BEGIN.
DAY TWO OF OUR BUDGET OFFICE
COMMITTEE BUT DAY THREE. OH WE
ARE STARTING WITH A ISSUE ONE
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE EXPANSION
AFFORDABILITY.
WE WILL GO FIRST ALEJO THAN TO
MISS COST.
GOOD AFTERNOON HURTING TERM
ADJOINED MEMBERS MARK NEWTON
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE A.
MISTER CHAIR WOULD YOU LIKE US
TO GIVE JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ISSUES
BEFORE BEGINNING WITH ISSUE ONE.
YES THAT'S
VERY GOOD AND.
.
SO.
PLEASURE TO UP AND TO PRESENT AN
OVERVIEW OF HHS HHS ISSUES AND
CONFERENCE WE HAVE A A FOUR PAGE.
OVERVIEW THAT IS IN YOUR
HANDOUT AND WE FOLLOWED BY A
DISCUSSION OF THE. INDIVIDUAL
ISSUES
SO. I'M NOT PRESENT THE HANDOUT
AND WHICH SHOWS THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE HOUSES BOTH FUNDING
DIFFERENCES AS WELL AS LANGUAGE
DIFFERENCES. WILL PROVIDE
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE OVERVIEW
DOCUMENT AS WELL HAS SOME HIGH
LEVEL COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS.
AND SO TURNING TO THE AT TO THE
OVERVIEW DOCUMENT A FEW GENERAL
POINTS TO NOTE THAT SAID.
THAT THESE ARE SOLELY ISSUES IN
CONFERENCE I WILL MENTION A FEW
CASES WHERE BOTH HOUSES MADE
SIGNIFICANT AUGMENTATIONS OF.
WELL THE SAME AMOUNT AND FOR THE
SAME PURPOSE. ON THESE ARE
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE
BUDGET PLAN.
TO THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PLAN.
THERE A FEW CASES CASES WHERE
SAVINGS ARE INVOLVED BUT FOR THE
MOST PART THESE ARE
AUGMENTATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE'S BUDGET PLAN.
OUR OVERVIEW DOCUMENT.
IS IN GENERAL FUND REPRESENTS
GENERAL FUND DOLLARS THERE ARE
FEW CASES WHERE OTHER FUNDING
SOURCES ARE INVOLVED THE MAIN
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
PROPOSITION FIFTY SIX IN ALL
MAKE NOTE OF. OF OF THAT WHEN WE.
WHEN WE ARRIVE AT THOSE THOSE
ISSUES.
SO WHILE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
OVERLAPPING FUNDING FORTIES
BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES I NOTE
THAT THE HIGHEST FUNDING CORDY
OF OF EACH HOUSE IS RELATIVELY
CLEAR.
FOR THE ASSEMBLY IT'S HEALTHCARE
COVERAGE AN EXPANSION FOR THE
SENATE IT'S CASH AND FOOD
ASSISTANCE BENEFITS.
SO I WILL FIRST TURN TO A TO A
DISCUSSION OF THESE RESPECTIVE
HIGHEST FUNDING PRIORITIES. SO
TURNING TO HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
EXPANSION AND FOR PORTABILITY
THIS IS ON PAGE FOUR OF YOUR
AGENDA.
SO TO ACHIEVE THIS BROAD
OBJECTIVE OF OF HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE EXPANSION IN
AFFORDABILITY THERE ARE
POTENTIALLY A NUMBER OF SORT OF
CHEAP.
MAIN TYPES OF ACTIONS OF THE
LEGISLATURE CAN TAKE ONE IS
EXPANDING MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY IN
SOME WAY. AND THE OTHER IS
MAKING INSURANCE PURCHASE
THROUGH COVERED CALIFORNIA MORE
AFFORDABLE. AND TO SOME DEGREE
EACH HOUSE TAKES ACTIONS ARE
SORT OF IN IN IN THESE AREAS.
THERE IS A COMMON PROPOSAL OF
BOTH HOUSES THAT ISN'T NOTED ON
ARE AT. ON OUR A HANDOUT IN THAT
IS EXPANDING MEDICAID
ELIGIBILITY TO ONE HUNDRED
THIRTY EIGHT PERCENT OF FEDERAL
POVERTY LINE FOR. OUR SENIORS
AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.
AND THAT THAT HAS AN ONGOING
COST OF AROUND THIRTY THIRTY
MILLION DOLLARS.
I I KNOW JUST A VERY BRIEF SERVE
AIR ON.
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE EXPANSION
AND AFFORDABILITY THE THE ITEM
EXPANDING A STATE ALL PAYER
HEALTH CARE. PAYMENT DATABASE IT
SHOULD BE EIGHT POINT ONE
MILLION DOLLARS OFFER THE
ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL WHEN YOU
INCLUDE ALL THE DEPARTMENTS THAT
ARE AFFECTED BY THAT THAT
PROPOSAL.
SO WHAT'S NOTABLE WITH THIS THIS
ISSUE AREA IS THAT IS THE OUT
YOUR COSTS AND YET YOUR COSTS
ARE SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN
THE.
THE BUDGET YOUR COSTS JUST
BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE. THE ITEMS
SO FOR THE FOR THE ASSEMBLY
PROPOSAL WHICH.
IT'S JUST A LITTLE UNDER THREE
HUNDRED MILLION FOR THE.
.
FOR THE BUDGET YEAR THAT.
INCREASES TO AROUND NINE HUNDRED
MILLION DOLLARS IN THE IN THE
OUT YEARS AND IT'S MAINLY THE
THE AFFORDABILITY PROPOSAL.
PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE
FOR HEALTH INSURANCE. THAT
INCREASES FROM ONE FIFTY TO
ABOUT FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS IN THE OUT YEARS. ANDY
EXTENDING MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY
TO LOW INCOME UNDOCUMENTED
IMMIGRANTS
YOUNG ADULTS THAT INCREASES FROM
ONE TWENTY FIVE TO TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY MILLION INFO YOUR
IMPLEMENTATION.
ON THE SENATE SIDE THE THE MAJOR
PROPOSAL TO EXTEND MEDI CAL
ELIGIBILITY TWENTY OCCUPIED
IMMIGRANTS OVER SIXTY FIVE.
THAT'S A SEVENTY FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS CURRENT BUDGET YOUR
PROPOSAL DOT SAID BECOMES ABOUT
ONE FIFTY IN INFO YOUR
IMPLEMENTATION.
SO TURNING TO THE THE SENATE SIR.
.
RELATIVE HIGH FUNDING FORTY ON
PAGE FIVE OF THE AGENDA LOOKING
AT CASH AND FOOD ASSISTANCE
BENEFITS.
.
THE THE KEY PART OF THE SENATE
PROPOSAL IS TO.
.
TO INCREASE CAL WORKS GRANTS TO
FIFTY PERCENT OF FEDERAL POVERTY
LINE BASED ON FAMILY SIZE AS
WELL AS. REINSTATING THE ANNUAL
CAL WORKS COLA AS WELL AS
REINSTATING THE ANNUAL SSPA COLA.
SO. THOSE COSTS ARE LOW OVER
FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN
THE IN THE BUDGET YEAR IN THE
OUT YEARS WITH FULL
IMPLEMENTATION. THE COST
INCREASE TO A LITTLE AROUND TWO
POINT TWO BILLION DOLLARS.
THE SENATE ALSO HAS A KEY POLICY
PROPOSAL RICHARD IS A SAFETY NET
RESERVE PROPOSAL.
WE DON'T LIST DOLLAR AMOUNT TO
HEAR BUT THE PROPOSAL DOESN'T
SOLVE A TRANSFER OF FUNDS INTO A
NEW SAFETY NET RESERVE ACCOUNT.
BASICALLY THE THE CONCEPT HERE
IS CREATING A CAL WORKS AND NOT
A CAL SAFETY NET TO. A RESERVE
SOME ACCOUNT AND SENDING A
SIGNAL TO THE LEGISLATURE EARTH
SENDING A SIGNAL THAT THE
LEGISLATURE. ARE WANTS TO ENSURE
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING FOR
SAFETY NET SET BEES TO SAFETY
NET PROGRAMS HAS COST INCREASE
IN THESE PROGRAMS AND TOUGH
FISCAL TIMES AS CASELOAD.
INCREASES SO THE THE PRECISE
LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL STILL
BEING WORKED OUT BUT THAT IS
THAT THE BASIC CONCEPT OF OF THE
SENATE. POLICY PROPOSAL THERE.
THE ASSEMBLY DOES HAVE A A FEW
ITEMS SERVING CACHING FOR
ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS. AREN'T
THERE LARGELY ONE TIME ACTIONS
IN LARGELY.
AUGMENTING THE GOVERNORS ARE.
VERY IMPORTANT POLICY PROPOSAL
AKHAL THE SSI CASH WROTE YEAH
ENDING THE US I SSI CASTRO IT IS
A MAJOR POLICY CHANGE THERE IS
SOME COST BECAUSE THE
LEGISLATURE'S POLICY ACTION WAS
TO HOLD HARMLESS.
AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS ARE AND
THAT IS THE ACOSTA OF AROUND
THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS IN THE IN
THE IN THE BUDGET YEAR.
SO WILL NOW TURN TO SOME OF THE
OTHER SORT OF MAJOR.
POLICY ARE FUNDING DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE HOUSES ELTERN TO. ON
PAGE FOR THE AGENDA TO HEALTH
PROVIDER PAYMENT INCREASES.
AND YOU'LL SEE A QUITE A
SIGNIFICANT FUNDING DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE THE TWO HOUSES BUT I
NOTE. THERE'S AN IMPORTANT
REASON OR FOR THAT AND THAT THE
SENATE ACTION TO. ADMIT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL PROVIDER PROVIDER
PAYMENTS IN THE MEDICAL WORLD
USING POT FIFTIES
IT'S FUNDING WAS INACTION TALK.
BECAUSE THE. THE AT AS THAT MAY
REVISION THE GOVERNOR LEFT ON
ALLOCATED TO SIT SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF PROPOSITION FIFTY SIX
FUNDING FOR MEDI CAL. ON FOR
FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE
LEGISLATURE THE SENATE DID TAKE
ACTION THE ASSEMBLY DEFERRED ITS
ACTION SO IT'S QUITE LIKELY THAT
THE. THE ASSEMBLY WILL BE TAKING
OR THE.
ULTIMATELY WILL HAVE.
PROPOSITION FIFTY SIX FUNDING
FOR FOR THIS PURPOSE BUT THAT
EXPLAINS THAT THE KEY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE YEAR. THE TWO THE
TWO HOUSES.
BRIEFLY TURNING TO MEDI CAL
BENEFITS.
SORT OF RELATIVELY MODEST DE
AUGMENTATIONS OF BOTH HOUSES
JUST NOTE ON THE AT. THE THE
SENATE SIDE THE. THE RESTORATION
OF OPTIONAL BENEFITS WILL HAVE A
SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER A YEAR COST
OF A LITTLE OVER FORTY ONE
MILLION DOLLARS CALLED ALL IN
ALL IN THE BUDGET YOU'RE NOT
MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE. IN THE
FUNDING AMOUNT.
IN THE BEHAVIOR HEALTH THIS IS
AN EXAMPLE RELATIVELY SMALL.
AUGMENTATIONS OF BOTH HOUSES
ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT SETS OF
AUGMENTATIONS I NOTE THAT THE
ASSEMBLY RELATIVE TO THE TO THE
SENATE IS CHOOSING TO USE
PROPOSITION FIFTY SIX FUNDING.
FOR EXCUSE ME PROPOSITION SIXTY
THREE FUNDING FOR MANY OF THE
THE AUGMENTATIONS.
TURNING TO PAGE FIVE OF THE THE
HANDOUT HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE.
DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT CUTS
ACROSS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
AND AND EDUCATION AND THE TO
BUDGET AREAS. AND ARE HANDLED
REFLECTS THE TOTALITY OF THE THE
AUGMENTATIONS AT PROPOSED BY ED
BY BOTH HOUSES.
A I KNOW THAT THE SENATE
PROPOSAL INCLUDES A HUNDRED AND
FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS A
PROPOSITION FIFTY SIX FUNDING
AGAIN THIS IS THE SENATE'S
ACTION TOO. TO ALLOCATE FUNDS
THAT THE GOVERNOR LAUGHED
UNALLOCATED BUT THE ASSEMBLY IS
YET TO TAKE TAKE THOSE ACTIONS.
TURNING TO PUBLIC HEALTH VERY
BRIEFLY.
RELATIVELY SMALL DIFFERENCE IN
TOTAL AUGMENTATIONS.
BOTH HOUSES THAT O'DONNELL HAD
A DIFFERENT SET OF OF
AUGMENTATIONS I DO KNOW THOUGH
THOUGH THAT BOTH HOUSES DID NOT
MATCH THE SAME SET OF PUBLIC
HEALTH PROGRAMS.
BY ABOUT THIRTY FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS IN THE IN THE BUDGET
YEAR IN ADDITION TO TO THE THE
DIFFERENT AUGMENTATIONS THAT YOU
THAT YOU SEE HERE.
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES.
THE AUGMENTATION VETERAN CAR
CONFERENCE ARE. LARGELY ASSEMBLY
ONLY.
AND.
IMMIGRATION RELATED LEGAL
SERVICES AGAIN.
AUGMENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE BY
THE ASSEMBLY AND ALL WILL BE AT
ONE TIME IN NATURE.
IN THE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
AREA I DO NOT THAT BOTH HOUSES
DID MAKE. THE SAME AUGMENTATION.
IN TERMS OF RESTORING FUNDING
FOR SOME OF THE RECESSIONARY
BUDGET CUTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
DON'T AND SERVICES THAT TOTALS
ABOUT THIRTY FOUR MILLION. BUT
IN ADDITION TO THAT ACTION THE
ASSEMBLY ONLY A. MADE A NUMBER
OF.
AUGMENTATIONS AND IT THE KEY
ONE BEING PROVIDING.
BRIDGE FUNDING TO IT TO ASSIST
TO DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
VENDORS WHO. ARE IN HIGH COST
AREAS TO TO TO A HIGH LOCAL
MINIMUM WAGE THAT'S A FIFTY
MILLION DOLLAR SURVIVE
MEDITATION AND DEATH THINK
TWENTY THIRD SAY IT. QUITE A A
SIGNIFICANT FUNDING FORTY OF THE
OF THE ASSEMBLY.
AGING AND SENIORS AND PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES MOSTLY.
ASSEMBLY AUGMENTATIONS THEIR.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION AND A
SUPPORT OF YOU SEE VARIOUS
AUGMENTATIONS OF.
OF BOTH FATTEN BOTH HOUSES THERE.
WHAT IS NOT SHOWN IN THE FIGURE
IS AN AUGMENTATION THAT BOTH
HOUSES MADE?
THOUGHT NOTHING RAP ABOUT THE
GREAT
CERTAINLY. TALK MEANT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL FOR FOSTER
PARENT RETENTION.
AND
THE BOTTOM LINE MEMBERS.
IN TERMS OF THAT THE TOTAL COST
OF. OF FLOOD OF ALL OF THESE
AUGMENTATIONS DOT TO IF YOU
ASSUME THAT THE. ASSEMBLY DOES
ARE ARE ALLOCATE THE PROPOSITION
FIFTY SIX FUNDING THAT WAS LEFT
ON ALLOCATED THE PROPOSALS ARE
ACTUALLY FAIRLY SIMILAR IN THE
BUDGET YEAR COSTING AROUND ONE
POINT. THREE BILLION DOLLARS THE
THE DIFFERENCE IS MAINLY ABOUT
YOUR DIFFERENCE WHERE THE
ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL ARE IN THE OUT
YEARS WHICH INCREASED ABOUT ONE
POINT SIX BILLION. AND USE THE
SENATE THREE POINT ONE BILLION
BY TWENTY ONE TWENTY TWO. SO
THAT'S AND IS THE PRESENTATION
AND POPULAR ANSWER QUESTIONS
WOULD'VE LIKE YOU MISS COST.
I HAVE MISTER CHAIR ANY COST
APARTMENT OF FINANCIAL TO FOR MY
COMMENTS TO EACH OF THE ISSUE I
WAS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.
WONDERFUL THANK YOU WHEN WE
START WITH ISSUE ONE THAT.
HEALTHCARE COVERAGE EXPANSION
FOR BUT I BELIEVE MANY OF THE
ITEMS YOU COVERED IN YOUR
OPENING REMARKS SO.
IF THERE'S ANY IF THERE'S NO IT.
ANYTIME YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AROUND
WILL THE WITH THE LA O. AS YOU
MENTIONED MANY OF THE ITEMS.
THAT ARE ON THIS FIRST ISSUE
WORD DISCUSSED AND IN OUR
OVERVIEW PRESENTATION.
ALL ADD JUST.
A FEW NOTES ON SOME OF THESE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE.
.
PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE
ELIGIBILITY THRESHOLD FOR THE
AGED AND DISABLED POPULATION. WE
WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT.
SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE LEGISLATURE IN BOTH
HOUSES WE RECEIVED.
I'M AN ESTIMATE FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION THAT WHILE WE'RE
STILL REVIEWING IT APPEARS THE
COSTS I'M ADOPTED BY BOTH HOUSES
ARE ARE LIKELY AND LESS THAN THE
ONGOING COSTS OF THIS ACTION.
WE BELIEVE THESE COST COULD BE.
ABOVE A HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS FROM THE GENERAL FUND
ONGOING. AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING
TO KEEP IN MIND WITH RESPECT.
TO THAT PROPOSAL WITH RESPECT TO
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
HOUSES THAT SIMPLY A QUESTION OF
THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE.
ON THE SIGNIFICANT PROPOSAL AND
FOR AFFORDABILITY AND COVERED
CALIFORNIA AND WE WOULD SIMPLY
NOTE THAT THEIR.
ARE SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO RESOLVE WITH
RESPECT TO.
THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD THE
LEGISLATURE DECIDE TO PURSUE IT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING AT WHAT
FORM THIS BE PROVIDED WHETHER
THAT'S DIRECT ASSISTANCE OR A
TAX CREDIT.
AND WHICH AGENCY WOULD
ADMINISTER THIS ASSISTANCE
I'M CURRENTLY THESE PROPOSALS
ARE BUDGETED WITH THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD. DEPENDING ON THE FORM
THAT THE ASSISTANCE TAKES
WEBSITE YOU MAY WISH TO ASSIGN
US TO OTHER AGENCIES INCLUDING
COVER CALIFORNIA.
AND WITHOUT ALL OF US FINALLY
NOTE THAT THE WORKFORCE.
PROPOSALS THAT ARE LISTED ON
THIS ISSUE WILL ALSO BE
DISCUSSED AS PART OF YOUR NEXT.
AGENDA ITEM SEPARATELY.
THANK YOU BACK TO COMMITTEE ANY.
OR MISS COST I'M.
IN THE US DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
A THING A MINUTE I HAVE FOCUSED
MY TIME ON THE EXPANSION
AFFORDABILITY COMPONENTS OF THE
PACKAGE BEFORE YOU BUT CERTAINLY
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS BUT. A LARGELY THAT'S
THE IN THE BIG DOLLAR AMOUNT IN
THE PACKAGE BEFORE YOU. FIRST
I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE LEGISLATURE
AND THE ADMINISTRATION AND WE'VE
MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS
IN RECENT YEARS. ON AND
SIGNIFICANT ONGOING INVESTMENTS.
IN THE EXPANSION OF HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE ON UNDER THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT AND THE EXPANSION OF
FULL MEDICAL. COVERAGE TO
UNDOCUMENTED CHILDREN PROVIDING
COVERAGE TO MORE THAN FOUR
MILLION ADDITIONAL CALIFORNIANS
THE COST OF THE OPTIONAL
EXPANSION POPULATION AND FULL
MEDICAL COVERAGE FRONT DOCUMENT
CHILDREN IS ESTIMATED TO GROW TO
APPROXIMATELY TWO POINT SIX
BILLION. GENERAL FUND AND THREE
HUNDRED AND FORTY ONE MILLION
GENERAL FUND IN TWENTY ONE
TWENTY TWO RESPECTIVELY.
I'M MORE HAPPY TO NOTE THAT THE
STATE'S UNCOVERED RATE IS
SOMEWHERE LESS THAN TEN PERCENT
SO IT'S REALLY MADE A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON MANY
CALIFORNIANS. ON AS THE ANALYST
HAS POINTED OUT I THINK THE
ADMINISTRATION IS CONCERNED THAT
SOME OF THE ADOPTED PROPOSALS
ARE PROBABLY UNDERSTATED IN
THEIR COSTS.
THE COST OF THE PROPOSED
EXPANSIONS FOR EXAMPLE. WE
BELIEVE HIGH THE ESTIMATE IS
MORE LIKELY FIVE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY TWO POINT THREE MILLION
GENERAL FUND IN EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN GROWING TO AN ESTIMATED
COST OF ONE POINT SIX BILLION IN
TWENTY ONE TWENTY TWO. SO
OBVIOUSLY THIS PARTICULAR
PACKAGES ONE I HAD THAT IS
IMPACTED BY THE OVERALL
STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET CLEARLY
THESE AUGMENTATIONS ARE A BOB
WITH THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED IN
HIS FISCAL PLAN. AND.
MANY OF THEM HAVE ON GOING
COSTS
WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE
PACKAGE.
THANK YOU SENATOR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF MISTER
CHAIR ARE HAPPY MONDAY MISS
COSTA.
QUICK CLEAR FOR CATIA FOR ME THE
DOLLAR FIGURE.
FROM THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU
DISQUALIFIED WHEN YOU REFER TO
THE EXPANSION PACKAGE YOU MEAN
THE ENTIRE PACKAGE IS REFLECTED
ON PAGE FOR THE LA ELVES AGENDA
BOTH THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY
PROPOSALS. THAT'S CORRECT
SENATOR AND COULD YOU GIVE ME
THAT OVERALL DOLLAR MIGHT AGAIN
ONE MORE TIME I'M SORRY. YES SO
WE ESTIMATE FOR BOTH HOUSES THE
TOTAL COST IS AT THE EXPANSION
AT FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO POINT
THREE MILLION GENERAL FUND IN
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN.
GROWING TO ONE POINT SIX BILLION
AND TWENTY ONE TWENTY TWO.
AND SO MY QUESTION IS. WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE.
THE APPROACH THE TWO HOUSES OF
TAKE IN AND ATTEMPTING TO
ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF OUR.
UNDOCUMENTED.
FELT CALIFORNIANS.
I KNOW UCLA HAS DONE AN
ANALYSIS THE COST ANALYSIS NOT
ONLY FOR THE COVERAGE BUT.
THE COSTS FOR PROVIDING CARE.
THROUGH E. R. OR OTHER MEASURES.
TO THESE TWO POPULATIONS SO IT
GEEK IN THE LA OUR ANYONE.
.
RESPOND TO I GUESS WE YOU KNOW
WHAT'S NOT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US
IS THE COST OF EXPANDING
COVERAGE WHAT IS NOT HERE AN
APPARENT TO US. ARE THE REAL
COSTS WE ALL BEAR BY NOT
PROVIDING COVERAGE TO THIS
RESIDENT POPULATION
SO COULD WE TALK ABOUT THAT A
LITTLE BIT I THINK IT JUST GIVES
US. A FRAME OF REFERENCE ARE
FRAMEWORK BY WHICH TO HAVE
THE BROADER CONVERSATION BECAUSE
IT'S NOT AS IF.
IT DOESN'T COST US ALL
TODAY EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE
PROVIDED.
COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE.
WOULD KNOW JUST A FEW THINGS
FIRST.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CURRENTLY DOES PROVIDE FUNDING
FOR CERTAIN EMERGENCY IN
PREGNANCY RELATED SERVICES FOR
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.
THOSE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE NOW
AND.
I BELIEVE ESTIMATES THAT ARE
BEFORE YOU FOR THE EXPANSION
PROPOSAL REFLECT
THE CONTINUATION OF THOSE FUNDS
IN THE FUTURE.
I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING
ABOUT IS HE POSSIBILITY THAT
EXPANDING COVERAGE TO THESE.
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS WOULD
REDUCE.
CERTAIN STATE COSTS RELATED TO
CARE IN EMERGENCY ROOMS.
THOSE.
ARE CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY
HOWEVER AND THERE DIFFICULT TO
ESTIMATE AND.
LIKELY WOULD OCCUR OVER TIME
AND NOT NECESSARILY AND IN THE
IMMEDIATE FUTURE.
BUT BUT CERTAINLY ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT THAT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY
THAT.
INCREASED ACCESS TO PREVENTIVE
CARE COULD IN SOME CASES.
RESULT IN AVOIDING OTHER COSTS
I'M AT THE SAME TIME SOME
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT TIME
INCREASED ACCESS TO HEALTH
COVERAGE AND INTACT INCREASES
UTILIZATION. WHICH AT COULD BE A
GOOD THING AGAIN IN THE LONGER
RUN.
BUT IT'S IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
TELL ON THE NEAR TERM BECAUSE
THE ASSUMPTION IS WE'RE WE'RE
IMPROVING HEALTH OUTCOMES SO.
THAT MY COSTS DON'T WHAT WERE WE
ABLE WHEN WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE
WITH REGARD TO UNDOCUMENTED
CHILDREN LACK HERE WERE WE ABLE
TO IDENTIFY.
I'M COSTS THAT THE STATE HAD TO
BEAR PRIOR TO.
PROVIDING FULL SCOPE COVERAGE.
WERE WE ABLE TO DO IT FOR THAT
POPULATION.
I I GUESS AMASSING GOES ON.
SO ME BASING RESPONSE MY
EXPECTATION IS NOT REASONABLE
TERMS WOULD JUST
ARE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THOSE COSTS.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY ESTIMATE OF
THAT. SO THE UNDERSEA DEPARTMENT
FINANCE SO WE WE WE DO ACTUALLY
ACCOUNT FOR THE PROGRAM AS IT
RUNS TODAY AND SO WE'VE GOT A
RESTRICTED SCOPE PROGRAM IN
WHICH WE DO GET SOME FEDERAL
FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY PREGNANCY
SERVICES.
AND WHAT WE BASICALLY ASSUMES
THAT THAT OLD PROGRAM GOES AWAY
SO WE COUNT FOR ALL OF THE
SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND
THEN THE NEW PROGRAM IN WHICH
THERE'S YOU KNOW I'M MORE STATE
ONLY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT
AND SO. THAT ANALYSIS IS DONE WE
SCORED THESE FISCAL'S AND AND AS
WELL AS FOR THE SP SEVENTY FIVE
WILSHIRE.
YOU'RE.
THANK YOU CENTER MORLOCK.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR JUST A
COUPLE QUICK HOUSEKEEPING KIND
OF. QUESTIONS IF I MAY UM. FOR.
OF THE LA DOES REPORT MISTER
NEWTON I'M ASSUMING THAT THESE
ARE ALL. AUGMENTATIONS ABOVE AND
BEYOND WHAT THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSING SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S
NOT A COLUMN FOR GOVERNOR.
FOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE YES
THAT THAT'S CORRECT TO SENATOR
DIVVY UP THERE A FEW ITEMS WHERE
IT IS AN AUGMENTATION OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IN THAT IS
THAT IS NOTED. AND THERE ARE A
COUPLE CASES WHERE THERE ACTUAR
SAVINGS BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE
ONE HOUSE IN THERE DIDN'T ADOPT
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL FOR THAT
BUT FOR THE MOST PART THESE ARE
AUGMENTATIONS TO THE GOVERNOR'S
PLAN.
AND THEN IT IS THE POLICY OF THE
AUDIO.
PROVIDE SUB TOTALS AND PUT
PARENTHESES AROUND HIM TO
IF I THAT THAT'S. A SUBTOTAL IS
THAT CORRECT.
YES YES CAN YOUR MAINTAINING A
POLICY.
THE PROJECT TO JUST. RHETORICAL
QUESTIONS YOU KNOW HOW HAS YOUR.
THE REASON I BRING IT UP MR
TEARS IN MY INDUSTRY IF YOU HAVE
APPROACHES AROUND NUMBER IT
MEANS IT'S NEGATIVE.
AND SO I BROUGHT ALL GET USED TO
THIS.
BUT YOU KNOW HOW MUCH TOTAL
WHAT ELSE Y. SO SO YOU HAVE ALL
THE SUBTITLES BUT WHY NO TOTAL.
I SAID SENATOR.
NO REASON REALLY FOR NOT OF
TOTAL THAT.
BUT.
AS A VERBALLY MENTIONED.
WE DID TOTAL UP AND THE.
FORTY.
BUDGET YEAR.
AND ESSENTIALLY BOTH HOUSES ARE
ESSENTIALLY THEY THE SAME IF WE
ASSUME THE THE ASSEMBLY
ALLOCATES PROPOSITION FIFTY SIX
FUNDING SO THE TOTAL HERE. A IS
AROUND ONE POINT THREE BILLION
THE BIG DIFFERENCES AND.
IN THE OUT YEARS AND WHEN THAT
THE SENATE PROPOSAL FULLY RAMPS
UP IN TWENTY ONE TWENTY TWO THIS
IS MAINLY THE CAL WORKS THAT
GRANTS FOR PROPOSAL.
THAT THE TOTAL COST OF THE
SENATE AUGMENTATIONS IS THERE
BUT THREE POINT ONE BILLION.
WHERE THE ASSEMBLY IN THE OUT
YEARS ABOUT ONE POINT SIX
BILLION?
YOU VERY MUCH YOU WHAT THINK YOU
MISTER CHAIR.
CENTER OFF.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I JUST
WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON.
THE LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT.
.
MADAM VICE CHAIR STARTED.
HAVING TO DO WITH OF TRYING TO
GET A HANDLE ON ALTERNATIVE
COSTS
FOR.
FOR EXAMPLE EXTENDING MEDIC CAL
ELIGIBILITY TO LOW INCOME
IMMIGRANTS OVER AGE SIXTY FIVE.
ARE THESE FOLKS ENTITLED TO GO
TO THE FOR EXAMPLE THE COUNTY
THE PUBLIC COST BILLS THAT WE
HAVE IN THE STATE FOR CARE.
AND WHEN THEY SHOW UP. DEPENDING
ON THE NATURE OF THEIR MEDICAL
PROBLEM ARE AT THEIR.
REQUIRED TO BE CARED FOR SO
SOMEONE SPENDING SOME MONEY.
TAKING CARE OF THIS POPULATION
IS THAT.
CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE TAKE THAT ON.
YEAH YEAH SURE BEN JOHNSON WITH
THE ILIO OF THAT IS TRUE OF SO
MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS IN
FACT ALL THE INDIVIDUALS THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS
WOULD GAIN COVER FULL SCOPE
COVERAGE. UNDER THE EXPANSION
THE FULL SCOPE FOR THE OVER
SIXTY FIVE POPULATION ARE
ALREADY ENROLLED IN WHAT'S KNOWN
AS RESTRICTED SCOPE MEDICARE
WHICH COVERS THEIR EMERGENCY AND.
LESS LIKE ALFA MERGING TO.
RELATED COSTS
SO THAT'S ONE WAY IN WHICH THESE
INDIVIDUALS DO GET THEIR
HEALTHCARE COSTS PAID FOR WERE
OUR MAIN BUT SEPARATE AND APART
FROM THAT IF THEY SHOW UP.
IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AT A
PUBLIC KILEY HOW ANY HOSPITAL.
AREN'T THEY REQUIRED TO BE SEEN.
YES THEY THEY WILL GET SEEN AND
THEN ANONYMOUS OF WHETHER
THEY'RE AND EXPANDED SCOPE OR
NOT EXPANDED SCOPE OR PARTIALLY
PAID FOR WHATEVER SO THERE'S A
COST.
SOMEONE IS PAYING TODAY. TO TAKE
CARE OF THESE FOLKS WHO ARE OVER
AGE SIXTY FIVE LOW INCOME.
AND IN THE CASE OF THE SENATE'S
PROPOSAL UNDOCUMENTED CORRECT
YES AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
THEY CAN GAIN RETROACTIVE
COVERAGE FOR THE EMERGENCY.
EPISODE FOR BY WHICH THE FOR
WHICH THEY WERE ADMITTED SO THEY
WOULD GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM
AND AFTER WHICH THEY COULD GAIN
RESTRICTED SCOPE COVERAGE AND
THEN MEDI CAL WOULD ULTIMATELY.
PAY FOR THAT WITH THE THE
SHERIFF COST BEING SPLIT BETWEEN
THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
OKAY I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT. ON THE SENATE PROPOSAL IT'S.
.
WHAT SEVENTY FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS FOR READ THAT CORRECTLY?
WHAT WHAT ARE WE SPENDING TODAY?
WINDOW DOESN'T ISN'T SOMEONE
ABLE TO GET AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT
OUR COST.
WHETHER IT'S COMING OUT OF THE
STATE GENERAL FUND BUDGET OR THE
COUNTIES.
RESPECTIVE BUDGETS SOMEBODY'S
PAYING SOMETHING TO CARE FOR
THESE PEOPLE AND I'M JUST TRYING
TO GET A COMPARISON AND I THINK
THAT'S WHAT THE VICE CHAIR WAS
ATTEMPTING TO GET TO. WITH HER
LINE OF QUESTIONS SO DO WE HAVE
AN ESTIMATE WE DO SO THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATES THAT WE
ARE SPENDING.
ALMOST ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY
MILLION DOLLARS IN TOTAL FUNDS
ABOUT FORTY FIVE THREE MILLION
OF WHICH IS GENERAL FUND.
THAT'S PROJECTED IN THE
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN BUT ONLY FOR
THE EXISTING SERVICES TO WHICH
THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE ALREADY
ENTITLED AND THAT'S THAT'S SO
THAT STATEWIDE SOME GENERAL FUND
SOME COUNTY MONEY SOMETHING LIKE
ASSUME SOMETHING ELSE THAT STATE
AND FEDERAL FUNDING THERE ARE
ALSO SOME COUNTY FUNDS.
TO SERVE THIS POPULATION IS
WELL SOME ADDITIONAL FEDERAL
FUNDS THAT ARE CAPTURED HERE BUT.
FOR THE MEDI CAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES THAT THEY THAT
POPULATION OVER SIXTY FIVE WOULD
BE USING OF THIS WOULD BE THE.
MOST APPROPRIATE FUNDING
ESTIMATE AND IT'S ONE HUNDRED
AND TWENTY MILLION TODAY.
THAT'S PROJECTED INTO TWENTY
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN BUT.
THROUGHOUT THE MAYBE A LITTLE
LESS THAN SEVENTEEN EIGHTEEN I
WOULD ANTICIPATE.
OKAY.
IF I MAY OFFER JUST ONE COMMENT
SENATOR AS A PERHAPS ALSO COULD
COMPARE TO THE SENATE'S BUDGET
PROPOSAL AT SEVENTY FIVE MILLION
AS WELL OR FOR FULL SCOPE MEDI
CAL COVERAGE FOR UNDOCUMENTED
ADULTS WE ESTIMATE THE COSTS AT
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR MILLION
GENERAL FUND IN THE BUDGET YEAR.
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN FOR MEDI CAL
AN IN HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.
ó PARTNER THAT'S FOR THE
NINETEEN TO TWENTY FIVE LET ME
BACK THAT WE AS MAY BECAUSE OF A
HUNDRED AND FOUR POINT TWO
MILLION AND MEDICAID I'LL.
IN EIGHTEEN NINETEEN AND TO
EXPAND FULL SCOPE COVERAGE TO
ADULTS AGE SIXTY FIVE AND OVER.
AND AT FULL ENROLLMENT WE WOULD
EXPECT THAT COST TO GROW TO TWO
HUNDRED TWENTY THREE POINT FOUR
MILLION IN TWENTY TWENTY ONE. SO
THAT'S A SUBSET OF HEIGHTEN YOUR
QUESTION WHICH IS THAT IS A COST
RIGHT NOW THEORETICALLY THAT'S
BEING GENERATED THAT SOMEONE IS
PAYING FOR. ITS LIKELY HIGHER
BECAUSE WERE JUST CALCULATING
THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF IT.
THAT AND I WOULD JUST NOTE ALSO.
A SENATOR ROTH THAT THESE ARE.
THE ESTIMATE THE SEVENTY FIVE
MILLION DOLLAR ESTIMATE THAT'S
IN THE SENATE ACTION WOULD BE
NET OF THE GENERAL FUND COSTS
THAT WE ARE ALREADY. SPENDING SO
BE ON TOP OF OF THE GENERAL FUND
COSTS THAT WE ARE.
INCURRING FOR THESE RESTRICTED
SCOPES THESE EMERGENCY BENEFITS
AND ONE MORE TIME THAT'S A
HUNDRED AND FOUR MILLION.
I'M I'M GETTING EXISTING I'M
NOT A NUMBERS GUY DEPEND ON
SENATOR MORE LIKE FOR THAT SO.
THEY DID HAVE THE EXISTING
GENERAL FUND IS.
IS ABOUT FORTY THREE MILLION
DOLLARS
I SEE SO THE THE HUNDRED AND.
THE HUNDRED AND FOUR MILLION IS
ON TOP OF THE FORTY SOMETHING
MILLION.
.
MAYBE IT'S THE SEVENTH THE
SEVENTY FIVE OF THE SENATE'S
ACTION WOULD BE WOULD BE ON TOP
OF THAT FORTY THREE MILLION
BINGO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER.
THANK YOU CENTER CENTER SCARE.
I TRIED FOLLOW WHAT.
MISTER UP
IRAQ WAS ASKING THEIR.
MORE CAN.
THE QUALITY OF MY QUESTION NO I
DON'T THINK SO.
.
SO. WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A CHART.
AND LA O..
THESE NUMBERS WERE PRODUCED BY
THE SENATE IN THE ASSEMBLY
CORRECT.
THEY'RE NOT YOUR NUMBERS.
WITH LOOK UP CRACK SENATOR THESE
ARE NUMBERS THAT ARE ENTERED
INTO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
CHANGE BOOK SYSTEM.
AS A RESULT OF THE AT THE
ACTIONS TAKEN.
BUT AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE NOTED
THERE MAY BE A FEW CASES WHERE.
THE NUMBERS BEFORE YOU ARE WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED FOR THE
AUGMENTATION. WE'VE RECORDED
THEM RIGHT.
YOU ONE WHAT THE NUMBERS WHICH
IS WHAT WE'RE.
BUT MY INTEREST
IN HIS THAT THE ILIO ALSO CAME
UP
WITH.
THEY USE SOME ASSUMPTION THING
CAME UP THE SENATE NUMBERS WHERE
ARE THOSE.
DID YOU IT THERE ARE THEY NOT
PRESENTED TO US WHERE THEY.
I'M SORRY CHO CAME UP WITH
NUMBERS ON THE PIECE. FOR
EXAMPLE ON THE ESTIMATION OF
WHAT IT WOULD COST US TO
STANDS MEDI CAL ELIGIBILITY. LOW
INCOME UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS
OVER THE AGE.
IF I
THAT IS CORRECT I'M WE CAME UP
WITH AN ESTIMATE THAT.
THE NET COST FOR THE OVER SIXTY
FIVE POPULATION WOULD BE THREE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION
DOLLARS TO THE STATE FOR A FULL
YEAR THE SEVENTY FIVE MILLION
DOLLAR ESTIMATE IS MINE
ACCORDING MY UNDERSTANDING IS.
AS A HALF YOUR IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE YEAH OF THE POLICY BUT
THERE'S STILL A SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR ESTIMATE
AND THE SENATE'S ACTION.
ALRIGHT SO FARCE IS THERE ARE
ESTIMATES BASED ON HAPPIER THAN
ARE FULL YEAR WOULD BE A HUNDRED
AND FIFTEEN YOU'RE SAYING. THREE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY.
THAT IS CORRECT.
NOW.
I WANT TO RETURN TO THE CHAIRS
QUESTION.
I.
REMINDED US THAT THERE ARE COSTS
WE ARE ALREADY INCURRING BY THE
FACT THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE.
WHO? DO NOT HAVE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE
AND THEY TEND TO GO DOOR COUNTY
HOSPITALS
AND I WAS REMINDED THAT THE
STATE HAS A COST YEAR. WITH THE
COUNTY HOSPITALS
SO IS THAT CARSHARE.
.
IN OTHER WORDS
DO ANY OF THESE ESTIMATES ACTOR
THAT THERE WOULD BE A REDUCTION.
IN THE COST THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY
INCURRING.
OR REPLACEMENT IN EFFECT.
THROUGH THIS BUDGET ACTION.
WHETHER IT THE MONEY GETS WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE THAT
MINISTRATIONS ESTIMATE OF FOR
THE SIXTY FIVE PLUS.
IT'S TOTAL A HUNDRED AND FOUR
POINT TWO MILLION GENERAL FUND.
AND THIS ACCOUNTS FOR A COST
SAVINGS OF FORTY THREE POINT
THREE MILLION GENERAL FUND FOR
THE COSTA WERE INCURRING TODAY
FOR SIXTY FIVE AND ABOVE.
AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS
WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION GAVE US
THE ESTIMATE OF.
THE EXPANSION BEING FIVE HUNDRED
TWENTY THREE MILLION IN THAT.
GENERAL FUND IN EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN WHERE YOU'RE REFERRING
ONLY.
TO THE.
SEVEN ITEMS
IN THE VERY TOP PART OF THE
CHART.
AND THAT INCLUDED THE MEDI CAL
ELIGIBILITY TO DAY. OVER AGE
SIXTY FIVE UNDER OR NINETEEN
TWENTY FIVE AND THEN PREMIUM
ASSISTANCE IN THAT CENTER AT.
THAT FIGURES INCLUSIVE OF ALL
THE ITEMS ON THAT ARE LISTED IN
THIS ISSUE NUMBER ONE. IN ALL.
OKAY WE.
SINCE WE.
ARE.
OUR AGENDA DOESN'T HAVE YOUR.
I LIKE TO AND MEN NOT EXCEPT FOR
THE WORKFORCE PROPOSAL.
I WOULDN'T CREATE ENDS DOES
INCLUDE MORE THAN JUST THAT.
OKAY.
THROUGH.
YEAH THEY THOUGHT THEY SAID THAT
YOU ARE PART OF THAT QUESTION
BUT IT WAS JUST FOR.
YOU KNOW IT'S NOT JUST TO
EXPANSION ITEMS LEVINE CLARIFIES
OF THAT FIGURE I CITED IS ONLY
FOR BETWEEN BOTH HOUSES THAT IT
THEY.
ITEMS THAT THEY APPROVED FOR
HEALTH CARE EXPANSION.
SO IN OTHER WORDS THAT.
LAST ITEM CALLED ONE.
UNDER ASSEMBLY FOR HEALTH CARE
WORK FORCES
NO I.
IN THAT TOTAL.
I'M LOOKING BACK AT ISSUE ONE.
DILLON ISSUE ONE.
ALRIGHT.
YEAH.
IN ALL THOSE NUMBERS OPERATE. SO
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS NOW THOUGH I DON'T
FULLY UNDERSTAND IT STILL.
THANK YOU SENATOR. DR ARAMBULA.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE HONOR AND
PRIVILEGE OF SHARING SOMEONE
THIS YEAR AND I'M GONNA
ATTRIBUTED QUOTE TUB SOMEONE A.
I WAS TRYING TO FIND AT THIS
WEEKEND ARE NOT CHAIR ON ANYONE
SPECIFICALLY SAID BUT I BELIEVE
IT'S ATTRIBUTED TO MARTIN LUTHER
KING AND IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE
FOR TODAY.
THAT BUDGETS ARE NOT FINANCIAL
DOCUMENTS THEY ARE PROFOUNDLY A
MORAL ONE.
AND HAVING CHAIRED SOMEONE WHERE.
I BELIEVE THAT HEALTHCARE IS A
HUMAN RIGHT AND HOLD THAT VALUE
TRUE TO MY SOUL.
AND STRUGGLE WHEN I FEEL AS IF
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE HAS
NOT GIVEN US ACCURATE NUMBERS
THROUGH THIS YEAR.
NOW I HAD ASKED FOR MANY OF THE
NUMBERS THAT WE ARE ARGUING HERE
TODAY BEFORE THIS YEAR BEGAN AND
HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN NUMBERS
UNTIL. JUST TODAY.
IN SOME A BIT FRUSTRATED THAT
FINANCE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO
PROVIDE MORE ACCURATE NUMBER SO
WE CAN MAKE THE APPROPRIATE
DECISIONS.
THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US NOW.
PARTICULARLY AS WE LOOK AT
HEALTH FOR ALL AS WELL AS
LOOKING AT AGED AND DISABLED. AM
STRUGGLING WITH A CHANGING
NUMBERS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HEAR ON THE DYESS HAVE THE
APPROPRIATE INFORMATION THAT'S
BEFORE US.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY ASK
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IF YOU
COULD TO FOLLOW UP WITH A
MEETING WITH MY OFFICE AS WELL
AS. ANY OTHERS THAT ARE CONFUSED
ABOUT THE NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED HERE TODAY. SO THAT WE
HAVE ACCURATE INFORMATION TO
PROCESS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE MAKING APPROPRIATE DECISIONS.
GOING FORWARD.
NEXT IF I CAN I'D LIKE TO.
.
I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH ALL
THE SPECIFICS OF MANY OF THE
CHARTS THAT WE HAVE BUT THERE
ARE MANY OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WE
PROMOTED AND STILL STRONGLY
WOULD LIKE TO ADVOCATE FOR.
AND WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP
WITH OUR STAFF IF POSSIBLE TO
MAKE SURE THAT. OUR VOICES FROM
SOMEONE IN THE ASSEMBLY OR HEARD.
.
BUT DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE
TO REALLY LOOK AT OUR MORAL
VALUES.
IF WE'VE EXPANDED HEALTHCARE TO
ALL KIDS WHAT WE SAY WHEN AN
EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD TURNS NINETEEN.
IF YOU VALUE THAT COR COHORT OF
CALIFORNIANS.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY AGE?
WHAT ARE OUR VALUES THAN?
AND SO I BELIEVE WE AS A STATE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HOLD
OUR VALUES TRUE. AND REALLY DO
HOPE THOSE ONTHE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE. WILL DO OUR UTMOST TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS BUDGET IS A
MORAL DOCUMENT JUST AS MUCH AS
IT IS A FINANCIAL
.
NNOVA.
SERGEANTS COULD WE ASK OUR
LEADER.
WE.
THE.
MY.
IF YOU.
VERY FEW.
BROUGH
.
ALL WE'RE GOING TO RECESS FOR
TEN MINUTES THEN ASKED THE
SERGEANTS TO VACATE THE CHAMBERS
THANK YOU
.
YEAH.
WHAT
?
THANK YOU JUST.
DECLARING DAHLE AUDIENCE OUT OF
ORDER. A PRE SHAPE THE SONG BUT.
WE DO HAVE IMPORT BUSINESS SO.
WE WILL BE ASKING DUH STORE JUST
TO CLEAR THE ROOM AND WE WILL BE
RECESSED THANK YOU
THANK YOU WE ARE RECONVENING
OUR BUDGET CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
THANK YOU FOR YOUR.
PATIENTS.
OF WITH THAT I BELIEVE ARE WE
STILL ON ISSUE ONE WITH THEIR
ANY.
REMAINING COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
OKAY I'M NOT SEEING INITIAL WE
WILL GO TO. ISSUE TO HEALTH CARE
WORKFORCE
.
JASON CONCENTRA CELAYA STARTING
ON ISSUE TO ON PAGE TWELVE OF
YOUR AGENDA.
BUT THIS IS THAT THIS IS A
PACKAGE OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY BOTH
HOUSES RELATED TO. HEALTH CARE
WORKFORCE.
.
A PROPOSALS OTHER PROPOSALS CUT
ACROSS THREE DIFFERENT AGENCIES
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA THE
ALSO OFFICE OF STATEWIDE HEALTH
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES.
A FOR THE SAKE OF TIME I WON'T
WALK THROUGH A EACH PROPOSAL I I
KNOW THAT YOU TOUCH ON SOME OF
THIS IN YOUR OVERVIEW. OF BUT IF
YOU TURN TO PAGE FOURTEEN YOU
MIGHT FIND A TABLE HANDY WE
PROPERTIES THAT TABLE THAT IS
NOT ANOTHER SUMMARY OF THE
DIFFERENT ACTIONS TAKEN BY EACH
OF THE HOUSES AND BY THE
GOVERNOR.
IT'S RELATIVE TO. ON PROPOSALS
THAT THE THE GOVERNOR MADE THAT
BOTH HOUSES ALREADY ADOPTED SO
FOR EXAMPLE.
THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL BASED
FUNDING ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED TO
THE SONG BROWN PROGRAM THAT'S
NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE
THAT'S ALREADY BEING ACTED ON IN
THE IN THE STATE BUDGET.
ON OUR MESSAGE HERE.
IS WHAT DID FOR YOU DON'T
REALLY CONSIDER WHAT PROBLEMS
YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THROUGH
THESE VARIOUS PROPOSALS OUTREACH
WHEN I DO THINKING ABOUT
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS.
VARIOUS
I HEALTHCARE SHORTAGES EITHER
FOR PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS OR
MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS.
TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE
THINKING ABOUT COME STATE WIDE
SHORTAGES AND CAPACITY ISSUES.
WE THINK WHAT ONE APPROACH YOU
COULD TAKE IS TO FIND A MORE
RESIDENCY SLOTS WHICH IS AN
ACTION THAT BOTH HOUSES TAKE
THOUGH THEY DO IT THROUGH FOR
DIFFERENT PROGRAMS.
THAT THAT WOULD BE THEM MOST
DIRECT WAY TO ADDRESS CAPACITY
ISSUES THE ONE THING WE WERE
NOTE THOUGH IS THAT.
.
OF A LOT OF THESE PROGRAMS ARE
SLATED TO RECEIVE HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FEDERAL
FUNDS ON GOING BEGINNING IN
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN. DUE TO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S.
I SEE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THAT
AS YOURS ARE FACTORING YOUR
DECISIONS MOTHER NOT TO PROVIDE
ONGOING SUPPORTER ONE TIME IN
THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT TO PROVIDE.
NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE
INTERESTED IN SHORTAGES IN
SPECIFIC AREAS OR REGIONS OF THE
STATE. OF FOR EXAMPLE IN RURAL
AREAS FOR EXAMPLE.
OUR YOU COULD CONSIDER A LOAN
REPAYMENTS AS AN ALTERNATIVE
POLICY LEVER THAT WOULD ALLOW
YOU TO. A SERVER TARGET MORE
SPECIFICALLY DIFFERENT AREAS OF
THE STATE AND AND BE MORE
TARGETED APPROACH RATHER THAN
TRUSTING SHORTAGES OVERALL IN
THE STATE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU DISCUSSED IN ACOSTA
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SO THIS IS
AN AREA WHERE ACTUALLY THERE IS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ADMINISTRATION THE ASSEMBLY AND
THE SENATE ON. INVESTING
ADDITIONAL DOLLARS FOR HEALTH
CARE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
ALTHOUGH WE EACH DID IT IN
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAYS.
I WOULD KNOW THAT MOST OF THESE
ARE REALLY A QUESTION OF OUR
GENERAL FUND PRIORITIES WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF AND THE WET PROGRAM
IN THE PRIMARY CARE MENTAL
HEALTH FELLOWSHIPS WHICH ARE
BEING UTILIZED BY. USING MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES ACT PROGRAM
FUNDING. I'M WE KNOW THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION INCLUDED FIFTY
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS TO EXPAND
PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENCY SLOTS AND
THE REASON FOR THE MINISTRATION
THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS IMPORTANT
IS THAT WE HAVE SOME STATISTICS
THAT HEALTH RESOURCES AND
SERVICES. ADMINISTRATION
PROJECTS
CALIFORNIA PSYCHIATRIST SHORTAGE
WILL REACH BETWEEN SEVEN HUNDRED
TWENTY NINE AND ONE THOUSAND
EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT BY
THE YEAR TWENTY TWENTY FIVE. AND
THE REASON THAT SIGNIFICANT IS
BECAUSE WE KNOW FROM NATIONAL
DATA. THAT IN THE PAST YEAR AT
LEAST A MILLION CALIFORNIANS
HAVE HAD A SERIOUS MENTAL
ILLNESS AND WE DEFINE A SERIOUS
MENTAL ILLNESS IS SOMEBODY WHO
HAS EXPERIENCED AN INTERFERENCE
WITH SOME OF THEIR MAJOR LIFE
ACTIVITIES. ON ORTON IT LIMITS
THEM. LIFE ACTIVITIES AND SO
THAT'S WHY WE INCLUDED THAT
PROPOSAL JUMPING SLIGHTLY AHEAD
IN THE AGENDA I WOULD ALSO NOTE
THAT ANOTHER COMPONENT PIECE OF
THE ADMINISTRATION OFFERED IN
THIS ROUND. WAS THAT WERE
UTILIZING PROP FIFTY SIX DOLLARS
FOR TWO HUNDRED TWENTY MILLION
DOLLARS. IN LOAN REPAYMENT FOR
PROVIDERS AND UNDERSERVED AREAS
ON FOR BOTH POSITION AND THEN
TEST SO I THINK.
THERE'S A GREEN ABOUT THE POLICY
AREA WE'VE ALL DONE IT IN
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAYS AND
LOOKING AT SOME DIFFERENT.
PROFESSIONS
WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS.
TAKING THIS BECAUSE I WAS GOING
TO TURN OVER TO SENATOR MITCHELL
FOR SECOND I'LL DO THAT AFTER.
ETCETERA.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I WANT TO.
.
COMMAND THE.
ADMINISTRATION'S FOCUS OUR HOME
ON MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING.
AND A PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENCY
FUNDING UP AND DOWN THE STATE
FRANKLY. WE TALK AND HAVE BEEN
SPENT TALKING A LOT ABOUT THE
CRISIS IN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH
AND SO.
I JOIN THIS BODY IN TWO THOUSAND
THIRTEEN BUT THE CRISIS IN
HEALTH CARE GENERALLY PALES IN
COMPARISON TO THE. CRISIS IN
MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN FUNDING IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW WHAT
BUT.
.
FOR EXAMPLE IN SOME. INLAND
PARTS OF THE STATE TO.
THE NUMBER OF ESTIMATED NUMBER
OF PSYCHIATRIST PER ONE HUNDRED
IS ABOUT FIVE AS COMPARED TO.
AN AVERAGE OF ALMOST FIFTEEN
OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE.
IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOR EXAMPLE.
THERE ARE ONLY THIRTEEN ABOUT
THIRTEEN CHILD PSYCHIATRIST
SERVING A POPULATION OF OVER SIX
HUNDRED THOUSAND.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
THE PROBLEM OF COURSE WITH THAT
I AM ALL FOR EXPANDING A
RESIDENCY DOLLARS THROUGH THE
SONG BROWN PROGRAM BUT THE
PROBLEM WITH THE SONG BROWN
PROGRAM. IS THE AS PRIMARY CARE
IS DEFINED.
PRIMARY CARE DOES NOT INCLUDE.
CYCAS PSYCHIATRIST IN
PSYCHIATRIC. RESIDENCY PROGRAMS
SO. WE CLEARLY A NEED TO DO MORE.
IN ALL THESE AREAS BUTIN
PARTICULAR.
IN THE AREA OF MENTAL HEALTH
FUNDING IN PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENCY
FUNDING SO. OF FOR THAT MISTER
CHAIR I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND.
THE ADMINISTRATION FOR THEIR
EFFORTS IN THIS REGARD THANK YOU.
THANK YOU CENTER.
DOCTOR RENTAL.
THANK YOU I'VE ALSO.
.
I'LL TRY NOT TO AGITATE THIS
TIME AND HOPEFULLY NO ONE WILL
SAYING AFTER I SPEAK.
YOU KNOW I'M.
BOB QUITE EXCITED ABOUT
ADMINISTRATION'S WILLINGNESS TO
ENGAGE ON THIS TOPIC MATTER. AS
WE HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF
CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE COVERED WE
ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OTHER
PART OF THE EQUATION THE
PROVIDERS. WHO ARE CARING FOR
THEM ARE ALSO BEING TRAINED?
I WANTED TO DIG INTO THE DETAILS
THOUGH IF I COULD OF BOTH THE
SENATE PROPOSAL AND THEN OUT A
LITTLE BIT OF.
POTENTIAL PATH FORWARD IF I
COULD.
BUT THE SENATE HAS RECOMMENDED
FIFTY FIVE MILLION ONE TIME FOR
MENTAL HEALTH GRADUATE MEDICAL
EDUCATION. AS WELL AS BOTH.
FORTY MILLION ON GOING EACH YEAR.
I'D LIKE US TO CONSIDER WHETHER
OR NOT THE FORTY MILLION THAT WE
DID WITH AND PROP FIFTY SIX THAT.
THE VOTERS HAD INTENDED FOR US
TO SPEND WITHIN GRADUATE MEDICAL
EDUCATION MAY COME. FROM THIS
FIFTY FIVE MILLION THAT THE
GOVERNOR IS PROPOSING AND
SPENDING THE EXCESS FIFTEEN
MILLION INTO MENTAL HEALTH. AND
MAKING THIS ON GOING NOT ONE
TIME.
BY DOING THE ONGOING WE CONTINUE
TO MEET THE UNMET NEEDS THAT WE
HAVE WITHIN PSYCHIATRY WHILE
HELPING US TO BUILD THE PRIMARY
WORKFORCE AND RESPECT THE VOTERS
WHEN THEY SENT US THIS MONEY.
WITH PROP FIFTY SIX.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD IF I CAN ON
THE NET NECESSITY FOR THE WHAT
FUNDING.
IT'S NOT JUST ANDES BUT IT'S THE
OTHER LEVELS OF PSYCHIATRIC
SERVICES THAT WERE NEEDING AS
WELL AS THE ABILITY TO BRING IN
A DIVERSITY TO OUR WORK FORCE TO
ENSURE THAT. THOSE WHO ARE
CARING FOR OUR COMMUNITIES LOOK
LIKE AND SOUND LIKE OUR
COMMUNITIES.
I'M.
WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
BETTER SUPPORT THE PROGRAMS THAT
WE CURRENTLY HAVE. SO BOTH SONG
BROWNING YOU SEE PRIME ARE
WONDERFUL EXAMPLES OF. OF
PROGRAMS THAT ARE HELPING TO
MEET THE RURAL AND URBAN
UNDERSERVED AREAS AND
COMMUNITIES AND REALLY DO
BELIEVE THAT THESE INCREASES IN
FUNDING WILL HELP OUR COMMUNITY.
SO WITH THAT I JUST WANTED TO
ADD MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR
WORKFORCE PROGRAMS THAT WILL
HELP TO BRING BACK MORE
PROVIDERS TO COMMUNITIES ALL
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU.
CENTER NIELSEN.
THIS COSTA.
SOME OF THESE.
PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSIONALS ARE
YOU CONSIDERING THEM TO BE
DIRECTED TO THE COUNTIES OF
WHERE THEY CAN BE.
AFFORDING TREATMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANY OF THE
REALIGNED POPULATION WHO HAVE
BOTH SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES THAT TO OF NOW.
PLAGUED OUR E. OURS AND.
AND THE COUNTIES WHERE THE JUST
DO NOT HAVE THE TREATMENT
CAPABILITIES IS IS THAT SOME OF
THE PLAN.
REALLY ARE PROPOSAL SIMPLY UP
WITH AN EMPHASIS ON PUTTING OF
THESE PROFESSIONALS AND
UNDERSERVED AREAS WE DON'T GET
INTO QUITE THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.
I I WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT'S AN
AREA IF IT DOES WARRANT
ATTENTION.
THANK YOU SIR MORLOCK.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I AM JUST
TRYING TO.
SURE I AM UNDERSTANDING.
EVERYTHING.
I AM I AM NOT TRYING OUT CERTAIN
NUMBERS I'VE AND CLOSE. UP.
BUT ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE.
I'M TRYING OUT TO THE TWENTY SIX
POINT FOR THE POINT SIX THE ONE
MILLION.
THE TEN MILLION AYE I WOULD
ASSUME THAT'S.
I'M THE THIRTY MILLION ON PAGE
TWELVE DIVIDED BY THREE.
AND THEN THE SEVENTEEN MILLION.
I'M COMING UP WITH THAT.
TWENTY SIX MILLION.
PER YEAR BUT IS IT IS A
DIFFERENT TIERED STRUCTURE THEN
INSTEAD OF.
TWENTY SIX TWENTY SIX POINT SIX
IS AT SEVENTEEN.
THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE
SO WE FOUND IT IF I MEAN. I IT'S
SEVENTEEN MILLION THIS YEAR
SEVENTEEN MILLION NEXT YEAR AND
IT'S ADDING A NOTHER YEAR TOTAL
OF FIFTY MILLION AT THE END.
SO IT A TOTAL OF EIGHTY FOUR
MILITARY THIS OKAY THANK YOU.
THE I AM I I. I'M NOT GOING FAST
ENOUGH TO APOLOGIZE THAT TO KEEP
UP WITH THESE GRAPHS PAGE.
THOUGH IF THAT THE LA GOT IT I
SEE IT IS. THANK YOU THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH ME I.
I AM JUST CURIOUS THAN THE
FIFTY FIVE MILLION ONE TIME PER
MENTAL HEALTH GRADUATE MEDICAL
DEDUCTION.
EACH.
WE DON'T SHOW IT ON PAGE FIVE
THAT YOU SHOWED IT TO THE
ASSEMBLY DOES AS A REDUCTION OF
THAT AMOUNT.
THE ASSEMBLY TOOK A SEPARATE
ACTION IN THE SENATE ON THAT
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL.
SO ARE WE AND THE SENATE SIDE
RECOMMENDING FIFTY FIVE MILLION
OR. BECAUSE OF YOUR THE SENATE
APPROVED THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL FOR THE FIFTY FIVE
MILLION THE ASSEMBLY DID NOT.
SO I I HEARD THAT THE COMMENT
ABOUT THE NEED FOR MORE
PSYCHIATRIC.
PRACTITIONERS AND AN ORANGE
COUNTY WITH OVER THREE MILLION
PEOPLE.
I WITH YOU SEE I THE OTHER.
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WERE
ONLY PRODUCING NINE PER YEAR.
SO WE NEED TO DO A LITTLE BETTER.
ESPECIALLY SINCE.
WE'RE DOING A MUCH BETTER JOB
BEING CONCERNED ABOUT MENTAL
HEALTH.
HERE IN SACRAMENTO SO WE NEED
THAT PROVIDE CALORIE OVER THE
HILL TO HELP OUT SO. I JUST WANT
TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.
IT SURE THAT WE DO FUND. AS AS
BEST WE CAN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS.
SENATE MITCHELL.
THINK BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ISSUE
THREE I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT
COME OUT OF WHAT. DOCTOR
ARAMBULA ARAMBULA TO THINK THAT.
.
YOU SOME WASTE TRIGGER THE.
SOCIAL ACTION WE SAW TAKE PLACE
HERE YOU THERE'S A NATIONAL
MOVEMENT GOING ON ACROSS THE
COUNTRY ON THE POOR PEOPLE'S
CAMPAIGN FOR THE FIFTIETH
ANNIVERSARY OF DR KING'S POOR
PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN. AND SO THEY
ARE FORTY STATE HOUSES. OVER
FORTY DAYS THEY'RE EXPERIENCING
SUSTAINED ACTION.
BY ON MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY AND
AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO ARE
ENGAGING WITH THEIR POLICYMAKERS
ON MONDAYS WITH THEIR COLLIE
MORAL MONDAYS ON TO TALK ABOUT
ISSUES SURROUNDING POVERTY SO.
I THINK SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES
MEMBERS MAY PERHAPS SOME OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WERE
AWARE OF THIS NATIONAL MOVEMENTS
LIKE THOUGHT IT. APPROPRIATE TO
PUT INTO CONTEXT.
WHAT WE JUST EXPERIENCE DEAR
AND SO IT'S CALLED THE POOR
PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN MORAL MONDAYS
FORTY STATES FORTY DAYS?
THANK YOU SIR MITCHELL.
THANK YOU.
ALONG.
AND WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE TO
ISSUE THREE PROVIDER RATES PROP
FIFTY SIX FOR MEDI CAL.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
MADAM CHAIRMAN BEN JOHNSON WITH
THE LA SHOW.
ALL PROCEED TAKE GIVING A QUICK
OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND THE HOUSES
AND THEN JUMP INTO JUST A FEW
COMMENTS IF.
IF THAT WOULD.
VERY EARLY OKAY GREG.
SO WE DO HAVE A HANDOUT THAT IS
PUBLISHED IN THE AGENDA.
RIGHT AFTER PAGE SIXTEEN THAT
AND MALFORMED BASIS OF MY
REMARKS ARE ALL OF OUR SPEED TO
IT RATHER QUICKLY.
NOTE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE
GOVERNOR DID.
GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISION
INCLUDED A PROPOSAL TO EXTEND
THE EXISTING PAYMENTS GOING
FORWARD PUT SOME MONEY TO OFFSET
GENERAL FUND AND TO PROPOSE SOME
ADDITIONAL NEW SUPPLEMENTAL
PAYMENTS BUT DID NOT INCLUDE A
DETAILED PROPOSAL. PROUD TO
SPEND THAT AND THAT THERE WAS
OVER FIVE HUNDRED MILLION
DOLLARS IN UNSPENT FUNDING IN
THE GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISION.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED THE
GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISION PROPOSAL
BASICALLY AS BUDGETED.
AND WHILE INTENDING TO I THINK
ULTIMATELY APPROVED A DETAILED
SPENDING PLAN THAT INCREASES
FUNDING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
PAYMENTS THE ASSEMBLY ULTIMATELY
DEFERRED APPROVAL OF A DETAILED
PLAN TO THIS CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE PROCESS. WOULD NOTE RE
IT REAL QUICKLY THOUGH THAT THE
ASSEMBLY DID APPROVE A SET OF
ONGOING MEDI CAL RATE INCREASES
USING GENERAL FUND AND SOME OF
THESE RATE INCREASES CORRESPOND
TO ACTIONS THAT THE SENATE TOOK
USING PROPOSITION FIFTY SIX
FUNDING. BUT TO PROVIDE FOR. THE
HIGHER SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT SO
FOR EXAMPLE.
PEDIATRIC SUB ACUTE FACILITIES
BOTH RECEIVED ABOUT BOTH WOULD
RECEIVE PAYMENT BOMBS ONE USING
GENERAL FUND IN THE ASSEMBLY AND
THEN THE OTHER USING UP PROP
FIFTY SIX IN THE SENATE. ON PAGE
TWO OF THE HANDOUT I DESCRIBED
THE SENATE'S A PROSE PROPOSAL
ARE ACTION THE SENATE APPROVED
AN AUGMENTED THE GOVERNOR'S MAY
REVISION PROPOSAL.
SPECIFYING A WAY TO SPEND TWO
HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION TWO
HUNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION
DOLLARS THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET
FOR NEW PAYMENTS AND THEN
AUGMENTING BEYOND THAT TO A
TOTAL PACKAGE OF NEW
SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS.
OVER THE OVER THE EXISTING ONES
OF FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN
MILLION WHAT'S REALLY A FOCUS
I'D SAY ON A PEDIATRIC MEDICAL
CARE THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHT
MILLION DOLLARS GOING FOR THIS
PURPOSE. SENATE ACTION ALSO
PROVIDE SEVENTY MILLION FOR
DENTAL SERVICES.
AT WHICH IS SPLIT BETWEEN ADULT
PREVENTIVE SERVICES AS WELL AS
SERVICES FOR CHILDREN WITH
SPECIAL NEEDS.
DID THE SENATE ACTION WOULD
MAKE THESE PAYMENTS ONGOING AND
WOULD DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO APPLY
FOR FEDERAL APPROVAL FOR TWO
YEARS FOR ALL THE SUPPLEMENTAL
PAYMENTS. FINALLY ON A ONE TIME
BASIS THE SENATE DEDICATES A
HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION.
TO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS AND HUNDRED FORTY FOUR
MILLION TO A NEW PHYSICIAN
INCENTIVE PAYMENT PROGRAM.
UNDER.
UNDER THIS UNDER NEW ESTIMATES
OF PROPOSITION FIFTY SIX BEEN
LAYING UP FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION WE ESTIMATE THE
SENATE WOULD LEAVE ACT
A ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE
MILLION DOLLARS IN PROPOSITION
FIFTY SIX. FUNDING ON SPENT AT
THE END OF TWENTY EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN THIS IS REVISED FROM
THE NUMBER THAT'S IN THE HAND
OUT OF EIGHTY THREE MILLION.
ON PAGE THREE WE ARE WE DETAIL
THE GOVERNOR'S CONCEPTUAL
PROPOSAL WHICH WAS RELEASED
AFTER THE MAY REVISION.
AND PART OF WHICH WAS RELEASED
AFTER OUR COMPLETION OF THIS
HANDOUT SO FEW THINGS HAVE
CHANGED I APOLOGIZE.
THIS PLAN INCLUDED A A PLAN FOR
HOW TO SPEND THE TUNING THIRTY
THREE MILLION DOLLARS AS WELL AS
WELL AS HOW TO SPEND A
SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE
UNALLOCATED REVENUES. FIVE
HUNDRED MILLION WOULD BE FOR
PHYSICIAN SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS.
BOOSTING THE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT
THE EXISTING SUPPLEMENTAL
PAYMENTS AS WELL AS PROVIDING
SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS FOR NEW
SERVICES THAT OUT THAT WERE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE.
A LOT OF THEM FOCUSED ON
PEDIATRIC CARE AND SO FORTH.
AND THE INTENT WOULD BE TO RAISE
US SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS TO
BETWEEN EIGHTY FIVE TO AT RISK.
RAISE THE OVERALL PAYMENT FOR
THESE SERVICES BETWEEN EIGHTY
FIVE AND A HUNDRED PERCENT OF
THE MEDICARE RATE.
THE ADMINISTRATION ALSO RELEASED
A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR DENTAL
SERVICES SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT OR
PROPOSAL.
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE.
SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS FOR DOLE
PREVENTIVE SERVICES PERIODONTAL
SERVICES DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES AND
OTHERS AND THEN FINALLY THE.
ADMINISTRATION INCLUDES.
LOW FUNDING FOR A LOAN
REPAYMENT PROGRAM OF BETWEEN
HUNDRED FIFTEEN HUNDRED NINETY
MILLION OF FOR PHYSICIANS AND
THIRTY MILLION FOR DENTAL THIS
WOULD BE ON OF WHAT.
A ONE TIME BASIS AS WELL AS ALL
THE OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS
INCLUDED.
WE ESTIMATE THAT THE ULTIMATELY.
THERE WOULD BE BETWEEN FIFTY
FOUR NINETY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS.
LEFT ON SPENT AT THE END OF
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN FOLLOWING THE
GOVERNOR'S NEW PROPOSAL AND NOW
JUST IF I CAN JUMP TO JUST A FEW
COMMENTS.
THERE IS CONSIDERABLE WE FIND
THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE
OVERLAP BETWEEN THE SENATE AND
THE ADMINISTRATION'S NEW
PROPOSAL FOLK WITH THE FOCUS ON
SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS UP
PRIMARILY TOWARDS PEDIATRIC
SERVICES.
AND SO FORTH THE MAIN
DIFFERENCES ARE ON THE AMOUNTS
THE SENATE WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR
UNDER TWENTY SEVEN MILLION BY
TWO NEW PAYMENTS WHILE THE
ADMINISTRATION WOULD PROVIDE SIX
HUNDRED MILLION.
THERE ARE SOME RELATIVELY MINOR
DIFFERENCES IN DOLLAR TERMS.
REGARDING WHAT SERVICES ARE
FUNDING FUNDED PEDIATRIC DAY
HEALTH IN THE SENATE FOR EXAMPLE
WHICH WOULD NOT RECEIVE ANY
ABOUT PAYMENT BOOSTS IN UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN. AND
THEN NOT THE SENATE DOES PROVIDE.
SENDS PLAN DOES PLACE A LITTLE
MORE EMPHASIS ON CERTAIN
SPECIALTY CARE AMONG PEDIATRICS
I SUPPOSE THE ADMINISTRATION
WHICH IS LARGELY FOCUSED ON
PRIMARY CARE.
AND THEN THE OF THE MAJOR OTHER
DIFFERENCES THE ONGOING NATURE
OF THE SENATE'S ACTION WITH THE
TWO YEAR FEDERAL APPROVAL WE
FIND THAT ALL OF THE TWO YEAR
FEDERAL APPROVED PROVOKE PLANNED
OUT CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE IN
CONCEPT. BUT AS IT WOULD PREVENT
SOME OF THE INTER DISRUPTIONS
THAT HAVE OCCURRED.
GEKI HAD GIVEN ONE YEAR
APPROVAL AND RE APPROVAL TIME
LINES UNDER.
WITH THAT WE'D HAVE TO GO
THROUGH WITH THE FED UP WHILE WE
WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE.
CONSIDER MAKING THIS.
THIS FUNDING LIMITED TERM AS
OPPOSED ONGOING.
LIMITED TERM COULD.
COULD MEAN MULTI YEAR SO THAT
WE HAVE AN EXTENDED TIME PERIOD
TO REALLY ASCERTAIN THE EFFECTS
THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE HAVING ON
IMPROVE ACCESS WITHIN THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM.
AND SO WE WE WOULD THINK THAT
THERE COULD BE AYE THEIR SCAN
SOME CONSIDERATION THERE AND
THEN FINALLY ARE GIVEN OUR
INTEREST IN.
EVALUATING IN TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THE IMPACT THESE
PAYMENTS ARE HAVING WE DO
RECOMMEND THAT THE LEGISLATURE
DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION TO.
PRODUCER REPORT THAT DETAILS OF
THE IMPACT THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE
HAVING ON INCREASED ACCESS
WITHIN MEDI CAL AGAIN FAILED TO
TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THANK YOU
MISS COST.
KAMALA BIFURCATE MY COMMENTS BY
TALKING FIRST ABOUT SOME OF THE
GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATIONS WHERE
WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE
ASTHMA AND THEN I'LL GET INTO
THAT.
FIFTY SIX BECAUSE THEY THINK
IT'S AN EASIER WAY TO.
NOT GET LOST IN THE NUMBERS
HERE SOME TO GIVE IT MY BEST.
I'M WE AND HAVE ESTIMATES FOR
JUST THE PROVIDER PAYMENT
PORTION HERE ON THE GENERAL FUND
SIDE BETWEEN BOTH HOUSES OF THE
SEVENTEEN POINT SEVEN MILLION
GENERAL FUND IN EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN AND TOTALING FIFTY ONE
POINT FOUR MILLION GENERAL FUND
IN TWENTY ONE TWENTY TWO. ON DIS
DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSEMBLY
PROPOSAL.
FOR ADULT SERVICES IN SAN
FRANCISCO SO THAT'S NOT INCLUDED
IN THAT TOTAL NUMBER.
MOVING ON TO THE PROP FIFTY SIX
SIDE OF THE EQUATION.
WE PROPOSED A ONE POINT TWO
FOUR SEVEN BILLION DOLLAR
PACKAGE MADE UP OF FIVE HUNDRED
MILLION FOR PHYSICIAN
SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS TWO
HUNDRED AND TEN MILLION FOR
DENTAL SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS.
NINETY TWO POINT TWO MILLION FOR
TARGETED RATE INCREASES TWO
HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION FOR
LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS WHICH I
TESTIFIED TO EARLIER.
FOR PROVIDERS AND UNDERSERVED
AREAS AND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY
FOUR POINT SEVEN MILLION FOR
MEDI CAL PROGRAM GROWTH.
ON AS THE ANNALS IS NOTED WE
WORKED UP POST ME REVISE WITH
STAKEHOLDERS ON DEVELOPING A
SUPPLEMENTAL PROP FIFTY.
PROPOSAL WHICH I THINK THE ALICE
HAS I'M LAID OUT NICELY ON I
THINK WE WOULD JUST SAY THE OUR
PACKAGE REALLY TARGETS
INVESTMENTS TO INCREASE MEDI CAL
PROVIDER PARTICIPATION. AND THAT
WAS REALLY THE LINES THAT WE
VIEWED OUR PROPOSAL THROUGH WITH
THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
WITHIN THE.
DOCTOR AND.
YOUR LAST COMMENT WAS.
WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE THE METRICS TO TRACK
FOLLOWING FORWARD.
I WANTED TO.
ADD TO WHAT THE LA O. SAID FOR
THE NECESSITY FOR THE CONTINUITY
OF THESE PROGRAMS.
THAT DOING I'M ONE YEAR AT A
TIME MAKES IT AWFULLY DIFFICULT
TO BOTH.
TRACK RESULTS AND DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THE. GROUP THAT
HAS CODES THAT WE'VE SELECTED
ARE ENOUGH BEING EFFECTIVE.
AND SO JUST WOULD ASK THE
DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO HAVE A
MULTI YEAR APPROACH DEALING WITH
THESE RATES TO ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE. ACCURATE DATA GOING
FORWARD.
AM I DO WANT TO ADD IF I CAN A
BIT OF CONCERN THAT. THE
PHYSICIAN LOAN REPAYMENTS WHILE
I'M QUITE SUPPORTIVE OF THEM
SEEMED TO BE.
A HEFTY NUMBER AND I'M
WONDERING OF FINANCE HAS ANY
CONCERNS OVER.
THAT PROGRAM BEING OVER
PRESCRIBED IS.
IS THERE AND WHAT REALISTICALLY
COULD WE ACCOMPLISH WHAT THESE
ONE TIME FUNDS.
SO I THINK THE IDEA BEHIND.
THE AMOUNTS IS THAT WE WANTED
TO PROVIDE A LARGE ENOUGH
INCENTIVE SO THAT WE COULD.
REPAY A LARGE A PORTION OF
PROVIDERS LOANS THAT THERE
INCENTIVIZE TO APPLY SO WE DON'T
WANT TO GO OUT WITH A
SOLICITATION FOR TO HAVE PEOPLE
APPLY FOR AID AND THEN NOT GET
ENOUGH APPLICATIONS IN. AND THEN
THE OTHER THING THAT WE DID WAS
THAT WE ARE PROPOSING.
AS A NUMBER OF YEARS TO
ENCUMBER THOSE FUNDS AND SO
THERE IS NO EXPECTATION THAT
THAT HUNDRED NINETY MILLION FOR
POSITIONS IN THE THIRTY MILLION
FOR DENNIS WILL ALL BE SPENT THE
BUDGET YEAR.
UT WE'RE GOING TO BUDGET FOR
THOSE FUNDS IN THE BUDGET YEAR
BUT WE'RE GONNA GIVE SEVERAL
YEARS TO ENCUMBER AND AND
HOPEFULLY I'M GET ALL THOSE
FUNDS OUT THE DOOR TO PROVIDERS.
AND I WOULD JUST NOTE OUR
ESTIMATE IS THAT BASED ON THAT
DOLLAR AMOUNT WE WOULD BE ABLE
TO SERVE SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY
PHYSICIANS AND A HUNDRED DENTIST.
I THINK YOU JUST TO ADD TO
DOCTOR ELDERS MEMBERS LED A
QUESTION COULD YOU ALSO JUST.
GIVE US THE SAME JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS AS
WELL AS THE ARE.
NEW PAYMENTS FOR PRESENT
PREVENTIVE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
AND ADULTS.
YEAH SO IN TERMS OF.
JUST TO CLARIFY TARGETING ON
THE WAY THAT WE DID WITH
PREVENTIVE SERVICES SO.
THIS WAS THE RESULT OF YOU KNOW
THE ADMINISTRATION WE WE HAD
TARGETS FOR WHAT WE WANTED TO DO
WE GET WE KNEW WE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET THAT WE LIKELY WORKING TO
SPEND ALL OF THE CURRENT YEAR
AMOUNTS.
AND WE.
WE'RE GOING TO DEDICATE.
.
AT THAT AN ADDITIONAL SET OF
FUNDS IN THE BUDGET YEAR WHO
WANTED TO RAMP UP BASED ON THE
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS THE BUDGET
CONDITIONS THAT WERE SET FORTH
IN THE BUDGET BILL LAST YEAR.
BUT WHAT WE DID WANT TO DO IS
IS PRESUMED WHERE THAT MONEY
SHOULD BE SPENT AND SO WE SPENT
A LOT OF TIME TALKING
STAKEHOLDERS AND AND LISTENING
AND GETTING THAT FEEDBACK. AND.
AND WHAT WE HEARD WAS YOU KNOW
MORE ADULT PREVENTIVE AND THE
DENTAL SIDE OF PARTICULAR
ANASTASIA WAS A PROBLEM IN THE
DENTAL SIDE.
AND SO WE TRY TO REACT TO THAT
FEEDBACK.
ON THE PHYSICIAN SIDE.
IT WAS ALSO A PREVENTIVE FOCUS
AND AND.
SO WE SPLIT THOSE CODES BETWEEN.
NEW PATIENT CODES AND EXISTING
PATIENT CODES BUT I'M PREVENTIVE
SERVICES BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S
WHAT WE WERE HEARING FROM.
FROM THE PROVIDER COMMUNITY IN
FROM STAKEHOLDERS.
THANK YOU.
SIMILAR.
COMMISSION CHAIR. AND AS A
MEMBER OF THE.
SENATE.
SUB ONE EDUCATION I JUST WANT TO
REITERATE THAT THE GRADUATE
MEDICAL EDUCATION.
THE FUNDING OF FORTY MILLION
FROM PROP FIFTY SIX WE'D LIKE TO
SEE THAT.
DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO NOT
BE.
SIPHONED OFF SOMEWHERE ELSE I
JUST WANNA PUT THAT ON THE
RECORD.
THANK YOU.
THROUGH THE COMMENTS QUESTIONS.
OKAY NOT SAYING ANYMORE WE'RE
GOING TO GO DO ISSUE. FOR.
ANTI DE PUBLIC GRANTS AND CALL
US.
AND I WILL FEEL FREE TO BEGIN
WHENEVER YOU'RE.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAO'S ALAMO WITH
THE LA L. ITEM FOUR OF YOUR
AGENDA RELATES TO MAJOR HUMAN
SERVICES PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY
IN THE CAO WORKS PROGRAM THE SSI
ASSIST P. PROGRAM.
THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT
INCLUDE IT CHANGES TO THESE
PROGRAMS GRANT LEVELS IN THE MAY
REVISION AND THE ASSEMBLY TO NOT
TAKE ACTION RELATED TO. TO GRANT
LEVELS FOR THESE TWO PROGRAMS
THE SENATE'S BUDGET PLAN HOWEVER
INCLUDES.
SEVERAL MAJOR ACTIONS RELATED TO
CAL WORKS AS A SCIENTIST BICU
THE TOTAL FIVE HUNDRED FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET
YEAR.
THE FIRST MAJOR ACTION THE
SENATE'S BUDGET PLAN TAKES
CREATION OF A NEW. SAFETY NET
RESERVE ARE WITHIN THE RESERVE
THERE WOULD BE TWO SUB ACCOUNTS
ONE FOR THE COW WORKS PROGRAM.
AND A SECOND FOR THE MEDICAL
PROGRAM DESCENDANTS PLAN
ALLOCATES ONE BILLION DOLLARS TO
THE COW WORK SUB ACCOUNT OF THE
SAFETY NET RESERVE. IN THESE
FUNDS COULD BE USED IN FUTURE
YEARS AT THE LEGISLATURE'S
DISCRETION.
TO OFFSET RISING COSTS IN THE
COWARDS PROGRAM SHOULD THE
CASELOAD INCREASE WHEN THE
ECONOMY ENTERS A RECESSION IN
THE FUTURE.
THE SECOND MAJOR PROPOSAL IN THE
SENATE BUDGET PLAN. IS.
IS
FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN
THE BUDGET YEAR FOR A THREE YEAR.
CAL WORKS GRANT INCREASE PACKAGE
THAT WOULD RAISE CAO WORKS
GRANTS FOR ALL FAMILIES IN THE
CAO WORKS PROGRAM TO AT LEAST
FIFTY PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL
POVERTY LEVEL.
HOME UNDER CURRENT LAW A FAMILY
OF THREE IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE
THE MAXIMUM GRANT OF SEVEN
HUNDRED FOURTEEN DOLLARS. AND
THE SENATE'S PLAN WOULD INCREASE
THAT.
TWO ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY TWO DOLLARS BY TWENTY
TWENTY ONE TWENTY TWO. THAT ONE
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO
DOLLARS.
PER MONTH CORRESPONDS TO ABOUT
SIXTY PERCENT OF WHAT WE
ESTIMATE THE FPL WILL BE IN THAT
YEAR.
BUT.
IN THE CAO WORKS PROGRAM ABOUT
HALF OF CAO ORGANIZES INCLUDE AN
ADULT FAMILY MEMBER WHO IS AN
ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE AID SO IN
THIS CASE MIGHT OF A FAMILY OF
THREE. ARM BUT THEY WILL ONLY
SEE OF A CASH GRANT THAT
CORRESPONDS TO THE FAMILY OF TWO
TYPICALLY TO CHILDREN. AND THE
SENATE'S PROPOSAL PUT REYES
GRANTS FOR THESE TYPES OF CASES
TO AT LEAST FIFTY PERCENT OF THE
FPL.
ON THE THIRD MAJOR ACTION THE
SENATE TOOK RELATES TO COLAS
ARE THE ACTION WOULD.
DOWN INCLUDES FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET YEAR TO
REINSTATE THE ANNUAL COAL AND
THE COWARDS PROGRAM IN ORDER TO
KEEP GRANTS AT FIFTY PERCENT OF
THE FPL.
IT ALSO INCLUDES FIFTY FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET
YEAR TO REINSTATE AN ONGOING
COLA IN THE SS I SS P. PROGRAM.
OUR OFFICE DOES NOT HAVE
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED
TO THE SENATE'S ACTIONS
HOW WE WOULD NOTE IN THE OUT
YEAR.
ESPECIALLY THE COW WORKS GRANT
PACKAGE
COST YOU INCREASE ABOVE THE
BUDGET YOUR COSTS I'M WE
ESTIMATE BY TIME THERE FULLY
RAMPED UP. THE COSTS FOR BOTH A
COWLICK STRAND INCREASES AND THE
TO CALL ACTIONS
WOULD BE TWO POINT TWO BILLION
DOLLARS ON GOING.
BY TWENTY TWENTY ONE TWENTY TWO.
ARMED. WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO
TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AS ARE MY
COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU MISCAST.
AND IT'S GOING TO BRIEFLY JUST
GO OVER THE THREE OF US SENATE
ACTION AND THEN I'LL START WITH
THE SAFETY NET RESERVE FUND THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS LONG
SUPPORTED ROBUST RESERVE FUND
THAT WE BELIEVE THE SENATE HAS
RIGHTLY IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE THAT
DESERVES. ON BEING ADDRESSED
THESE PROGRAMS FREQUENTLY
CASELOAD IS INCREASING DURING A
RECESSION WHICH IS ALSO WHEN
THEY FACE PROGRAM CUTS
SUMMER MY COMMENTS ON HOW THE
HEALTH CARE. WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT ANY ON GOING COSTS
THAT WE'VE CREATED IN THE BUDGET
ARE COVERED AND THIS IS A TOOL.
TO DO THAT.
SECONDLY ON EITHER CAO WORKS
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS
HERE ONE IS A GRANT INCREASE AND
THE OTHER IS A COLOSSAL START BY
DISCUSSING THE GRANT INCREASE.
AGAIN OUR ESTIMATES ARE SLIGHTLY
HIGHER THAN WHAT THE SENATE'S.
PROVIDED FOR THE GRANT INCREASE
THE ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATES
COST OF FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY
TWO MILLION IN EIGHTEEN NINETEEN
ONE BILLION IN NINETEEN TWENTY
AND ONE POINT FOUR BILLION IN
TWENTY TWENTY ONE. TOTALING ONE
POINT SIX AND TWENTY ONE TWENTY
TWO.
I'M ON THE COLE AS.
.
I MET A COOL AS LIMIT YOUR
FLEXIBILITY IN A BUDGET ITEM
WE'VE OFTEN TALKED ABOUT THAT
I'M AND WE WOULD NOTE AGAIN THAT
WE THINK THE COST ESTIMATES ARE
UNDERSTATED FOR THIS PORTION OF
THE PROPOSAL. THE ADMINISTRATION
ESTIMATES ESTIMATES A GENERAL
FUND BECAUSE OF FIFTY FIVE POINT
SEVEN MILLION IN EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY
MILLION IN NINETEEN TWENTY. TWO
HUNDRED AND FIVE TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY NINE POINT EIGHT MILLION
IN TWENTY TWENTY ONE AND THREE
HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE POINT
THREE MILLION IN TWENTY ONE
TWENTY TWO. AND OBVIOUSLY THE
GRANT AMOUNTS IN THE COLAS
INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER IF
THEY'RE BOTH ADOPTED WITH THAT
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
NICK QUESTIONS MISTER OBERNOLTE.
SO MY QUESTION FOR THE LA JOH.
ARE ABOUT THE SUB ACCOUNTS FOR
THE CAL WORKS AND MEDI CAL
RESERVE FUNDS.
SO I MEAN I I THINK WE'RE ALL
UNIFIED IN OUR DESIRE TO MAKE
SURE THAT RESERVE WORK WE HAVE
SOME HEALTHY RESERVES. AND.
A.
THAT WE HAVE VERY PROPOSALS IN
THE BUDGET TO DO THAT.
A I AM I CONFUSED ABOUT WHY WE
WOULD NEED TO HAVE SPECIFIC SOME
ACCOUNTS WITH RESERVES EARMARKED
FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS BECAUSE
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE
STATE WISHING ROBUST RESERVES AT
THE STATE LEVEL. TO MAKE SURE
THAT.
DOES THE STATE PROGRAMS ARE
CUSHION AND IT'S NOT JUST CAL
WORKS IN MEDI CAL ME WE CAN
IDENTIFY DOZENS AND DOZENS.
THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED IN THE EVENT OF
RECESSION SO THE QUESTIONS OF
WHY THESE. IT OFF WE GO DOWN
THIS PATH IT'S LIKE GOING DOWN
THE RABBIT HOLE WE CAN ESTABLISH
SOME ACCOUNTS WITH YOUR MARKS
FOR EVERY STATE PROGRAM BECAUSE
I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE WHOLE
POINT. OF DOING IT AT THE STATE
LEVEL.
I THINK IT'S ONLY MY MARK.
CANTONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE UNCERTAINLY
IT'S A POLICY DECISION WHETHER
TO EARMARK PARTICULAR FINDS IN A
RESERVE SUB ACCOUNT OR NOT TO DO
SO.
OBVIOUSLY RESERVES THAT ARE
HELD AT THE US IF YOU'RE THE BSA
WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY
PROGRAM WHERE. WHEREAS THIS IS
NAM ESSENTIALLY A SIGNALING
DEVICE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO
USE TO SAY THAT IT'S DESIGNATING.
SET OF PROGRAMS TO BE A HIGHER
PRIORITY FOR PRESERVATION AND
FUTURE RECESSION BUT AGAIN
THAT'S THAT'S A COMPLETE POLICY
CHOICE AND. UP THE LEGISLATURE'S
DISCUSSION.
OKAY I'M JUST.
BOB WELCOME THE VERY STRONG
PROPONENT OF HAVING ADEQUATE
RESERVES BUT I'M HESITATE TO
TAKE A STEP OF YOUR MARKING THEM
FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS JUST
BECAUSE. THERE'S NO DEFINITION
OF WHERE THAT STOPS BECAUSE NEXT
YEAR WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE
COUPLE MORE AND THEN BECOMES
VERY ON WITH.
THANK YOU.
CENTER SKINNER.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
JUST
COMMENT ON.
SO.
WE HOPEFULLY WILL NOT INTO EARTH
THE TYPE OF RECESSION WE IN TWO
WORDS AT THE POINT THAT I GOT
ELECTED TO THE ASSEMBLY IN TWO
THOUSAND AND EIGHT. IN YOU KNOW
WE WERE IN DEFICIT MODE THROUGH
TO. THINK TWELFTH MAY BE BEYOND
TWELVE.
BUT DEFINITELY TILL TWELVE. AND
WE HAD TO CUT.
OBVIOUSLY MULTIPLE AREAS THE
STATE BUDGET.
BUT AS.
WAS ARTICULATED IN THE
DESCRIPTION OF THIS SAFETY NET
RESERVE.
WE HAD TO CUT.
THIS PART OF THE STATE BUDGET
MEANING THE CAL WORKS AND THE
OTHER.
SAFETY NET PROGRAMS.
AT THE SAME TIME THE NEED WAS
GROWING SO WE IF IT'S THERE IT'S
A.
PERVERSE TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCE IN
THAT.
WE.
THIS IS THE ONE AREA WHERE WE
CAN GUARANTEED THE NEED BECOMES
GREATER.
WHEN WE FACE A DEFICIT.
OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE BUDGETS
NEED IS NOT NECESSARILY GREATER
DURING A DEFICIT.
COURSE NO CUT IS FUN BUT THERE
NEEDS ARE NOT NECESSARILY
GREATER.
WHERE IS THE CASELOAD FOR THIS
TYPE OF PROGRAM GOES UP WHEN
THERE IS A RECESSION BECAUSE
USUALLY WE UNEMPLOYMENT GOES UP
AND?
SO I. I THINK.
I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF IT
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS THE ONE
AREA THE BUDGET THAT WE CAN
PRETTY MUCH.
GUARANTEE
WILL HAVE A GREATER NEED IN THAT
TIME.
THEN OTHER BUDGETARY.
THAN OTHER STATE.
.
DEPARTMENTS.
AND.
TO.
TO BE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE
WE HAD NOTHING TO TURN TO TO
DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT OUR
CASELOAD WAS INCREASING DURING
THAT RECESSIONARY TIMES.
WAS REALLY A VERY HORRIBLE
EXPERIENCE FOR MANY OF US.
AND WE KNEW THAT WE HAD. A
GROWING NUMBER OF CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS
WHO NEEDED SAFETY NET AND WE
WERE NOT IN THE POSITION TO
ASSIST THEM WHATSOEVER. AND SO I
THINK THAT THE THE BENEFIT IF WE
STRUCTURE SOMETHING LIKE HIS
SAFETY NEVER SERVICE THAT
GUARANTEES THAT WE WILL NOT BE.
WELL IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT
WE BE ABLE TO SATISFY A FULL
CASELOAD INCREASE BECAUSE WE
CANNOT EVERY DETERMINE WHAT THE
MAGNITUDE. OF THE FUTURE
DOWNTURN MIGHT BE IT CERTAINLY
WOULD GIVE US BETTER ABILITY TO
RESPOND THAT WE HAD IN OUR LAST
CIRCUMSTANCE.
THANK YOU SIR GENERAL.
THANK YOU MISTER I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW I MEAN I.
GUESS THIS IS A COMMENT WE HAVE
THE RAINY DAY FUND BUT THERE'S
CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON.
THE DIP THE WAY WE DEPOSIT MONEY
THE AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT SO WE
CAN ACCUMULATE IN THERE AND THEN
THERE CERTAINLY RESTRICTIONS ON
HOW WE WITHDRAW THAT MONEY GIVEN
WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE
NUMBER ONE NUMBER TWO. WITH
RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL FUND FOR
ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY MY
UNDERSTANDING.
TO BE CORRECTED.
IS THAT THEY'RE ALSO
RESTRICTIONS ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF DEPOSITS THAT WE CAN. PLACE
IN THE IN THE SPECIAL FUND FOR
ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY. WITHOUT
CONSEQUENCES AND TRIGGERS THAN
BEING.
APPLICABLE.
SO.
CORRECT ME IF I IF I AM WRONG N
A SECOND IF THOSE TWO STATEMENTS
ARE CORRECT THEN. THIS
ADDITIONAL RESERVE FUND GIVES US
SUBMITTED FLEXIBILITY. IF
NOTHING ELSE TO DEPOSIT MORE
MONEY INTO A RESERVE.
THAN WE MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE.
NOW YOU CAN CORRECT.
NO CORRECTION.
THAT'S ALL I CARED SO JUST MAY
BE A SLIGHT ADDITION OF CONTEXT
IS THAT THE BUDGET STABILIZATION
ACCOUNT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RAINY
DAY FUND DOES HAVE A WOMEN
ACCOUNT. OF TEN PERCENT OF
GENERAL FUND REVENUES WERE AS
THE AS A FEW OTHERS CAUTIONARY
RESERVE DOES NOT HAVE A LIMIT.
BUT IT DOES HAVE SOME PROVISIONS
THAT WOULD TRIGGER REDUCTIONS IN
THE SALES TAX RATE IF IT'S
BALLOTS REACHES A CERTAIN
THRESHOLD.
SO IN OTHER WORDS AT SOME POINT
THE TRIGGERS HIT
SALES TAX RATES REDUCED AND
CONSEQUENCES HAPPEN AS A RESULT
SPECIFICALLY OUT SALES TAX GOES
DOWN BUT THEN RESERVES WOULD
ALSO GO DOWN AS A RESULT RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
FAMOUS TEACHER.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE.
OKAY SEEING NONE WE WILL MOVE.
TO THE NEXT SECTION WHICH IS
RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION.
WE WILL START WITH ISSUE ONE.
AND SUSTAINABLE FUNDING FOR FISH
AND WILDLIFE THAT I GUESS BEFORE
WE GET THERE.
WE WILL HAVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF
RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION.
AND THAT WE ALL FEEL FREE TO
BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
GOOD AFTERNOON BRIAN BROWN OF
THE ANALYST'S OFFICE WELL.
EIGHT.
DO A VERY QUICK OVERVIEW OF TO
TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF
CONTEXT ON. THE SAID IN THE
ASSEMBLY IS A RESOURCE AND
TRANSPORTATION BUDGET HOW
COMPARES TO THE ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSAL THROUGH MAY REVISION.
IT'S ON PAGE FIVE OF YOUR
AGENDA AYE I THINK THE BIG
PICTURE HERE IS THAT BOTH THE
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY. ADOPTED NOT
ONLY MOST OF THE
ADMINISTRATION'S OF PROPOSALS
AND RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION
BUT MOST OF THE BIG PROPOSALS
AND SO THOSE ARE SUMMARIZED. ON
PAGES FIVE AND SIX.
DIG RUNNING THREE REALLY QUICKLY
BUT THAT INCLUDES OVER A BILLION
DOLLARS IN PROPOSITION SIXTY A.
RESOURCE THE BOND FUNDING THAT'S
THE THE MEASURE THIS ON THE
BALLOT TOMORROW.
CLOSE TO A BILLION DOLLARS IN
HIGHWAY REHABILITATION AND
MAINTENANCE I MEAN THOSE
REVENUES PROVIDED BY SB ONE LAST
YEAR. I THINK CLUES OF FUNDING
FOR TO JUST A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT
IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AS WELL
AS TO AUGMENT TO INCREASE
SERVICE LEVELS AT STATE PARKS.
AS WELL AS.
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS FROM
THE GENERAL FUND FOR TOTAL TWO
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS
POTENTIALLY FOR THE CREATION OF
THE CALIFORNIA INDIAN HERITAGE
CENTER.
CLOSE TO TWO HUNDRED MILLION
DOLLARS FOR FLOOD PROTECTION
FUNDING INCLUDING SOME ONGOING
GENERAL FUND RESOURCES.
AND ALSO IN LIGHT OF THE SEVERE
FIRES THIS LAST YEAR THERE'S
FUNDING IN THE BUDGET APPROVED
BY BOTH HOUSES FOR FIRE
PROTECTION. AS WELL AS FORESTRY
AND OTHER.
FORCE HEALTH RELATED ACTIVITIES.
ON ONE PAGE SEVEN IN ANY JUST
TO HIGHLIGHT THEN REALLY YOUR
DEEDS AND THE ISSUE THAT YOU
HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY THAT
YOU'RE GONNA HERE ARE REALLY THE.
HANDFUL OF KEY ISSUES WHERE
THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN%
THE HOUSES AS WELL AS BETWEEN
THE HOUSES IN THE ADMINISTRATION
AND A COUPLE OF THOSE WE
CHARACTERIZE IT WILL BE IN ONES
THAT ARE REALLY FINE
FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT. DIFFERENT
FUNDING PRIORITIES SO THE CAP
AND TRADE EXPENDITURE PLAN IS
ONE WHERE ALTHOUGH THERE ARE
SOME.
CLOSE SIMILARITY TO WHAT WAS
PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION
EACH HOUSE HAD A DIFFERENT SET
OF PROGRAMS THAT YOU PRIORITIZE.
WITH CAP AND TRADE REVENUES ALSO
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE THEIR HISTORICAL
FUNDING. DEFICIT THERE OF EACH
HOUSE ADDRESS IN SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT WAYS.
AND LASTLY ON PAGE EIGHT THERE A
COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT YOU'RE
GONNA HEAR TODAY THAT WHILE
THERE ARE.
FUNDING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
HOUSE IS REALLY IN SOME WAYS
FUNDAMENTALLY THERE ABOUT POLICY
QUESTIONS THAT'S TO YOUR MISSION
VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN.
WHERE?
IN IN PART ONE OF THE ISSUES
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED ADDITIONAL
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE THAT YOU
HEAR ABOUT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTION. TO THE ADMINISTRATION
ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT.
AND MEETS A DIFFERENT GOAL TO
BE ESTABLISHED. AND IN ACCORD
WITH THE SAFE AND AFFORDABLE
DRINKING WATER FIND.
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER AND AT
WHAT LEVEL TO ESTABLISH NEW
CHARGES ON DRINKING WATER
CONSUMERS AND AGRICULTURAL
ENTITIES TO FIND.
THE PROVISION OF SAFE DRINKING
WATER AND UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES.
WITHOUT HAVING TAKE QUESTIONS
THAT OTHERWISE CAN JUMP ON IN
THE FIRST ISSUE.
THANK YOU MS COSTA.
ALL THE FOR MY COMMENTS TO THE
FIRST ISSUE THINKING.
THANK YOU WHEN WE COMMENCE WITH
ISSUE ONE.
THANK YOU GOOD AFTERNOON RATE
SAILORS WITH ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
IS HOW MUCH MONEY TO PROVIDE FOR
ONGOING ACTIVITIES AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED AN ONGOING
AUGMENTATION OF FIFTY POINT SIX
MILLION OF THIS ABOUT TWENTY
MILLION WAS TO ADDRESS AN
ONGOING STRUCTURAL DEFICIT AT
THE DEPARTMENT AND THE. OTHER
THIRTY MILLION WAS FOR AN
EXPANSION OF ONGOING ACTIVITIES
AT THE DEPARTMENT. GOVERNOR
MIGHT HAVE RELIED PRIMARILY ON
TRANSPORTATION RELATED FUNDING
FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE COUNT
ENTIRE RECYCLING FUND FOR THOSE
AUGMENTATIONS WITH THE RATIONALE
THAT VEHICLES AND ROADS HAVE
IMPACTS ON FISH AND WILDLIFE.
BOTH HOUSES REJECTED THE USE OF
THOSE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS BOTH
HOUSES PROVIDED LOWER AMOUNTS OF
MONEY BOTH HOUSES REPEAT BAD
RELIED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE
GENERAL FUND.
AND BOTH HOUSES PROVIDED LIMITED
TERM FUNDING FOR THE DEPARTMENT
SO SHOWN IN YOUR AGENDA THE
ASSEMBLY PROVIDED THIRTY SIX
POINT SIX MILLION FOR TWO YEARS.
AND THE SENATE PROVIDED TWENTY
THREE POINT FOUR MILLION FOR ONE
YEAR BOTH HOUSES ALSO ADOPTED
LANGUAGE REQUIRING THAT THE
DEPARTMENT CONTRACT OUT FOR A
BUDGET AUDIT. BY THE SENATE
SPECIFICALLY SET ASIDE FOR
MILLION FROM THE AMOUNT THEY
PROVIDED FOR THAT AUDIT.
SO WE DO HAVE A COMPROMISE TO
RECOMMEND HERE FOR THIS ITEM AND
THAT IS TO PROVIDE NINETEEN
POINT SIX MILLION GENERAL FUND.
BUT DIVIDE PROVIDED ON AN
ONGOING BASIS TO ADDRESS THAT
OPERATING SHORTFALL AT THE
DEPARTMENT THIS WOULD ALLOW THE
DEPARTMENT TO CONTINUE THEIR
EXISTING ACTIVITIES PROVIDE
CERTAINTY FOR THEM AND AVOID
HAVING THE LEGISLATURE HAVING TO
REVISIT THIS ISSUE AGAIN. IN THE
COMING YEARS.
WE DO ALSO RECOMMEND PROVIDING
FUNDING FOR THIS BUDGETARY AUDIT
THE BOTH HOUSES ADOPTED WEAVING
THAT WOULD ANSWER SOME KEY
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE. BEEN
RECURRING ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT'S
BUDGET AND.
WHAT REVENUES SUPPORT WHICH
ACTIVITIES AND WHAT TYPES OF
ONGOING ACTIVITIES AND STATUTORY
RESPONSIBILITIES THEY'RE NOT
MEETING AT THIS TIME MEANS
SENATE STAFFER CURRENTLY IN THE
PROCESS OF WORKING ON AN
ESTIMATE FOR HOW MUCH THAT TYPE
OF AUDIT AND POTENTIALLY?
NAM IT SYSTEM TO TRACK THE
BUDGET WOULD COST.
IF YOU.
THIS COST.
IF YOU MISTER CHAIRED THIS IS
NOT A NEW ISSUE I WOULD COME TO
YOU IN THE PAST WITH OTHER
PROPOSALS TO DEAL WITH THAT HAD
STRUCTURAL BUDGETARY ISSUES THAT
THE DEPARTMENT IS FACING. A IN
THE CONTEXT OF OUR OVERALL
BUDGET FRAMEWORK WE DID NOT
INCREASE GENERAL FUND SPENDING
ON AN ONGOING BASIS AND AS SUCH
ARE PROPOSAL LIMITED THE GENERAL
FUND INCLUSION TO SIX POINT SIX
AND UTILIZE THE MOTOR VEHICLE
COUNTY THE TIRE MANAGEMENT
RECYCLING FUND. TO BRING.
THEIR BUDGET.
IN LINE AND MAKE IT
STRUCTURALLY SOUND WE WOULD NOTE
THAT THE ALLEY AS COMPROMISE OF
UTILIZING CAPTURE GENERAL FUND.
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ENTIRE
FISCAL PLAN OF THE BUDGET
BECAUSE CLEARLY WE DIDN'T
INCLUDE GENERAL FUND IN OUR
PROPOSAL. ON AND LASTLY AS NOTED
AND BOTH HOUSES HAVE REQUESTED
AN INDEPENDENT SERVICE BATES
BUDGET REVIEW AND THE
ADMINISTRATION IS TO OPEN TO
THOSE FURTHERING CONVERSATIONS
AND DISCUSSIONS. WITH THAT HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
MR DOT.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
.
THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE IS FOR
THEM ALEJO I. DON'T UNDERSTAND
THE.
DELTA BETWEEN YOUR COMPROMISE
PROPOSAL AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS
PROPOSING WHICH BY.
ALL ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH ON THE
SENATE AT LEAST I THINK ON THE
SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY SIDE
THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT
ABOUT. THE EVENTUAL. NEED FOR A
FIFTY MILLION DOLLAR ONGOING
AMOUNT IN ORDER FOR THE
DEPARTMENT TO ACHIEVE ITS ITS
GOALS HOWEVER WE HELD BACK ON
THAT SUBJECT TO. A.
AT AND AND AUDIT LIKE STATE
PARKS HAD.
UP A FEW YEARS AGO AND AND TO.
HAD VERY SUCCESSFUL RESULTS FROM
SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT THIRTY
MILLION DOLLAR GAP SURE. AND I
THINK OUR INTENTION WAS TO TRY
AND AND START WITH WHAT EACH
HOUSE DIDN'T AND WORK TOGETHER
BETWEEN THOSE RATHER THAN
STARTING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
GIVEN WHAT BOTH HOUSES.
HAD ADOPTED WE THOUGHT IT WAS
REALLY IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE SOME
ONGOING SUPPORT FOR THE EXISTING
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT
COULD RELY ON BEING ABLE TO
CONTINUE THOSE. AND THEN AS YOU
SAY CONDITIONS THE ADOPTION OF
ADDITIONAL REVENUES IN THE
FUTURE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
THAT AUDIT.
SO MMHM ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO
CONTINUE. WITH CERTAINTY THEIR
CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND THEN FIND
OUT THROUGH THIS AUDIT WHAT
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ARE
NECESSARY TO MEET THEIR
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.
THANK YOU UP AND FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION THERE'S BEEN A A.
GOOD DEAL OF CONTROVERSY AROUND.
OF THE.
MOTOR VEHICLE COUNTERTERRORIST
CYCLING FUN HAVING BEEN.
IDENTIFIED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION AS FUNDING SOURCE
I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD
PROVIDE US WITH SOME INSIGHT AS
TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S THINKING
ON WHAT THOSE ARE. APPROPRIATE
TO. PLACES TO GO.
AND THEN.
WHY NOT GENERAL FUND WOULD BE MY
FOLLOW UP QUESTION?
THOSE ARE DRAGGED OVER THE PART
OF FINANCE SO THERE WAS.
REPORTING TWENTY SIXTEEN BY UC
DAVIS WHICH DID ESTIMATE THE
COST OF WILDLIFE VEHICLE
CONFLICT. AT ABOUT TWO HUNDRED
TWENTY FIVE MILLION ANNUALLY
THIRTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE
THERE IS AN IMPACT TO WILDLIFE
WITH VEHICLES WHICH IS THE NEXT
IF. THE DEPARTMENT I HAVE TO AND
YOU RESPOND TO TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
INVOLVING WOUNDED WILDLIFE. THEY
RESPOND TO TH BILLS CAUSED BY
VEHICLES ON ROADWAYS.
THEY ALSO DO HAVE TO.
RESPOND TO MOTOR VEHICLE
COLLISIONS AND ENGAGE IN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE MORE COULD BE
ABLE CODE AS WE DO BELIEVE THERE
IS A CLEAR NEXUS. BETWEEN OUR
VEHICLE AND WHILE A CONFLICT.
AND THE TIRE RECYCLING FUN.
SO THE TIRE IS WHAT WE CONSIDER
A PROXY TO THE VEHICLE.
A CONFLICT AND A VEHICLE IMPACT
AS WE SEE THE MOTOR VEHICLE CAO
AND THEIR TIRES LIKELY FIND BOWS
AS THE.
A NEXUS TO VEHICLES.
AND IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S
POSITION THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH
FUNDS.
TO BOTH ACHIEVE. THE GOALS.
DATA UP FISH AND WILDLIFE NADER
AT LEAST YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS
PROPOSING. AND THE ONGOING AND
FUTURE NEEDS OF FOUR. OF THOSE
AGENCIES THAT ALSO ARE RELYING
ON THE SPOT.
MAN ARMY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
SO WHAT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED
HERE ISN'T PERSPECTIVE FOR THE
TIRE RECYCLING FUND FOR EXAMPLE
IS TRUE THAT THOSE EXISTING.
FUNDS ARE.
SUPPORT THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM
BUT PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL IS TO FULLY FUNDED
FULLY BACK FILL THE CARL MOYER
PROGRAM WITH CAP AND TRADE FUNDS.
SO AS PART OF THIS PROPOSAL
THERE ARE NO PROGRAM REDUCTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH FEES THERE'S A
CLEAR PROGRAMMATIC NEXUS AND IT
NOT ONLY ADDRESSES THE
STRUCTURAL DEFICIT.
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT BUT IT
ALSO ADDRESSES WHAT WE WOULD
CALL NO REGRETS PROGRAM
ENHANCEMENTS THAT.
THROUGH LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION
WHICH ASKED THE DEPARTMENT TO
CONVENE THAT STAKEHOLDERS
IDENTIFIED THESE.
KINDA CORE MISSION
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIRTY
MILLION DOLLARS.
DE AND YEAH AND.
AS MISTER AGUILAR SAID.
DOES RELATE TO TRANSPORTATION.
IS IT ENVISIONED UP CAP AND
TRADE
BACK FILL WOULD BE ONGOING.
THAT IS CORRECT IT WOULD BE
BUILT INTO THE.
BASELINE.
I WANT TO.
HAPPENS
BUT.
CAP AND TRADE DOESN'T.
KEEP UP CURRENT RIGHT.
SO BECAUSE IT WOULD BE PART OF
THE BASELINE WHICH WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROGRAMS
THAT ARE FUNDED IN THE BASELINE
OF FOR EXAMPLE. LAST YEAR.
BASED ON THE LEGISLATIVE
REAUTHORIZATION A CAP AND TRADE
PROVIDED ON GOING.
GRF FUNDS TO BACK FILL CAL
FIRES ES ARRAY FUND.
THAT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY FUNDS
THAT ARE CONTINUING IN THE BASE
AND ENOUGH.
CAPITA TRADE OPTIONS ARE LESS
THEN.
THAT WOULD AFFECT
THE SO CALLED DISCRETIONARY
FORTY PERCENT THAT THE
LEGISLATURE CONSIDERS.
EACH YEAR.
THANK YOU AND. I HAVE ONE OTHER
QUESTION.
THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY.
WHY NOT GENERAL FUND?
THEY CAN GO.
I'M AS I SAID I THINK WE BUILD
OUR BUDGET AND IN JANUARY AND IN
THE MAY REVISE AND REALLY
LIMITED ON GOING GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES THAT THROUGHOUT ALL
PROGRAMS AND YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY
I OFTEN WE THINK THE RISKS ARE
GREATER. ON AND MADE AND THEY
WERE IN JANUARY SPECIFICALLY
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S.
AND SO ONE OF THE VERY FIRST
THINGS WE DO FOR ANY PROPOSAL IS
SEE IF THERE ARE APPROPRIATE
SPECIAL FUNDS.
A AND IN THIS CASE WE FELT THERE
WAS A STRONG NEXUS THAT WOULD.
HUB PROVIDE SUSTAIN FUNDING FOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE AS WELL AS
EXPANDS.
THEIR MISSION WHICH OVER THE
YEARS HAS GREATLY EXPANDED ON TO
PUT THEM ON A SUSTAINABLE
FINANCIAL AYE PATH FORWARD.
THANK YOU AND I DO I DO
APPRECIATE THE.
.
OPENNESS TO.
CONDUCTING AN AUDIT TO THE FOOT
OF.
OFFICIAL WILDLIFE IT THINK IT'LL
BE HELPFUL.
THANK YOU ETCETERA.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR YOU KNOW.
.
DOWN WHERE I COME FROM PEOPLE
ARE SORT OF INTERESTED IN HAVING.
TRANSPORTATION AND
TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEES.
USED FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES
ONLY BEEN HEARING A LOT ABOUT
THAT AND I'M SURE WE'LL BE
WATCHING A LOT ABOUT THAT
TOMORROW.
I'M I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW MUCH
DOES THE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY
SPEND.- A YEAR IN RESPONDING TO
ACCIDENTS ON OUR HIGHWAYS
INVOLVING WILDLIFE.
I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN
ISSUES A CHIU.
USED TO CONNECT THE.
DIEM VIENEN.
TIRE FEET TO THE FUNDING FOR THE
DEPARTMENT.
YEAH SO FOR THE CURRENT.
ONGOING PROGRAM VENTURES ABOUT
FORTY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS
ANNUALLY THAT THE CARS SPEND ON
VEHICLE WILDLIFE CONFLICT.
YOU SAID THE DEPARTMENT SPENDS
FORTY MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR ON.
TRUCK TRAFFIC RELATED ISSUES.
I I THINK TO A.
JUST TO CLARIFY WE PROVIDED
THIS INFORMATION TO BOTH THE LA
OWINGS WELL AS TO LIKE STAFF
WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE IT
AGAIN.
THE DEPARTMENT WENT THROUGH
KIND OF AN ITEMIZED LINE BY LINE.
LIST OF.
ACTIVITIES.
RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION AND
IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THEIR
BASELINE EXPENDITURES.
THEY SPEND ABOUT FORTY FOUR
MILLION DOLLARS OF FOR
TRANSPORTATION RELATED
ACTIVITIES.
AND THAT'S THE BASIS OF OUR.
OF OUR PROPOSAL WHERE
ESSENTIALLY ASKING FOR A TOTAL
OF. ABOUT THIRTY SIX MILLION.
.
FOR THAT PURPOSE I DON'T HAVE IT
HERE IN FRONT OF ME WHAT'S THE
DEPARTMENTS THE DEPARTMENT'S
ANNUAL BUDGET.
AROUND SIX HUNDRED MILLION
DOLLARS HERE.
OKAY SO.
LESS THAN TEN PERCENT. THEY
SPEND ON A TRAFFIC RELATED.
IF.
AND SENATOR JUST TO CLARIFY THE
INFORMATION THE DEPARTMENT
PROVIDED IT'S NOT JUST VEHICLES
HITTING WILDLIFE AND NEEDING TO
DEAL WITH THAT THEY WENT THROUGH
A PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE IT'S ALSO
TIME THEIR WARDENS WHO WHO SERVE
AS SOME KIND OF.
CLUB CHP TYPE ROLE IN CERTAIN
AREAS THEIR SWORN PEACE OFFICERS
IT'S ALSO PLANNING FOR WHERE
ROADS ARE GONNA GO.
SO THERE WERE VARIETY OF IMPACTS
THAT THEY WENT THROUGH AND
ANALYZE THAT THEY BELIEVED WERE.
HAD A NEXUS WITH TRANSPORTATION
NOT JUST THE WILDLIFE AND CAR
INCIDENTS.
WELL THIS IS CLEARLY A POLICY
ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO. REQUIRE A
MUCH MORE EXTENDED DEBATE THEN
WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IN
HERE I THINK PROBABLY IT IS A
GOOD IDEA TO HAVE AN ALL.
HAVE SOME POLICY DISCUSSION ON
HOW WE USED THESE.
TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEES AND
FRANKLY MAKE SURE THAT THE
PUBLIC KNOWS.
OF THAT THESE FEES ARE BEING
USED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND HAVE
SOME FEEDBACK AS TO WHETHER
THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT.
THEIR FEES TO GO SO I DO I DO.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE
DEPARTMENT IS NOT ABLE TO.
.
SORT OF RESTRUCTURING ITSELF TO
PROVIDE SOME DEGREE OF SOLVENCY
SO.
I'LL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
RESULTS OF THE AUDIT.
WHEN WE GET IT.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU SIR NIELSEN.
MISTER CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS AND.
FOLKS OUT THERE.
THEN I'M TALKING TO.
THE PUBLIC.
THIS IS AN ISSUE OF TRUST AND WE
GET BACK TO IT AGAIN.
TAKING MONEY THAT THE PUBLIC IS
BEEN PROMISED WE'RE GONNA GO TO
SAY STREETS ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
AND USING IT FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
OR THE TIRE
FREE.
SUPPOSED TO BE A RECYCLING.
FUND.
AND IN VETTING CREATIVE WAYS TO
DIRECT THE MONEY IN OTHER
DIRECTIONS.
I SUBMIT THE PUBLIC GET PRETTY
MAD ABOUT THIS.
WE JUST LEARNED EARLIER IN THE
SUBCOMMITTEE UP A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF MONEY.
GOING INTO PARKS.
OUT OF SB ONE.
NO WE ALREADY KNEW THERE WERE
SOME.
BUT HERE IS A SIGNIFICANT
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.
AND I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON
THE LEGISLATURE.
TO SHINE THE SPOTLIGHT.
UNDIES MISDIRECTED FUNDS.
WHERE THE TRUSTED THE PUBLIC HAS
BEEN VIOLATED?
THEY HAVE A THOUGHT FOR EXAMPLE
THAT.
ONE MONEY.
S. B. ONE MONEY WAS GOING TO GO
ALL INDUSTRIES ROADS AND
HIGHWAYS.
THAT CLEARLY IS NOT THE CASE.
GOING BACK EVEN FURTHER THE FIRE
TAX.
THAT WAS TO GOING TO PREVENTION.
AN EX EXCESSIVE YEARS AND
INQUIRIES AND COMMITTEE TO OF
CAL FIRE.
WAS VERY EVIDENT.
LITTLE OF THAT MONEY OF MOST OF
IT WAS NOT GOING INTO CANNOT BE TOLERATED.
AND MAYBE HE IN THIS COMMITTEE
HERE THIS YEAR.
IT'S TIME TO TAKE A STAND.
AND KEEP FAITH WITH VOTERS AND
QUIT PLAYING GAMES
WITH THEIR MONEY.
THANK YOU SEVERAL.
YOU MISTER CHAIR WHAT ARE ON
PAGE THREE WE HAVE A DISCUSSION
OF PROP SIXTY EIGHT.
AND WE ALSO HAVE PARKS FUNDING
IN THEIR SORT OF RELATED. AND SO.
I KNOW OF I MIGHT BE GETTING
INTO THE WEEDS OUT RELYING YOU
TO DIRECT TRAFFIC MAYBE I'M
BRINGING THIS UP AT THE WRONG
TIME.
BUT.
THERE IS SUPPOSE TO BE SOME
FUNDING FOR CAL EXPO. OUT OF
PROP SIXTY EIGHT. THERE'S ALSO
BEEN.
A PROPOSAL OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY
FOR SOME FUNDING TO DO AN
ASSESSMENT OF THEIR.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND I'M
WONDERING IF IT'S JUST THE RIGHT
PLACE TO BRING OUT AND WE WILL
BE BRINGING UP THOSE ITEMS.
AT A LATER DATE.
YEAH I YOU COULD FEEL FREE TO
ADDRESS MR PART OF LARGER
CONTEXT BUT WE WE WILL BE
TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT DOES YOUR
HELP ME I'M JUST I JUST WANT TO
LIKE LEVEL BY SO I APOLOGIZE.
BUT THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
CHRISTIAN SAYING WEDNESDAY.
WEDNESDAY.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
OKAY WERE NOT DRESSING ANYTHING
ELSE RELATED ISSUE TO.
SAFE AND AFFORDABLE DRINKING
WATER.
I. FEEL FREE TO BEGIN WITH A. L.
L. WHEN YOU'RE READY.
OR.
CHAU MY WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE
BUT THE GOVERNOR PROPOSES A
TOTAL OF FOUR POINT SEVEN
MILLION DOLLARS AND THIRTY
POSITIONS.
TO BE FUNDED FROM A LINE FROM
THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
CLEANUP FUND IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH THE SAFE AND
AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER FIND.
BY THE GOVERNOR ALSO PROPOSES
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
TO CREATE THE PROGRAM THAT WOULD
PRIMARILY ASSIST SMALL
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. I'D
TO PAY FOR ONGOING OPERATIONS
AND MAINTENANCE
OTHER THAT WATER SYSTEMS.
THE MONEY'S COMING INTO THE
FINAL A COME MAINLY FROM CHARGES
ON WATER SYSTEM CUSTOMER SUCH AS
HOMEOWNERS. WHO EXAMPLE THEY PAY
NINETY FIVE CENTS A MONTH
AND THAT IS DISSIPATED TO RAISE
APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED AND
THIRTY TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY
MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR WHEN
FULLY IMPLEMENTED?
OTHER FUNDS WE COME FROM
CHARGES ON AGRICULTURAL ENTITIES
FOR EXAMPLE THE.
FERTILIZER MILL FEE WOULD BE
INCREASED THAT WOULD GENERATE
ABOUT FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS
PER YEAR WHEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED.
AND ALSO NOT PRODUCERS WOULD PAY
AT A CHARGE THAT WOULD GENERATE
DECIMATED TO GENERATE ABOUT FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
.
THAT I ASSEMBLY REJECTED THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL AND
ADOPTED PLACEHOLDER TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE RELATED TO DRESSING
WATER POLLUTION CLEANUP EFFORTS.%
THAT ALSO APPROVED A ONE TIME
LINE OF FOUR POINT SEVEN MILLION
FROM THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANK CLEAN UP FRONT TO BEGIN
IMPLEMENTATION SAFE AND
AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER FUND.
THE SENATE APPROVED ONE POINT
SIX MILLION GENERAL FUND IN NINE
POSITIONS FOR TWO YEARS FOR TWO
PURPOSES. ONE IS TO DEVELOP A
MAP OF AQUIFER'S THEY'RE AT HIGH
RISK OF CONTAINING CONTAMINANTS.
AND THAT ARE LIKELY TO BE USED
AS A SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER.
AND TO PREPARE AND ASSESSMENT OF
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ANNUAL
FUNDING NEEDED.
TO ASSIST WATER SYSTEMS TO
DELIVER SAFE DRINKING WATER SO
THE SENATE'S APPROACH IS MORE
ALONG THE LINES OF DOING A STUDY.
TO GET A BETTER ESTIMATES OF THE
SCOPE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM IT
WHAT IT WOULD COST TO ADDRESS IT.
THE SENATE ALSO APPROVED FORTY
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS GENERAL
FUND WHEN TIME FOR WATER
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. HAD
APPROVED FORTY FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS PROPOSITION TWO
BEGINNING IN TWO THOUSAND
NINETEEN TWENTY AND ONGOING FOR
DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS.
WE KNOW THAT THERE IS A BILL
SENATE BILL SIX TWENTY THREE BY
SENATOR MINING THAT IS CURRENTLY
IN THE ASSEMBLY AND IT'S THE
BASIS FOR THE TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED BY
THE ADMINISTRATION.
A SO WHEN APPROACH THE ACT THE
COMMITTEE COULD TAKE WOULD BE TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE THROUGH THE
POLICY COMMITTEE PROCESS HAPPY
TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU MISS COST.
ALTHOUGH NEITHER HOUSE APPROVED
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL WE
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE SIGNIFICANT
INTEREST IN CONTINUING NEEDS
DISCUSSIONS AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO THAT.
THANK YOU CENTER NIELSEN.
MISTER CHAIRMAN I LOOK FORWARD
TO THAT TO.
THE.
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL WAS
REJECTED FOR GOOD CAUSE.
AT I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THAT
BE REVISITED.
I THINK THAT THAT IS THE
IMPOSITION OF ATTACKS THAT TO.
THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE.
AND.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN
ADDRESS AND THAT HAS BEEN OUR
POSITION IN THE SENATE.
SOME OF THE PROBLEMS IS THIS WAS
THIS IDEA.
WAS TO CORRECT.
AND GENERAL FUND IS ONE SOURCE.
AN OVERFLOW AND PROP TWO IS
ANOTHER.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WE BETTER RELY ON.
AND.
DOING SUCH THINGS IS S. THAT
MAJOR POLICY AGAIN.
MUST.
POINT OUT MAJOR POLICY.
AND TRAILER BILLS.
THIS WOULD REQUIRE EXTENSIVE.
POLICY COMMITTEE HEARINGS IN
BOTH HOUSES.
THAT GETS THE SHORT SHRIFT.
LET'S LEAVE THIS ONE BE YES WE
WILL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSIONS.
BUT TO THE DEGREE THAT I'M PRIVY
AND APPOINT PART OF ANY
DISCUSSIONS.
REVISITING THE ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE WHERE I'D
LIKE TO SEE US GO.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BLOOM.
SO THIS IS A.
OFF THE AT THE THE WATER ISSUE
IS A. EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUE
AND IT'S ONE THAT'S BEEN.
HAUNTING US REALLY I THINK FOR A
FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW.
AND THE BONDING BILL HAS BEEN
AROUND FOR A COUPLE YEARS.
AT SOMETHING THAT I SUPPORT. A
AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SO OF
SUGGESTING WILL BE SOME
CONVERSATIONS AND. THERE ARE
SOME TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE TO
HELP SUPPORT A SOLUTION.
BUT IS THAT THE ONLY OPTION
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS
CONSIDERING UNDERSTANDING THAT
THIS IS A. PRIORITY I THINK CA
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION THE
SENATE AND. OF THE ASSEMBLY.
SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS.
ASMUS COSTA NOTED ABOUT THE
BASIC BUDGET ARCHITECTURE IS IS
THAT.
WERE.
LIMITING.
ONGOING GENERAL FUND
COMMITMENTS AND THE.
MISSING LINK RIGHT NOW WITH US
IN TERMS OF SAFE DRINKING WATER
IS THE ONGOING OPERATION
MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR THESE.
SMALL DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
THAT DON'T HAVE A LARGE ENOUGH
RATE BASE
TO SUPPORT THE.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
THESE DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT
FUNDING PROVIDED OFFER
INFRASTRUCTURE. UP CAPITAL COSTS
OFFERED DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
ARE IN VARIOUS RESOURCES BONDS
BUT REALLY THAT KIND OF THE THE
KEY ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS THE ON
GOING ON AND THAT'S ONGOING. IN
SO WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS
PROPOSING. A ONGOING FUNDING
SOURCE.
FROM.
A.
CERTAIN.
PORTFOLIO OF FEES TO SUPPORT
THIS OF THIS CRITICAL ISSUE.
THANK YOU.
SO IN THE ARAB WORLD.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR OF THAT
ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE
AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER
PROPOSAL AND I WANT TO. BE VERY
CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE ALL AGREE ON
BECAUSE I KNOW THE SENATE IN THE
ASSEMBLY REJECTED THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL BUT I
THINK WE ALL ARE UNANIMOUS IN
OUR OPINION. THAT ACCESS TO
CLEAN AND SAFE DRINKING WATER
SOMETHING THAT WE WANT ALL
CALIFORNIANS TO HAVE.
BUT IT'S JUST HOW WE GET THERE
THAT WE ARE DISAGREEING ON HOW
DO WE PAY FOR IT AND. I THINK
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IN AN ERA
WHEN. WE HAVE A ABOUT A NINE
BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET SURPLUS TO
BE TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL
TAXES THAT ARE ACROSS WORKING
FAMILIES MONEY.
I AM IN PARTICULAR. THE TAXES
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
PROPOSED ARE.
ONEROUS AND REGRESSIVE BECAUSE
THEY DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT
THE SEGMENT OF OUR POPULATION
THAT CAN LEAST AFFORD IT.
ARE AMONGST THE.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSALS
IS A WATER CONNECTION TAX WOULD
OUT ABOUT A DOLLAR. PER WATER
CONNECTION TO EVERYONE A BILL IN
MONTHLY IN CALIFORNIA.
AND OF THAT. IS IS SOMETHING
THAT MY CONSTITUENTS ARE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN THEY ARE
ALREADY STRUGGLING TO PAY THEIR
BILLS.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT YOU KNOW WHAT
WE HAVE DONE IN CALIFORNIA QUITE
OFTEN THIS IS OUR SOLUTION.
TO SOLVING PROBLEMS WE SEGMENT
OUT THE PROBLEM WE TRY AND.
WORK ORCHESTRATE ATTACKS THAT
SOLVES THAT PROBLEM BUT
INADVERTENTLY WHAT WE DO IS WE
CONTRIBUTE TO THE RISE OF THE
COST OF LIVING IN CALIFORNIA.
AND WE INCREASE THE DISPARITY
BETWEEN. WHAT ACOSTA LIVING
CALIFORNIA WHAT ACOSTA LIVE IN
OTHER STATES?
AND A THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
THAT'S BEEN A REAL PROBLEM
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH THE U. S. CENSUS BUREAU'S.
POVERTY INDEX WHICH INCLUDES THE
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY INDEX
INCLUDES THE COST OF LIVING.
AND I'LL YOU KNOW WE HAVE THE
WORST POVERTY OF ANY STATE
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS IS
THAT DISPARITY IN LIVING COSTS
SO THAT THAT'S. I JUST WANT TO
BE CLEAR ABOUT FEEL FREE WITH
OUR DISCUSSION HERE WITH BUT
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER
NOT PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO
CLEAN DRINKING WATER THINK WE
ALL AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD. WE
TALK ABOUT HOW TO PAY FOR IT AND
I WOULD HOPE THAT.
FOR SOMETHING THAT WE ALL
ACKNOWLEDGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL
HUMAN RIGHT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
FIND ROOM FOR THAT IN OTHER
PLACES IN THE BUDGET.
THIS IS OUR JOB ON THIS
COMMITTEE IS TO PRIORITIZE STATE
GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND I THINK
THAT.
AFFORD TO CLEAN AFFORDABLE
DRINKING WATER SHOULD BE HIGH UP
ON THE LIST HIGH ENOUGH UP ON
THE LIST THAT WE DON'T NEED TO
PROVIDE PROOF TO OUR.
PROPOSE ANOTHER TAX TO PAY FOR
IT.
THANK YOU SARAH.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
ALTERNATIVE.
PROLONGED AS.
BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS
MEANS MY UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE.
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN
THREE HUNDRED TO A THOUSAND OF
THESE SMALL WATER AGENCIES IN
THE STATE THAT.
HAVE FEWER THAN ONE HUNDRED
CUSTOMERS.
I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME
GETTING MY ARMS AROUND EXACTLY
WHAT THIS.
PROPOSAL IS GOING TO DO I HEAR
OWING HIM.
IT'S NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IT'S
NOT FOR DIGGING NEW WELLS IT'S
NOT FOR REPLACING.
DETERIORATING PLATE.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
WHO'S GOT THE STICK HERE.
SO REGULATORY FINE AS AS EARLIER
DEPARTMENT DOES HAVE FUNDING
AVAILABLE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE BUT.
THE REMAINING PIECE THAT MANY
COMMITTEES.
DON'T QUALIFY PREFERRED DOCTOR
FUNDING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE
THE.
SUPPORT FOR OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE AND SO NOW THIS
PROPOSAL IS PRIMARILY TO HAVE
THE FUNDS GO FOR OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE. THAT WILL THEN
FACILITATE THE COMMUNITIES TO BE
ABLE TO QUALIFY FOR THE
INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO UGLY
THEY ARE ABLE TO GET THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAN TO MAINTAIN
AND OPERATE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
WELL FOR EXAMPLE MEAN.
WHO WHO'S COLLECTING THIS MONEY
AS IT WERE DOING THIS ON A
STATEWIDE BASIS IS AT THE STATE
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD?
SO.
CD OF THE. HAD THE BAR FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE COLLECTING THE
THROUGH THE AGRICULTURE XP YOUTH
AND THEN THE WATER HAD ENTITIES
WATER AGENCIES WILL BE
COLLECTING THE THIEVES ON THE
RATE PAYERS WHICH WILL THEN I GO
TO THE STATE.
TO THE STATE WHO IN THE STATE.
IT BE THAT THE WATER BOARD WOULD
BE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
PROGRAM A ONE RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD YES.
OKAY SO THEN HOW DOES THE MONEY
GET DISTRIBUTED BACK DOWN TO THE
WATER DISTRICT.
SO THAT WOULD BE THROUGH EITHER
DIFFERENT GRANT OR LOAN PROGRAMS
THAT THE WATER BOARD READ MISTER
TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE.
COMMUNITY THEY NEED ONE OF THEM
LISTEN LIKE I I'VE BEEN INVOLVED
IN TRYING TO FIX WATER PROBLEMS
AS SOME OF YOU KNOW FOR SMALL
DISTRICTS DOWN IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA IS VERY DIFFICULT
ISSUE.
SELECT COMMANDMENT RATIONS FOR
THIS EFFORT.
BUT.
IF YOU HAVE A WATER DISTRICT WAS
SEVENTY FIVE CUSTOMERS HOW
LIKELY IS IT THAT THE WATER
DISTRICTS GOING TO BE ABLE TO
SUBMIT UP TO DRAFT AND SUBMIT AN
APPROPRIATE GRANT TO GET MONEY.
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT A WATER
DISTRICT IS GONNA KNOW WHAT TO
DO WITH THE MONEY?
ONCE THEY GET THE MONEY.
IF THERE PLATE.
REPLACEMENTS IN REPAIRS THAT
NEED TO BE DONE HOW LIKELY IS
THAT THE SMALL WATER DISTRICTS
CAN HAVE A QUALIFIED WATER
ENGINEER. OR INAPPROPRIATE.
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER. OR
TECHNICIAN THAT'S GOING AND KNOW
HOW TO MANAGE THE MONEY IF A
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS OF
MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
IS REQUIRED HOW LIKELY IS IT A
SMALL DISTRICT WAS SEVENTY FIVE
CUSTOMERS IS GOING TO KNOW HOW
TO.
AT THE HEAD OF PLAN DESIGN
MANAGED TO CONSTRUCTION REPAIR.
I I AND AGAIN.
I GUESS THAT'S MORE COMMON AND
LET'S NOT A FAIR QUESTION.
BUT YOU CAN SEE MY CONCERN AND
INSTEAD OF DESIGNING THIS.
BONTA REGIONALIZED BASIS WHERE
YOU ENCOURAGE IF NOT REQUIRE.
DR. COLLABORATION AND
COOPERATION BETWEEN REGIONAL
WATER AGENCIES TO TRY TO FIX
PROBLEMS.
IN SMALL WATER DISTRICTS WITHIN
A REGION.
INSTEAD OF DESIGNING IT IN THAT
WAY WHERE PEOPLE WHOSE WATER
BILLS ARE GOING TO GO UP A
DOLLAR A MONTH.
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS REALLY
NOT ABOUT GIVING A BUNCH OF
MONEY TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND MORE ABOUT MUTUAL AID IN
PART.
IN IN HELPING YOUR NEIGHBOR GET
CLEAN DRINKING WATER.
WE HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME
SELLING THIS
TO PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE IN INLAND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE
JUST HAD THEIR WATER RATES
INCREASE FIVE PERCENT PER YEAR
FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
AND THEY'RE GONNA SEND THE
DOLLAR AMOUNTS TO WEAR.
EUREKA NOTHING AGAINST EUREKA
BUT.
BYE DOT THE PEOPLE KNOW WHERE
THAT IS.
SO I GUESS WHAT I AM SAYING IN
MY COMMENT AND THEN I'M GOING TO
SHUT UP SO MY CHAIR CAN MOVE
THIS ALONG.
WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE
DRAWING BOARDS HERE BECAUSE I
THINK WE'VE SEEN IN OUR ON OTHER
ISSUES IN OTHER TIMES.
THAT.
CALIFORNIANS ARE NOT REALLY
INTERESTED IN TAKING MONEY OUT
OF THEIR POCKET AND SENDING IT
TO THE STATE TO BE SENT
SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY DON'T KNOW.
AND AND I I JUST DON'T THINK
THIS IS.
YOU KNOW THAT IN FAIRNESS TO MY
COLLEAGUE WHO'S
THIS IS BETTER CRUSADE FOR HIM
I'LL DO WHAT I CAN IF IT COMES
FROM FORCED TO MOVE IT OUT OF
THIS BUDGET.
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE BUT I'LL
TELL YOU WHAT. IF IT GETS TO THE
FLOOR. MY POSITION ON IT'S GOING
TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN.
DESIGNED PROPERLY THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU SENATOR.
SEVERAL. THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
IN THIS PROPOSAL WE'RE LOOKING
AT FOR NEW TAXES.
I'M SEEING WATER CONNECTION
FERTILIZER MILKEN CONFINED
ANIMAL IS THAT. CORRECT.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW THEY WORK.
I GOT WATER CONNECTION THAT'S
FOR EVERYBODY IN THE STATE.
YEAH SO FOR THAT DRINKING WATER
BE.
THERE BE.
FOR DIFFERENT LEAVES THAT
DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF A WATER
METER AND SO MOST.
HEALTH TOLD WOULD PAY NINETY
FIVE CENTS HOW THAT FOR ONE INCH
WATER METER AND THEN THAT GOES
UP TO.
TEN DOLLARS PER MONTH FOR.
METERS OF.
FOUR INCHES OR GREATER BUT OVER
NINETY PERCENT HOUSEHOLD TO PAY
TO NINETY FIVE AND COULD BE FALL
WITHIN THE SMALLER WATER METER.
AFTER THE COMBINED AND FEVE
ASIDE FOR A THOUSAND DOLLAR FOR
THROUGH PER FACILITY FEE.
THE VERY FEE ITSELF POINT NO
ONE THREE FIVE FIVE.
COST PER HUNDRED POUNDS OF MILK.
THE FOR LIKE THEIR FEE IF POINT
THOUGH THINK DOLLAR PER SALE AS
WE GIVE YOU A CHART THAT BREAKS
OUT THE DIFFERENT FEES. BUT
ENOUGH IN SUPPORT OF THE
AGRICULTURE FEES THEY ARE
INTENDED TO MITIGATE THE NITRATE
CAUSE RELATED TO THE CABIN
CONTAMINATION OF THE AGRICULTURE
INDUSTRY. CLEAR WHAT THE A
REPORT CONDUCTED BY A CONTRACTOR.
THAT WOULD RETAIN BY THE
CALIFORNIA WATER FOUNDATION I
DID IDENTIFY THE COST PER
TYPICALLY RELATED TO NITRATES
FROM THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY
HAS SO THE THIEVES ARE. INTENDED
TO MAO TO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS
WHAT THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY OF
CONTRIBUTING TO NITRATE
CONTAMINATION.
OUR RATES
I THINK YOU'VE GIVEN ME SOME
MATERIAL.
THANK YOU THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
SO NIELSEN.
YEAH JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE.
I BELIEVE THE TRAILER BILL
PROPOSES VERY SIMILAR TO SENATOR
MODDING SCALE WHICH.
HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH. THE
SENATE SAYS YOU MIGHT HAVE
FAMILIAR WITH THAT IN THAT FOR.
SO I APOLOGIZE NO NOT.
I SORRY I APOLOGIZE BUT THANK
YOU THANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATION.
SENATE OF.
WELL.
THERE WAS A HEARING.
IN IN THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE
AND RESOURCE.
COMPRISED THAT FOR MEMBERS.
OF THE ENTIRE LEGISLATURE.
THAT HEARD THIS.
NORMA SHIRLEY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
AND KEEP IN MIND.
THERE'S NO PROVISION HERE FOUR
LET'S JUST SAY IT THE NITRATE
ISSUE.
AT SOME POINT THAT WILL BE
REMEDY AT SOME LEVEL.
AT THAT POINT THEY'RE SHOULD BE
A PROVISION IN HERE THAT THE TAX
SOUP.
GOES WAIT.
AT SUNSET.
ELIMINATE.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DO IN
CALIFORNIA BUDGET WE PUT.
BUDGET PROVISIONS THEN AND IN
THIS CASE KIND OF IN THE DARK
TONIGHT WAY.
TAXES ARE FOREVER.
AND THE BOARD WOULD HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO RAISE THOSE TAXES.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN MANY
BOARDS THE AUTHORITY DERANGED.
FEES IF YOU WANT A COLUMN THAT.
ON THEIR OWN VOLITION.
WITHOUT ANY CONTROL OF THE
LEGISLATURE AND AS WELL BROADEN
THE APPLICATION.
OF THOSE THREE SLASH TAXES.
THIS IS A REALLY BIG GAME GOING
ON.
WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THE TRAILER
BILLS FEW WEEKS AGO I SAID LET
THE GAMES BEGIN.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING LADIES
AND GENTLEMEN OUT THERE IN THE.
PUBLIC.
THE GAMES ARE BEGINNING.
JUST FOR CLARITY.
THERE CAN BE.
DEBATE OVER WHETHER IT SHOULD
BE A POLICY BILL OR.
BUDGET TRAILER BILL BUT.
THERE'S NO DARK OF NIGHT UP
PROCESS WITH THIS.
THAT THE TRAILER BILL WAS
POSTED BACK IN FEBRUARY IT'S
BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR
MONTHS NOW AND.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S BEEN
TRANSPARENT ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL.
SINCE JANUARY.
THANK YOU.
SO WITHOUT SEEING NO OTHER
QUESTIONS WE'RE GOING TO BE
GOING TO ISSUE THREE THE CAP AND
TRADE.
EXPENDITURE PLAN DIFFERENT.
.
CASS ELLIOT NOT TO GO LINE BY
LINE EVERYBODY CAN LOOK AT THEIR.
BRIEFS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
OVERRIDING COMMENTS FEEL FREE
BUT IF YOU KEEP IT RIGHT PUT
APPRECIATE.
SURE HOW'D ROSS BROWN WHAT THE
LA OWE SO. AS THE CHAIR SAID I
WILL NOW GO THROUGH LINE BY LINE
YOU HAVE THE TABLE IN YOUR
GENDER OF THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES. THINK
WHAT I WOULD PROBABLY JUST WANNA
HIGHLIGHT IS IS THE TOTAL
NUMBERS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF
THE TABLE.
GOVERNOR PROPOSED ONE POINT
THREE BILLION.
THE ASSEMBLY OF RUN A TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION MORE AND
THE SENATE.
ABOUT HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION
MORE AND I THINK OUR GENERAL
COMMENT AS WE WOULD RECOMMEND AN
AMOUNT CLOSER TO WHAT THE SENATE.
ADOPTED JUST GIVEN THE REVENUE
UNCERTAINTY AROUND THIS PROGRAM
JUST FOR CONTEXT IF REVENUE IN
THE BUDGET YEAR IS.
TWO POINT NINE BILLION WHICH IS
WHAT IT WAS OF THIS CURRENT YEAR
IN WHAT. WE THINK IS REASONABLE
FOR THE BUDGET YEAR. UNDER THE
SENATE AMOUNT THAT WOULD LEAVE
ABOUT A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS
OR SO AS THE FUND BALANCE AND SO
WE THINK GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY
THAT'S A REASONABLE APPROACH ONE
OTHER THING ON THE UNCERTAINTY.
OF THE ADMINISTRATION AS PART OF
TO IT PART OF PARTY TO ADDRESS
THE UNCERTAINTY IS PROPOSING
BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE THAT WE
GIVE FINANCING AUTHORITY TO.
REDUCE THE ALLOCATIONS OF
REVENUE CAME IN LOWER AS PART OF
THAT PROPOSAL THEY PRIORITIZE
SOME CERTAIN PROGRAMS.
FOR EXAMPLE SOME PROGRAMS THAT
THEY ARE RESOURCES BOARD WHICH
WOULD NOT RECEIVE THOSE
PROPORTIONAL REDUCTION SO AS YOU
CONSIDER YOUR PRIORITIES YOU'LL
WILL.
WE RECOMMEND YOU CONSIDER AND
WHICH OF THOSE PROGRAMS WOULD
LIKE.
TO REDUCE IF IF IN FACT REVENUE
DOES COME IN LOWER
GREAT THANK YOU WAS COST.
THANK YOU I KNOW THIS ITEM AND
THE NEXT ISSUE ARE CONFORMING SO
THERE'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT
OF OVERLAP BETWEEN THIS AFTER
OPPOSE ON CAP AND TRADE BASED ON
THE FUNDING SOURCES.
MUCH TO THE ANALYSTS POINT I
THINK THE ONLY ALL RACIST A
COUPLE OF CONCERNS WHICH IS I
THINK WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
OVERLY OPTIMISTIC REVENUE
ASSUMPTIONS THAT EACH HOUSE
ADOPTED AS PART OF THEIR CAP AND
TRADE PACKAGE. THERE'S A BIT OF
A TIMING ISSUE WHICH IS THAT.
THE MOST RECENT AUCTION
HAPPENED AFTER WE RELEASED OUR
MAY REVISE.
BUT IT'S A DE MINIMUS AMOUNT IN
THE CONTEXT OF CAP AND TRADE I'M
AND SO CLEARLY THAT WAS NOT
INCLUDED ARE IN ARE PLANNED BUT
HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN EACH HOUSES
PLAN.
AS THE ANALYST NOTES. WE DO
HAVE A CONTROL SECTION IN THE
CAP AND TRADE EXPENDITURE PLAN
GIVEN THE VOLATILITY OF THESE
PARTICULAR REVENUES AND THE
AUCTIONS THEMSELVES. HOWEVER WE
DON'T VIEW THAT AS A BACKSTOP TO
BUILD AND OVERLY OPTIMISTIC
REVENUE.
AND THE PROGRAMS ULTIMATELY
DON'T EVER GET FUNDED IT'S
REALLY MORE I'VE.
THE ABILITY TO KIND OF I JUST
WHEN THERE ARE MILD SWINGS AND
WHAT WE'VE PROJECTED AS FAR AS
THE AUCTION REVENUES.
AND I'M GONNA PREVIEW A LITTLE
BUT THE NEXT ISSUE WE DO SUPPORT
FULL FUNDING OF THE ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE INITIATIVE TO
ACCELERATE THAT SALE OF ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES THROUGH
REBATES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENTS. TO MEET THE
GOVERNOR'S GOAL OF FIVE MILLION
ZAPS BY TWENTY THIRTY. LASTLY I
DO WANNA KNOW ON THE SENATE
PROPOSAL AND THEIR VERSION THEY
INCLUDE PROVISIONAL LANGUAGE TO
MAKE ONE HUNDRED MILLION OF THE
FORCED HEALTH PROGRAM. AVAILABLE
TO THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
BOARD AND STATE CONSERVANCY'S TO
EMPLOYMENT CLIMATE RESILIENCY
PROJECTS WE JUST KNOW AND WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT IT FREQUENTLY HAD
THE DIRE SHAPE OF THE STATE'S
FORESTS GIVEN THAT MANY FORCE
FIRES THAT WE'VE HAD IN WILD
FIRES. IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN THE
STATE EXPERIENCE TWO THOUSAND
MORE WILDFIRES AND SAW ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY PERCENT MORE ACRES
BURNED THAN THE FIVE YEAR
AVERAGE. NOTWITHSTANDING THE
MERITS OF THE FIGHT WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION BOARD AND OTHER
STEEP CONSERVANCY'S.
THESE DEPARTMENTS FUNDAMENTALLY
SERVER DIFFERENT PURPOSE AND
WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE FORCE MONEY
WITH CAL FIRE TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THE FOREST HEALTH ISSUES THAT
WE'VE IDENTIFIED. WITH THAT
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SAYS MISS COSTA TOUCH
SOMEONE WOULD TAKE ISSUE FOR AS
WELL DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON
THAT AREA.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WALK
THROUGH THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE PROPOSAL'S MISTER.
TRUTHFULLY OKAY. SO.
ULTRA WALKER THEN THERE'S A FEW
DIFFERENT PIECES.
JUST FOR CONTACTS THE GOVERNOR
PROPOSED EIGHT ZERO MISSION.
EXCUSE ME ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE
ORDER EARLIER THIS YEAR I DO NOT
FIND A GOAL OF FIVE MILLION ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES ON THE ROAD BY
TWENTY THIRTY. AS WELL AS TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND.
CHARGING STATIONS ON THE ROAD
BY TWENTY TWENTY FIVE TO SUPPORT
THAT GOAL IS PART OF THE BUDGET
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED.
ONGOING FUNDING A HUNDRED
SEVENTY SEVENTY FIVE MILLION FOR
THE REBATE PROGRAM ELECTRIC
VEHICLE REBATE PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED BY THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD.
AS WELL AS FUNDING FOR ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE
WHICH WAS COMPOSED OF TWO PIECES.
INCLUDING AND INCLUDES A
SEVENTY MILLION ONE TIME SPECIAL
FUND FUND BALANCES.
AS WELL AS RESTRUCTURING THE A
ARE FTTP PROGRAM WHICH IS
CURRENTLY ADMINISTERED BY THE
ENERGY COMMISSION. FUNDS A
VARIETY OF DIFFERENT
TECHNOLOGIES INTENDED TO REDUCE
EMISSIONS AND SO THE PROPOSAL
WOULD ESSENTIALLY SHIFTS. OF THE
FUNDING.
TO FOCUS ALMOST EXPLICIT ARE
ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND.
THE PROPOSAL ALSO SHIFTED OF
THE FUNDING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY
GOING TO LOW CARBON FUEL
PRODUCTION TO THE.
CAP AND TRADE EXPENDITURE PLAN.
SO THE SENATE.
PROVIDED A HUNDRED FIFTY
MILLION FOR REBATES INSTEAD OF
THE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE MILLION
THAT THE GOVERNOR WAS PROPOSING.
AND REJECTED THE INFRASTRUCTURE
PART OF THE PROPOSAL WAS JUST
THE PURPOSE OF SENDING IT TO
CONFERENCE.
THE ASSEMBLY ADOPTED THE
PROPOSED AMOUNT FOR THE REBATE
THAT THAT ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSED
AND A SLIGHTLY MODIFIED
INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSAL TO KEEP
THE FUNDING FOR LOW CARBON FUEL
PRODUCTION. KEEP TWELVE POINT
FIVE MILLION OF THAT IN THE A
ARE SCTP PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY
THE ENERGY COMMISSION RATHER
THAN SHIFTING THAT. TO THE CAP
AND TRADE EXPENDITURE PLAN.
AND ADOPTED A VARIETY OF PIECES
OF A PLACEHOLDER TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE
INCLUDING CODIFYING THE FIVE
MILLIONS OF GOAL PROPOSED BY THE
GOVERNOR.
.
AND.
REMOVING A PROHIBITION ON CARP
FROM ADOPTING REGULATIONS THAT
REQUIRE THE BUILDING OF HYDROGEN
STATIONS.
AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED
EARLIER THIS PROPOSAL JUST
RAISES A VARIETY OF JUST
SIGNIFICANT POLICY QUESTIONS THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE COMMITTEE
MIGHT WANT TO WRESTLE WITH THE
LOCAL NEED TO WRESTLE WITH.
INCLUDING HOW MUCH TO FOCUS ON
A PARTICULAR TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY
IN ITS EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE ITS
GREENHOUSE GAS GOALS FOR EXAMPLE
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES. RATHER
THAN.
THAN RELYING ON SOME OF THE
OTHER POLICIES THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY ENACTED
SUCH AS CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM.
AS WELL AS ON THE FUNDING SIDE
HOW DO ALLOCATE ITS FUNDING AND
WHETHER TO ALLOCATED TO A
VARIETY OF OF. A DIFFERENT TYPES
OF TECHNOLOGIES AS IS CURRENTLY
DONE THROUGH THEY ARE FTTP
PROGRAM OR FOCUS MORE
EXCLUSIVELY ON ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO WITHOUT ALL IN MY COMMENTS
AND HAVE BEEN ANSWERING
QUESTIONS.
GREAT ETCETERA.
I JUST WANNA THERE'S NO LANGUAGE
NO I'M SORRY MA'AM.
LET'S HAVE SOMEONE WHO KNOWS
SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SPEAK. I I
JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE
CHAIR TO THE LA US COMMENTS ON
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE FIVE NAY.
.
SO ONE COMPONENT I AS I
MENTIONED IT WILL BE INTERTWINED
WITH THE CAP AND TRADE PROPOSAL
BECAUSE ONE OF THE FUNDING
SOURCES WE UTILIZE AND TO FIND.
COMPONENT PIECES OF THIS
PROPOSAL.
I WOULD NOTE THAT WE SUPPORT
FULLY FUNDING AND THIS APP
INITIATIVE INCLUDING THE ONE
HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN MILLION
DOLLARS WE'VE PROPOSED FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE. FREQUENTLY IN
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS RANGE
ANXIETY COMES UP WHERE PEOPLE
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE RANGE OF
THEIR ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND BY
HAVING ROBUST INFRASTRUCTURE WE
CAN ADDRESS THAT. WE THINK
ULTIMATELY HELP REACH OUR OF THE
GOVERNOR'S GOAL OF HAVING MORE
THAT'S ON THE RED BY TWENTY
THIRTY.
WE ALSO PROPOSE EIGHT HUNDRED
TWELVE MILLION IN FUNDING FROM
THE ALTERNATIVE AND RENEWABLE
FUEL AND VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY FUND
OVER THE NEXT YEARS TO FIND
INSTALLATION OF TWO HUNDRED
HYDROGEN FUELING STATIONS. AND
TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND
THAT HAVE CHARGERS INCLUDING TEN
THOUSAND DIRECT CURRENT FAST
CHARGERS BY TWENTY TWENTY FIVE
TO ME ARE LARGER ZEV GOAL. AND
SO WE WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE AS WE
CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION THE
IMPORTANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
PAIRED WITH REBATES WITH THAT
HAPPENING ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SENATOR OFF.
I WAS CHARGED FOR MAKE SURE
WE'RE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
TODAY AND WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING.
POSTAL DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY FOR
TREATMENT LANGUAGE IS THAT
CORRECT.
THAT IS CORRECT THAT'S NOT PART
OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU THANK YOU MISTER.
THANK YOU ASSEMBLY MEMBER
OBERNOLTE.
SO THE THE BEST THE ASSEMBLY
PROPOSAL INCLUDES.
I CODIFYING THE NEW GOAL OF FIVE
MILLION ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES
BY TWENTY THIRTY.
WHAT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
TO CODIFY IT.
IT MEANS THAT IT'S INCLUDED IN
STATUTE.
IT'S IN THEM APPROPRIATE TAKES
ACTUALLY GOT THAT WHAT WHAT IS A
DO.
BUT WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVE
PUTTING IT IN STATUTE.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE.
ADMINISTRATION HAD AN EXECUTIVE
ORDER ANY.
AND WHAT.
I THINK A ASSEMBLY ACTION DOES
IS IT.
IT IT'S THE OTHER BRANCH ANOTHER
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
MEMORIALIZING THEIR.
COMMITMENT TO THE SINGLE THAT
WAS PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER.
OKAY.
I GOT I GOT I UNDERSTAND THAT
MEANS THE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT.
SO MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR.
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE REBATES I
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT DOES YOU
KNOW CODIFYING A GOAL IS BECAUSE
GOT MORE NEBULOUS AND AND REALLY
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE MERITS OF
IT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A
PRETTY WEIGHTY POLICY DISCUSSION
I REALLY DON'T THINK IT HAS A
PLACE IN THE BUDGET I'D RATHER
TALK ABOUT THE DOLLARS AND SENSE
OF WHERE MONEY GOES.
SO SINCE IT'S OUR TRUE GODDESS I
LITTLE CLARITY SO.
DOT IDEAS GIVEN HOW MANY
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
WHERE INVESTING I THINK THE
QUESTION IS IS WHAT IS THE
ULTIMATE END GOAL AT SOME POINT
IS THERE IS IS THERE AN END TO
THAT SO I THINK THE GOAL WAS?
TO.
.
APPROPRIATE.
THE UNDERSERVED A FIVE BUT WITH
VERY SET GOAL OF. HITTING THAT
FIVE MILLION VEHICLE GOAL BY
TWENTY THIRTY SO THAT I THINK
THAT'S AWESOME.
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A GOLD
OKAY WELL BUT IT'S THAT I KINDA
MISS SITTING ON SUB THREE
BECAUSE I USED TO BE PART OF
THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
YOU'RE WELCOME BACK INTO THE.
AND COULD NOT I DON'T TO SPEAK
FOR MISTER BLUE NOW WE WE MISS
STROLLER LEVEL TO TO FEATHER
SKINNER NOT THAT WE DON'T LOVE
OUR CURRENT.
.
STORY COUPLE QUESTIONS.
DISCUSSED WHEN YOU WERE
DESCRIBING.
SOME OF THE FUNDS YOU ARE
REFERENCING WORD ARE NOT CAP AND
TRADE FUNDS CORRECT SO THEY
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS ARE GENERAL
FUND IS THAT RIGHT FOR ELECTRIC
VEHICLE CHARGING OR THEY FROM A
DIFFERENT SOURCE.
IF THE ALTERNATIVE AND RENEWABLE
FUEL AND VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY FUND
SO THAT'S FROM.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE.
THE SHORT HAND IT WOULD BE AB
ONE EIGHTEEN.
ANYWAY.
THERE'S NEVER.
.
BUT THAT'S NOT IN THE LIST
OF.
AYE ALLOCATIONS THAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH BECAUSE IT'S NOT
CAP AND TRADE FUNDS.
SO IT'S NOT PARTY GREENHOUSE GAS.
REDUCTION FOR YEAH I LIVE THE
REASON WHY WERE.
.
SO ME. CLARIFY THE THE THE.
CONNECTING THE DOTS OF SO SO TO
SPEAK
SO THE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
INITIATIVE THERE'S KIND OF TWO
BUCKETS TO IT. THERE'S THE
REBATES WHICH ARE INCENTIVES TO
CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE A VEHICLE
THEN THERE'S INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE REBATE.
PORTION OF HIS HAVE INITIATIVE
IS FUNDED OUT A CAP AND TRADE
THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED TO
HUNDRED MILLION TOTAL FOR THAT.
COMBINED WITH EIGHT
INFRASTRUCTURE.
YEP SO ONE SEVENTY FIVE YEAH SO.
THE CLARIFICATION THERE IS A
ONE SEVENTY FIVE IS FOR THE
CLEAN VEHICLE REBATE PROJECT IN
WITHIN.
THERE'S A HUNDRED MILLION
DOLLARS FOR SOME.
LOW INCOME.
THOUGHT EQUITY PROGRAMS
WITHIN THAT HUNDRED MILLION
THERE'S TWENTY FIVE MILLION FOR
ADDITIONAL REBATES TO LOW INCOME
CONSUMERS.
SO IT'S LIKE A SUBSET OF THE
HUNDRED. IN MEN YOU HAVE.
AB ONE EIGHTEEN FUNDS.
ORIGINS.
YEAH A IT'S WITHIN THE ENHANCE
FLEET MODERNIZATION SO WITHIN
THE HUNDRED MILLION THERE THIS
TWENTY FIVE THE GOES FOR
ADDITIONAL REBATES.
FOR LOW OF FOR LOW INCOME.
THAT'S THE.
FIFTH ITEM DOWN YEAH.
TWENTY FIVE MILLION OF THAT.
GOES TO
BRP.
CORRECT.
ALRIGHT AND.
.
THE.
A. R. F..
BE PROGRAM YOUR REFERENCE
ANOTHER EXPENDITURE ON THAT BUT
AGAIN THAT'S NOT FROM THE CARBON.
GIGI FIND IT'S FROM THE ONE
EIGHTEEN FUND CROOKED.
.
FINALLY ON THE ISSUE OF A
STATUTE PHONE EXECUTIVE ORDERS
ARE GREAT BUT THE.
ONLY CURIOUS FAR AS A GOVERNOR
CARRIES AND.
.
PUTTING IT INTO IT PUTTING THE
GOING TO STATUTES. I THINK THE
BENEFIT OF IT ESPECIALLY WHEN WE
ARE. CONSIDERING WHEN WE HAVE
ALREADY.
MADE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN
THIS AREA.
AND WE CONTINUE TO. IN TERMS OF
AS ALL THREE THE ADMINISTRATION
THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY ARE
ALL RECOMMENDING A PRETTY HIGH
NUMBER IN HERE WHAT WE.
JOHN WE'LL SEE.
BUT I THINK THE BENEFIT OF
HAVING THE GOLAN STATUTE IS THEN
AT LEAST WERE DIRECTING.
WHEN WE AUTHORIZE FUNDING.
.
IT GIVES THE AGENCIES WERE
ADMINISTERING IT MORE DIRECTION
AS TO OUR EIGHT WHAT IS THE GOAL
THAT WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
WITH THIS FUNDING THAT WE HAVE
AUTHORIZED.
AND THEN THEY CAN DESIGN THE
PROGRAM TO HELP US MOST. THAT
GOAL SO I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY
WISE BECAUSE APPROVING.
.
IT'S GREAT TO.
APPROVED BUDGETARY FUNDS BUT
MANY TIMES IF WE TAKE OUR PROP
NINETY EIGHT EXPENDITURES FOR
EXAMPLE THEIR STATUTE ALREADY
THAT EXISTS THAT IS. GUIDING THE
EXPENDITURE OF THAT MONEY AND
THE BENEFIT OF ADDING. THE.
THAT GOAL IS THAT IT WILL ONCE
AGAIN GUY THE EXPENDITURE OF THE
MONEY SO I WOULD SUPPORT IT.
THANK YOU CENTER MORLOCK.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
.
WE'RE WE'RE SPENDING.
OR BUDGETING A LOT OF MONEY FOR
THE END. USAGE A EIGHT HUNDRED
AND TEN MILLION FOR RECHARGING
STATIONS.
SALAS ELECTRICITY HAS TO GO
SOMEWHERE HAS TO COME FROM
SOMEWHERE HAS TO BE. TRANSPORTED
IN.
AND I THINK YOU
ASSEMBLY BILL THIRTY TWO.
HAS A BLIND SPOT IN THAT IT
DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE
GREENHOUSE GASES.
THAT ARE CREATED BY ALL THESE
WILDFIRES THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT I'D I DON'T SEE A STRONG
ENOUGH EMPHASIS IN TRYING TO.
HARDEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR
OUR ELECTRICITY TRANSPORTATION
WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
TRANSPORTING COAL. GAS DIESEL.
JET FUEL AB WOULD.
WE KNOW WE HAVE TO LEARN
SOMETHING FROM SANOMA AND SANTA
ROSA.
AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET A
WINDY CONDITION AND.
IT IS TAKES TWO AND A HALF DAYS
OF WILDFIRES AND YOU'VE WIPED
OUT ALL YOUR. GREENHOUSE GAS
STATS.
ALL THIS HARD WORK ALL THIS
REDIRECTION ALL THIS EFFORT AND
FOR NOT SO. I'D I'D LIKE TO SEE
A LITTLE MORE.
IN THE WAY OF FUNDING.
TO HARDEN THE ASSETS NOT TAKE
ALL THE SAID PENALIZE ALL THE
UTILITY. RATEPAYERS.
BUT WE SHOULD BE USING SOME OF
THIS CAP AND TRADE. TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE PREVENT FIRES FROM
OCCURRING.
WITH THESE ELECTRICAL LINES SO
THAT YOU CAN REDUCE YOUR
GREENHOUSE GAS.
AND TRANSPORT THE ELECTRICITY
BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT TEST
FOOT TRUCKS NOW IT TAKES THE
SAME AMOUNT OF POWER. TO
GENERATE A LOT AT THE TOYOTA
LECTURE FIVE THREE THOUSAND
HOMES
JUST TO RECHARGE ONE TRUCK FOR
LIKE THREE HUNDRED MILES SO.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN
INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY
EIGHT UNEVEN STATISTICALLY
NOVICA MOVE AT ALL. AT TO WHERE
YOU WANT TO GET IT TO GO SO I I
WOULD THINK. WE SHOULD BE
REVAMPING THIS LIST.
WE'RE ALLOCATING THE HUNDRED.
AND SEE WHAT TWENTY FIVE MILLION
TO FIRE.
LOOK AT FIRE RESPONSE BUT WE
SHOULD BE ALLOCATING PROBABLY.
TWENTY FIVE PERCENT.
AB ADOPT ONE POINT THREE BILLION
FOR SERIOUS ABOUT GREENHOUSE
GASES.
SO I I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT
IN RICHARD SURE. OBVIOUSLY NOT
HERE FOR DEBATE CLUB BUT. I I
THINK WE'RE WE'RE NOT.
BEING
SINCERE.
IF WE'RE NOT FOCUSED ON TRYING
TO PREVENT.
S. FIRES.
FOR MORE THE REALLY OCCURRING SO
THANK YOU MUCH.
JUST FOR CLARITY VEHEMENT
INSTRUCTIONS PROPOSAL ACTUALLY
INCLUDES.
ABOUT TWO HUNDRED THIRTY
MILLION TOTAL.
FOR.
.
VARIOUS FIRE UP PREVENTION
ACTIVITIES THAT'S THE TWENTY
FIVE MILLION THAT YOU HAD
REFERENCED AS WELL AS OVER TWO
HUNDRED MILLION FOR VARIOUS.
FIRE PREVENTION FORCE CARBON
PLAN OF PROJECTS THE.
THAT IDENTIFIES KIND OF.
THE TREE MORTALITY CRISIS
THAT'S GOING ON AND TRIES TO
REDUCE THE WILD VIRUS ASSOCIATE
WITH THAT.
BUT THOSE ARE CONTROLLED BURNS.
AND THAT'S
NOT GETTING TO THE CRUX OF
WHAT'S CAUSING.
THE PROBLEM WITH STARTING THE
FIRES.
AND SO I THINK
I THINK THE WHOLE THING SHOULD
BE REEVALUATED.
IF WAS SINCERE ABOUT REDUCING
GREENHOUSE GASES.
THE GODDESS ARE LOOKING AT HOW
WE MOVE THIS ELECTRICITY AROUND
STATE.
THANK YOU SIMILAR PROBLEM.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
BUT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION ON
ISSUE THREE PAST UP. A I G. GRF
PLANS HAVE INCLUDED FUNDING FOR.
LOW INCOME WEATHERIZATION
STATE WATER EFFICIENCY AND AND
ENHANCEMENT URBAN FORESTRY IN
URBAN GREENING PROGRAMS WETLANDS
COASTAL ADAPTATION. AND NATURAL
LANDS ADAPTATION AND SAID. THEY.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL
ZEROS THOSE PROGRAMS NOW TO AS
FAR AS DDR A FLOOD OF FUNDING
AND I'M WONDERING TO.
WHAT THE THINKING IS BEHIND THE?
SO IN TERMS OF THE FUNDING IN
TERMS OF THE LOW INCOME
WEATHERIZATION THEIR SEVENTY
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS OF EXISTING
FUNDS.
THAT ARE.
I HAVEN'T BEEN FULLY ALLOCATED
IN SO.
WE WANTED TO SEE THOSE FUNDS
SPENT FIRST BEFORE WE ALLOCATED
MORE IN TERMS OF THE VARIOUS
NATURAL RESOURCES.
RELATED.
PROGRAMS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED.
S. B. FIVE PROPS SIXTY EIGHT A
INCLUDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
THOSE AT HOME PARTICULAR
PROGRAMS.
AND.
THE ADMINISTRATION DID PROPOSE
AND AS PART OF THE BUDGET.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THOSE
PROGRAMS AS PART OF THE.
SP FIVE ALLOCATION.
WELL AGAIN I WOULD I'M PRETTY I
WOULD JUST NOTE THAT IN THE
CURRENT YEAR THE CAP AND TRADE
PROPOSAL'S UPWARDS OF TWO
BILLION DOLLARS WE WERE ABLE TO
GET A LIFE SOME RESERVE FUNDS.
I'M SO BVIOUSLY WERE ALSO
WORKING OFTEN MUCH LOWER NUMBER
OVER ON THE PACKAGE AND SO THERE
ARE CERTAIN DECISIONS THAT WE
HAD TO MAKE WITH AND THE
EXPENDITURES AVAILABLE AND THE
FUN THAT WE'RE PROJECTING BASED
ON AUCTION REVENUES.
CRITICS SO I I JUST WANNA SAY
WHEN IT COMES TO SG FIVE AND AND
PROP SIXTY EIGHT I THINK BECAUSE.
OF THE INTENTION OF THOSE
FUNDING SOURCES WAS TO
SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT. OF THE
G. HERE ARE A FUNDING.
AND TO.
I I THINK THIS THE WRONG
DIRECTION AGO.
OKAY THANK YOU. ANY OTHER.
COMMENTS POSTCARDS SOME THE
MEMBER CHAVEZ THANK YOU. YEAH
LITTLE SHORT GUY IN THE BACK
CORNER HERE.
HAVE BEEN QUITE ALL THE HEY GUYS
DONE.
THE.
LAST THURSDAY THE CPU CA IN THIS
A FOR THE LA SHOW.
VOTER TO INVEST EIGHT HUNDRED
MILLION ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE.
FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH?
THE
A WHOLE PICTURE.
OF EVERY STRUCTURE IN REBATE
WITH VEHICLES.
UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING TO GET
TO THIS GOAL OF HAVE.
.
MORE LAUGHTER VEHICLES BUT I WAS
AT WORK OUT OF THE TO WORK
TOGETHER.
SO OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT A
LARGE CHUNK OF THE.
RESOURCES THAT WERE APPROVED BY
TWO UC WOULD GO TOWARDS MEDIUM
AND HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SO THAT'S A
ONE OF THE BIG FOCUS IS OF THAT.
I I THINK THERE ARE.
SOME QUESTIONS AROUND EXACTLY
SORT OF HOW THE DIFFERENT PIECES
LE WOULD BE COORDINATED THE
DIFFERENT PIECES OF FUNDING FROM
THE ENERGY COMMISSION PROGRAM
THAT IS WAS A PIECE SEIZE
PROGRAM. SAWS ARE SOME FUNDING.
THROUGH THE VW SETTLEMENT
THAT'S GOING TO THE OUR MISSION
VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE.
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE.
ADMINISTRATION IS IS VIEWING IT
AS THE.
FUNDING THAT THEY WERE TALKING
ABOUT HERE THAT WOULD BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE ENERGY
COMMISSION WOULD BE USED TO
ESSENTIALLY FILL IN GAPS.
FOR SORT OF CHARGING VEHICLE
CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
ISN'T PROVIDED THROUGH SOME OF
THOSE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES.
AND SO THEY WOULD.
USER A PROCESS TO TRY TO SORT
OF IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE OTHER
PROGRAMS ARE FUNDING AND USE
THIS FUND INTO TO FILL THOSE
GAPS.
SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING
PROGRAM THAT DOES THAT TAKE CPUC
DELAWARE.
WHAT WOULD YOU THINK WOULD BE
THE LIFE CYCLE INVESTMENT IN
THESE INFRASTRUCTURE?
SO WE'RE GONNA BUY INTO THESE
STATIONS.
ARE THEY GONNA IN TWENTY YEARS
THIRTY YEARS FIVE YEARS ARE WE
GOING TO HAVE TO REINVEST.
AND THEN HOPPED OUT.
WHAT WHAT DO WE TRYING TO BUILD
THEIR HOUSE GOING TO BE THERE?
YOU KNOW ASSEMBLY MEMBER I'M NOT
QUITE SURE KIND OF HOW THEY HAVE
KIND OF. THE LIFESPAN OF THE
PARTICULAR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING.
STATION IS.
SOME OF THE FUNDING FOR THE C.
C. GOES TO HYDROGEN FUELING
INFRASTRUCTURES AND SO THOSE ARE.
THOSE ARE SORT LARGER
FACILITIES THAT I WOULD IMAGINE
LAST. QUITE AWHILE AND NOT SURE
IF THE ADMINISTRATION HAS A
GREAT SENSE FIRST OR HOW LONG
THE.
THE STATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO
LAST.
WHEN WE TOUCH ANOTHER ONE THEN.
WE'RE WE'RE PUTTING MONEY INTO
REBATES TO FOR PEOPLE TO GET
THESE VEHICLES.
THE INVESTMENT MAKING AND THESE
VEHICLE WHAT'S A LIFE CYCLE OF A
VEHICLE.
AND I THINK YOU SEE WHERE I'M
GOING RIGHT NOW.
I.
I MEAN I I THINK THE LIFE CYCLE
OF THE VEHICLE COULD GO VERY BUT
YEAH.
FIFTEEN YEARS OR SO.
IS AND.
BUT I I'M NOT I'M NOT QUITE
SURE AND I THINK IT DEPENDS ON
THE ON THE DRIVER.
I'M BADGES VEHICLES PROBABLY
FIVE TO TEN YEARS SO WE WHAT I'M
GETTING TO IS WHERE. I DON'T AND
I'M ALL FORGET NOT CARBON OUT
ENVIRONMENT YOU KNOW I'M THE GUY
THAT SAID YEAH YOU KNOW CLIMATE
CHANGE REAL THING WAS DEAL WITH
IT.
BUT WHAT I'M HAVING A PROBLEM
WITH HIS UNDERSTANDING NOW COULD
REMOVE A LOT OF MONEY FROM THE A
CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM.
IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THIS
GOAL.
WHO'S DRIVE AT NEW WHERE STEP
PLANNED IS FOR GOING ON OKAY WE
HAVE TO DO THE EVER STRUCTURE.
WE HAVE WE WE HAVE TO HAVE THE
PRODUCTION OF ENERGY IS GOING TO
GO INTO DECEMBER STRUCTURE. AND
NEVER HAVE THESE VEHICLES GOING
TO GO IN THERE. AND I WOULD
IMAGINE.
A LOT IS CAP AND TRADE MONEY IS
GOING TO GO AWAY BY TWENTY
THIRTY RIGHT THEM CAP AND TRADE
GOES WAY.
SO YEAH THE CURRENT PROGRAM IS
AUTHORIZES THREW TWENTY THIRTY
NINE AND SO.
INVESTMENTS WERE TAKEN FOR THE
CAP AND TRADE SEEMS TO ME.
WOULD BE SUCH AS GOING TO GO
AWAY.
IT'S SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO YOU
READ ABOUT THE STORY SOME MONTHS.
SOME YEARS AGO THE ABOUT
SCHOOL DISTRICTS USE IN BOND
FUNDS TO BUY COMPUTERS.
IN THE BOND FUND WAS FOR TWENTY
YEARS OR FIFTEEN YEARS THIRTY
YEARS OF THE COMPUTER ONLY LAST
A FEW YEARS.
SO SCHOOL THIS YEAR FOR MAKING
DECISIONS BY THINGS THAT A VERY
LOT LOW LIFE CYCLE I THINK WE'RE
DOING THE SAME THING WITH CAP
AND TRADE. WE'RE TAKING THE
MONEY AND WE INVEST IN SOMETHING
FOR REBATES.
THEY HAVE A SHORT WINDOW OF
RETURN ON INVESTMENTS PROBABLY
MORE LIKE SMARTER ME ON THIS BUT
THAT'S KIND I'M LOOKING AT IT.
AND I THINK IN THAT WE SHOULD
PROBABLY USE THE MONEY MOREAN.
WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
WITH THE CV CPUC WHAT THEY'RE
GONNA DO AS I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE
HIDDEN ALL THE INDUSTRY'S SDG
PACKED EVERYBODY ELSE WOULD FACE
HE'S GOING HIT ME THE RATE PAYER.
TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS.
SO.
CAP AND TRADE IN SOME NATION.
IS MONEY. WAS LIKE A BOMB IS
GOING TO BE HERE WHO HAS A SHE
HAS A WINDOW.
IN THE BE BEST TO INVEST IN
SOMETHING THAT OUT LIVES THAT
WINDOW.
THEN TAKING IT IN INVESTED IN
SOMEBODY'S LOKAR.
PROBABLY BY THEMSELVES.
BECAUSE OUR NUMBERS SHOWN ONLY
PEOPLE RIGHT THESE HAVE PRETTY
GOOD INCOME ANYWAY.
IT. DOES HAVE A VERY SPECIALIZED
SITE.
SO I THINK.
I'M ALL FOR.
ELECTRICAL CARS NEW ENERGY NEW
TRANSPORTATION ALL FOUR BUT I
THINK WE HAVE A VERY FINITE
AMOUNT OF MONEY WE SHOULD USE IT.
IN THE MOST PRODUCTIVE WAY WE
CAN AND I WOULD SAY BE BETTER TO
BE AN INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT AND
SOMEBODY'S LITTLE CAR.
IF I CAN MR CHEN I'D LIKE TO
RESPOND TO A COUPLE COMMENTS ON
THE TRAIN AND PACKAGE THERE'S A
LOT THERE ON-AGAIN.
THE FUNDING SOURCES ARE
FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT SO YOU
REFERENCE BOND FUNDS ON THE K.
TWELVE SIDE AND I THINK PART OF
THE POLICY ARGUMENT THERE IS IF
YOU BUY.
IF YOU BUY WITH BOND FUNDS.
A PRODUCTS.
YOUR PAIN DEBT SERVICE ON THAT
FOR OVER THIRTY YEARS.
THE FUNDS THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE THERE IS NOT A DEBT
SERVICE COMPONENT LA THAT
DOESN'T SAY YOU KNOW THAT WE
SHOULDN'T WANT THEM TO BE
INVESTMENT THAT WILL HAVE A
DURABLE LIFECYCLE. ON BUT IT'S
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT I THINK THE
ARGUMENT ON BOND FUNDS IS THAT
THE STATE IS PAYING THE DEBT
SERVICE FOR THIRTY YEARS IF IT
ONLY LASTS FIVE YEARS WERE STILL
PAYING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NO
LONGER IN USE.
AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BOND FUNDS
AND GREENHOUSE GAS FUNDS BECAUSE
THEY'RE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT
FROM THE STATE'S FINANCIAL.
VIEWPOINT BUT THEY'RE NOT
DIFFERENT FROM THE INDUSTRY'S AT
A PAIN FOR THAT IF YOU LOOK AT
THE MANUFACTURERS OR THE
AGRICULTURE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE
BUYING. THESE TRACTORS AND
THINGS TO BE.
WHAT'S WHY THEY WERE THE WHOLE
CABIN TRAIT THING WAS GOING INTO
WAS AFFECTED MANUFACTURES AND
AGRICULTURE'S OR MAKING LONG
TERM INVESTMENTS.
AND DAVID RETOOLING THEIR EFFORT
AND THEY HAD TO GO OUT AND TAKE
LONG TO DO THIS STUFF.
SO I'M JUST SAYING.
THERE'S A TALE OF THAT THING AND
I THINK WE SHOULD USE THE MONEY.
AND THEY.
AND A LARGER PERSPECTIVE THEN
REBATES.
WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT.
THEN THE ONE.
EDITION AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE IN
TERMS OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
CAP TRADE AS WELL AS GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS IN TERMS OF
DEBT SERVICES.
THE POINT OF THE REBATES IS ALSO
TO ACCELERATE THE.
TO SERVE MARKET IN SO THE WHOLE
POINT OF THIS IS WHAT WE ARE
LOOKING LONG TERM. ABOUT THE
STATE'S CLIMATE GOALS AND TWENTY
FIFTY.
IN ORDER TO GET TO OUR TWENTY
FIFTY GOALS.
WE NEED TO CHANGE THE.
MAKEUP OF THE STATE A VEHICLE
V. VEHICLES ARE BEING DRIVEN IN
ORDER TO GET THERE WE NEED.
TRANSFORMATION IN TERMS OF THE
OF VEHICLES THAT ARE PURCHASED
SO THE MORE THAT YOU CAN
ACCELERATE THE PURCHASE OF ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES COMBINED WITH
INFRASTRUCTURE.
THEN.
YOU DRIVE THE.
IT BECOMES ARM A SELF
SUSTAINING MARKET WHERE.
IN A CERTAIN POINT OH ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES THE PRICE OF A
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES ARE
COMPARABLE TO OF FOSSIL FUEL
GENERATED.
VEHICLES AND THEN WITHOUT ANY
REBATES WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDIES
ARE CONSUMERS WOULD BE WILLING
TO PURCHASE THE ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLES ON THE ROUND. AND IT
THEN ACCELERATES.
THROUGH A A NORMAL FUNCTIONING
MARKET.
THE CONSUMER'S WILLINGNESS TO
PURCHASE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES
SO WHAT THIS DOES AGAIN IF THE
REBATE AN INFRASTRUCTURE
COMBINED IS EXCELLING IN THE
MARKET.
BUT I'D ALSO SAY THAT ARGUMENT
WAS USED WITH SOLAR PANELS.
AND.
FIFTEEN YEARS AGO WHEN WE
STARTED SOLAR PANELS WE
SUBSIDIZE THAT SO THE SOLAR
PANELS GO DOWN TO THE PEOPLE GO
USE THEM.
AND NOW'S A SOLAR PANELS HAVE
GONE DOWN AS A MORE EFFICIENT.
AND A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE.
BUT DISTILLATE DRIVE RIGHT NOW
TO CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE PANELS
AYE THEY COME TO MY OFFICE ALL
TIMES AND WE NEED TO EVERY BATES
AND SOLAR PANELS. AWAY.
BUT WHAT TIME DOES AN INDUSTRY
SAY I NO LONGER NEED TO BE
SUBSIDIZED BY GOVERNMENT TO BE
COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE SAME.
WITH VEHICLES BECAUSE AT ONE
TIME PEOPLE RUN AROUND WITH
HORSES
AND THEY THOUGHT YOU KNOW WOULD
BE MORE PHYSICALLY GO TO CARS.
SO I THINK WHEN YOU DO A CHANGE
WITHIN SOCIETY LIKE
TRANSPORTATION OR DOCUMENT OR
ENERGY ON THE TOP I DON'T MIND.
.
INFUSING NEW TECHNOLOGY.
BUT AT SOME POINT YOU NEED TO
WEAN THEM OFF AND THEY NEED TO
BE COMPETITIVE MAKE IT FAIR. AND
AND RUN THE SYSTEM THAT WAY AND
THAT BUT THAT'S AN ARGUMENT.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE COMPETITIVE
MARKET BEST DRIVER YOU THINK
GOVERNMENT'S BEST DRIVE AND
THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE YOU AND I
HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE
YOU KNOW MY TAKE A CRACK AT THIS
SO ON IN TERMS OF SOLAR PANELS
THERE THEN MAYBE THERE'S. A
MISPERCEPTION THERE ARE. THERE
ARE NO MORE ADVOCATES
TO ADVOCATE FOR INCENTIVES FOR.
SOLAR PANELS ANYMORE BECAUSE
WE'VE DONE THE JOB SOLAR
ACTUALLY IS.
VEER FAIRLY COST COMPETITIVE IN
FAIRLY RECENT PRICE NOW. A DOE
SAME.
SOLAR FOLKS NOW HAVE GOT INTO
THE.
SOLAR.
THE.
THE STORE STICKING.
AS I THOUGHT ABOUT IT THEIR
DELIGHT BATTERY STORAGE THE
STORAGE MARKET SO THAT COULD BE
WHAT THEY'RE. TALKING TO BACK
THAT'S AND THAT'S THE THIRD LEG
OF THE WHEEL THAT IF WE HAVE
RENEWABLE ENERGY. THE BEST WAY
TO UTILIZED RENEWABLE ENERGY IN
THE EVENING WHEN IT'S DARK IS TO
STORE DURING THE DAY AND THEN
THE USE IT IN THE EVENING. SO I
I THINK YOUR POINT IS IT
EXTRAORDINARILY WILL TAKE AND I
THINK IT GOES BACK TO.
MISTER OPENED HIS QUESTION
ABOUT THE THE GOAL I THINK THAT
THE SENSE OF IF WE COULD GET TO
THAT FIVE MILLION GOAL BY TWENTY
THIRTY.
THE THE CENSUS PERHAPS WE
WOULDN'T NEED ANY MORE AYE
INCENTIVES OR WE COULD GREATLY
RAMPANT DOWN BECAUSE AT THAT
POINT. DAN DE AUTOMAKERS WOULD
BE MAKING A VARIETY OF VEHICLES
A VARIETY OF MARKETS ON WOULD BE
WOULD BE NOW OPEN IF I CAN'T
GENERAL MOTORS HAS TALKED ABOUT.
TWO THIRDS OF THEIR VEHICLES
WILL BE ELECTRIFIED BY TWENTY
THIRTY SO THEY'RE READY.
STARTING TO MOVE IN THAT
DIRECTION CHINA IS FORCING ALL
OF THE AUTOMAKERS TO MOVE IN
THAT DIRECTION AS WELL SO I
THINK. ON YOUR POINT
EXTRAORDINAIRE WELL TAKEN WHICH
IS WHY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
START NOW BUT ALSO TRYING TO SET
A GOAL WITH THE IDEA THAT AT
SOME POINT IT DOES ACTUALLY
GRANT AND I APPRECIATE BECAUSE
IT IS A MARKET DRIVEN ISSUE JUST
CALL THE. QUESTION YOU KNOW BACK
IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN AND ASSEMBLY
WHEN I VOTED AGAINST SUBSIDIES
FOR SOLAR. MIGHT PHONES LIT UP
AND SO IN THAT MONEY SO GOING
OUT NOW SO YOU.
WE CAN LOOK AT IT WE CAN DEBATE
THAT LATER BUT THAT HAPPENED.
THANK YOU.
GREAT.
WE ARE DONE WITH THAT SECTION WE
ARE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC
SAFETY.
WE WILL START WITH ISSUE ONE
HOUSING AND.
HOMELESSNESS.
ELLIOTT FOR FREE TO BEGIN WHEN
YOU'RE IT.
THANK YOU MISTER THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR OF BOTH HOUSES TOOK
SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS IN THE AREAS
OF HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS.
THE ASSEMBLY PROVIDED A ONE
TIME GENERAL FUND OF ONE POINT
SIX BILLION DOLLARS.
PRIMARILY FOR BLOCK GRANTS TO
LOCAL ENTITIES TO FUND A VARIETY
OF HOMELESSNESS SERVICES.
THE SENATE PROVIDES.
ONE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR FOR
FOUR YEARS FOR TOTAL FOUR
BILLION DOLLARS IN GENERAL FUND
FOR A VARIETY OF PROGRAMS.
INCLUDING A SOME BLOCK GRANTS
TO LOCAL ENTITIES AS WELL AS
FUNDING TO CREATE.
HOUSING.
TARGETED BOTH AT HOMELESS
POPULATIONS AND THE BROADER.
LOW INCOME POPULATION.
ON PAGES EIGHT AND TEN OF YOUR
AGENDA ARE DETAILED TABLES OF
THE ELEMENTS OF THE TWO HOUSES
PACKAGES.
AS WELL AS THE KEY DIFFERENCES
IN THE BUDGET YEAR OF A JUST TO
HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE HIGH LEVEL
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN. THE TWO
HOUSES OF FIRST IS AS THE
TARGETING THE PRIORITIZATION OF
THE FUNDS THE.
THE ASSEMBLIES APPROACH.
PROVIDES FUNDING TO LOCAL
ENTITIES THAT CAN BE USED FOR A
WIDE VARIETY OF SERVICES FROM
SHELTERS THE OUTREACH TO RENTAL
ASSISTANCE OR PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
AND THE.
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO
PRIORITIZE THAT HOW TO
PRIORITIZE THAT FUNDING IS IS
MOSTLY LEFT WITH THE LOCAL
ENTITIES THAT RECEIVE THE FUNDS.
THE SENATE ON THE OTHER HAND
DOES A SET ASIDE SOME OF THEIR
FUNDING FOR BLOCK GRANTS LOCAL
ENTITIES THAT WOULD BE.
A FLEXIBLE AND USE OF THE
DISCUSSION OF THE LOCAL ENTITIES.
BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE FUNDING
IS.
DEDICATED SPECIFICALLY FOR
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
PERMITS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
A FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND
SO ON IN THE SENATE PACKAGE.
THE THE LEGISLATURE WOULD BE
TAKING MORE.
WOULD WOULD BE. TRADING MORE
PRIORITIZATION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING.
ANOTHER A KEY AREA OF DIFFERENCE.
IS.
OF THE THE POPULATIONS THAT
WOULD BE SERVED WITH THE
PACKAGES THE.
ASSEMBLIES PACKAGE IS TARGETED
SOLELY AT A. INDIVIDUALS AND
FAMILIES THAT ARE HOMELESS THE
SENATE'S PACKAGE AS A MIX OF
FUNDING THAT IS TARGETED AT
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS FAMILIES.
AND.
SOME FUNDING THAT WOULD GO FOR
THE BROADER AYE LOW INCOME
POPULATION ANOTHER KEY
DIFFERENCE.
IS THE THE DIFFERENT ACTIONS
THAT THE HOUSES TOOK ON THE NO
PLACE LIKE HOME PROPOSAL THE
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED TO PLACE
THEIR PLACE LIKE HOME PROGRAM
BEFORE THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER.
OF THE SENATE.
ADOPTED THIS APPROACH THE
ASSEMBLY DID NOT TAKING ACTION
AND I THINK.
WHATEVER IS DECIDED HERE WILL
BE A KEY CONSIDERATION IN
DETERMINING HOW TO PRIORITIZE
FUNDING.
FOR OF A BUILDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING VERSUS SHELTERS OTHER
TYPES OF SHORTER TERM SERVICES
AYE IF YOU DO GO FOR NO PLACE
LIKE HOME THAT COULD A MOVE SOME
OF THE SOME. THAT WOULD UNLOCK A
TWO BILLION DOLLARS ARE
ACCELERATE THE EXPENDITURE OF
TWO BILLION DOLLARS FOR PART OF
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. THAT COULD
SHIFT SOME OF THE PRIORITY TO.
OTHER TYPES OF SERVICES AND OR
SHORT TERM SERVICES.
.
THANK YOU ARMS CROSSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED
THREE HUNDRED FIFTY NINE MILLION
DOLLARS GENERAL FUND AS PART OF
OUR MAY REVISION. OUGHT TO
ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS OF WHICH
SIXTY FOUR MILLION WAS ON GOING
FOR VARIOUS HOMELESSNESS
PROGRAMS MOSTLY THOSE FOCUSED ON
OUR CAL WORKS FAMILIES.
WE REALLY VIEWED OUR PROPOSAL AS
ONE TIME IN NATURE AND BRIDGE
FUNDING FOR LOCALS WHILE WE WAIT
FOR SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT FUNDING
SOURCES TO COME ONLINE TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
NO PLACE LIKE HOME ON GOING
BEFORE VOTERS OBVIOUSLY WILL
PROVIDE SOME SIGNIFICANT FUNDING
ON THE AS THE TO RECORDING FEE
WHICH WAS PASSED BY THE
LEGISLATURE AND SIGNED INTO LAW
BY THE GOVERNOR. AND THEN OF
COURSE THE HOUSING BOND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS PUT ON THE
BALLOT FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE PLANNING PREVENTION AND
EMERGENCY AID. AND I WOULD SAY
FOR THE EMERGENCY AID WE REALLY
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
PROVIDED LOCALS WITH MAXIMUM
FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THEIR
UNIQUE COMMUNITY ISSUES AND SO
WHEN WE DEVELOPED THE EMERGENCY
GRANT. WE REALLY WANTED TO
ENSURE BECAUSE IN TALKING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS IT'S PRETTY CLEAR
THAT CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAYS AND THE
WAY THEY'VE MAY CHOOSE TO
ADDRESS THAT WOULD ALSO. BE
DIFFERENT.
LASTLY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT AND WERE REALLY HAVING
COORDINATION BETWEEN BOTH CITIES
AND COUNTIES TO ADDRESS THIS
ISSUE. ON THE ONE HAND YOU HAVE
SOME CAPITAL NEEDS THAT WILL
NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
I'M FOR HOUSING WHETHER IT'S
TEMPORARY OR LONG TERM. THE YOU
ALSO IN MANY CASES NEED TO
ENSURE THAT THERE'S SERVICES
PROVIDED AND THAT'S WHERE THE
COUNTIES CAN REALLY.
PROVIDE THEIR EXPERTISE WITHOUT
WERE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
GREAT THANK YOU CENTER SKINNER.
I'M THIS COST IF YOU KNOW IT CAN
YOU.
.
WHAT?
I WAS NOT KNOWLEDGE THEY.
NO PLACE LIKE.
PROVED IN
I KNOW IT'S.
THE DOOR BECAUSE.
CORD ISSUES.
.
WE'RE.
THEY WOULD BE
RESOLVED WITHIN.
FOUR TO SIX MONTHS.
AND.
.
WHAT PERCENT
OF?
NO PLACE LIKE HOME MONIES
WOULD GO TO PERMANENT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HOW IS IT STRUCTURED?
DANIEL BRENDA DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE I BELIEVE IT ALL GOES
TOWARDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING FAULT NOT EMERGENCY.
I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
AND WE HAVE THAT SCORED AT TWO
HUNDRED AND SIXTY TWO MILLION
DOLLARS ANNUALLY IF.
IT'S APPROVED BY VOTERS.
AND THEN.
.
THE.
.
FUNDS THAT COME FROM.
DODD TO HONOR FIFTY MILLION A
YEAR.
FROM THE.
A BILL THAT WAS PASSED LAST
YEAR. IT. TO.
.
IS THAT MOSTLY FOR PERMANENT
AFFORDABLE OR IS IT STRUCTURING.
IT'S IN A NUMBER OF BUCKET SO
WHAT PERCENT OF IT WOULD GO TO
EMERGENCY SHELTER.
THE FIRST YEAR FUNDS ARE SPLIT
BETWEEN.
HOMELESSNESS AND PLANNING IS SO
I BELIEVE IT'S THE. HALF OF THE
TWO FIFTY EIGHT WILL GO TOWARDS
EMERGENCY.
I ASK QUESTIONS BECAUSE CLEARLY
ARE.
THE MAYOR'S ASKED WHICH IS.
THE ASSEMBLY STRUCTURES A
LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE ELEVEN
MAYORS ASK.
IS.
THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT.
WE THEIR STE THIS.
STREAM NEED RIGHT NOW AND THAT
THE PERMANENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IS TAKES LONGER.
AND THAT.
THERE NEEDS TO BE. A.
SIGNIFICANT INJECTION OF FUNDS
INTO THE EMERGENCY.
ADDRESSING THE NEED OF THE
PEOPLE ARE LIVING ON THE STREET
RIGHT NOW.
.
AND OF COURSE I THINK THE THE
SENATE'S CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT TO
IGNORE THAT THAT'S REAL BUT
RATHER. TO RECOGNIZE THAT.
YES YOU CAN PUT FUNDS TOWARDS
EMERGENCY WITCHES NOBODY WOULD.
QUESTION THAT WE ARE IN A.
TOTAL EMERGENCY RIGHT NOW IF YOU
JUST WALK DOWN. IT ANY OF IT IN
ANY OF OUR COMMUNITIES THE
AMOUNT OF PEOPLE LIVING ON
SIDEWALKS OR INTENT ENCAMPMENTS.
BUT THE CONCERN IS OF COURSE.
IF WE. AGAIN HOW YOU STRUCTURE
HOW MUCH MONEY PUT TOWARDS.
A SHORT TERM SOLUTION KNOWING
THAT YOU THEN MAY NOT WANT YOUR.
SHORT TERM SOLUTION FUNDING IS
GONE. THEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE
PERMANENT HOUSING FOR THE FOLKS
DO THEY GO BACK ON THE STREET.
THEY'VE GIVEN. GIVEN THAT.
SOME OF THE MONEY THAT'S GOING
TO COME AVAILABLE.
IS GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH
TOTALLY FOR THE PERMANENT
AFFORDABLE.
.
THERE MAY BE.
.
THERE MAY BE AN ARGUMENT FOR
STRUCTURING AT LEAST OUR FIRST.
INJECTION OF FUNDS A LITTLE
HIGHER TOWARDS
THE EMERGENCY NEED.
.
AND THE ADMINISTRATION'S.
YOUR THE AMOUNT YOU PUT TOWARDS
AN EMERGENCY NEED.
NOT COUNTING TO NO PLACE LIKE
HOME BUT WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS
THAT. WE PROPOSED TWO HUNDRED
AND FIFTY MILLION FOR EMERGENCY
HOMELESS EIGHT GRANTS.
TO LEARN FIFTY FOR.
AND THAT'S AT A GENERAL FUND AND
THEN THERE WOULD BE TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY NO EXCUSE ME HUNDRED AND
TWENTY FIVE FROM SP TO
.
THAT AND I THINK MINE WAS AS
MUCH COMMONERS QUESTION BUT. I'M.
I SURRENDER THE FOR RESTRICTING.
I JUST GOT UP I GUESS FOR.
ON THE WAY THAT WE CONSTRUCTED.
I'M OUR ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL IS WE
DIDN'T LOOK AT.
HOW THE DIVINE THOUGH ONE? POINT
FIVE BILLION BY ITSELF BUT I
THINK WHAT WE DID WAS TRY TO
LOOK AT.
THE OVERALL AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT
HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR
PERMANENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WHETHER IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE
ASIDE MISS COSTA MATCH INTO THE
HOUSING BOND THAT ON THE BALLOT
IN NOVEMBER. S. B. TO THE PRO
TEM'S BILL THAT PASSED ON AND
OUT OBVIOUSLY THE LARGE MAJORITY
OF THAT MONEY WAS FOR PERMANENT
AFFORDABLE. HOUSING SO WE
THOUGHT.
THIS IS WHAT WE CONSTRUCTED
BASED ON THE OVERALL PICTURE NOT
JUST THE.
PICTURE FOR THIS YEAR OR THIS
FINITE AMOUNT OF MONEY I THINK I
WAS THAT I THINK THAT.
VANTAGE POINT THAT WE WE TOOK A
SHOT AT.
SENATE MORE LOCKED AWAY I
THOUGHT BEFORE I FORGET ONE ONE
QUICK QUESTION CONTRIBUTED TO
UNDER FIFTY GENERAL FUND FOR
EMERGENCY EIGHT BLOCK GRANTS.
WELL I KNOW THAT IT WAS
APPROPRIATE TOWARD LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ON HOW THE CITIES AND
COUNTIES COME TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT WHETHER THEY WANTED OUR.
PROPORTION TO HOW THEY WANT THAT.
DIVVIED UP OR WAS IT JUST GONNA
BE LIKE GOD RACE FIRST COME
FIRST SERVE.
WE ACTUALLY UTILIZE THE
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED CONTINUUM'S
OF CARE IN OUR MODEL I'M
OBVIOUSLY THERE ANOTHER CONDUIT
FOR MANY HOUSING PROGRAMS BOTH
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WE UTILIZE
THEM FOR SOME STATE PROGRAMS.
IN OUR CONSTRUCTS BOTTOM WE
HAVE THAT AGREE ANTI WOULD
PROVIDE ASSURANCES THAT THE CITY
AND COUNTY ARE WORKING TOGETHER
AS A CONDITION OF THE RECEIPT OF
THE GRANT.
THANK YOU SEVERAL.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
.
I I I GUESS HOA SIM IS BECAUSE I
WANT TO THANK YOU TO THE
GOVERNOR AND YOU FOR PUTTING A
GOOD CHUNK OF MONEY INTO THIS
ISSUE OF HOMELESSNESS.
IT'S ARE BECOMING A BIG ISSUE IN
ORANGE COUNTY.
BECAUSE JUST AS YOU'VE ENJOYED
WORKING WITH THE FEDERAL JUDGE.
ON THE PRISONS NOW WE HAVE A
FEDERAL JUDGE IS PUSHING US ON
HOW TO.
GET THESE INDIVIDUALS HOUSE SO.
I SEE THIS IS VERY CRITICAL AND
I THINK THE NO PLACE LIKE HOME
INITIATIVE IS.
REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE
ASSEMBLY TO LOOK AT.
WE'VE CERTAINLY GOT THE SUPPORT
OF THE STEINBERG INSTITUTE.
FORMER SENATOR.
DARRELL STEINBERG GUY ON THIS
APPROACH TO TRY AND.
SECURITIZED THE INCOME STREAM
AND THEN ISSUE THE DEBT.
SO I THINK THAT'S.
A GOOD INVESTMENT.
SO I'D. ENCOURAGE IS SIMPLY TO
THINK ABOUT THAT ARE MY
COLLEAGUES I WOULD ALSO.
ENCOURAGE THE GOVERNOR TO LOOK
AT.
A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
OF THE STATE A UTAH'S HAD A
PRETTY GOOD SUCCESS.
STORY.
BUT NO ONE'S PERFECT WE'VE GOT
HAVEN OF FOR HOPE IN SAN ANTONIO
TEXAS THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD BUT
THEY'RE STILL LEARNING EVERY
MONTH THAT THEY'RE STILL MORE
THAT. NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED OR
MODIFIED.
SO WHEN IT COMES TO PERMANENT
HOUSING WAS SUPPORT SERVICES.
WORKS A LOT BURKE'S WELL NOT
PERFECT BUT. WE SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE OTHER
MODELS AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT
HAVE BEEN.
TRYING REAL HARD SO THAT WE CAN
BE A SUCCESS STORY.
MISTER CHAIR CALIFORNIA IS.
LEAST LA'S EXPERIENCED
A FORTY PERCENT INCREASE IN
HOMELESSNESS JUST IN THE LAST
YEAR. AND THE THING WE'RE FACING
AN ORANGE COUNTY MAYBE ANOTHER
PROJECT THAT WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT
HIS.
NIMBY ISM JUST YOU KNOW HOW DO
YOU DEAL WITH IT. IN THAT HOW DO
WE GET PAST.
THEY KNOW THE FUN STUFF A WITH
HOMEOWNERS BEING REAL CONCERN
BUT IF YOU DO IT RIGHT.
THE HAVEN FOR HOPE IN SAN ANTONE
YOU DO RIGHT.
IT IT IT IT'S A WIN WIN WIN IT
THE PERCEPTION THAT IS THE BIG.
PROBLEM SO I JUST WANTED TO
ENCOURAGE THE GOVERNOR AND HIS
CONSTANT BECAUSE THAT* I
ALWAYS HAVE SO MUCH FUN EVERY
YEAR SO THANK YOU THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU SENATOR IN YOUR IN
YOUR UPS RIGHT THERE'S SOME.
I KNOW SHORTAGEOF NIMBY IS A
MAN ANY OF OUR DISTRICTS SO FAIR
THAT'S A. EXCELLENT POINT.
SENATOR ROBB.
ENGLISH TEACHER OF I'M WONDERING
IF YOU COULD HELP ME HOW DOES
THE MONEY FLOW UNDER THESE
VARIOUS PROPOSALS DOES IT GO.
TO THE COUNTIES AND THEN.
DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE COUNTIES
WHERE DOES IT GO TO COUNTIES AND
CITIES.
THAT A FAIR QUESTION.
I CAN SPEAK FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL NOW THE
FOR TO THE ANALYST ON THE ON
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS I AM AS A
SEATED IT GOES TO CONTINUES OF
CARE. HE'S OR ENTITIES THAT.
FLOW FEDERAL HOUSING DOLLARS AS
WELL AS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
FOR SOME OF THE OTHER STATE
DOLLARS. ON AND SO A GRANTEE CAN
BE A CITY OR A COUNTY THERE
REGIONALLY BASED.
ON AND IT'S BASED AND ON THE
THAT CAN TEAMS OF CARE HOW I'VE
KIND OF BROADER.
WHAT THEY CALL POINT IN TIME
COUNTS FOR EACH OF THE CITIES
AND COUNTIES THAT ARE WITHIN
THAT REGION?
AND SET OUT FOR THE
ADMINISTRATIVE.
STRUCTURE WE'VE CHOSEN.
ALONG WITH REQUIRING.
TO APPLY FOR THE FUNDS ON THAT
THE LOCALITY HAS DECLARED A
SHELTER EMERGENCY. A WHICH IS
THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION THAT
ALLOWS ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
AND TO DECLARE SHELTER EMERGENCY
AND ALLOW.
FOR THEM TO GET OUT OF SOME
LIABILITY ISSUES CANDIDLY THAT
ARE INVOLVED WITH TEMPORARY
HOUSING.
ON THESE PROBABLY SEEN SOME
LOCALITIES IF USED TOUGH SHOTS
AND OTHER THINGS AND THEY HAVE
UTILIZED BY GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION FOR THAT PURPOSE.
ALMONDS OF THE GRANT WOULD ALLOW
FOR THAT AS WELL.
SO THEORETICALLY IF NOT
PRACTICALLY THE MONIES CAN FLOW
TO THE.
THE AREAS OF GREATEST NEED I
WOULD ASSUME.
BASED ON. THERE ARE DIFFERENT
WAYS TO GET OUT THAT I THINK
THAT THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES
ABOUT HOW WE WOULD DO THAT.
ONE.
MEASURE COULD BE THE POINT IN
TIME COUNT
ON WHICH IS A FEDERALLY REQUIRED
WHERE.
LOCALITIES ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY
GO OUT AND COUNT THE NUMBER OF
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR
LOCALITY. I'M OBVIOUSLY THAT
METHODOLOGY IS SUBJECT TO ERRORS
IT'S NOT A PERFECT METHODOLOGY.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I
WOULD NOTE WHEN WE WERE PUTTING
FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS.
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMELESSNESS
IN CALIFORNIA'S AROUND THE SAME
AS IT WAS IN TWO THOUSAND SEVEN.
THE BIG STORY HERE IS THE
DIFFERENCE IN SHELTERED VERSES
ON SHELTERED AND WE ARE SEEN BIG
DIFFERENCES AND THE NUMBER OF
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE I'M
SHELTERED.
AND UTILIZING THAT DATA WE PUT
FORWARD A PROPOSAL REALLY AIMED
AT THAT ISSUE.
AND AND SO WE HAVE A MORE
BLENDED APPROACH IN WHICH WE
DON'T ON JUST USE THE POINT AND
TIME COUNTS.
BECAUSE IT'S.
IF THE MEASURE.
BUT IT'S IT'S IN PERFECT IN HOW
IT'S EXECUTED.
AND THIS IS DIFFICULT I
DON'T KNOW THAT I KNOW A BETTER
MEASURE FOR DETERMINING THE
NUMBER OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS
BUT.
ONE WE HAVE DEVELOPED OUR
METHODOLOGY WE DID SEE SOME
DIFFERENCES IN USING ONLY POINT
IN TIME. AS DETERMINING THE
DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND I THINK AS I
RECALL FROM THE BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS ONE OF THE
POINTS.
THAT WAS MADE DURING THAT
PROCESS IS THE POINT TIME COUNT.
PERHAPS DISADVANTAGES OF WHO
LOCALES JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE.
DONE A BIT MORE TO ADDRESS THE
HOMELESS ISSUE IN THE PAST.
POINT TIME COUNCIL OF LOWER AND
THEIR THEN DISADVANTAGED WHEN IT
COMES TIME TO THE DISTRIBUTION
FOR THE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF
FUNDS AND SO I'M.
I'M. HOPEFUL THAT SURE BLENDED
METHODOLOGY WILL WILL ADDRESS
SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS SO AS WE
MOVE THIS THING FORWARD. OR
ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT THANK YOU
HEATHER NOTE I WOULD HAVE ON
POINT IN TIME CAL IS. THEN YOU
START GETTING INTO ISSUES IN THE
POLITIES WHERE MAYBE THEY HAVE A
APPROVED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND
SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT WITH THE
BLENDED APPROACH SO THAT WE
COULD HAVE A MORE NUANCED VIEW
OF WHERE THE NEED WAS.
AND AND FINALLY IF I CAN ASK ONE
MORE ME WHAT WHAT ONE OF THE
CONCERNS THAT I IF I UNDERSTAND
THE.
THE BIG CITY MAYORS CORRECTLY IS
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT NOT
GETTING APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION
OF FUNDS FROM COUNTIES IS THAT
IS THAT THE ISSUE.
ANYBODY CAN ANYONE ADDRESS THAT.
I'D SAY THAT THERE IS.
TOM TOOK SOME OF THAT CONCERN OR
THAT THEIR.
THEIR FEELING GUIDE AND
OBVIOUSLY IT DEPENDS ON THIS
CITY AND THE COUNTY RELATIONSHIP
BY THINK THERE IS SOME FEELING
IN SOME CITIES THAT THEIR LAST
SHOULDERING THE BURDEN. HAVING
THE PUBLIC WORKS DOLLARS HAVING
THE PUBLIC SAFETY DOLLARS AND
NOT GETTING THE SUPPORT THAT
THEY NEED FROM THAT THE COUNTIES.
SO THESE PROPOSALS THAT ARE ON
THE TABLE ONE OR MORE OF THEM
WILL ADDRESS.
THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE MISTER
CHAIR I THINK THAT THAT IS THE
HOPE.
THAT IS THE WHOLE DOT NET THAT'S
WHY I THINK.
IT'S ON THE MAYOR'S AGAIN IS NOT
JUST A LARK ALLOCATION EPIC JUST
A LARGE CITY MAYORS BE TO ANY
CITY. AND I REALLY WOULD GIVE
CITIES.
A LITTLE MORE DIRECT
APPROPRIATION WHICH I THINK THEY
FEEL LIKE THEY NEED A LITTLE
MORE. ASSISTANCE WITH THEM AND I
ACTUALLY WAS THE POINT OF MY
FIRST QUESTION WAS TO MAKE TO TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT.
WHETHER A CITY FOR EXAMPLE WOULD
HAVE AN EQUAL SEAT AT THE TABLE
IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET MONEY.
AT THE SAME TIME TO COUNTIES
UPON WHAT I THINK THAT IS WHAT.
MISS COSTA WAS POLITELY.
TALKING ABOUT THAT THAT POINT
HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED YET I THINK
IT'S PART OF OUR DISCUSSION.
DISCUSS IS A LITTLE LATE I WOULD
JUST SAVING THE STATE HAS A
VESTED INTERESTS ENSURING THAT
CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE WORKING
TOGETHER TO SOLVE HOMELESSNESS.
AT YOU KNOW CAPITAL PROJECTS
ALTHOUGH NOT ALWAYS EASY THOSE
DOLLARS ARE A LITTLE BIT EASIER
TO COME BY.
TO.
SENATOR MORLOCKS EARLIER GOING
AND SOME OF THE POINTS RAISED BY
THE COMMITTEE AT THE HOUSING
FIRST OR MORE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
THAT'S WHERE COUNTIES REALLY CAN
HELP AND SO I THINK WERE REALLY
HOPING FOR A BLENDED MODEL HERE
WITH CITIES AND COUNTIES TO
ADDRESS WHAT'S.
I'M OBVIOUSLY A CRISIS RIGHT NOW
THEIR STATE THANK YOU THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR APPRECIATE RESPONSE.
OKAY SCENE NO OTHER. ARE
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS WE WILL
MOVE TO ISSUE NUMBER TWO.
TAX PER
TAX PROPOSALS.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
BRIAN WEATHERFORD WITH
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE.
ISSUE TWO IS.
ACTUALLY EIGHT DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE HOUSE HOUSES.
ON.
VARIOUS TAX PROVISIONS.
AND.
TABLE ON PAGE TWELVE SUMMARIZES.
THESE DIFFERENCES AND.
WRITE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF
EACH OF THEM.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE
EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT AND THE
HIGHER CREDIT. THE
ADMINISTRATION DID NOT HAVE A
PROPOSALS.
I'M IN THE COST OF THE TABLE.
OUR THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE
LOSSES WHO TWENTY EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN.
AND THEIR RELATIVE TO CURRENT
LAW. AND NOT THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET AND SO FOR EXAMPLE MOST
OF THESE DON'T HAVE ON THAT AS A
MATTER TOO MUCH FROM THE CITIES
BUT ON THE. EITC THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET
OPPOSE SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS.
EITC EXPANSION AND SO.
THE ASSEMBLY IS ACTION TO
FURTHER EXPAND THE EITC TO COVER
LOW INCOME WORKING IMMIGRANT
FAMILIES CURRENTLY INELIGIBLE.
IS AT A COST OF FORTY FOUR
MILLION DOLLARS IN TWENTY
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN. IN ADDITION
TO THE SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS IN
THE.
GOVERNORS ON BUDGET PROPOSAL IN
THE. BUDGET ADOPTED BY THE
SENATE.
SO THAT'S A TOTAL COSTS.
RELATIVE TO CURRENT LAW ABOUT
INFORMED.
SO.
I WAS GONNA RUN THROUGH ALL OF
THESE IN THE INTEREST OF TIME
BUT.
DID WANT TO HIGHLIGHT TO FOR
YOUR ATTENTION.
.
THE SENATE.
ACTED TO INCREASE THE RENTER'S
CREDIT FOR INFLATION.
AND FOR TAX FILERS WITH
DEPENDENCE
AT A COST OF FORTY FOUR MILLION
DOLLARS IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN AND THE ASSEMBLY ACTED
TO MAKE THE CHILD CARE CREDIT.
REFUNDABLE AT A COST OF TWENTY
SIX MILLION AND TWENTY EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN I CAN ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE A PATH.
THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS OF THE
LA OPEN FOR WE MOVE OVER TO THE.
DEPARTMENT FINANCE.
SEEING NONE MUST COSTA.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS I
JUST KNOW IT'S COMPLETELY
APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION ON TAX CREDITS IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE BUDGET
OBVIOUSLY ANY. TAX CREDITS THAT
ARE ULTIMATELY PART OF THE
PACKAGE ON IT WILL LEAD TO
REVENUE LOSSES.
I LIKE THE ANALYST AND JUST
GONNA GO THROUGH JUST A COUPLE
OF THEM I'M NOT GONNA BELABOR
THE MALL BUT CERTAINLY OPEN TO
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
AND THE FIRST I WOULD KNOW IS
THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
OBVIOUSLY WE HAD A PROPOSAL AT
MAY REVISE TO EXPAND THE EITC TO
FIVE HOURS BETWEEN THE AGES OF
EIGHTEEN AND TWENTY FOUR. AND
OVER SIXTY FIVE THE ASSEMBLY HAS
APPROVED ON THAT EXPANSION AND
THEY HAVE ALSO AND ADDED A THAT
TAXPAYERS THAT USE INDIVIDUAL
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
RATHER THAN SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBERS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE.
WE WOULD JUST NOTE AGAIN WE
HAVE A SCORING DIFFERENCE HERE
THE ASSEMBLY ACTION I SCORED THE
ANNUAL REVENUE LOSS AT FORTY
FOUR MILLION BEGINNING IN
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN. I THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD ESTIMATE THE
ANNUAL REVENUE LOSS OF SEVENTY
MILLION FOR THAT PROGRAM.
THE NEXT THING.
I WAS GOING TO HIGHLIGHT HIS OF
THE TEACHER TAX DEDUCTION AND
THE SENATE APPROVED A TAX
DEDUCTION BEGINNING IN EIGHTEEN
FOR TEACHERS TO EARN CERTAIN
REQUIRED CREDENTIALS.
REVENUE LOSSES ARE ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN AND THEN TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND PER YEAR THERE AFTER.
WE WE JUST KNOW THAT ROUGHLY
NINETY PERCENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL
TEACHERS HAVE THIS CREDENTIALING
PAID FOR BY THEIR EMPLOYERS WITH
AND PROPOSITION NINETY EIGHT.
AND IT SEEMS INAPPROPRIATE
FUNDING SOURCE FOR THAT WORK.
LASTLY.
THERE IS AT THE PAYMENT IN LIEU
OF TAXES AND WE WOULD JUST NOTE
THAT THIS ACTION IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN
BUDGET AGREEMENT AND WHICH WE
PROVIDED SIX HUNDRED FORTY FOUR
THOUSAND DOLLARS GENERAL FUND TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME.
TO OFFSET THE LOSS OF PROPERTY I
LOCAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR
STATE WILDLIFE AREAS WITH
STATUTORY LANGUAGE THAT
CLARIFIES THE PAYMENTS TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OUR DISCRETION.
WITH THAT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU QUESTIONS
SENATOR ROBB.
THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR OF.
SCOTT TO MAYBE YOU COULD REFRESH
MY RECOLLECTION ON THE HIRING
CREDIT IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN.
WHAT THE SENATE THE ACTIONS
SENATE TOOK IN THE ACTION THAT
THE ASSEMBLY TOOK WHAT AGAIN WAS
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL?
SURE WE PROPOSED A CALIFORNIA
HIRING CREDITS PROVIDE A
STRONGER INCENTIVE FOR EMPLOYERS
HIRE HARD TO HIRE INDIVIDUALS.
BY EXPANDING THE EXISTING CREDIT
IN A COUPLE OF WAYS ONE WE
INCREASE THE QUALIFYING WAGE
RANGE TO ONE HUNDRED.
TO THREE HUNDRED FIFTY PERCENT
OF MINIMUM WAGE VERSES ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY TO THREE HUNDRED
FIFTY PERCENT. WE ELIMINATE THE
REQUIREMENT THAT NEW HIRES BE
LOCATED IN SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS AND THEN LASTLY WEEKS BE
ANSWERED RETAIL AND FOOD SERVICE
INDUSTRIES. THE EXISTING HIRING
TAX CREDIT WAS UNDER UTILIZED
AND SO WE PUT FORWARD A PROPOSAL
THAT WE THOUGHT AND WOOD.
INCREASE OUR UTILIZATION OF
THIS CREDIT.
SO THE THRESHOLD IS THREE
HUNDRED AND FIFTY PERCENT OF
MINIMUM WAGE.
THE DEFICIT WHICH SAID. THE THE
THRESHOLD J. CHAIRMAN AND
PATTERNS
ARE THE THRESHOLD IS AT HIS
PROPOSED TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT
OF MINIMUM WAGE UP TO THREE
HUNDRED FIFTY SO FOR PAIN. THREE
HUNDRED SIXTY ONLY GET THEIR
CREDIT BETWEEN HIGHLIGHTED THREE
AND FIFTY THAT MAKES THAT MAKES
SENSE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH
THE ORIGINAL HIRING CREDIT FROM
MY PERSPECTIVE WAS IT WAS. AS I
RECALL HUNDRED AND FIFTY PERCENT
OF MINIMUM WAGE IN IS THE
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASED.
IN SOME PORTIONS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WAS VERY DIFFICULT.
FOR AN EMPLOYER TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE HIRING TAX
CREDITS SO I THINK FRANKLY FROM
MY PERSPECTIVE IT'S A GOOD MOVE.
WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE
DIFFERENCE
UPON THE EARNED INCOME TAX
CREDIT.
.
APPRECIATE THE EXPANSION ONE OF
THE.
.
OPPONENTS.
CONCERNS WAS THAT AS A STATE.
WE'RE NOT SPENDING ENOUGH MONEY
ON OUT OF REACH IT'S ONE THING
TO EXPAND THE EITC EVEN IF
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING
TO GET TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO.
FILE IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF IT
IT DOESN'T DO MUCH EXCEPT.
PUT SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS
THAT'S UNDER SUBSCRIBED OR UNDER
UTILIZED.
DID.
HAVE WE DONE ANYTHING TO
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF OUT REACH
DOLLARS THAT WEIRD.
DEDICATING IN THE BUDGET TO THIS
PARTICULAR PROGRAM.
IF I MAY ASSERTIVE HOUSES ACTED
TO PROVIDE TWENTY MILLION
DOLLARS NOW.
FOR THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
AND THAT'S AN INCREASE OF.
WELL THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET SO IT'S AN
INCREASE OF TWENTY MILLION.
OKAY.
AND WHO'S NOT THINK VERY MUCH OF
WHICH CHIU IT IF I COULD ASK
YOUR QUESTION SENATOR ROBB IS
THE QUESTION ALSO WHAT WE SPENT
OUT REACH LAST YEAR JUST TO GET
A SENSE OF.
IF WE'RE DOING BETTER OR NOT I
CAN GIVE YOU SOME PASS YOUR
NUMBERS ON OUTREACH AND TO AL'S
POINT WE DIDN'T BUILD AN OUT
REACH INTO THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET.
IN FIFTEEN SIXTEEN THE FIRST
YEAR THE ITC WAS AVAILABLE SIX
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IS
BUDGET FOR OUTREACH.
I AND WE GOT ABOUT THREE HUNDRED
EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND RETURNS I
RECEIVE FOR EITC IN THAT YEAR.
AND TWENTY SIXTEEN SEVENTEEN.
.
THE OUTREACH WAS INCREASED
SIGNIFICANTLY TO TWO POINT SIX
MILLION AND THAT HERE TWO
MILLION ONE TIME AND SIX HUNDRED
THOUSAND ON GOING. ON BUT WE
NOTED THAT EVEN WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE WE REALLY
DIDN'T SEE AN INCREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF EITC RETURNS THAT WE
RECEIVED.
AND THIS YEAR'S TWENTY MILLION.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS BUILT AN
OUTREACH MONEY GOOD.
THANK YOU MEMBERS CHAIR.
SENATOR MORE LOCK FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR SKINNER.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
I'M JUST CURIOUS ON THESE.
CALIFORNIA HIGHER CREDIT WE WANT
TO.
ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES TO HIRED.
HARD TO HIRE GROUPS IN AND I
DON'T KNOW MISTER CHAIR. SUMMER
IN OUR DISCUSSIONS THERE IS A
PROPOSAL TO DISCONTINUE USING AN
OUTSIDE VENDOR THAT USES
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISADVANTAGED
EMPLOYEES.
TO WORK WITH THE PRISON SYSTEMS
AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHEN CAN
I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE I THINK
WE NEED TO PRACTICE WHAT WE
PREACH.
AND.
I I I I I YOU KNOW THERE'S SO
MUCH DATA COMING OUT AS AS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
BUT IF WE'RE GONNA TERMINATE A
BUSINESS THAT'S.
UTILIZING DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISADVANTAGED INDIVIDUALS I'D
LIKE THAT STEP UP FOR THAT GROUP.
THIS ISSUE OF FUNDING FOR THAT
GROUP I THINK IS GOING TO BE
DISCUSSED BUT THAT PARTICULAR.
ISSUE WASN'T IN CONFERENCE BUT.
.
IT IS CORRUPTS.
I THINK A LOT A LOT OF OUR
TRAILER BILL PASSED YEAH SO I I
THINK MAYBE WHEN WE DISCUSS THAT
ISSUE. HOME ON WEDNESDAY THAT
WOULD BE A GREAT TIME TO BRING
UP YOUR GREAT CHAIR THANKS FOR
GIVING HIM DIRECTIONS.
MY QUESTION IS ON THE HIRING
CREDIT SO.
WE HAVE.
VERY LOW UNEMPLOYMENT.
AND CURRENTLY ARE HIRING CREDIT
IS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS
VERY UNDER UTILIZED.
AND YET THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL TO EXPAND IT.
.
THE LOGIC PLEASE.
I KNOW THAT I WOULD CLASSIFY IT
AS AN EXPANSION I WOULD SAY THAT
THE ORIGINAL HIRING TAX CREDIT
WAS REALLY UNDER UTILIZING THINK
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT WE ARE
AT VERY.
LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATE NOW SO
WE'VE TAYLOR DAY IN A WAY TO
REALLY TARGET THE HARD HIGHER
POPULATION AND THAT INCLUDES
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN RECENTLY
INCARCERATED CAL WORKS
RECIPIENTS. THOSE WHO EVEN IN
THE REALM OF FULL EMPLOYMENT ARE
STILL HAVING DIFFICULTY
OBTAINING A JOB.
SO WOULD WE REVERT THE FUNDS
THAT WE.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE.
WE.
IN ADOPTING LAST YEAR'S BUDGET.
WE OBVIOUSLY.
SHOWED.
.
AN EXPECTATION OF A CERTAIN
AMOUNT DID SINCE THE TAX CREDIT
IS AN EXPENDITURE. WE EXPECTED A
CERTAIN EXPENDITURE WHICH WE DID
NOT RECEIVE I THINK THAT SIMILAR
TO WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH THE EYE
CAN SEE BUT FOR DIFFERENT
REASONS.
SO WOULD WE BE.
.
I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL IS EXPECTED TO GROW IN
IS EXPECTED TO GROW.
BECAUSE WE'RE TARGETING A
DIFFERENT POPULATION.
HOME IF I MAY UM THE THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL.
EXPANDS THE CREDIT AND INTO
IMPORTANT HUESO AS ARM WAS
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IT REDUCES
THE THRESHOLD AT WHICH EMPLOYEES
QUALIFY. FOR THE THE SUBSIDY BY
BY MOVING INTO A.
A FULL MY HUNTER PERCENT OF
MINIMUM WAGE.
AND THE SEWERS BILLION WARRIORS
YOU COULD MYERS QUALIFIED
EMPLOYERS RIGHT KNOWN WILL THE
EMPLOYEES THE EMPLOYER QUALIFIES
BY HIRING AN EMPLOYEE. OKAY AND
UNDER THE EXISTING TAX CREDIT
YOU HAVE TO HIRE THE EMPLOYEE
THE NEW EMPLOYEE AT A HUNDRED
FIFTY PERCENT OF MINIMUM WAGE AT
LEAST.
AND SO THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A
BARRIER IN ADDITION IT WAS
LIMITED TO CERTAIN ZONES THE
STATE FORMER ENTERPRISE ZONES
AND WE'RE NEXT THE THE
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES TO
EXPAND STATEWIDE.
OKAY.
THANK YOU CENTER ROTH JUST TO
FOLLOW UP I I THINK IT'S REALLY
VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PAYING.
SOMEONE IN THE HARD THE HIGHER
CATEGORY THAT IS JUST EXPLAINED
A HUNDRED AND FIFTY PERCENT OF
MINIMUM WAGE.
THAT'S PROBABLY MAYBE A BRIDGE
TOO FAR YOU'RE LIMITING THE
JURORS GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF THE
STATE AND ALSO SOME OF THE
OCCUPATIONS DID WE CHANGE THAT
AS WELL.
YES WHAT WE WE CHANGE THE
INDUSTRIES THAT INDUSTRY RECALL.
SO PLAYERS.
UNDER OUR PROPOSAL WOULD BE
COULD BE IN THE RETAILER OR FOOD
SERVICES.
SO THAT'S IMPORTANT.
SPANNING THE GEOGRAPHY AND
LOWERING THE THRESHOLD TO A
HUNDRED PERCENT OF MINIMUM WAGE
FOR THE TARGETED GROUP OF
POTENTIAL EMPLOYEES WERE TALKING
ABOUT. I THINK WE WOULD BE
INTERESTING TO SEE AN OBVIOUSLY
WE WILL BE STUDYING IT WATCHING
IT SO WHEN YOU I THINK WE WILL
BE EXPANDING THIS PROGRAM I
THINK IS FOR HIM DOES A VERY
IMPORTANT CHANGES.
DOCTOR ABOUT.
I WANTED A COMMENT IN THIS AREA
IF I COULD.
.
I.
IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS
HIRING CREDIT I KNOW YOU HAVE
SAID THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN
SUBSCRIBED WELL BUT I THINK IT'S.
THE PORN TO PUT NUMBERS TO IT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'VE HAD
WANTED TO PERCENT PARTICIPATION
BASED ON HOW MUCH WE'VE
ALLOCATED FOR THIS TAX CREDIT.
AND IT'S BECAUSE OF THE
DECISIONS THAT WE'VE.
MADE AND HOW WE'VE.
STRUCTURE DISCREDIT.
I WANTED JUST PUT A TIMESTAMP
NOW TO RE EVALUATE THIS PROGRAM
AFTER YEAR TO SEE IF THE CHANGES
IN THE VARIABLES. HAVE WORKED
IF WEATHERED. OR CHANGING FROM
RESTAURANTS AND RETAILS OR
PAT DECREASING FROM A HUNDRED
AND FIFTY TO A HUNDRED PERCENT
REALLY DO HELP.
BECAUSE.
ONE OF THE WAYS THAT I DO THINK
WE CAN MAKE SURE THIS PROGRAM IS
SUBSCRIBED TO IS HAVING A
PROGRAM. THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE
WELL TO THE RETAILERS AND
RESTAURANTS IN THE BUSINESSES
WHO WILL USE THESE TAX CREDITS.
AND MY CONCERN IS ON HOW WE'VE
STRUCTURED CONCERNED JUST GONNA
VOICE THAT CONCERN BUT THE.
THIRTY FIVE PERCENT ABOVE
MINIMUM WAGE REALLY DOES
DISPROPORTIONATELY HURT THOSE
WHO ARE ON THE LOWER END OF THE
WAGE SCALE VERSUS THOSE WHO ARE.
.
TURNING THIRTY DOLLARS AN HOUR
VERSES ELEVEN DOLLARS AN HOUR
AND IT. WANTING TO FIGURE OUT IF
THIS PROGRAM IS NOT SUBSCRIBED
TO.
DO WE IN FUTURE YEARS COME BACK
TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S A DIFFERENT MECHANISM.
TO HAVE THIS TAX CREDIT IF
THERE'S A DOLLAR PER HOUR. THAT
WE COULD BE APPLYING UNTIL WE
REACHED A THRESHOLD WHERE IF
THERE'S ANOTHER WAY WE CAN MAKE
SURE THAT WE HAVE BETTER THAN
ONE TO TWO PERCENT PARTICIPATION
IN THIS TAX.
IF I MAY I THINK THE
ADMINISTRATION WOULD SUPPORT RE
EVALUATING THIS I WOULD NOTE
THOUGH FOR A TAX CREDIT ONE YEAR
IS LIKELY NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE
THERE'S A QUALIFYING EVENTS THAT
HAPPENS IN THIS CASE THE HIRING
OF AN INDIVIDUAL. BEFORE THE
COMPANY CAN GO BACK AND CLEAN
THEIR CREDIT AND SO THAT WOULD
LIKELY TAKE LONGER TO HAVE A.
REAL EVALUATION WITH MEANINGFUL
DATA THANK YOU.
ETCETERA.
I APOLOGIZE MISTER CHAIR HE'S
GOING TO GET THE HOOK COME FROM
A PRETTY QUICKLY HERE.
.
ELIOT DID YOU AYE HAVING SAID
WHAT I SAID ABOUT. REDUCING THE
THRESHOLD FROM A HUNDRED AND
FIFTY PERCENT OF MINIMUM WAGE
TWO HUNDRED PERCENT.
THE Z..
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST HAVE ANY
FURTHER SUGGESTIONS WITH RESPECT
TO THIS.
HIRING CREDIT PROGRAM AS WE'RE
SITTING HERE AND BEFORE WE MAKE
DECISIONS. AND IF SO WHAT. WILL
WE DO SENATOR UP AS YOU NOTED.
THE TAX CREDIT IS IS THIRTY
FIVE PERCENT OF A QUALIFIED
PORTION OF THE EMPLOYEES WAGE SO
THAT PORTION STARTS AT A HUNDRED
PERCENT OF MINIMUM WAGE.
SO FOR.
DIFFICULT TO HIRE INDIVIDUALS
THEY MAY NOT BE PAID MUCH MORE
THAN MINIMUM WAGE.
OTHER CERTAINLY CERTAINLY
POSSIBLE.
THAT THE BUT BUT THE AMOUNT OF
THE TAX CREDIT TO THE EMPLOYER
MAY ONLY BE.
SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS IF
EMPLOYEES PAID SAY TWELVE FOR
TWELVE DOLLARS AN HOUR SO.
ONE OF OUR SITES SUGGESTIONS
THAT WE SHARED WITH YOUR STAFF
WAS PERHAPS OF STRUCTURING THE
CREDIT.
TO.
AT THE FOOL.
.
IF THEY'RE FULL WAGE THIRTY FIVE
PERCENT WERE SMALLER PERCENTAGE
MAYBE TWENTY PERCENT OF THEIR
FULL WAGE OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
PERCENT OF MINIMUM WAGE.
AND WE THINK THAT WOULD.
INCREASE THE TAKE UP.
CONSIDERABLY AND SO YOU MAY WANT
TO MORE NARROWLY FOCUSED THE
CREDIT AS WELL SO FRONT LOADING
IT AND IN OTHER WORDS RIGHT SO
THAT THE.
YOU KNOW YOU WILL GET A MAXIMUM
CREDIT MINIMUM WAGE THE CREDIT
WOULD STILL GROW FOR A PERIOD OF
TIME WHERE THE CREDITS RECEIVE
BY THE EMPLOYER.
BUT THAT AT LEAST A UNITED
MINIMUM WAGE OR JUST ABOVE
MINIMUM WAGE. EMPLOYERS
RECEIVING A TAX CREDIT OF SAY
ONE OR TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
WHICH MIGHT PROVIDE A
SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH INCENTIVE FOR
THEM TO HIRE THEM.
A HARD HIGHER EMPLOYEE WHERE IS
UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. YOU
ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CREDIT
UNTIL YOU PAY THE EMPLOYEE
HUNDRED FIFTY PERCENT OF MINIMUM
WAGE AND UNDER THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL YOU
DON'T RECEIVE A TAX CREDIT.
INTEL IT'S ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE
IN THAT IT'S VERY VERY SMALL.
WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE
OTHER ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS PROGRAM ANY OTHER
SUGGESTIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONSIDERING.
.
WE ALSO.
NOTED THAT.
BOTH BOTH HOUSES EXPRESSED
RESERVATIONS WITH EXPANDING THE
CREDIT TO RETAIL AND FOOD
SERVICE BUSINESSES SO WE WOULD
RECOMMEND. OMITTING
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED LANGUAGE
TO RESTORE THE RESTRICTIONS ON
QUALIFY TAXPAYERS IN ADDITION
THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT
THE PUBLIC REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
THE ADDRESS ALTHOUGH WITH
RESPECT TO THE EXPANDED
INDUSTRIES THOSE OUR INDUSTRIES
WHERE IT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO.
FOR EMPLOYER HIRE SOME OF THESE
OF.
DIFFICULT TO HIRE.
EMPLOYEES.
POSSIBLY I MEAN IT I GUESS IT
DEPENDS ON YOUR POLICY GOALS AS.
IF YOU'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH
WORK HISTORY.
FIRST FOR SOME FOR SOME PEOPLE
ANY JOB WOULD BE A GOOD JOB BUT.
BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THERE
ARE RESERVATIONS WITH EXTENDING
IT TO THOSE INDUSTRIES AND WHAT
WERE THE ISSUES WITH RESPONSIBLE
IF RESPECT TO THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
CURRENTLY THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD.
HAS A WEBSITE THEY MAINTAIN
THAT.
PROVIDES THE NAME OF EACH
QUALIFY TAXPAYER WHO CLAIMS THE
TAX CREDIT. AND WE UNDERSTAND
THIS IS A A BIT OF A BURDEN FOR
THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD BECAUSE
OF. CPAS
PARTICULARLY PARTNERSHIPS
TRACING.
TRACING THAT THE TAX FILINGS IS
JUST.
WINTERSON IS BURDENSOME FOR
THAT GROUP OF TAXPAYERS.
I ACTUALLY WAS AROUND AT THE
INCEPTION OF THIS BUT I DON'T
RECALL THE ORIGINS OF THEIR
REPORTING REQUIREMENT DO YOU.
I WASN'T AROUND THAT.
FINANCED YOU RECALL.
NO I I'VE I WAS THAT I WAS THERE
AT THE TIME BUT I DON'T RECALL
THAT WE WERE THERE TOGETHER.
OKAY THANK YOU MISTER.
THANK YOU.
OKAY SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS
WILL MOVE TO ISSUE THREE
CANNABIS.
HELLO THE BORDERS.
BRIAN BROWN ANALYST'S OFFICE I
ISSUE THREE RELATED TO CANNABIS
LICENSING AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES.
THE GOVERNOR OF MAY REVISION
INCLUDED A HUNTIN THIRTY THREE
MILLION.
ANNUALLY FOR TWO YEARS.
FOR FOURTEEN DIFFERENT APART
TO DO DIFFERENT LAST WEEK LIKE
FIFTEEN AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES.
BOTH HOUSES ADOPTED THE MAY
REVISION PROPOSALS IN FULL JUST
WITH THREE.
THREE CHANGES.
THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THE
ASSEMBLY ADOPTED A TWENTY FIVE
MILLION. LOAN FROM THE GENERAL
FUND TO BE USED FOR LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND TO BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE BOARD OF
STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS.
THAT GENERAL FUND LOAN WILL BE
REPAID IN THE FUTURE FROM THE
CANNABIS TAX FUND.
YOU ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE WE
JUST KNOW THAT THE USE OF THE
FUNDING FOR THIS PURPOSE IS
ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE
ALLOWABLE USES UNDER PROPOSITION
SIXTY FOUR FOR THE TAX FIND.
BUT THE.
PROPOSITION DIDN'T HAVE EXPLICIT
LANGUAGE AROUND LOANING THAT
FIND.
FOR THE PITTSBURGH FOR FUTURE
FOR EARLIER YEARS AND THE
REVENUE WOULD BE AVAILABLE THIS
PROPOSED HERE SO. IF THIS
CONTINUES TO BE PART OF THE
ULTIMATE BUDGET PACKAGES MAY
WANT TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL ON.
ON THAT TECHNICAL ISSUE. THE
SECOND A CHAMBERS ADOPTED BY
BOTH HOUSES THERE'S REALLY NOT A
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR HOUSES
BUT BETWEEN YOU AND THE
ADMINISTRATION. THAT IS THE.
IMMIGRATION A PROPOSED FOURTEEN
MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FROM.
THE CANNABIS TAX FIND IT TO BE
USED FOR DIFFERENT STATEWIDE
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES BOTH
HOUSES CHANGE THAT FUNDS WERE
FROM THE TAX FUND TO THE GENERAL
FUND. OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT
WHETHER GIVING THE TAX ON FOR
THIS PURPOSE.
WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PROPOSITION
SIXTY FOURTH CURRENTLY WRITTEN
AS WELL THE FACT THAT USING THE
TAX FUND FOR THAT PURPOSE WOULD
ALSO POTENTIALLY CROWD OUT OTHER
USES IN THE FUTURE.
IN THE THIRD CHANGE IS THE
SENATE ADDED A TOTAL OF TEN
POINT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS TO
ASSIST EQUITY APPLICANTS.
THESE ARE LICENSE APPLICANTS
WHO ARE FROM COMMUNITIES THAT
HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN HARMED BY
THE STATE'S STRICTER DRUG
POLICIES OF THE PAST.
THE TOTAL FUNNY IN INCLUDES
ABOUT A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS
FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN IN
THE.
.
CANNABIS CONTROL FRONT AND THEN.
TEN MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE
GENERAL FUND FOR GRANTS AND ON
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AYE I
THINK ULTIMATELY THAT GENERAL
FUND.
USAGE IF THAT LIKELY QUESTION
OF WHETHER A PROVIDING
ADDITIONAL STATE FUNDING FOR
THIS SUBSET OF LICENSEES AND WE
KNOW THERE. ARE. MORE AWARE OF
ABOUT FOUR COMMUNITIES SO FAR
HAVE IMPLEMENTED EQUITY PROGRAMS
OTHER MAYBE MORE THAT ARE
CONSIDERING AS WELL.
WHETHER QUESTION OF.
PROVIDING FUNDING FOR THOSE
SUBSTANTIVE LICENSEES IS A
TELEPHONE PRIORITY FOR YOU.
THANK YOU MISS COSTA.
THANK YOU ALL TRY TO DUPLICATE
WHAT THE ANALYST HAS AB POINTED
OUT BUT.
AS HE SAID DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE WE ALL FUNDED IT WE JUST
USE DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES
AND THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED
THE USE OF THE CANNABIS TAX
FOUND IN BOTH HOUSES UTILIZED
THE GENERAL FUND FOR THAT
PURPOSE.
SECONDLY.
THE ASSEMBLY HAS INCLUDE TWENTY
FIVE MILLION DOLLAR GENERAL FUND
LOAN TO BE REPAID BY THE
CANNABIS TAXED FUND FOR LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT WE DON'T SUPPORT
PROVIDING FUNDING TO LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ENFORCE
ILLEGAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES IN
THE BUDGET YEAR. THAT'S THE
SIXTY FOUR OUR PARTY PROP SIXTY
FOUR SPECIFIES FUNDING FROM THE
CANNABIS TAX FUNDS FOR EDUCATION.
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS CLEANUP
REMEDIATION AN INFORMANT
ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS CREATED BY CANNABIS
CULTIVATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY
PROGRAMS. BASED ON THE CURRENT
REVENUE ESTIMATES FUNDING FOR
THESE PROGRAMS WILL NOT BE
AVAILABLE UNTIL TWENTY NINETEEN
TWENTY. WITHOUT STATUTORY
CHANGES THAT.
LIKELY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO
THE VOTERS. WE DON'T BELIEVE
THAT THESE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES
CAN BE PRE FUNDED.
LASTLY OF ELSE NOTED.
THE SENATE HOUSE A PROPOSAL FOR
EQUITY PROGRAMS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION NOTES THE MERITS
OF THIS PROPOSAL WE ARE
SYMPATHETIC.
TO.
REDUCING BARRIERS TO CANNABIS
LICENSURE FOR THOSE WERE
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY
THE WAR ON DRUGS WE DO WORRY
THOUGH SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE
PROPOSAL'S LOAN PROGRAM
COMPONENT. ó WE SOUGHT A
SOLUTION TO.
CANNABIS BANKING AND WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IT'S
COMPLICATED.
ON END SO WE WORRY ABOUT HOW WE
WOULD AND UTILIZE A LOAN ON
GIVEN THOSE COMPLEXITIES FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU EARLIER YES.
I JUST ONE POINT OF
CLARIFICATION ANYTHING IS IS THE
CONVERSATIONS OF CONTINUE TO
EVOLVE I THINK THE PURPOSE.
FOR THE EQUITY APPLICANTS WOULD
BE FOR A GRANT PROGRAM NOT FOR.
NOT FOR LOANS.
THANK YOU.
GOOD LUCK TO THE COMMITTEE.
OKAY.
GOHAN WANTS.
YEAH OCCUR.
DONE.
ISSUE FOR YOU THREE INVESTMENT
FUND ADULT REENTRY INTO VERSION.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
VICE CHAIRMAN MEMBERS JONATHAN
PETERSON WITH THE LA THOUGH.
ON PAGE TWENTY OF YOUR AGENDA WE
DID PREPARE A HAND OUT OUTLINE.
DIVERSION A AND REENTRY PROGRAMS
FOR THAT EACH HOUSE APPROVED.
I WON'T GO OVER EACH OF THE
PROGRAMS BUT FOR WHAT THE
PROGRAMS ENTAIL BUT I WILL SAY
THAT THE GOVERNOR DID NOT HAVE A
PROPOSAL IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET
RELATED TO DIVERSION AND REENTRY
PROGRAMS.
BOTH HOUSES INCLUDED ONE TIME
FUNDING FROM THE GENERAL FUND
FOR THESE PROGRAMS.
THE CIVIC GLEE THE SENATE
INCLUDED ONE HUNDRED MILLION IN
ONE TIME FUNDING THIS INCLUDED
THIRTY FIVE MILLION FOR GENERAL
DIVERSION PROGRAMS.
FIFTY MILLION FOR REENTRY
PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE HOUSING
SERVICES AND FIFTEEN MILLION FOR
SOCIAL WORKERS I FOR USE IN
PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICES. THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES WOULD ALLOCATE THOSE
FUNDS.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED A HUNDRED
AND FIFTY MILLION IN ONE TIME
FUNDING SLIGHTLY HIGHER THIS
INCLUDED SEVENTY FIVE MILLION
FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOR AT
RISK YOUTH.
TEN MILLION FOR DIVERSION
PROGRAMS FOR NATIVE AMERICAN
YOUTH. THEY ALSO ALLOCATED FIFTY
MILLION FOR THE HOUSING RE ENTRY
SERVICES AND OF THE FIFTEEN
MILLION FOR SOCIAL WORKERS IN
PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICES.
AND THEY INSTEAD OF PROVIDE THE
AUTHORITY FOR THESE FUNDS TO THE
BORDER STATE COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS. THERE IS ALSO TRUE
PLAY A PLACEHOLDER TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE FOR RE ENTRY INTO
VIRGIN PROGRAMS THE SENATE ALSO
HAD TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
RELATED TO.
CEILING OF RECORDS FOR CERTAIN
OFFENDERS.
THE PACKAGE OF PROGRAMS THAT IS
ULTIMATELY ADOPTED AS A MATTER
OF LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY SO WE
DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHICH PACKAGE
TO APPROVE. WE DID HAVE SOME
FACTORS FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO
CONSIDER.
WELL FOR EXAMPLE THE EXTENT TO
WHICH DIVERSION PROGRAM SHOULD
BE TARGETED TO SPECIFIC
POPULATIONS ARE SPECIFIC TYPES
OF SERVICES IS SOMETHING YOU MAY
WANT TO CONSIDER. WHICH STATE
ENTITY IS MOST EQUIPPED TO
ADMINISTER THE PROGRAMS WHETHER
FUNDS SHOULD BE ALLOCATED ON A
COMPETITIVE BASIS THE SPECIFIC
CRITERIA THAT SHOULD BE USED IN
ALLOCATING THE FUNDS AND FINALLY
WHETHER TO INCLUDE A. EVALUATION
COMPONENT FOR THE PROGRAMS THAT
RECEIVE FUNDING.
HAVING TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
THANK YOU MISS COST.
ABSENT POLICY MERITS OF THESE AB
PACKAGES OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE
GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATIONS THAT
WERE INCLUDING THE GOVERNOR'S
FISCAL PLAN JUST A COUPLE
TECHNICAL NOTES IN THE HOUSE
BROUGHT IT UP WE DO HAVE
CONCERNS FOR THE SENATE PROPOSAL
HOW THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES ADMINISTERED THE YOUTH
AND ADULT. RE ENTRY AND
DIVERSION PROGRAM GRANTS JUST
BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT
TYPICALLY ADMINISTERED THESE
TYPES OF PROGRAMS AND SO WE
THINK THAT THERE'S LIKELY A
BETTER ADMINISTRATIVE ENTITY. TO
ADMINISTER THAT PROGRAM. ON AND
THEN ON THE SENATE YOUTH AND
ADULT REENTRY INTO A VERSION AND.
PROGRAM PACKAGE AS A WHOLE WE
DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DETAILS AND
AS SUCH WE CAN'T REALLY COMMENTS.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
HER SKIRT.
IF WE NEED LOOK AT THE OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES.
.
THEY ADMINISTER A LOT OF.
GRANT PROGRAMS.
AND FOR EXAMPLE THEY HAVE.
AND STILL DO ADMINISTER VARIOUS
GRANT PROGRAMS THAT.
HAVE AN OVERLAP WITH SOME TYPES
OF RE ENTRY SERVICES.
.
SO THERE THERE ARE. EXISTING
STRUCTURES THAT.
.
THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS
PRESENTED HERE COULD FIT IN.
THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
ASSEMBLY SAN ME.
SENATE'S
ACTION WHICH WAS ALREADY POINTED
OUT BUT BASICALLY BOTH HOUSES.
SUPPORTED THE FIFTEEN MILLION TO
PUT SOCIAL WORKERS IN PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE SUPPORTED
FIFTY MILLION FOR RE ENTRY
HOUSING. IF WE TALKED TO THE IF
WE TALK TOWARD COUNTIES IF WE
TALK TO OUR.
ENTITIES THAT DO RE ENTRY
SUPPORT AND EVEN TO CDC ARE
BECAUSE NOW OUR CORRECTIONS
DIVISION CASTING DO. EVERY ENTRY
PLAN. BEFORE PEOPLE ARE RELEASED
AND THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT COMES
UP AGAIN AND AGAIN IS WHERE
THESE FOLKS GOING TO BE HOUSED.
AND.
SO BOTH HOUSES FELT TO IS
PROPRIOCEPTIVE BECAUSE THAT IS
WHAT WE'VE IN EVERY INQUIRY WE
MAKE AS TO WHAT'S ONE OF THE
LARGEST NEEDS WERE TOLD.
YOU KNOW AND IT RARE TREAT
HOUSING.
.
AND THEN THE AREAS THAT. WAS
JUST LANDED ON MUTUALLY WAS
AROUND THE U. THREE INVESTMENT.
AND SO CLEARLY THAT'S SOMETHING
WE CAN CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT IF
WE CALL THIS ITEM OPEN BUT THERE
WAS A GREAT MERIT TOO MANY OF
THE PROGRAMS THAT WERE DISCUSSED.
WITHIN THAT YOU THREE INVESTMENT.
HERTZBERG. FOR DIVERSION CORRECT
IT WASN'T FOR RE ENTRY IS FOR
DIVERSION BUT OBVIOUSLY.
IT'S LIKE ANY AN OUNCE OF
PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF
CURE IF WE CAN KEEP PEOPLE FROM
EVEN. ENTERING OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM ALL THE BETTER
AND THAT'S THE FOCUS OF THE
YOUTH.
INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
THANK YOU.
OKAY I'M NOT SEEING ANY.
DOCTOR ROBERT.
I MISS COSTA YOU SAID THAT THERE
WAS A.
DEPARTMENT THAT MAY BE ABLE TO
BETTER OVERSEE THAT PROGRAM AND
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD
ELUCIDATE WHICH DEPARTMENT THAT
WOULD BE.
JOSH DUGGAR DEPARTMENT FINANCE
SO GENERALLY SPEAKING.
SIMILAR PROGRAMS LIKE THIS HAVE
BEEN FUNDED WITH THE BOARD OF
SEEN CONNIE CORRECTIONS IN THE
PAST AND OBVIOUSLY DEPENDING ON
THE YOU KNOW VARIATION OF WHAT
IS ACTUALLY BEING FUNDED AND THE.
REENTRY POPULATION THAT IS
FOCUSED ON I THINK THAT THERE'S
ALSO A ROLE FOR HER CCAR'S
FUNDING.
CCR TO.
BEING.
OVERSEEN SIGNIFICANT FUNDING IN
THIS AREA AS WELL TO THE EXTENT
THAT IT'S PAROLEES WHICH I THINK
UNDER CERTAIN VARIATIONS OF THE
LANGUAGE.
WOULD INCLUDE PAROLEES.
SENATE NIELSEN.
SOARING NIELSEN.
JUST A CAUTION THIS IS NOT JUST
A REALLY EASY
AREA TO DEAL WITH
THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS.
COOPER HOW YOU CRAFT THE PROGRAM.
THERE IS A BOTTLE THAT DID WORK.
FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
IT'S CALLED.
THE DRUG COURT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING
TO BE MODELED ON THE DRUG COURT.
BUT.
THE POINT IS.
IT IT IT'S JUST NOT AN EASY
THING AND I WOULD BE VERY
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HAVING THIS
BE DEFINED IN A TRAILER BILL.
THAT DOES NOT BE SUBJECTED TO
EXHAUSTIVE COMMITTEE HEARING
POLICY COMMITTEE.
GREAT THANK YOU.
OKAY RUNNERUP FINISH UP WITH
ISSUE FIVE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING
IN QUIRK. REPORTERS IN FAMILY
COURT
.
TO REVIEW.
I NEED ONLY WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE
AND IF YOU TURN TO PAGE TWENTY
SIX OF YOUR AGENDA WE FIRST
PROVIDE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF
BACKGROUND. ON THE JUDICIAL
BRANCHES WORKLOAD ALLOCATION AND
FUNDING METHODOLOGY BETTER KNOWN
AS WELL FROM.
IT WAS IMPLEMENTED IN TWO
THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN BY THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH AND WAS INTENDED
TAP IDENTIFY TRIAL COURT FUNDING
NEED AS WELL AS TO ALLOCATE
FUNDING BASED ON WORKLOAD.
AND SO UNDER CHANGES THAT WERE
ADOPTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS
YEAR ANY NEW GENERAL PURPOSE
FUNDING THAT'S PROVIDED FOR
TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS. WOULD
FIRST GO TO THE FIFTEEN SMALLEST
COURTS TO MEET THEIR FOR LA FROM
IDENTIFY NEED. AND THEN FIFTY
PERCENT OF ANY OF THE REMAINING
AMOUNT WOULD GO TO THE COURTS
THAT WERE BELOW THE STATEWIDE
AVERAGE AND THAT ANY REMAINING
AMOUNT WOULD GO TO ALL. THE
COURTS BASED ON WORKLOAD.
TO RETURN TO THE NEXT PAGE OF
YOUR AGENDA WHO THE TABLE HERE
THAT KIND OF SUMMARIZES THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL AS
WELL AS THE ACTIONS OF BOTH
HOUSES.
UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL THEY PROPOSE A HUNDRED
AND TWENTY TWO POINT EIGHT
MILLION AND ONGOING GENERAL FUND
SUPPORT. THIS BREAKS DOWN TO
FORTY SEVEN POINT EIGHT MILLION
FOR EQUALIZATION AND BOTH HOUSES
AGREED ON THAT.
AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT
SEVENTY FIVE MILLION WOULD BE
FOR DISCRETIONARY FUNDING TO GO
TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL FOR
ALLOCATION BASED ON ITS
PRIORITIES AND THIS IS WHERE THE
TWO HOUSES DEFERRED.
THE ASSEMBLY PROVIDED THIRTY
MILLION JUDICIAL COUNCIL BUT
SHIFTED THIRTY MILLION FOR
ALLOCATION UNDER WATER. AND THEN
SHIFTED FIFTEEN MILLION FOR THE
SUPPORT OF COURT REPORTERS IN
FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS.
THE SENATE SHIFTED ALL SEVENTY
FIVE MILLION FOR ALLOCATION
UNDER WATER FROM AN ADDED TEN
MILLION DOLLARS FOR COURT
REPORTERS.
IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS.
THE SENATE ALSO ADOPTED TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE GENERALLY REQUIRED
REPORTERS IN FAMILY LAW
PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIFY WHAT
KEEPS TYPES WOULD HAVE PRIORITY
OF INSUFFICIENT FUNDING WAS
AVAILABLE.
AS WELL IS BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE
REQUIRING OUR OFFICE IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TO
EVALUATE Y. FROM BY NOVEMBER OF
TWENTY NINETEEN.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE RIGHT MOST
COLUMN OF THIS TABLE WE DO HAVE
A COMPROMISE FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. UNDER THE
COMPROMISE IT WOULD BE A HUNDRED
AND TWENTY TWO POINT EIGHT
MILLION.
FORTY SEVEN POINT EIGHT GOING TO
EQUALIZATION SIXTY MILLION GOING
OUT ON A WALK OFF ON AND FIFTEEN
MILLION FOUR COURT REPORTERS.
AND ALSO THE SENATE LANGUAGE
WOULD BE ADOPTED.
IF YOU TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE OF
YOUR HAND UP PAGE THIRTY THE
REASON FOR THIS COMPROMISE IS
THAT IT WOULD GENERALLY SPECIFY
FUNDING FOR LEGISLATIVE PROP.
PRIORITIES RATHER THAN GIVING
JUDICIAL COUNCIL COMPLETE
DISCRETION.
ADDITIONALLY THE SENATE'S
PROPOSED LANGUAGE WOULD REALLY
INCREASE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT
OF TRIAL COURT FUNDING WITHOUT
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS COST.
I THINK THE COURT ACTION CORE
ISSUE HERE IS THE FLEXIBILITY
THAT WE WOULD HAVE AFFORD THE
JUDICIAL COUNCILS SO. ID
MINISTRATION AS NOTED PROPOSED
ONE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO POINT
EIGHT MILLION SEVENTY FIVE
MILLION OF WHICH IS
DISCRETIONARY OUT TO SUPPORT
TROUT CORE OPERATIONS PROVIDE
RESOURCES AND FLEXIBILITY. FOR
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND COURTS
TO FIND LOCAL LEVEL PRIORITIES.
WHICH COULD INCLUDE COURT
REPORTING WE WOULD KNOW THAT
CURRENTLY THIRTY EIGHT OF THE
FIFTY EIGHT TRIAL PORTS YEARS
GENERAL OPERATING FUNDING. OUGHT
TO PROVIDE COURT REPORTERS IN AT
LEAST SOME FAMILY LAW CASES WITH
THAT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
SENATOR BROCK.
SCOTT SO ROOMS LAST TIME THE
GOVERNOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
GIVEN INCREASE OF FUNDING TO THE
JUDICIAL. BRANCH.
IT HASN'T OCCURRED DURING MY
TENURE.
THANK YOU THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
MISTER OBERNOLTE.
MISTER CHAIRED WELL. I'M SURE
YOU ALL KNOW BASED ON OUR
PREVIOUS YEARS EXPERIENCE THAT
I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF TRIAL
COURT FUNDING INCREASING THAT
FUNDING AND IT COMES OUT OF. MY
EXPERIENCES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
IS.
MAYOR OF A COMMUNITY LOST A
COURTHOUSE.
SO I'M I'M A BELIEVER THAT
FUNDING TRIAL COURTS INCREASES
ACCESS TO JUSTICE DON'T THINK
THAT'S ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
RESPONSIBILITIES OF GOVERNMENT
ARE.
THAT BEING SAID I AM VERY MUCH A
FAN OF THE ILLEGAL COMPROMISED.
JUST BECAUSE I THAT THAT'S
WHAT'S GONNA MAXIMIZE THE
FUNDING FOR THOSE TRIAL COURTS
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THE MONEY
NEEDS TO GO.
THANK YOU CENTER A. THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR YOU KNOW I I WOULD.
TEND TO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE
FROM.
BIG BEAR THE WAFFEN FORMULA WAS
DEVELOPED TO TRY TO. DEAL WITH
AS SOME HISTORICALLY IMBALANCE
IN THE WAY THE FUNDS WERE
DISTRIBUTED IN HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND.
I THINK IF ANYTHING WE SHOULD
EMPHASIZE OF THE USE OF THAT
FORMULA NOT RETURNED TO.
HISTORIC PRACTICES WHERE MONEY
WAS DISTRIBUTED.
IN A PARTICULAR WAY JUST
BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT ALWAYS
BEEN DISTRIBUTED DESPITE.
OF THE MOVEMENT AND SHIFT IN
POPULATION FROM THE HIGHLY
URBANIZED COASTAL AREAS TO.
IN CALIFORNIA A NORTH SOUTH SO.
I'M CERTAINLY A FAN OF THE
WATSON FORMULA AND WHICH SPORT
EITHER ACTUALLY EITHER APPROACH
THE SENATE OVER THE ALEJO
COMPROMISE IN THAT REGARD.
THANK YOU SIR NIELSEN IF I MEAN
REALLY QUICK ON THE POINT OF LAW
FROM THE ADMINISTRATION DOES
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT OUR ABILITY
TO DO IT IN THE SPECIFIED TIME
PERIOD AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE
ARE ADEQUATE RESOURCES. ON TO
WORK ON AND WITH THE HOUSE IS
PROPOSING.
AND IF I'M JUST GOING BACK TO
SENATOR MORLOCKS QUESTIONS SORRY
WE'RE KIND OF SICKLY BUT IN
TERMS OF AUGMENTATIONS TO THE
TRIAL COURT. WE ACTUALLY
PROVIDED IN BASELINE FUNDING AND
SIXTEEN SEVENTEEN TWENTY MILLION
DOLLARS THE YEAR BEFORE THAT
FIFTEEN SIXTEEN NINETY ONE
MILLION DOLLARS AND FOURTEEN
FIFTEEN EIGHTY SIX MILLION
DOLLARS AND IN THIRTEEN FOURTEEN
SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS. THESE
WERE ONGOING BEEZ AUGMENTATIONS
ON TOP OF THAT FUNDING WAS
PROVIDED FOR INCREASED BENEFIT
CAUSTIC CENTER OF.
THANK YOU SERIOUS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
THERE'S A LONG HISTORY AS YOU'VE
NOTED THAT THIS AND I WAS.
PRESENT AT THE BIRTH EVEN IN THE
CONCEPTION OF THIS TRIAL COURT
FUNDING.
AND IT HAS A LONG AND STORIED
HISTORY THAT THOSE ALSO HARKEN
TO SOMETHING I SPEAK A LOT ABOUT
AND THAT IS TRUST.
IT'S ONE OF THE FEW TIMES IN
HISTORY.
RELEASED IN THE HISTORY OF MY
DEALINGS WITH THE LEGISLATURE
WHERE THE. COUNTIES.
COULD KEEP THEIR TRUST IN THE
STATE.
ANOTHER WORDS AT THE STATE
CAPITOL WORD.
THE COUNTY'S PROVIDING THE TRIAL
COURT FUNDING.
AND.
ANY GREAT DEPARTURES.
FOR MORE WHERE THAT CAUSES ME.
CONCERN.
HEY AND.
THE THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
SHE DID CORRECT INEQUITIES THAT
DID DEVELOP.
HIS.
PREDICTABLE.
THERE'S NO.
AND COUNTIES HAVE.
PLANNED BASED ON WHAT THEIR
EXPECTATION WAS.
THAT SAID THEN I'M A LITTLE BIT
WARY ABOUT CHANGING THINGS VERY
MUCH.
AND THE TO THAT DEGREE GIVING
THE LEGISLATURE MORE DISCRETION.
I'M USUALLY ONE THAT WOULD
ADVOCATE THAT.
BUT OVER THE DECADES ONE OF THE
KEYS TO THE SUCCESS OF THE TRIAL
COURT FUNDING IS PEOPLE COULD
TRUST IT. IT WAS PREDICTABLE.
I WOULD ASK HE SIMPLY AS WE
PROCEED KEEP THEM FLOTSAM MIGHT.
OKAY.
IT'S A MOVE TO ISSUE SIX.
IF YOU TURN TO PAGE THIRTY FOUR
OF YOUR HAND OUT.
THE STATUS OF THE CURRENT
STATUS OF THE TRIAL COURT
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS THAT
SIDE THAT CURRENT STATUS OF THE
TRIAL COURT CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
IS THAT IT'S EFFECTIVELY ON
HOLES. IN THIS IS REALLY DUE TO
THREE KEY PROBLEMS THAT ARE LAID
OUT ON THIS PAGE.
THE FIRST ISSUE IS THAT THERE'S
BEEN A CONTINUED DECLINE IN THE
FINAL FEW REVENUE THAT THE FACT THAT ABSENT ANY
CHANGES IN REVENUES EXPENDITURES
IT'S LIKELY THAT THEY COUNT HAVE
INSUFFICIENT REVENUE TO SUPPORT.
EXISTING DEBT SERVICE FOR THE
TWENTY SIX PROJECTS THAT HAVE
ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND THIS
MAY REQUIRE GENERAL FUND
RESOURCES RANGING FROM NINETY
TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION
DOLLARS ANNUALLY FOR ABOUT
FIFTEEN YEARS.
AND FINALLY THERE'S NO LONG TERM
PLAN FOR HOW WE'RE GONNA FIND.
THE REMAINING A HUNDRED AND
THIRTY NINE PLANS PROJECTS THAT
WERE IDENTIFIED IN TWO THOUSAND
AND EIGHT.
THE NEXT TWO PAGES OF YOUR HAND
OUT IS A CHART THAT WE JUST
PROVIDE FOR YOUR REFERENCE AND
IT'S THE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY
NINE PROJECTS CATEGORIZED BY
COUNTY AS WELL AS THE FIVE
PRIORITY NEED.
.
PRIORITY NEED AREA US.
IF YOU TURN TO PAGE FORTY OF
YOUR AGENDA.
THE ADMINISTRATION IS PROPOSING
TO SAU ONE POINT THREE BILLION
DOLLARS IN LEASE REVENUE BONDS
BACKED BY THE GENERAL FUND
INSTEAD OF THE CONSTRUCTION
ACCOUNTS AND THEY WOULD FUND THE
TEN SPECIFIC PROJECTS BEFORE YOU
ON THIS TABLE.
SIX OF THESE PROJECTS ARE
IMMEDIATE NEED PROJECTS AND FOUR
OF THEM ARE CRITICAL NEED
PROJECT.
THE ESTIMATED DEBT SERVICE IS
ABOUT A HUNDRED AND TWO MILLION
DOLLARS ANNUALLY FOR ABOUT
TWENTY FIVE YEARS.
THE SECOND PIECE OF THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL IS
THIRTY TWO POINT TWO MILLION.
FROM CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTS FOR
THREE OF THE PROJECTS ON THIS
LIST COMPLETE PRECONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES.
IF YOU TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE OF
YOUR HAND OUT BOTH HOUSES
APPROVED THE TOTAL FUNDING LEVEL.
SENATE HOWEVER APPROVE THE
SPECIFIC TEN PROJECTS WHILE THE
ASSEMBLY DID NOT THE ASSEMBLY
INSTEAD SPECIFIED THAT THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD SELECT THE
PROJECTS AFTER THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH COMPLETED A REASSESSMENT
OF THE IMMEDIATE. CRITICAL AND
HIGH NEED PROJECTS
AND IT ALSO INCLUDED SOME
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR PART OF
THAT REASSESSMENT.
THE SENATE ON THE OTHER HAND AS
PART OF THEIR PACKAGE ADOPTED
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE REQUIRING
A REASSESSMENT OF ALL. OF THE
PROJECTS AS WELL AS REQUIRING ON
A LONG TERM PLAN CONDITION
STATEMENT EVERY SINGLE TIME
CAPITAL OUTLAY. REQUEST WAS
SUBMITTED.
IF YOU TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE OF
YOUR HAND UP LEAD YOU OFFER A
COMPROMISE FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION.
THE COMPROMISE WOULD CONSIST OF
PROVIDING THE FUNDING LEVELS AS
PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION
BY ADOPTING THE ASSEMBLIES
APPROACH TO REQUIRE A
REASSESSMENT OF THE IMMEDIATE
CRITICAL HEINE PROJECTS BEFORE
THE LEGISLATURE SELECTED THE
PROJECTS.
BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT
WAS DONE ABOUT A DECADE AGO THIS
WOULD HELP ENSURE THAT OF THE
PROJECTS THAT WERE OF GREATEST
NEED WERE IDENTIFIED IN FUNDED.
THE PACKAGE WAS ALSO IN CRUDE
INCLUDE APPROVING THE SENATE'S
PROPOSED TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
RELATED TO LONG TERM FUND
CONDITION STATEMENTS AS THAT
WOULD HELP ENSURE THAT THEY'RE
SUFFICIENT FUNDING AVAILABLE
BEFORE ANY NEW PROJECTS MOVE
FORWARD.
AND THE FINAL PIECE WOULD BE A
MODIFICATION OF THE SENATE'S
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE RELATED TO
REASSESSMENT AND THAT WOULD
FOCUS ON THE MEDIUM AND LOW
PROJECTS BECAUSE ALL OF THE
OTHER PROJECTS WOULD HAVE BEEN
REASSESSED AS PART OF THE
ASSEMBLIES. APPROACH.
THANK YOU.
AT THAT BY THINK GAS SENATOR
MORLOCKS TWITCHING.
TO GO HOME.
SORT.
WHAT ARE IN THIS COUNTRY?
WELL I WAS LOOKING AT CITED THAT
WE GET TO GO OF COURSE THAT ARE
MORE LIKE JUST GETTING.
.
IT'S A MISS. MISS MISS.
LANGUAGES THAT ARE NOT THAT'S
WHAT YOU TO GO HOME TO.
SULKY TO BRIEF ON THAT NOTE
MISTER CHAIR.
.
WE SUPPORT THE SENATE VERSION OF
THIS WE WOULD KNOW I I THINK YOU
HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE PROJECTS
IN TWO DIFFERENT WAY CONTINUING
PROJECT VERSES AN ACTIVE PROJECT
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL REASSESS
EACH OF THE TEN CONTINUING
PROJECTS TO ENSURE THAT THEY
STILL MEET. THE IMMEDIATE AND
CRITICAL NEEDS CRITERIA BASED ON
EACH COURT SECURITY INADEQUACIES
OVERCROWDING PHYSICAL CONDITION
ACCESS TO COURTS SERVICE SAYS.
ON IF WE WERE TO ADOPT A THE
ASSEMBLY ACTION IN WHOLE IT
WOULD LEAD TO DELAYS THAT WE
CALCULATE WOULD COST
APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY EIGHT
MILLION DOLLARS. DUE TO
ESCALATION AND DESIGN DOCUMENT
REVISIONS WE AGREE THAT A
REASSESSMENT OF THE INACTIVE
COURT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IS
WARRANTED. ON BUT WE DON'T WANT
TO DELAY THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEN ACTIVE
PROJECTS GIVEN THAT THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL JUST REVIEWED THEM IN
THE FALL WITH THAT HAPPY ANSWER
ANY.
THEY CAN DISCUSS.
ETCETERA.
THANK YOU MISTER JUST A QUICK
QUESTION HAVE WE NOW REPAID ALL
OF THE OTHER.
JUDICIAL COUNCILS CONSTRUCTION
FUNDS.
CAN WE BORROW FROM THE
CONSTRUCTION FUNDS.
I THINK WE HAVE A WILL WILL BOTH
NEED TO CHECK ON THAT.
JUST CURIOUS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BLOOM.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND TO
WITH YOUR INDULGENCE I I'M GOING
TO JUST ADD SOME VERY VERY QUICK
COMMENTS ON BOTH ISSUES FIVE AND
SIX RATHER THAN. SPREAD OUT
BETWEEN THE TWO ITEMS SO I
THOUGHT I'D DO IT ONCE.
I WANT TO.
AGREE VERY STRONGLY WITH THAT
MR OBERNOLTE ASSESSMENT OF THE.
IMPORTANCE OF FAIR TRIAL COURT
FUNDING.
.
I CAN'T UNDERSCORE THAT AN
ENOUGH AND THAT'S THE.
ASSEMBLIES APPOINTEE TO THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL.
I'VE SAT THROUGH MANY OF THE
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE.
Y. FROM FORMULA AND I'M
CONVINCED THAT IT IS.
THE FAIREST DISTRIBUTION OF FOR
OF A OF MONEY AND.
RESOURCES TO THAT TO THE COURTS
AND IT BY THE WAY WAS ADJUSTED
AND I THINK IT WAS JANUARY OF.
OF THIS YEAR SO IT'S KIND OF AN
ONGOING PROCESS.
WITH RESPECT TO THE.
ASSEMBLIES DESIRE TO OF FUND
COURT REPORTERS IN FAMILY LAW
THIS IS A FAMILY LAW DEPARTMENTS.
THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING I CAN
SPEAK TO FROM EXPERIENCE HAVING.
PRACTICE FAMILY LAW FOR NEARLY
THIRTY FIVE YEARS THERE'S NO
PLACE WHERE IT IS MORE IMPORTANT
TO HAVE ACCURACY AND.
IN A FAMILY COURT TO PROCEEDING
WHERE FREQUENTLY LAWYERS CAN'T
AGREE ON ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO GO
BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT BUT.
APPROXIMATELY A IN THIS ALONG
CA A TERM ISSUE APPROXIMATELY
FIFTY PERCENT. OF FULL OF FAMILY
LAW LITIGANTS ARE UNREPRESENTED
AND TO ASK THEM TO GO BACK AND
AGREE ON WHAT WAS
SAID IN A HEARING THAT MIGHT
HAVE TO DO WITH A.
A A CHILD CUSTODY ORDER TIMES
DATES.
IT GETS VERY VERY COMPLICATED
ENDS.
THAT ITSELF CAN LEAD TO FRICTION
BETWEEN PARTIES AND WHEN THAT
PLAYS OUT.
WITH FAMILY SAID IT SO IT'S NOT
PRETTY.
AND AND FINALLY ON WITH RESPECT
TO CORE CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT
WEIGHING IN ON EITHER PLAN SOME
OF THESE COURT HOUSES. ARE
LITERALLY BEING HELD TOGETHER BY
BAILING WIRE THE DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE.
IN OUR IN OUR COURTS IS
ABOMINABLE AND WE REALLY NEED TO
GET ON TOP OF IT.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
WE ARE WILL BE A JOURNEY.
WE WILL BE RECONVENING
WEDNESDAY.
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON.
UPON CALL OF THE CHAIR