, massive, but new categorical grants as opposed to the base funding that LCFF provides to our district.

So that's the attempt. That's the goal and looking forward to those who want to continue to engage on this. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Assemblymember. So the motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. And do we have a motion? We have a motion by Senator Gomez Reyes. Secretary, can you call the

Just quick make a quick explanation. I'm I'm I'm going to vote for the bill today because based on the recommendation of the chair and the and the assembly members continuing efforts on the work. I I but I do wanna emphasize if if this were in appropriations, I would vote no on on on the bill in this form.

So hope hope that some of the continuing work will will proceed, but I do intend to put yes on the roll call, but didn't want to be misinterpreted the reason. Thank you.

Alrighty. Secretary, if you can call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you so much Assemblymember Alvarez. I know we have Assemblymember Rogers who's patiently been waiting to present 1235.

You may begin whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you so much, Senators. I think given the love for, Doctor Patel's bill earlier, this bill will be quick and smooth. We're here today to present AB 1235. This bill would harmonize the public contracts code by requiring a skilled and trained process for the CSU system.

Amendments and assembly appropriations created an exemption for housing projects, but this would bring harmony between the process for the CSUs, the UCs, and the community colleges to make sure that construction projects meet the full benefits and full potential that they have for our local communities.

So with me today to testify on the bill is Mike West, you already met, with the Building and Constructions Trade Council, and I'll turn it over to him.

Good morning again, madam chair and members of the committee. Mike West on behalf of the State Building Trades. In a previous hearing, my colleague Keith Dunn mentioned that he worked with Senator Louis Wolk on the first design build bill that was signed into law in 2014. Also in a previous hearing, Assemblymember Carl DeMaio made a comment and asked an important question. He said that both union and non union have good training programs, which I agree.

I will also add that they also both have Department of Apprenticeship standard state approved apprenticeship programs in some cases. Then he asked if the design build model would apply to the non union, and the answer was yes. So with all the previous dialogue, that wraps up my testimony. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other supporters in the room? Please speak at the mic at the railing.

Good morning, chair members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Good morning. Matt Cremins on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in strong support.

Alright. Mike Greenlee, Painters and Allied Trades District Council 16 in support.

Thank you. Seeing as we have no one else, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition.

And you may begin whenever you're ready. Each of you will individually have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Richard Markuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. WECA supports apprenticeship training. Previous witness talked about that. We support quality construction.

We support design build. What we do not support is using workforce mandate that has never been shown to improve project outcomes while simultaneously reducing competition. The proponents claim that a skilled and trained workforce requirement ensures better quality construction. However, we're unaware of any peer reviewed study demonstrating that skilled and trained workforce mandates results in higher quality construction, fewer defects, improved safety performance, better schedules or lower costs on design build projects.

Now there is substantial evidence that support apprenticeship training quality, but that's not what this bill does.

This bill requires that a specific percentage of workers be graduates of a state approved apprenticeship program. These are two very different things and proponents have not demonstrated that this mandate produces better project outcomes. Skilled and trained workforce has been around for almost twenty years and there's never been a study to demonstrate that it improves project outcomes.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee recognized another concern identifying likely significant administrative costs to CSU to monitor and enforce compliance as well as potential project costs if the bill reduces competition or increases bid prices. We think that before the legislature imposes a new mandate that excludes otherwise qualified contractors, it should require evidence that the increase compliance burdens, reduce bidder participation, and likely increase construction costs for California's already taxed public universities without any demonstrated improvements in project qualities.

For those reasons, WECA is opposed. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair. A members of the committee, Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California representing both union and Non Union general contractors. AGC supports workforce development apprenticeship programs and the use of skilled and trained workers on public projects. In fact, through our construction education foundation and our member companies, we actively invest in training the next generation of California's construction workforce. Our concern with AB 1235, however, is not the goal.

Our concern is the additional mandate and liability this bill places on CSU design build projects like my colleague mentioned. First, the bill requires contractors seeking CSU design build work to provide an enforceable commitment covering every subcontractor at every tier. That creates significant liability for prime contractors and exposes them to compliance risks that may be outside of their direct control. Second, the committee analysis rightfully raises an important implementation question. How is the CSU will how will they operationalize and verify compliance?

Existing law already contains reporting requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and penalties related to skilled and trained workforce requirements. This bill would add another layer of administration without a clear demonstration that the current tools are inadequate. Third, the committee analysis in the assembly as it was mentioned a second ago sites that this is likely to cost very significant cost increases to projects if competition is reduced or bid prices rise.

When additional compliance obligations are added to design build procurement, fewer contractors may choose to compete, ultimately increasing the cost borne by the university and taxpayers. We all share the same goal, delivering high quality CSU facilities, but we should be careful about adding requirements that increase cost and administrative burdens without clear evidence, as my colleague mentioned, they will, that will improve project outcomes.

For those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from any additional witnesses in opposition. If you're in the room, please use the mic at the railing. Seeing nobody standing up, I will turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I have to give my little spiel as you probably heard, me, Assemblymember Rogers earlier today. I am I'm fervently opposed to anything that limits who can and cannot work in California, especially when they follow the law as to what they're required to fulfill to meet their requirements to become contractors in our state. There are many good, good people, good companies that are actually working in the state providing for local hire, black and brown community members, formerly incarcerated folks, and doing everything.

And as stated by the the the the opposition today, there hasn't been a study to to justify why we're going to limit literally 80% of contractors and their employees from being able to work in our state.

I want you to ponder on that thought. And I know you're carrying this bill and you may not have known all of this, so I'm just, you know, feel compelled coming into our area as someone who is impacted, by such bills. I feel compelled to share our life experiences, from this dais and speak because not everybody has had that experience.

So on behalf of those, you know, a member of those 80, 80% of contractors who have followed the law and have done everything required to say to continue to work, including our company who has been building schools and, you know, has been around for over forty years working in the Inland Empire, you know, hiring local folks from the area who have attended local schools and graduated or, you know, are now you know, I think we have one family that is grandpa, son, and grandson working for the company that will be excluded from from being able to work in in participating in local schools.

I don't think it's fair, and I don't think that our state should be codifying who can and cannot have a shot at the American dream.

And for that, I will be respectfully opposing the bill. I'm not gonna go into all the details because I think I I, you know, I know some of my members continue to to repeat that same thing over and over again, but I just wanna just respectfully, you know, express my concerns the way that our local companies will be impacted.

And 80% of contractors interstate, which means less folks, be be able to bid on jobs, which means that, we that the cost could potentially increase in for our local schools. So with that, I will respectfully be opposing the bill today. And you're in California.

And obviously, with the makeup of our legislature, your bill will most likely move forward. But I do wanna express those concerns because I want everybody to understand that a vote for this is literally, you know, taking away from opportunity from many, many folks in our state.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. Thank you, Madam chair. I guess, I've the first thing I I was I have a question for the California State University. Is is there a representative in the room? I know there are 14 bills on today's calendar that directly affect the California State University, or indirectly.

So I imagine they'd be here, but no. Well, that's unfortunate. Okay. So because I'm trying to disentangle, like, what's the what's the actual situation in the world. This is obviously a quasi religious issue, as you heard on the prior bill, and this isn't this is neither the labor committee nor the construction committee, but a a lot of our debates turn on this this issue.

But do we have any information about the analysis notes that there are a couple campuses that are engaged in in that aren't that aren't following what the bill would already do. But is that a is that a big phenomenon? Is it two or three campuses doing a project or two? Yeah. What's the scale of what's like, it it sounded like most CSU campuses most of the time are already doing this.

Correct. And and I don't have the exact statistics for you. As I mentioned, CSU use or UC and community colleges already have this requirement. CSU, it's been campus by campus. I know that they're in in one of my home campuses, Cal Poly Humboldt, was a recent example where they did not, which was part of the impetus for the bill.

But by and large, the CSU system seems to already be moving in this direction and is actually in the process of continuing to negotiate with folks on a macro level around the policy as well.

Okay. That's that that's super helpful.

Which I think speaks to why they have not taken a position on the bill and are not here to speak against or in favor of it. Or here at all.

Yes. They're they're probably here somewhere. They're they're hiding in the restroom.

Yeah. So that that is that is very helpful. I'm I Aye, you know, the I'm I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns of the that the vice chair has raised on this overall issue. I mean, the recognizing the percentage of the of the construction workforce that is not represented, and that's that's that's real. And regardless of our attempts to build more apprenticeship programs and what have you, we have to recognize that that that is that is where California's construction workforce is now.

And, and so we also we need to make sure that we can deliver projects, not only housing, but, you know, the the library, the disabled student center, all those things matter too, and we have to be able to procure the workforce for that. And it is why over time, you know, the legislatures typically and governor typically said, look, you know, prevailing wage is triggered.

It's not required if every single project in the whole world is triggered when there's a when the public is provide has is providing essentially a benefit to the project and therefore to the to the construction. Skilled and trained has largely been that as well. So I I I mean, I will say I'm not I'm not, like, sort of reflexively every single project in the world should have a law that says that all these rules apply.

We're trying to move the market that way, send the right signals and do the things that Senator Gomez raised raised has has mentioned. So for me, it's not reflexive. But if if but if given the case on this particular one where the institution already is and where their the other family of public colleges and universities are, this seems like a reasonable a reasonable, step forward. So I'm gonna I am gonna support the bill bill today.

It doesn't mean I support every single bill that mandates skilled and trained in every possible situation.

They all deserve to be evaluated on their merits. But this one, I think the case has been made that it's appropriate. So thanks, madam chair.

Thank you. Do we have any? Yes. Senator Cortese?

Just just a comment. You know, I think in in reality, you know, what happens here and and let me start by saying I'm I'm gonna be supporting the bill. I think, you know, skilled and trained, which I've been a pretty regular supporter of here, I think, as most people know. In in its basic most basic framework like we see in the bill, oftentimes doesn't actually roll out that way in in real life.

And sometimes it's because if there's not a PLA that this leads to, which is not a typical of a public sector work or untypical, But if that isn't the path that it goes down, then there's always this worry and this concern and Aye, you know, respect, you know, opposition's concerns about what what happens and I'm gonna frame them differently.

What happens when the the general contractor in a design build is trying to move, get the project underway, get, you know, plenty of prevailing wage jobs going, union jobs going, and there's one or two subs that, you know, aren't basically aren't available, you know, under these terms. You know, you can call your local building trades council and just say, we we can't even recommend a contractor for you to to do the landscaping or to do, you know, this one particular trade.

And that usually leads to something like a two gate or a dual gate job and the policy does it and I'm not sure how you would write it. It doesn't really take into account that situation because it's it's more of a strict framework. And I think that's, you know, been a little bit problematic but more so on the private sector.

I think I think with public code projects that that can still happen but you have a very typical and available avenue of putting the PLA in place that essentially subsumes this requirement within it and has the mechanisms within it to allow for all that. What happens when there's jurisdictional issues? What happens when there's a non union issue that needs to be brought in? How do we treat that?

And I I think in the best of all scenarios, especially with public code work, and I do consider this to be public code work, This is money of the state of California flowing flowing out there, you know, that's being put into place.

So I again, I'm supportive. I think where it all lead, you can criticize sometimes how these frameworks look when we just keep them clean and simple in in legislation. But where they they lead usually works and and and there are outcomes.

I'm not gonna get into that because it's not part of our discussion today and it's not being these bills aren't being heard today, but especially where we've, you know, utilized skilled and trained requirements and and train the training requirements, you know, around hazardous facilities and and those kinds of things, we've we've seen lots of positives, lots of measurable positives, including growth, not only in apprenticeship programs, but folks who are actually hired and then trained, you know, to deal with hazardous situations, hazmat situations, toxic situations.

Those are just examples of where I think we've seen the best growth.

And I think in there's been a bit a long standing case around around here as everybody knows that maybe not so much on private residential. You don't, you know, see it's not as easy to point to the outcomes. But I think here, this should work and I'm gonna support the bill. And thank you, madam chair, for the opportunity to make some comments.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. Any other comments? Questions? Alrighty. I appreciate you bringing this bill forward.

Assemblymember Rogers, I know I've talked at the state building trades about the fact that they've been in active negotiations and discussions with the CSU, which I think is great and very exciting. It makes a lot of sense in my perspective for us to make sure that we have skilled and trained workforce requirements in the construction that we do for the CSU system, just as we do for the UCs and the community colleges. These are taxpayer funded projects. We should provide, high wages.

We should provide benefits, and we should ensure that, we are not just hiring a high quality workforce, but that we're also, encouraging people to, you know, choose that as a pathway should they should they wish to do so and to go into the trades.

Right? And, I think we're all a part of that ecosystem. And given that these are publicly funded institutions, it makes the most sense to me that, you know, we have these types of standards. So, I will certainly be voting yes, and supporting this bill, and I will turn it over to you now to close.

Yeah. First of all, I just wanna thank everybody for the discussion. I understand the perspective even from the vice chair on it, and I think that the chair just nailed it with my perspective, which is when we are spending taxpayer dollars, if what we are looking for is the delivery of a project alone, that might be a different discussion. But with taxpayer dollars, we get to look at the broader impacts of that spending in our community.

And with skilled and trained workforce requirements, not only do we end up with more local hire, and that is found in data, but you end up creating this pipeline and this training process where in which we can bring other people up through that to get them those skills, to make sure that they're getting a good wage, to make sure that they're having benefits, and then they can spend that money in our local communities as well.

There's a climate benefit to it when people don't have to travel as far, and I think that there there's something very symbolic about making sure that when we tell people you don't just have to go get a four year degree to be successful in this state, that we're creating other pathways, especially in conjunction with the CSUs, the UCs, and the community colleges for them to be able to do so. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And so for AB 1235, we have do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion?

We have a motion by Senator Cabaldon. Secretary, can you call the roll?

I'll move it.

Senators Perez?

No.

Aye.

Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Ochoa Bogh, no. Cabaldon?

Aye.

Cabaldon, aye, Choi?

No.

Choi, no. Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Reyes?

Aye.

Reyes, aye.

Great. And are we gonna stop should I call oh, no. We'll soft form. That will go ahead.

We'll put that on call. And, seeing as we have a quorum, I'm gonna go ahead and take a vote on consent really briefly, and then we will go ahead and get started with Assemblymember Hadwick next. Or I know Jackson is here for well, who whichever one of you would like to go first. Okay. If we could do we have a motion on consent?

Aye.

Senators Perez?

Okay. We have a motion by Senator Reyes. Secretary, can you call the roll?

Perez, aye.

Aye.

Ochoa Bogh?

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Cabaldon?

Choi?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Choi, Aye. Cortese?

Cortese, Aye.

Aye.

Reyes, Aye.

Gonzalez? Reyes?

Great. And we will put that on call. Assemblymember Hadwick, if you would like to get started whenever you are ready.

Thank you so much, madam chair and members. I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. The College of the Siskiyous sits right on the California Oregon border and serves community college students across the region. Many of these students live in one state and work in the other. Communities in Northern Siskiyou County interact daily with neighboring Oregon towns for work, health care, and education.

For many residents, the state line does not define their community. These are they themselves see not as Californians or Oregonians, but as one interconnected cross border community. Students are bound in place by community, and research shows that 90% of community college students go to college within 50 miles of their home. Denying their access to COS simply because the state boundary cuts through the region punishes our community for geography they do not control.

AB 1555 addresses this by allowing up to 200 students to qualify for instate tuition at the College of the Siskiyous.

The college provides career technical education and workforce programs in wildland firefighting, emergency medical services, and paramedicine, law enforcement, and nursing that nearby colleges, including Southern Oregon University do not offer. My district is facing critical workforce shortages in health care, public safety, and natural resources as much of the state is. This bill helps address these shortages by allowing nearby students to access the training programs that already exist at the College of the Siskiyous.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm joined today by Superintendent President Char Perlas from College of the Siskiyous.

Hello. Hi, Chair Perez and committee members. AB 1555 addresses a localized geographic and financial barrier. For many residents in Southern Oregon, the unique career technical education programs, biotech academy and nursing pathways at College of the Siskiyous offer the most viable, affordable and practical route to their career goals.

Currently, College of the Siskiyous has already reached its maximum capacity for the Western University Exchange and Oregon Exchange programs.

We have really long wait lists. Those wait lists consist of potential students from the counties of Oregon, the Josephine Jackson, and Klamath Counties. Data consistently shows that students are highly likely to settle, work, and pay taxes near their communities where they attend college.

By drawing neighboring talent to the College of Siskiyous, we're feeding the workforce pipeline for our north most communities, boosting local economies that struggle with rural workforce shortages. And as you just heard, we have those shortages.

Furthermore, College of Siskiyous is uniquely positioned to provide these students with not only their desired educational programs, but we currently offer on campus housing. And we're in the process of building a new housing complex. For those reasons, I respectfully request a yay vote.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from any other witnesses in support. If you could please use the mic at the railing.

Good morning. Tatiana Torres with the Community College League of California in support.

Great. Seeing nobody else getting up, we'll turn over to witnesses in opposition. If we have any, witnesses in opposition?

Seeing no one moving forward, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members? Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. Thank you, madam chair. So I am gonna support the bill today. I wanna urge the author to consider just adding some language in about the WUE. As I'm with the state's representative to which he for twelve years as a of Governor Brown and Governor Newsom appointee.

WUE is the is a preferable option for this sort of thing because it's systemic. It's reciprocal between the two states and it recognizes that these are not Californians. Regardless of what whether they think of themselves as transcending the very notion of states or not, they are not Californians. They're not California taxpayers and the bill doesn't just waive non resident tuition. It says that the taxpayers of California, under Prop 98 will will pay for those students at College of the Siskiyous as though they were Californians.

So that's a big ask of the people of California to say, yeah, we'll we will just treat them like Californians. So we you're currently maxed out at WUE. Just think the bill should only cover beyond WUE because what we don't wanna do is have the college or students say, I'm currently in WUE in the Western Undergraduate Exchange paying one and a half times resident fees. It would be better for me to do this program instead.

So I get that that one's maxed out, but it should this should only be applicable when WUE is no longer available for for students at all.

And I think that would help strengthen the bill, maintain, you know, maintain the cost profile that you're describing here. But otherwise, we've seen this before. That I you know, not may maybe by the time it gets to reporters, I would love to know what we know about students as they as they exit the college. Feather River College was in a similar situation. We did a legislative investigation.

It's probably a little strong about a a few years back, and it turned out that many of the students that were qualifying for a similar kind of exemption were actually not even from in that case, from Nevada. They were they were from South Carolina. They were being recruited by the college for its sports teams. And they did not stay in Quincy or in this year afterwards.

And so understanding for like, but for real though, like, what happens, you know, do students stay in California?

Are they contribute, they're gonna ultimately contribute to their commute to our communities in the state and to our tax base and whatever would be youth would be useful to know. But the concept is proven at Tahoe and a couple of others. I'm gonna support the bill, but we would encourage you to think about further clarifying amendments.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. And any other comments or questions? Alrighty. I will go ahead and close then.

You know, supportive of your bill, Assemblymember Hadwick, I know that we've discussed, just given your region and how close this college in particular, College of the Siskiyous is located to the Nevada California border, and the importance of bringing forward something like this. I know there's a number of colleges that are located in the kind of far north area that are in this scenario.

And so, and I know even as we've discussed some of the challenges that you face in your own travel being a legislator and coming down here to the capital, all the nuanced ways that that impacts you. And so, I think those are important things to recognize. You know, I think, Senator Cabaldon makes a good point about the WUE.

Certainly, things for you to explore, but absolutely understand the intent of this bill and what you're trying to do here and the necessity, given the uniqueness of your district. So, with that, I'll be supporting the bill, and I'll turn it over to you to close.

I just wanna thank you for taking the time to to hear our story. I have 11 very unique counties, bordering Oregon and Nevada, And we're different. I represent the most community colleges in the state, but also have the most college deserts, and no UC or CSU. So, very unique, and we are always trying to grow our own in rural, and this bill will help us do that. So thank you again.

Great. And for AB 1555, the motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion?

We have a motion by Senator Choi. Secretary, can you call the roll?

Senators, Perez?

Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Aye.

Aye.

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Cabaldon?

Aye.

Cabaldon, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Gonzales? Reyes?

Aye.

Reyes, aye.

Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Hadwick. I see we have Assemblymember Jackson who has been patiently waiting.

Assemblymember Jackson, I know you have two bills, both AB 1641 as well as ACA 7. You may get started with whichever one you'd like to go first.

I will start off, Madam chair with AB 1641, our tribal colleges and universities.

Excellent. And feel free to get started whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, committee members. AB 1641, which amends the education code to formally include tribal college and universities as a recognized segment of public post secondary education in California. This recognition ensures that tribal institutions are no longer sidelined, but instead are a meaningful meaningfully included, in higher education planning, legislation, and coordinating bodies where critical decisions are being made.

It affirms the academic excellence and cultural leadership of tribal colleges, making clear that these institutions and the communities they serve are no longer invisible within our state's education system. With me today to speak on the impact of this bill, is, Sean Reagan, executive vice president of the California Indian Colleges, Indian Nations College, and a Nathaniel Barrett, vice president of external affairs for the associated students at the California Indian Nations College.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of AB 1641 and the need for tribal colleges and universities or TCU's in California. We're proud to sponsor AB 1641 and thank doctor Jackson for his leadership on this bill along with mister Ramos, mister Gonzales, and mister Wallace for some of their support as well.

Here on behalf of California Nations College, an accredited public two year associate degree granting tribal college chartered by the twenty nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.

We're We're located in Southern California, but have students from throughout the state, both native and non native students. American Indian students face numerous challenges in higher education, historical, cultural, but they are resilient, and with the proper support, accomplish their goals and help make their communities better. TCU's are a vital part of that process. Students who started at TCU are four times more likely to earn their bachelor's degree.

California is home to one fifth of all federally recognized tribes and over 1,400,000 people who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native.

There is a need for TCU's in California, but the current education code definitions do not recognize TCU's. We're not a UC, CSU, or triple c, and as a public institution, we're not part of the independent institutions of higher education. As it stands now, TCU's are the invisible institutions of higher education in California. AB 1641 remedies that. From our point of view, AB 1641 does not create a new segment of higher education, but recognizes and codifies one that already exists in the state.

We are here. Our students are here. TCU's and TCU students are not seen. We're not part of the discussions around higher education currently. TCU's and TCU students often do not have a voice, and their voice is important.