GOOD AFTERNOON WE ARE
RECONVENING.
ARE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WE'RE GONNA
START WITH ISSUE ONE.
JUDGESHIPS WILL START WITH LA
ELLEN THEN GO BACK TO MISS COSTA.
THE FIRST PART. I NEED ONLY WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AND THE ASSEMBLY PROVIDED FOUR
MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE GENERAL
FUND SUPPORT FOR JUDGESHIPS. AYE
IN THE CROWDED COURTHOUSE IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY THE SENATE
PROVIDED ONE POINT TWO MILLION
FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT
A NEW APPELLATE COURT JUSTICE AT
THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL IN SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE AREA. USUALLY JUST
HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AS YOU
DELIBERATE THIS ISSUE. BOTH
HOUSES ESSENTIALLY MADE JUDICIAL
RESOURCES A PRIORITY BY
ALLOCATING THIS UNDING THE
DIFFERENCE IS A GROUP OF THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
HOUSES IS REALLY HOW MUCH
FUNDING TO PROVIDE AND WHERE TO
PROVIDE IT WHETHER IT'S PROVIDED
THE TRIAL COURT AT THIS AT THE
STATE LEVEL.
WE GENERALLY HAVE MORE
INFORMATION ON TRIAL COURT
JUDGESHIP MEANS BECAUSE THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH IS REQUIRED. TO
PREPARE AND REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE EVERY OTHER YEAR ON
THAT NEED.
WE HAVE LESS INFORMATION ON THE
APPELLATE JUSTICE NEED AND SO
WITHOUT WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS COST.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS IN THE COST OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE I'M GOING
TO SAY AT THE TOP OF THE AGENDA
THAT I WILL OFTEN BE REPEATING
MYSELF TODAY SO I WILL TRY AND
MAKE IT BRIEF.
BUT MANY OF THE ISSUES BEFORE
US TODAY ARE LEGISLATIVE
AUGMENTATIONS ARE PREDICATED ON
THE HIGHER REVENUES ON THAT WERE
ADOPTED IN BOTH HOUSES I BUDGET
PACKAGE THAT SUCH WERE NOT IN A
POSITION TO SUPPORT THEM AT THIS
TIME. ON AS FOR ISSUE ONE THESE
ARE BOTH LEGISLATIVE
AUGMENTATIONS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION CANNOT SUPPORT AT
THIS TIME.
THANK YOU.
NOT TO COMMIT ANY COMMENTS
MORE QUESTIONS.
OKAY ISSUE TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
SENATE NIELSEN.
THIS KIND OF AN OPENING.
QUESTION BUT IT'S ABOUT PROCESS
MISTER CHAIRMAN. BUT WHAT I'M
WONDERING WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE
IS WE'VE NOW GONE TO ABOUT A
WEEK.
AND VOTED ON MAYBE THREE OR FOUR
THINGS.
S.
IT IS DISTURBING TO ME.
ARE WE GOING TO AMALGAMATE A
WHOLE BUNCH OF ISSUES.
AND JUST RUSHED RIGHT THROUGH
AND VOTE OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT ISSUE BY
ISSUE.
THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY AS A
TIME WHEN WE VOTE SO WE WILL
HAVE MOTIONS WE CAN HAVE
DISCUSSIONS WE CAN. OFFER
AMENDMENTS
WE CAN HAVE DISK THAT THAT'S WAY
THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES WORK
AROUND HERE AND THIS IS VERY
VERY HUGE DEPARTURE AND I'M
AFRAID THAT WE'RE GONNA.
CUT OUT THE PUBLIC HERE AND
THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A
CHANCE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON
IF WE BOUGHT. VOTE A BIG HOLE
LIST IS THAT THE PLAN.
SO THE IDEA WAS THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DISCUSS
AND.
HA ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE
ITEMS AND TO HAVE A ROBUST
DEBATE THAT IN A PUBLIC SETTING
BUT THEN WHEN DO WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY AS MEMBERS TO SAY
YES WE'D LIKE THIS WOULD LIKE TO
AMEND IT.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO OFFER A AND
ITEM THAT DID TO BE NOT AND
CONFERENCE.
HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN I MEAN THIS
IS EXTREMELY?
I THINK RISKY DEPARTURE FROM OUR
HISTORIC PROCESS.
ALSO THERE WILL BE A WHOLE LIST
OF THINGS THAT WE WILL VOTE ON
FIVE OR SIX OF TEN OR FIFTEEN OF
THESE IS THAT HOW WE'RE GOING TO
DO IT AYE I THINK IF THERE ARE.
ITEMS THAT WE HAVE A BROAD
AGREEMENT ON I THINK WE'VE MADE
MAY HANDLE IT THAT WAY. BUT
OBVIOUSLY IF THERE ARE ISSUES
THAT THERE ARE USED TO BE MORE
DISCUSSION THOSE ISSUES CAN BE
TAKEN ON BY WORK. OKAY WELL THEN
I WILL BE PROBABLY RAISING QUITE
A FEW ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO
DISCUSS.
.
IN OTHER THAN THIS FORMAT IN
DUST GO NOW WE WE WILL BE
DISCUSSING IN A WAY WHEREBY THE
MEMBERS CAN OFFER.
CHANGES AND WE CAN HAVE SOME
NEGOTIATION IN THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE AND AND. MAKE
SUGGESTIONS OF DIFFERENT AMOUNTS.
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY AND I THINK
ANY TIME.
DURING THIS STE.
THE LIBERATION THERE'S ALWAYS
THOUGHT ALWAYS OPPORTUNITY FOR
FEEDBACK CAPITAL POINT US
WELL I INQUIRE MISS CHAIRMAN
BECAUSE PEOPLE.
STREAMING INTO OUR OFFICE.
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON
HERE.
AND.
I I I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE OUGHT
NOT DO IT IN THIS MANNER AND
FORMAT IN THE FUTURE WE SHOULD
RETURN TO THE HISTORIC AND
NORMAL PROCESS. THINK YOU DO
DULY NOTED.
MISTER ROBERTS.
IT ONE WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT I
BELIEVE MISTER OPEN TO WHAT'S TO
TALK ABOUT ISSUE ONCE A WERE.
GONNA STAND ISSUE ONE RIGHT NOW.
SURE OF THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
OF THIS IS SOMETHING I'M VERY
PASSIONATE ABOUT.
.
WE JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT THE
JUDICIAL COUNCILS ASSESS
JUDICIAL NEED FOR THE NUMBER OF
JUDGESHIPS FOR THE WORKLOAD
RIGHT NOW. IS IN EXCESS OF A
HUNDRED AND EIGHTY JUDGES SO
THIS IS A VERY MODEST
AUGMENTATION.
I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT.
WE COME TO SOME KIND OF
COMPROMISES TO WEAR THESE PUT
THESE JUDGES GET PUT. OUT SINCE
THE TWO COUNTIES WITH THE
LARGEST ASSESSED ASSESS NEED
RIGHT NOW ARE RIVERSIDE INSANE
MEDINA COUNTY. I THINK THAT THAT
MIGHT BE A A GOOD PLACE TO PUT
THEM I HAD A REQUEST IN FOR TEN
JUDGESHIPS WOULD IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN KIND OF A MODEST DOWN
PAYMENT ON THE HUNDRED AND
EIGHTY. THAT IS THE NEED A FOUR
WAS BETTER THAN NOTHING.
TEN WOULD BE EVEN BETTER THAN
FOR.
THANK YOU BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
ANY.
ADDITIONAL SENATE MITCHELL I
JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
GOT ONE.
CONFEREE WHO'S NOT HERE I'M
SENATOR ROTH WHO IS ON THE RULES
COMMITTEE I DON'T KNOW THAT HE.
PACIFIC WE ONCE THAT COMMENT ON
THIS ISSUE BUT I JUST WANT TO
ALERT EVERYONE THAT HE'S. NOT
JUST IN MY EIGHTIES AND RULES
COMMITTEE AND SO IF THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY COMES BACK IF THERE
ARE SOME ISSUES HE WANTS TO RACE
ON MY HOPE THAT HE'LL BE
AFFORDED THAT OPPORTUNITY. JEFF
I'M CASE THIS ISSUE OR ANYTHING
ELSE THAT WE DISCUSS IT IS APT.
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO HOW TO
ACCOMMODATE ANY AND ALL REQUESTS
BY DIFFERENT CULTURE RESTRICTING.
IT'S A.
OKAY ISSUE TO.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
WELL.
GOOD AFTERNOON BRIAN BROWN WITH
THE ANALYST'S OFFICE THE ISSUE
TO THE ASSEMBLY ADDED TEN
MILLION DOLLARS IN THE GENERAL
FUND FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING GRANT.
THIS PROGRAM PROVIDES GRANTS TO
SUPPORT VICTIMS OF SEX OR LABOR
TRAFFICKING.
AND THIS INCLUDES THE PROVIDE
EMERGENCY SHELTER FOOD AND
CLOTHING COUNSELING AND LEGAL
ASSISTANCE. FOR CONTACT THE
CURRENT YEAR BUDGET INCLUDES
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE
GENERAL FUND FOR THIS PROGRAM ON
A ONE TIME BASIS. DOES NOT IN
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET FOR
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN THERE'S NO
FUNDING IN THE BASE FOR THAT.
IN PAST YEARS OF THE TWO PRIOR
YEAR THERE WAS FUNDED AT TEN
MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY.
THANK YOU BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS.
BECAUSE ARMS CROSSED.
THE LEGISLATIVE AUGMENTATION WE
DON'T SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
OKAY ISSUES THREE.
OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE.
ETCETERA I WOULD REQUEST THAT
THIS BE NOT VOTED ON.
YOU KNOW AMALGAM OF OTHER
ISSUES THAT THIS BE A SEPARATE
AND INDEPENDENT ISSUE WHATEVER
WE GET AROUND VOTING.
ISSUE NUMBER THREE NUMBER THREE
SIR THANK YOU THANK YOU.
I NEED EARLIER THE LA L..
ON THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSEMBLY
PROVIDED NINE POINT SEVEN
MILLION IN TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN AND EIGHT POINT SEVEN
MILLION ONGOING FROM THE GENERAL
FUND TO SUPPORT THIRTY SEVEN
POSITIONS. LOCATED IN THREE
REGIONS OF THE STATE TO
INVESTIGATE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS AT
THE REQUEST OF A LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OFFICE.
THE SENATE DID NOT.
INCLUDE FUNDING FOR THIS
PURPOSE WE WOULD RECOMMEND THE
SENATE ACTION AND IS AS IT IS
UNCLEAR WHETHER SUFFICIENT
WORKLOAD EXISTS TO JUSTIFY THE
RESOURCES.
HE WAS BECAUSE. THIS IS AN
ONGOING LEGISLATIVE AUGMENTATION
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T
SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
SO NOTED SO ISSUE THREE WITH HAS
BEEN A REQUEST HANDLE THIS
SEPARATELY WHICH IS FINE SENATOR
SKINNER.
THANK YOU.
I WONDER AND PERHAPS THE
ASSEMBLY MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER
THIS BECAUSE WE THE SENATE
DIDN'T HEAR IT BUT. THESE
POSITIONS ARE THEY.
.
ARE THEY THE LAWYER A LEGAL TEAM
OR THE.
.
PEACE OFFICER TEAM THAT WOULD
HANDLE THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
A MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT
WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS.
BUT MOSTLY ATTORNEYS BECAUSE
THEY WOULD BE HANDLING OF THE
INVESTIGATION DUTIES.
THERE ARE I KNOW.
FOUR STATES NOW THAT HAVE SET
UP SOMETHING.
PERHAPS NOT THE SAME BUT
COMPARABLE IN THEIR.
AG'S OFFICE.
.
I THE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HEAR IT
IN MY SUB.
WE DIDN'T HAVE NO WAY TO REALLY
EVALUATE WHETHER.
THIS IS.
.
WHETHER THIS IS.
MORE.
MORE PERSONNEL THAN MIGHT BE
NEEDED.
.
YOU NO NOT SEEN DATA AS TO
WHETHER THEIR IS.
WHAT THE LEVEL OF WORKLOAD
MIGHT BE?
?
BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE
OTHER STATES THAT NOW HAVE
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORY TEAMS
FOR OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS.
TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.
I WOULD ARGUE AND I DO WANT
ARGUE THIS SEPARATELY. IN
WHATEVER WE GET AROUND TO VOTING
ON THIS BUT. THIS IS.
DUPLICATIVE.
ALREADY ONE WE HAVE THESE THE
DEPARTMENT.
CONDUCTION INVESTIGATION.
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
CAN INVESTIGATE.
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
IT CAN BE REFERRED TO THESE
GENERAL GENERAL.
THAT HAS HAPPENED EVEN HERE
RECENTLY.
SO I REALLY SEE NO NEED.
FOR THIS SO CALLED TEAM OF
WHATEVER THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE
DOING INVESTIGATORY TEAM.
THANK YOU SIR.
SOME OF THE BOOK IT'S ONE ANNA A
QUICK COMMENT ABOUT MY
UNDERSTANDING OF.
.
HOW THIS WOULD WORK IS THAT A
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS WOULD HAVE
THE OPTION TO?
?
I ENGAGE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO DO AN INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION IT WOULD NOT BE
MANDATORY.
AND AS FOR THE FOR
JURISDICTIONS OUTSIDE OF
CALIFORNIA.
I'D BELIEVE IT'S A BIPARTISAN
GROUP OF JURISDICTIONS.
THANK YOU SEVERAL.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
I IN THE SAME LINE OF THINKING.
IF WE'RE GOING TO USE PEACE
OFFICERS.
AND I I'M WONDERING. ABOUT THE
WISDOM OF BETTERING THIRTY SEVEN
NEW EMPLOYEES TO THE. STATE
PAYROLL.
SINCE.
PEACE OFFICERS IN CALIFORNIA
RETIRED A NICE AGE OF FIFTY AND
THAT THEY DO.
WE WE HAVE A POOL OF RETIRED.
POLICE OFFICERS I COULD DO. THIS
WORK ON AN ON CALL BASIS AS
OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS.
AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT
WOULD BE A BETTER SOLUTION. FOR
LIKE JAMS SURFER RETIRED JUDGES
THAT YOU CAN USE.
WHEN YOU NEED THEM BECAUSE
AVERAGE I DON'T KNOW. WHAT CASH?
IN THE END KIND OF A SAD
STATEMENT ABOUT CALIFORNIA THAT
WE'RE EXPECTING THAT MANY POLICE
SHOOTINGS TO INVESTIGATE. ON A
REGULAR BASIS THAT. I I HOPE
THAT'S.
NOT GOING TO COME TO FRUITION
BUT ALSO AN ISSUE TO WORK. USING
OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS AS IT
RELATES TO.
TRAFFICKING HUMAN TRAFFICKING
I'M ASSUMING THOSE ARE NOT
PROFITS AND.
OTHERS LIKE THAT'S ALL I THINK
THAT MODEL IS IS A GOOD ONE TO
PURSUE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU SENATOR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE.
OKAY IF NOT ON FOR SEXUAL
ASSAULT KITS.
TARA LIKE THAT WOULD BE IT ARE A
SEPARATE ITEM TO PLEASE.
SO NOTED.
SO IT.
BOTH HOUSES PROVIDED FUNDING ON
A ONE TIME BASIS FROM THE
GENERAL FUND FOR.
SEXUAL ASSAULT EVIDENCE AND SO
THE ASSEMBLY PROVIDED ONE
MILLION DOLLARS TO DOJ'S
IDENTIFY THE AMOUNT FOR THE
LEVEL. OF UNPROCESSED SEXUAL
ASSAULT EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS
IN THE STATE. THE SENATE
PROVIDED SIX POINT FIVE MILLION
TO DOJ TO ACTUALLY REDUCE THE
BACKLOG OF THIS ON PROCESSED
EVIDENCE.
FUNDING COULD BE PROVIDED TO TO
CITIES AND COUNTIES ND THE
CITIES AND COUNTIES WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR MATCH. AND TO DOJ WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A REPORT.
REPORTING ON THE IN THE CITIES
AND COUNTIES RECEIVE THE
GRANTS THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING
THAT THEY RECEIVED AND HOW MUCH
EVIDENCE WAS PROCESSED.
WE WOULD RECOMMEND THE ASSEMBLY
ACTION ON THIS ITEM AS IT WOULD
PROVIDE THE LEGISLATURE WITH
MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT THE
BACKLOG IS. HOW MUCH RESOURCES
WOULD BE NEEDED TO ELIMINATE THE
BACKLOG AND POTENTIALLY WHAT THE
NEED WOULD BE ON AN ONGOING
BASIS IN THE FUTURE TO AVOID A
BACKLOG ENTIRELY?
THE US COAST.
THANK YOU THIS IS AGAIN A
LEGISLATIVE AUGMENTATION THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T
SUPPORT AT THIS TIME WE WOULD
HOWEVER NOTE THAT CURRENTLY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOES NOT
HAVE A BACKLOG. OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT KITS IT'S UNKNOWN ONTO
THE ANALYSTS POINT OUT WHAT THE
BACKLOG IS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
BECAUSE TRADITIONALLY THIS
INFORMATION IS NOT TRACK.
AT THE STATE LEVEL.
SORCERER.
THANK YOU.
.
SO FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT NOT
FOLLOW THIS ISSUE WHEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
IF THEY DON'T HAVE A BACKLOG.
THEY ARE REFERRING TO.
THEIR LAPS THE STATE RUNS AND
ALL OF THE AGENCIES THAT UTILIZE
THE STATE LAB.
AND THERE ARE.
THE THE MAJORITY OF AGENCIES IN
THE STATE USE THE STATE LAB
HOWEVER SOME OF THE AGENCIES
THAT DON'T USE THE STATE LAB ARE
VERY VERY LARGE.
SO IN TERMS OF.
.
WHETHER HOW REPRESENTATIVE THE
FACT THAT THERE IS NO LONGER A
BACKLOG.
FROM THE STATE LABS.
STILL IS.
GIVES ITS ITS.
VERY GOOD TO NO AND VERY GOOD
THAT IT HAS NO BACKLOG IT JUST
DOESN'T NECESSARILY INFORM US
FULLY OF WHAT THE BACK LIKE IT'S.
NOW OBVIOUSLY AS ELLIE ó SAID.
IF WE.
GO WITH THE SIMILES ACTION AND
DO THE AUDIT WE KNOW WHAT IT IS.
HOWEVER.
BECAUSE OF THE ATTENTION ON
THIS ISSUE AND BECAUSE OF PAST
FEDERAL FUNDS.
THERE IS INDICATION THAT THE
BACKLOG HAS BEEN GREATLY REDUCED
AND THAT THE ALLOCATION THAT THE
SENATE IS RECOMMENDING WOULD.
IT WE CAN'T GUARANTEE NOT
KNOWING THE EXACT NUMBER THAT IT
WOULD.
CLEAR UP ANY AGENCIES BUT GIVEN
THAT IT REQUIRES THE WAY WE
STRUCTURED IT A MATCH FROM THE
AGENCY. IS UNLIKELY
TO DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF
ELIMINATING ORDER A HUGELY
REDUCING THE BACKLOG JUST
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE
ALREADY KNOW. THAT EVERY AGENCY
THAT RELIES ON THE STATE LAB NO
LONGER HOUSE WHEN.
THEY KEEP. ASSEMBLY MEMBER OF
THE ROAD THANK MISTER CHAIR I
QUESTION FOR THE LA ALSO MY
NOTES SAY THAT THE ASSEMBLY
PROPOSAL.
SUPPORTS ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
THE DISPOSITION OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT KITS SO WE TALKING WHEN
IT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE
DISPOSITION ARE WE TESTING THEM
OR WE JUST COUNTING THEM.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT IS
ACCOUNT SO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY
THE NUMBER OF KIDS THAT ARE.
THAT. ARE PROCESSED EVIDENCE
THAT IS OUT THERE. THERE WAS A
STATE LAW THAT WAS ENACTED ON IN
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN SO AS OF
JANUARY FIRST TWO THOUSAND
EIGHTEEN ANY EVIDENCE COLLECTED
AT THAT POINT. WE NOW HAVE IN
THE SYSTEM IT'S GOING TO BE
REPORTED BUT PRIOR TO THAT WE
ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IS
OUTSTANDING AND HAS BEEN ON
PROCESS AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THIS ONE TIME FUNDING IS
TO GET A GOOD IDEA WHAT'S OUT
THERE. KIND OF ELIMINATE THAT.
WELL I'M INTERESTED IN NOT JUST
COUNTING THEM BUT TESTING THEM
SO WHY WOULD YOU NOT RECOMMEND
THE SENATE VERSION OVER THE
ASSEMBLY VERSION IN THAT CASE.
I MEAN I I THINK FOR OUR
PERSPECTIVE IT IS THIS ISSUE OF
WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY IS OUT
THERE AND SO ON THE ASSEMBLY
VERSION IN CONDUCTING THAT
COUNTY WOULD PROVIDE THE
LEGISLATURE WITH THAT
INFORMATION IN TERMS OF HOW
LARGE. THE BACKLOG IS.
ELIMINATED AND WHAT FUNDING
WOULD BE NEEDED ON AN ONGOING
BASIS TO AVOID A BACKLOG
ENTIRELY.
AND SO WE THINK THAT PROVIDES
MAKE THAT DECISION OKAY WELL
BEEN. IN MOST CASES I'M A FAN OF
BEING DELIVERED TO BUT.
IN THIS CASE THIS IS AN ISSUE
WE'VE BEEN GRAPPLING WITH FOR
YEARS NOW AND I JUST WANT TO SEE
THOSE THOSE UNTESTED KIDS GET
TESTED AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
THE SIX ABOUT SIX AND A HALF
MILLION DOLLARS. THAT THE SENATE
PROPOSAL PROVIDES AYE IS STILL
PROBABLY GOING TO BE
INSUFFICIENT TO TESTALL OF THE
UNTESTED KITS THAT ARE OUT THERE
EVEN IF THEY ARE GREATLY REDUCED
AS YOU SAY SO. OF THAT PIE I
THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF HAVE A
FAVOR THE SENATE VERSION.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER.
QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
OKAY.
SEEING NONE WE WILL GO TO ISSUE
FIVE JANITORIAL SERVICES.
HELLO.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
VICE CHAIRMAN MEMBERS JONATHAN
PETERSON WITH THE LA THOUGH.
ITEM FIVE IN YOUR AGENDA REGARDS
THE JANITORIAL SERVICES CONTRACT
AT THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE
FISKE CORRECTION HEALTHCARE
FACILITY WHICH IS LOCATED IN
STOCKTON.
JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR HEALTH
CARE FACILITIES AT THE OTHER
PRISONS ARE OPERATED THROUGH A
CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA
PRISON INDUSTRIES AUTHORITY DUE
TO THE COMPLEXITY AND SIZE OF
THIS FACILITY.
THAT I WAS NOT THAT OPTION WAS
NOT AVAILABLE SO THE
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED A
CONTRACT WITH PRIDE INDUSTRIES
WHICH IS A NONPROFIT COMPANY.
THAT A CLEANS VARIOUS FACILITIES
INCLUDING THE SACRAMENTO AIRPORT
TO CLEAN THESE FACILITIES THE
COSTS THAT CONTRACT RIGHT NOW IS
ABOUT TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS
ANNUALLY.
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSED
AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT POINT TWO
MILLION IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN AND AND AND THIS AND
THREE POINT SIX MILLION IN
TWENTY NINETEEN TWENTY AN ON
GOING. IN ORDER TO TRANSITION
FROM THE CONTRACT WITH PRIDE
INDUSTRIES TO A CIVIL SERVICE
JANITORIAL STAFF.
THE REASON THIS WAS NECESSARY
WAS BECAUSE THE CURRENT CONTRACT
ACCORDING THE MINISTRATION THE
CURRENT CONTRACT VIOLATE CIVIL
SERVICE RULES ABOUT. ON HAVING
CONTRACTING STAFF DOING JOBS
THAT CIVIL SERVICE IS AVAILABLE
TO DO.
THE SENATE REJECTED THE PROPOSAL
BUT APPROVED BUDGET BILL
LANGUAGE TO CONDUCT A
FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE
TRANSITION FROM PRIDE TO CIVIL
SERVICE STAFFED. THE ASSEMBLY
REJECTED THE PROPOSAL AND
ADOPTED PLACEHOLDER TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO
ASSIST. THE TRENDS THAT THE
TRANSITION OF IT PRIDE EMPLOYEES
INTO THE STATE'S CIVIL SERVICE.
WE WOULD NOTE THAT BOTH HOUSES
TOOK SIMILAR ACTIONS TO REJECT
THE PERP THE BUDGET AUGMENTATION
AND ADOPT LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO
ADDRESS THE CONTRACT ISSUE. WE
RECOMMEND THE ASSEMBLY AVERSION
BECAUSE TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
SEEMS LIKE A MORE APPROPRIATE
VEHICLE TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION.
I THINK IN THIS CONSTANT.
THANK YOU THE ADMINISTRATION PUT
FORWARD THIS PROPOSAL IN
REACTION TO PENDING LITIGATION
AND THE ADMINISTRATION
ACKNOWLEDGES THE DIFFICULTY OF
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AND AS
SUCH WE ARE VERY OPEN TO ONGOING
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
LEGISLATURE. TO ENSURE THIS
ISSUE IS.
DEALT WITH PROPERLY WE HAVE
OFFERED A COMPROMISE MY
UNDERSTANDING TO SPLIT THE
POSITIONS IS THAT LEDGE STAFF IS
STILL REVIEWING THE COMPROMISE
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS OFFERED.
THANK YOU SIR NIELSEN.
WILL WE BE ABLE TO SEE THIS
LANGUAGE.
THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS I'D
LIKE TO HAVE THIS BE A SEPARATE
VOTE ALSO AND CAN WE HAVE THAT
LANGUAGE SO WE CAN REVIEW IT I
DON'T WANT TO VOTE. BIGGER THE
POPE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE
VOTING ON.
CAN WE HAVE THAT LANGUAGE THAT
YOU'RE DEVELOPING.
SO WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING
THAT LANGUAGE AND HAVE A
SEPARATE VOTE ON THIS I WILL
NOTE THAT THE.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH PRIDE
INDUSTRIES.
AND THEIR SUCCESSES.
NEVER ABILITIES.
IS S. LITIGATION.
PENDING OR THREATENED.
THEY ARE NOT DOORS WITH
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE THE
LITIGATION IS THREATENED AT THIS
POINT IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT I DO WE
HOUSE US BOND TO A THREAT.
WELL I THINK THAT THE RISK IS F.
WE PROCEED WITHOUT. ARE
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS THIS
RISK IS OUT THERE WE COULD FIND
OURSELVES IN A VERY CHALLENGING
SITUATION IF WE WERE TO LOSE
THAT LAWSUIT. I THINK THE
OUTCOME WOULD BE MOORED
DISAGREEABLE TO EVERYONE
INVOLVED WE WOULD BASICALLY BE
IN A SITUATION WHERE.
WE WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY.
CLEANING THESE FACILITIES AND
WE MAY RUN INTO ISSUES WITH THE
FEDERAL COURTS THEIR OVERSEEING.
.
OUR MEDICAL.
IN MAY MEDICAL PROGRAM SO THAT
WOULD BE AN ISSUE THE OTHER
ISSUE IS WE WOULD HAVE TO
TERMINATE THAT CONTRAST. OUGHT
RATHER ABRUPTLY AND I THINK IN
THAT CASE.
THE CAREFUL PLANNING THAT WE
WOULD LIKE TO DO TO MAKE SURE AS
MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE CAN BE
TRANSITIONED INTO CIVIL SERVICE
WOULD SUDDENLY.
GO OUT THE WINDOW WE HAVE TO DO
THAT REALLY QUICKLY AND I THINK
THE THE RISK OF DISPLACING
WORKERS WOULD BE MUCH GREATER IN
THAT SITUATION
DO YOU NOT HAVE ATTORNEYS THAT
WOULD BE CAPABLE CRAFTING
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE HELP. IN
LITIGATION PROVING.
WHEREBY.
THE STATE WOULD MORE LIKELY
PREVAIL IN THE LAWSUIT.
BUT WE HAVE ATTORNEYS CAPABLE OF
DRAFTING LANGUAGE THAT YOU COULD
PRESENT TO THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE.
OF THAT SORT.
I I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE'RE ACTIVELY LOOKING INTO I
THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT THE.
ITS IS REALLY A CONSTITUTIONAL
SHOW IN WITH AN ARTICLE SEVEN
THERE ARE.
THERE IS ESTABLISHED A MERIT
BASED COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION
PROCESS AND SO.
THE STATE IS IS PRETTY LIMITED
IN TERMS OF CONTRACTING OUT SO I
I THINK THE THE CONTRACTS WITH
IN STATE LAW THAT PARTIALLY OR.
A SET BY THE CONSTITUTION ARE
ARE PRETTY WOMAN.
WELL I THINK THAT THERE ARE WAYS
THAT THIS COULD BE BUT I'D LIKE
YOU TO PRESENT THESE OTHER
OPTIONS THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING.
TO TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
SO WE CAN HAVE A CHOICE IF YOU
ARE LOOKING AT OTHER OPTIONS
THANK.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ANIMAL.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I'M JUST
CURIOUS ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH
CODE SECTION GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION.
ONE NINE ONE THREE ZERO OR ONE
NINE FOUR ZERO FOUR.
AT FAMILIAR WITH.
ONE NINE ONE THREE ZERO THE
OTHER CUTS ACTION A LESS SO TOP
MAN.
SEEMS THAT.
NINETEEN ONE THIRTY ALLOWS
PRIDE INDUSTRIES TO HAVE THE
CONTRACT SO I'M.
OR IS THAT WHAT THE PUT THE
LAWSUIT WOULD MIGHT BE ABOUT IS
THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT
PARTICULAR CODE SECTION.
I THINK THE THAT INITIALLY THE
CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO UNDER
CLAUSE WITHIN GOVERNMENT COULD
ONE NINE ONE THREE ZERO WHICH
ALLOWED FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACTS.
THE ISSUE WAS THAT THE THE
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE RAISED
ISSUES WITH THE.
JANITORIAL SERVICES THAT THE
THESE FACILITY IN STOCKTON.
THERE WAS.
THAT THE RECEIVER LOOKED AT THE
SITUATION IN TERMS OF HOW TO
PROCEED IN THERE WAS DIFFICULTY.
FINDING A CIVIL SERVICE SOLUTION
IMMEDIATELY AND SO UNDER THOSE
SERVE EMERGENCY PROVISIONS I WAS
ABLE TO GO OUT AND IN CONTRACT
OUT FOR THESE SERVICES BUT. I
THINK THE EMERGENCY PERIOD MAY
HAVE PASSED AT THIS POINT.
OKAY SO.
CIVIL SERVANTS WORK DOING THE
JOB WELL FEDERAL RECEIVER SAID.
FIX IT.
STATE HIRES PRIDE.
WELL I THINK THE THE ISSUE
WASN'T SURE THAT CIVIL SERVICE
WASN'T DOING A GOOD JOB THERE
WERE ONLY AT THAT TIME SIXTY
CIVIL SERVICE POSITIONS AT THAT
FACILITY.
THAT FACILITY HAD HAD JUST BEEN
OPEN THEY WERE STAFFING OPEN THE
ISSUE WAS THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO
HIRE ENOUGH CIVIL SERVICE STAFF
TO PROVIDE THE WHERE IT WASN'T.
NECESSARILY AN ISSUE THAT THEY
WEREN'T DOING IT ADEQUATELY.
OKAY AND SO.
THE FEDERAL RECEIVER'S DOWN TO
WHAT IT'S NOW OF PRIDE IS THAT
CORRECT.
I NEED I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW
MANY AUDITS THAT DONORS THAT I'M
ARE. EVER I'VE LEARNED THAT
THEY'VE DONE TO WATER RECEIVERS
THAT TO WHAT IT GAVE THEM A
CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH SO. I'M
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE
URGENCY AND THE NEED OF THE
FEDERAL SIEVERS FINE WITH THIS
ORGANIZATION.
AND WE JUST HAD TO ITEMS READY
WE'RE LOOKING AT OUTSOURCING TO
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WHIRLING
ON ITEM FIVE.
YOU KNOW SO SO. WHAT'S.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HERE AND
WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT TO
ENCOURAGE MORE OUTSOURCING. WHEN
THAT'S AB AB THAT'S A MANAGEMENT
DECISION THAT SHOULD BE.
PURSUED BECAUSE OF COST REASONS
ITS ARAB.
I'D I'D LIKE SOME CLEAR JUST
GOING BACK TO ISSUE TO ON HUMAN
TRAFFICKING FUNDAMENTALLY THAT'S
A MUCH DIFFERNT. RAM WE ARE
THAT THE GRANT PROGRAM THAT'S
GOING OUT TO NON PROFITS. THIS
IS WORK THAT'S BEING CONDUCTED
IN A FACILITY AND SO I DON'T
THINK THAT THE COMPARISON IS
APPROPRIATE BETWEEN THE TWO
ITEMS CLIMB I DISAGREE MISS
COSTA BECAUSE WE'RE HIRING
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED.
AND WE HAVE NOW SOMEONE WHO'S
PROVIDING THAT'S WHAT I'M
THINKING FROM A COMPASSION
STANDPOINT THIS IS.
JUST A WONDERFUL THING TO DO.
THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
AND AND FOR BABY A UNION TO
START IMPOSING CERTAIN THINGS
AND THREATENING CERTAIN THINGS.
I I THINK NEED TO STAND UP TO
THAT KIND OF STUFF.
THANK YOU MISTER.
THINK YOU BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
ANY OTHER.
QUESTIONS.
IF NOT WE'LL MOVE ON TO ISSUE
SIX.
ARMED IN PROHIBITED PERSON
SYSTEM.
LL.
I NEED ONLY WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE.
IS ONLY PROVIDED FIVE POINT
THREE MILLION IN TWO THOUSAND
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN AND FOUR POINT
FOUR MILLION ON GOING INTO DOJ
AND ALSO ADOPTED BUDGET BILL
LANGUAGE.
TO PROVIDE TWENTY SIX POSITIONS
TO CONTINUE TO WORK DOWN THE
ARMS AND PROHIBITED PERSON
SYSTEM OR APPS.
BACKLOG JUST A COUPLE OF ITEMS
THAT WE WANTED AYE TO BRING TO
YOUR ATTENTION AS YOU DELIBERATE
ON THIS ISSUE.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR
THEIR APPROXIMATE A LITTLE BIT
MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND
INDIVIDUALS ARE IN THE APPS
DATABASE.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED
RESOURCES IN THE PAST TO TO WORK
DOWN THIS BACKLOG. IT IS A
LITTLE UNCLEAR TO US ON THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE ASSEMBLY
ACTION WOULD REDUCE THAT BACKLOG.
AND WHAT LEVEL OF ONGOING
RESOURCES NEEDED TO MAINTAIN AN
APPROPRIATE BACKLOG.
THANK YOU MISS COSTS.
THIS IS AN ONGOING LEGISLATIVE
AUGMENTATION THE MINISTRATION
DOESN'T SUPPORT IT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU CENTER NIELSEN.
BUT MISTER CHAIRMAN THIS IS ONE
THE DEPT ONLY NEEDS THE
INDIVIDUAL SCRUTINY.
THAT'S A LONG SUSTAINED ISSUE OF
GREAT MAGNITUDE.
THEY'RE NOW PURPORTED TO BE FROM
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
TEN THOUSAND INDIVIDUALS.
IN POSSESSION OF.
UNAUTHORIZED WEAPONS.
NO LEGALLY.
AND.
MANY IF NOT ALL MOST ARE NOT ALL
OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WILL HAVE
MORE THAN ONE WEAPON.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT
MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND.
DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN THE HANDS
OF DANGEROUS PEOPLE THAT FOR
YEARS THIS BACKLOG HAS
LANGUISHED WELL WE.
THE LEGEND SAYS A BUDGET
COMMITTEE IS THROWING MONEY.
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
DIDN'T TO MAKE.
FAR FROM SATISFACTORY.
PROGRESS.
ONE OF THE RATIONALES WERE THAT
BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CANNOT.
PAY THE SALARIES.
COMPARABLE TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE NOT BEEN
ABLE TO HIRE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO DO
THIS FOR THE MONEY THAT THE
STATE HAS GIVEN THEM WE HAVE
ACTUALLY I UNDERSTAND THEY
RETURNED. SOME MONEY.
THIS YEAR.
AND
IN A MEETING AT A VERY
PRODUCTIVE MEETING I FELT WITH
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HE
COMMITTED TO ME TO COME TO US
WITH A PLAN.
OF HOW THEY WILL UTILIZE
WHATEVER RESOURCES WE HAVE
PROVIDED THEM.
AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
PROVIDED THEM.
HOW WHAT IS YOUR PLAN TO BOOK
WORK DOWN THAT?
BACK WHILE.
AND I ASSUMED IT WOULD INCLUDE.
HOW THEY WOULD SECURE THE
INDIVIDUALS
TO DO THIS?
SO FAR I IT WOULDN'T THEY HAVE
NOT PRESENTED THAT INFORMATION
TO US SO IT'S CERTAINLY
PREMATURE.
THAT TO MOVE AHEAD YOU'VE GIVEN
THE MANY MORE MONEY.
AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE
THE CASE NEXT WEEK AS WELL AS IT
IS THIS WEEK.
SO WHY DO I THINK THIS IS
SOMETHING WE NEED TO TALK A LOT
ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S A PERSISTENT
AND PERVASIVE PROBLEM OF GREAT
SIGNIFICANT.
PUBLIC IMPORT.
THANK YOU SIR MORE LIKE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR WE'VE
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DRAMA IN.
SAD DRAMA IN IN SACRAMENTO THIS
SPRING.
AND SO I'M.
TRYING TO KIND OF LOOK AT.
DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF CURRENT
EVENTS AND.
AND SO HERE IN JUST IN THE FIRST
FEW ITEMS WE HAVE A REQUEST.
TO LOOK AT LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS.
BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE A.
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT'S GOT
TEN THOUSAND GUN STILL OUT THERE.
AND IN I WONDER AYE AYE WHEN I
WAS MANAGING MANY I'D YOU'D
WOULD DO CORRELATIONS AND I
WONDER IF THERE'S A CORRELATION.
BETWEEN OFFICER INVOLVED
SHOOTINGS AND THE AMOUNT OF GUNS
THAT ARE OUT THERE I'D BE REAL
NERVOUS OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY
OFFICER.
KNOWING THAT.
THIS INVENTORY IS OUT THERE
HASN'T BEEN RESOLVED IN THIS
ISSUE'S BEEN GOING ON FOR SOME
TIME BUT I'D I'D LIKE THAT.
MAYBE IF IT'S POSSIBLE HAVE SOME
KIND OF CORRELATION SEE WHAT'S
GOING ON BECAUSE THE SAME
DEPARTMENT IS INVOLVED ON BOTH
ENDS OF THIS TOPIC. THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR.
THEY JUST THIRD THESE ITEMS WERE.
A LUMP TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY
CAME TO OUR PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET
SUB FIVE DEATHS Y.. WERE
DISCUSSING THEM IN THIS ORDER.
SENATE ROTH.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR MY
COLLEAGUE HIS SOON.
REFERENCE TO PLAN TO UTILIZE THE
RESOURCES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE BUT I I THINK IT'S MUCH
MORE THAN THAT AND I.
THIS IS JUST A QUICK COMMENT NOT
TO BELABOR THIS I DO THINK WE
NEED THEM.
SEE A PLAN.
THAT INVOLVES NOT ONLY THE DOJ
PERSONNEL BUT LOCAL. LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND OUR COURT SYSTEM.
A A PLAN THAT.
.
WILL BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN
DEALING WITH THIS VERY VERY VERY
COMPLICATED ISSUES SO FAR.
OF THE DOJ IS LISTENING WHAT I'D
LIKE TO SEE IS THAT.
.
THE DEPARTMENT SUPPLY BUT BOTH
THE OF THE.
BUDGET COMMITTEES OF THE OF
THIS LEGISLATURE.
A WITH A PLAN THAT NOT ONLY
TALKS ABOUT THE USE OF THE
STAFFING THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT
APPROVE IT'S BEEN.
PROPOSED BY THE ASSEMBLY BUT.
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE
COURT SYSTEM TO TRY TO.
OF SECURE THESE THEM.
THESE WEAPONS.
AND AT A MUCH EARLIER STAGE AND
WE SEEM TO BE DOING TODAY SO.
WITHOUT TO MISTER CHAIR THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
THANK YOU SENATOR MITCHELL.
THANK YOU ON MISTER CHAIR I I
JUST I I HEARD YOUR RESPONSE.
TO MY COLLEAGUE AND I'M I'M NOT
SURE THAT I INTERPRET HIS
QUESTION THE SAME WAY YOU DID
HOW MY HEARD YOU SAY THAT THEY
WERE GROUPED IN THIS.
WAY BUT BUT WHEN MY COLLEAGUE
USE THE TERM CORRELATION.
IT SEEMS TO ME AS WELL AS THE
REFERENCE TO LOCAL EVENTS HERE
IN SACRAMENTO. I'M NOT QUITE
SURE WHAT YOU MEAN ABOUT.
CORRELATION I APPRECIATE YOUR
STATEMENT ABOUT.
THE FEAR HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE
TEN THOUSAND FIREARMS BUT. YOU
TALK ABOUT THE LOCAL EVENTS HERE
IN SACRAMENTO I THINK THOSE ARE
PEOPLE WHO WERE GUNNED DOWN BY
POLICE WHO WERE FOUND TO BE
UNARMED.
SO I WOULD JUST BE SUGGEST WE
ALL BE VERY CAREFUL WITH THE
LANGUAGE WE USE.
AND PERHAPS TO SEE THESE TWO
ISSUE ITEMS.
SEPARATE AS THEY WERE PRESENTED
IN THE AGENDA.
VINCENT ABOUT THROUGH CHAIR I
APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.
MY CONCERN IS.
THINKING THAT IF I DON'T KNOW IF
A PERSON IS ARMED.
I'M THINKING THAT IT MIGHT BE A.
COMPONENT OF WHAT'S GOING ON
BECAUSE I ONCE I WANT THIS TO
STOP.
BUT IT DOESN'T HELP IF POLICE
OFFICERS KNOW THAT THERE ARE A
LOT OF GUNS OUT THERE THAT
SHOULDN'T BE OUT THERE. AND AND
I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED. AND IT JUST SEEMS
THAT THAT THAT THE INVENTORY IS
NOT MOVING DOWN. PASSING OF
CYPRESS SHAPE.
SENATOR ROSS RECOMMENDATION OF A
PLAN. BECAUSE IF WE LOOK AT
THINGS MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING
THAT'S ADDING TO OUR MUTUAL
FRUSTRATION.
AND THAT'S WHY ARE OUR GAS FOR
THE CORRELATION I APPRECIATE
THAT I THINK THAT THERE ARE.
A VARIETY OF ISSUES PERHAPS
THAT BUTTON THAT NEITHER YOU OR
I ARE COMPLETELY VERSED IN. ON
THAT THAT.
ARE ATTRIBUTING TO THE
INCREASED INCIDENCE OF.
OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS
VERTICALLY OF THOSE ON A VICTIMS
WHO ARE UNARMED SO I WOULD JUST
BE CAREFUL AS WE TRY TO DRAW
CORRELATION THAT WE DON'T
NECESSARILY KNOW THAT THERE IS A
CONNECTION. AND BECAUSE A LOT
SAY BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEX
THINGS I'D LIKE TO SEE.
IF THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
COMPONENTS OF THIS.
PHENOMENON THAT WERE SEEN THAT
SHOULD BE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
OKAY MOVING TO ISSUE SEVEN.
MOBILE SOURCE EXPANSION TO OFF
ROAD AN AFTERMARKET PARTS.
LL FEEL FREE TO BEGIN AT YOUR
LEISURE.
PROPS BROWN WITH THE LA HELLO SO
ISSUE SEVEN THE GOVERNOR
PROPOSED TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
TO AUTHORIZE THE A ARP TO IMPOSE
FEES ON APPLICANTS.
SEEKING CERTIFICATION OF
AFTERMARKET PARTS AND OFF ROAD
VEHICLES.
AND THE LANGUAGE DIRECTED A ARE
BE TO CONSIDER A VARIETY OF
FACTORS WHEN SETTING THE FEE.
INCLUDING.
THE IMPACT OF THE FEE ON THE
MARKET.
THE SENATE'S DID NOT TAKE ACTION
ON THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THE
ASSEMBLY APPROVE THE LANGUAGE
AND ADDED.
AN ADDITIONAL FACTOR THAT A ARE
BE IS TO CONSIDER.
WHICH IS THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
TO NOT IN ENACTING A FEE OR A
FEW THE DOES NOT COME FULLY
COVER THEIR APARTMENTS COSTS.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THE ASSEMBLY
ACTION ON THIS ISSUE WE DON'T
HAVE ANY.
ISSUES WITH THE PROPOSED
LANGUAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
OR THE ADDITIONAL FACTOR TO
CONSIDER THAT THE ASSEMBLY ADDED.
THIS COST.
THE ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS THE
ASSEMBLY ACTION.
WE THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE
OFFERED BY THE ASSEMBLY IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION'S INTACT FOR FEES
TO FULLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITIES AT THE AIR RESOURCES
BOARD.
THANK YOU.
A SERIOUS.
AS CHAIRMAN WE NEED THE HAVE A
SEPARATE DISCUSSION ON THIS TO
AN END TO MAJOR POLICY ISSUE
HERE. THAT INVOLVES.
THESE.
A.
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS HAVE
WATCHED INCREMENTAL YEAR AFTER
YEAR.
THIS LEGISLATURE SEED IT'S
AUTHORITY THE MEMBERS AUTHORITY
OR THE AUTHORITY THE PEOPLE THAT
ELECTED.
THE LEGISLATORS.
TO THE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.
IN THIS CASE TO IMPOSE FEES.
REYES THOSE FEES.
AND
BROUGHT AND THE APPLICATION OF
THOSE FEES ON THEIR OWN VOLITION.
THAT SHOULD NOT BE THEIR PURVIEW
SHOULD BE OF THE LEGISLATURE.
THEN THIS IS ANOTHER STEP DOWN
THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE.
WE SHOULD NOT EVEN CONSIDER THIS
UNLESS WE HAVE IN.
THE BILL.
THE ACTUAL FEET THAT WILL BE
IMPOSED.
AND WHAT IT WILL BE APPLIED
THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO REST
THE THORNY THE PEOPLE BACK INTO.
THEIR HANDS.
NOT BE CONTINUING LATE GIVING IT
TO THESE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.
WITH IMPUNITY.
THROUGH REGULATION ALONE.
THEN SOMETIMES I ARGUE JUST TO.
D. O. M. OPERATION MANUAL.
OR MEMO.
REYES FEAST IMPOSE FEES BROAD
APPLICATION OF THESE WE NEED A
DEEP DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE.
THANK YOU.
OTHER.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
SEEING NONE WE WILL GO TO ISSUE
DATE BRIDGE POINT BRIDGE.
WELL.
I'D THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR A TWO
POINT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS ON
PROPOSITION EIGHTY FOUR BOND
FUNDS AND. FOR THE BRIDGEPORT
BRIDGE THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED US
SENATE DID NOT TAKEN ACTION
THERE WAS NO GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
JUST FOR SOME CONTEXT THIS
WOULD BE AN AUGMENTATION TO USE
ON PASSED APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THIS PROJECT. AND THAT'S THROUGH
THE FACT THAT.
HOW TO THE BIDDING PROCESS THE?
LOWEST BID WAS TO PRINT MILLION
HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF AB
INAPPROPRIATE AND.
THEY CAN.
THE ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS THE
ASSEMBLY IS ACTION ON THIS ITEM
WE BELIEVE THAT.
PROPOSITION EIGHTY FOUR BOND
FUNDS OR THE APPROPRIATE FUNDING
SOURCE AND FOR UTILIZED FOR
PREVIOUS AYE PORTIONS OF THIS
PROJECT THANK YOU.
SERIOUS.
BUT ON THAT POINT.
.
IF WE WAIT.
TO PROP SIXTY EIGHT.
THAT WILL DELAY THINGS
SUBSTANTIALLY.
FOR THIS PROJECT.
GIVE ME AGAIN THE REAL HARD
REASON WHY EIGHTY FOUR WOULD NOT
BE APPROPRIATE IS THERE STILL
STE LOVE SOME OF THE EIGHTY FOUR
BOND UNSPENT AT THIS POINT.
THAT'S CORRECT THERE ARE STILL
BOUNCES AND PROPOSITION EIGHTY
FOREIGN WE BELIEVE IT TO BE
APPROPRIATE FUNDING SOURCE FOR
THIS PROJECT.
OKAY.
WELL.
.
I I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE
COULDN'T UTILIZE MORE READILY A
MORE EXPEDIENT LEAVE THE PROP
SIXTY EIGHT FUNDS WHITE Y. NOT.
PART SIXTY EIGHT WAS JUST PASSED
YESTERDAY ON AND AS SUCH THEY'LL
BE SOME ADMINISTERING.
.
THE PEOPLE DELIVERY REQUIRED
EIGHTY FOUR WE ALREADY HAVE IN
POSSESSION OKAY WHAT YOU MADE MY
POINT I GUESS I MISUNDERSTOOD
WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO I WAS
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY SHOULD
BE. FUNDED FROM THE PRIOR BOND
NOT FROM SIXTY EIGHT. THAT JUST
PASSED I BELIEVE THERE MAY HAVE
BEEN A TYPO ON THE AGENDA ITEM
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS
RECTIFIED THAT WE'RE ALL IN
AGREEMENT THAT PROPOSITION
EIGHTY FOUR IS THE APPROPRIATE
FUNDS SOURCE. THANK YOU THAT
TEARS UP THE DISCREPANCIES.
THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS WE'LL
MOVE ON TO ISSUE NINE.
INVASIVE PESTS AND WEEDS.
NO WAY OUT.
SHOP MIGHT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE.
THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS TWO POINT
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS GENERAL
FUND AND TWO POINT FIVE BILLION
DOLLARS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL
FUND. FOR TAT.
IT FOR ASIANS IF YOU SELL IT
AND ONE LONG BEING SUPPRESSION
ACTIVITIES
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL IN THE SENATE REJECTED
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
BOTH THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY
APPROVED TEN MILLION DOLLARS IN
GENERAL FUND IN ONE TIME I BASIS
FOR ASIAN CITRUS SELIGMAN Y.
LONG BEING SUPPRESSION
ACTIVITIES.
BOTH THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE
APPROVED FIVE BILLION DOLLARS
GENERAL FUND ON A ONE TIME BASIS
FOR PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION
OF THE SHOT HOLE BORER BEETLE.
IN ADDITION THE SENATE ALSO
ADOPTED PROVISIONAL LANGUAGE.
AND FINALLY THAT ASSEMBLY
APPROVE NINE POINT SIX MILLION
DOLLARS GENERAL FUND TO ADDRESS
STATEWIDE INVASIVE SPECIES
ISSUES.
I'M WE RECOMMEND ON THAT
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
.
THE FIVE MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE
ASIANS AT YOUR SON IN LAW ONLINE
PING SUPPRESSION ACTIVITIES TO
RECOMMEND THE ASSEMBLY ACTION.
GIVEN THE RECENT BRAD I'VE
AGENCIES FACILITY IN A LONG LONG
BANG WE THINK THE RESOURCES ARE
JUSTIFIED.
I REGARDING THAT SECOND
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
HOUSES THE PROPOSED PROVISIONAL
LANGUAGE REGARDING FUNDING FOR
SUPPRESSION AND SAW A SHOT HOLE
BORDER BEETLE. RECOMMEND THE
SENATE BELIEVE IN THAT IT WOULD
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT OVER THESE FUNDS. AND
FINALLY REGARDING THAT ASSEMBLY
THE NINE POINT SIX MILLION
DOLLARS GENERAL FUND TO ADDRESS
STATEWIDE INVASIVE SPECIES
ISSUES. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THESE FUNDS WOULD BE USED
TO EMPLOYMENT ASSEMBLY BILL
TWENTY FOUR SEVENTY BY GRAYSON.
WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH THE
INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA TELL COORDINATED THE
COMPREHENSIVE EFFORT TO PREVENT
THE INTRODUCTION OF INVASIVE
SPECIES. INTO A CALIFORNIA. THE
LEGISLATURE WE ARE THAT THIS
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WAY WISH TO
CONSIDER WHAT IT WANTS TO TO
WAIT TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
THESE ACTIVITIES AND TELL.
ASSEMBLY BILL TWENTY SEVEN FORTY
HAS WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH THE
POLICY COMMITTEE PROCESS.
THANK YOU.
WAS COST.
BOTH PACKAGES INCLUDE GENERAL
FUND LEGISLATIVE AUGMENTATIONS
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T
SUPPORT THIS TYPE.
THANK YOU.
SENATE NIELSEN.
HAVING LIVED THROUGH THE. MED
FLY YEARS.
INVASIVE SPECIES ARE ALWAYS. A
BIG THREAT AND THEY NEED TO BE
TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY.
THE LEGISLATION PROPOSED.
IT IT MAY HAVE MERIT.
BUT AT THAT WE I DON'T THINK WE
DARE WAIT FOR THE PASSAGE
OF THAT LEGISLATION.
IN FACT IF IT'S CRITICAL ENOUGH
WE COULD INCORPORATED INTO. ONE
OF OUR MANY TRAILER BILLS THAT
ARE SO FLEXIBLE
BUT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE MISTER CHAIRMAN I WOULD
APPRECIATE CONSIDERATION
SHEPPARTON INDEPENDENT WHEN WE
GET TO IT.
THANK YOU SAID IRAQ.
THANK YOU AS CHAIR I WOULD ONLY
NOTE THAT THE.
DEVASTATION.
THAT FLORIDA HAS EXPERIENCED
WITH IT THIS ASIAN CITRUS SILOED.
HAS LEVELED THAT CITRUS ECONOMY
AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THAT
TO HAPPEN.
IN THIS STATE LAST YEAR I GAVE A
SPEECH I WON'T REPEAT IT AGAIN
BUT.
MS CUTS TO CERTAINLY HEARD THAT.
AND THE ADMINISTRATION WAS VERY.
PRE RESPONSIVE AND I THANK YOU
FOR THAT.
A IT IS A IT'S A DEVASTATING
DISEASE OF THE MONEY IS NOT USED
BY THE COMMERCIAL GROWERS THEY
TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN.
OPERATIONS IT IS UTILIZED TO
GOING TO RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE IN
CALIFORNIA WE HAVE GROWN FOND OF
HAVING CITRUS TREES IN OUR
BACKYARD.
BUT TO PROVIDE A PREVENTATIVE
EFFORTS WITH RESPECT THOSE IN A
BACKYARD TREES.
BECAUSE ONCE THE INFESTATION
STARTS IN THOSE TREES IT SPREADS
VERY RAPIDLY IN THE FEAR IS.
THAT IF IT'S SPREAD AS WIDE
ENOUGH AND FAR ENOUGH.
THE.
HERCULEAN EFFORTS OF THE
GROWERS IN THE COMMERCIAL GROVES
WERE NOT BE ENOUGH TO STOP.
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SO
PERSONALLY. A TEN MILLION PLUS
FIVE WORKS FOR ME I DON'T KNOW
ABOUT SETTING UP THE.
.
THE YOUNG.
COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO THE
NINE POINT SIX MILLION I'LL
LEAVE THAT TO OTHERS BUT I
CERTAINLY SUPPORT TO.
OF THE ASSEMBLIES PROPOSAL IN
THIS REGARD THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU.
LOOK I JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT
THAT THIS ISSUE WAS HEARD AND UP
A SUBCOMMITTEE THREE. ADAM AND
AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE FUNDING
CA FOR THE CITRIX CECIL ADAMS
LONG LONG BIG.
IS SUPPORTED BY THE AGRICULTURE
INDUSTRY WHO PUTS IN AN EQUAL
AMOUNT OF MONEY TO MATCH THE
FUNDS.
ABSOLUTE WAS ACTUALLY REQUEST
THAT CAME FROM BAG AND I THINK
THAT.
A GIVEN THAT TO ASSEMBLY WILL
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.
GREAT THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS I ISSUE
TED DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON CAL
EXPO.
LL.
THE ASSEMBLY ADOPTED TEN MILLION
DOLLARS IN PROPOSITION SIXTY
EIGHT FUNDS FOR DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE AT CAL EXPO. I JUST
TO PROVIDE YOU SOME BACKGROUND
INFORMATION. A PROPOSITION SIXTY
IT PROVIDES EIGHTEEN MILLION
DOLLARS TO THE DIVISION AFFAIRS
NEXT POSITIONS WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT IF IT AGRICULTURE TO
PROVIDE FOR FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS FOR COUNTY FAIRS.
I AND ALSO THE CALIFORNIA
EXPOSITION IN STATE FAIR THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSED THREE
POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS IN
THIS IS APPROVED BY BOTH HOUSES
FOR THESE PURPOSES. BOND
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD
AND AGRICULTURE.
INC PREPARED A URGENT FRIEDMAN
IT'S AN INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR
CALIFORNIA FAIRGROUNDS IN TWO
THOUSAND FIFTEEN. THAT I TALKED
TO THEM THEY SAID IT'S OUT OF
DATE HOWEVER IN TWO THOUSAND
FIFTEEN. THAT THAT STUDY
ACCORDING TO CDFA THAT CALLASPO
WAS FOUR POINT SEVEN PERCENT OR
FIFTEEN MILLION OF THE TOTAL
STATEWIDE NEED A THREE HUNDRED
TWENTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS AT
THAT TIME. ACCORDING TO CDF A.
FUNDING FOR DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
AFFAIRS THAT I SHOULD BE
PRIORITIZE BASED ON THE NEEDS OF.
AFFAIRS STATEWIDE TO THE LIKE TO
DO A STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT. IN
TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN NINETEEN
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY SHOULD BE
COMPLETED THAT A PRIOR TO YOU
I'M FUNDING SPECIFIC FAIRS SO WE
THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR CDF A
TO COMPLETE THE TWO THOUSAND
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN STUDY. OF AYE
THERE ARE ABOUT SEVENTY FOUR I
BELIEVE YEAH SEVENTY FOUR FAIR
GROUND STATEWIDE. DO AN OVERALL
ASSESSMENT OF THE NEEDS FOR
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BEFORE AIR
MARKING TEN MILLION OUT OF THESE
EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS IN
FUNDS FOR CALYX.
THANK YOU.
SIMILAR.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I.
.
SORT OF PREFER THE ASSEMBLY
APPROACH.
.
CALYX BOAT IT.
THE ORANGE COUNTY FAIR IS DOES
REAL WELL EVERY YEAR IT
GENERATES MORE REVENUE THAN IT.
HASN'T EXPENDITURES BUT
CALLASPO THAT ISN'T THE CASE ARE
JUST BARELY BREAKING EVEN.
BECAUSE.
ALTHOUGH THERE IN THE PENALTY
MANAGED TO STILL GET TO ENJOY.
CONTRACT CENTER GENERATED BY THE
LEGISLATURE WHEN IT COMES TO THE
M. A USE FOR EMPLOYEE.
I COSTS SO THEY'RE SEEING.
THE SAME ISSUES THAT OUR SCHOOLS.
AND OUR UNIVERSITIES ARE CITIES
AND COUNTIES ARE SEEING.
SO.
THERE'S.
YOU KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE A BUDGET
THAT SO TIGHT OBVIOUSLY THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY.
DECLINES AS YOU PAY MORE FOR
PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS AND.
RETIREE MEDICAL SO I THINK WE
OUGHT TO LOOK AT THIS ASSET A
LITTLE. MORE CAREFULLY.
I END WE SHOULD I GIVE IT A
HIGHER PRIORITY. SO WITH THAT I
I WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT THE
ASSEMBLY RECOMMENDATION.
GREAT THANK YOU SIR NIELSEN.
MISTER CHAIRMAN.
THE.
THE PROP SIXTY AND BOND MONIES
WERE PROMISED.
TWO ALL FARES AVAILABLE TO ALL.
THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT
FAIRS.
AND THOUGH I.
LOVE CAL EXPO AND WORKED VERY
HARD MANY YEARS AGO TO SAVE CAL
EXPO.
I THINK IT'S BLOWN TOWARD TO.
ACCOMMODATE THEM WITH THIS MUCH
MONEY.
ALL FARES HAVE TREMENDOUS
THIRD.
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES.
AND I THINK ALL DESERVE.
AN OPPORTUNITY AS THEY HAVE IN
THE PAST.
FOR THESE MONIES.
I'M RESISTANT TO GIVING THAT
MUCH.
THE CAL EXPO UNLESS THEY WANT TO
MAKE THAT DISTRICT LEE OUT OF
THE GENERAL FUND IN ADDITION TO.
AND A SIXTY EIGHT BOND MONIES
THAT WERE PROMISED TO ALL. SUCH
FAIRS.
HIS SHOE ELEVEN LIVE BROADCAST
TO FISHING GAME COMMISSION BOARD
MEETINGS.
NO WAY OUT.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN FIRST
RACHEL EHLERS WITH THE LA NO THE
ASSEMBLY ADOPTED PLACEHOLDER
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE TO REQUIRE
THE LIVE WEBCAST
A FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
THE COMMISSION ALREADY CA
CONTAINS AND AND PROVIDES A
WEBCAST OF ITS BOARD MEETINGS SO
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO
REQUIRE THAT IT WEB CAST THE
ROUGHLY TEN A YEAR. COMMITTEE
MEETINGS OF IT SUB. SUB
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT HAPPEN
AROUND THE STATE AYE LARGELY TO
SOLICIT PUBLIC INPUT.
I'M JUST FOR SOME CONTEXT THIS
IS SIMILAR TO ASSEMBLY BILL
THIRTEEN THIRTY SEVEN WHICH WAS
PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND
VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR A FEW
WEEKS AGO. THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE ASSESSMENT OF THE COST
OF THAT PROPOSAL WAS ABOUT A
HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS A YEAR.
THANK YOU MISS COST. WE SUPPORT
THE SENATE VERSION OF THE
ANALYSTS HAS NOTED THE
PROVISIONS ARE
VERY SIMILAR TO A. B. THIRTEEN
THIRTY SEVEN WHICH THE GOVERNOR
VETOED LA FROM.
THANK YOU.
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS.
OKAY.
ISSUE TWELVE LOCAL CALIFORNIA
CONSERVATION CORPS GRANTS.
ELIOT WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED AT THREE
MILLION DOLLARS IN GENERAL FUND
FOR LOCAL CONSERVATION CORPS.
AND. WE JUST THEATER SAYS AS
ADAM IF THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITY.
FOR SPENDING GENERAL FUND.
THANK YOU DISCUSSED.
THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE GENERAL
FUND AUGMENTATION WE DON'T
SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
ANY.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
OKAY ISSUE THIRTEEN CALIFORNIA
WATERFOWL HABITAT PROGRAM WHERE.
THE ASSEMBLY ADOPTED FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS ONE TIME GENERAL
FUND FOR THE CALIFORNIA
WATERFOWL HABITAT PROGRAM THIS
PROGRAM PROVIDES PAYMENTS TO
LANDOWNERS TO CREATE WETLANDS
AND PROVIDE ABOUT WEAPONS AND
BIRD HABITAT ON THEIR PROPERTIES.
AB JUST FOR SOME CONTEXT
PROPOSITION SIXTY EIGHT WHICH
PASSED YESTERDAY INCLUDES TEN
MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS PROGRAM.
NONE OF THAT FUNDING WAS
PROPOSED IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET TO GO OUT IN THE BUDGET
YEAR BUT THAT IS ANOTHER FUND
SOURCE YOU CONSIDER. FOR FUNDING
THIS PROGRAM IF THAT'S WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE DESIRES.
THANK YOU.
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE IN THE.
SENATE NIELSEN DON'T LIKE TO
TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN TOO. GET
KICKED IN LIGHT OF THE POP SIXTY
POSSIBILITY MISTER CHAIRMAN.
OKAY.
ISSUE FOURTEEN FLOOD CONTROL
INFRASTRUCTURE ALEJO.
I THINK YOU THE GOVERNOR
PROPOSED A HUNDRED AND SEVENTY
MILLION DOLLARS ONE TIME GENERAL
FUND TO PROVIDE THE STATE SHARE.
REQUIRED TO DRAW DOWN FEDERAL
FUNDS FOR SIX SPECIFIC LARGE
URBAN FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
AUTHORIZED IN FEDERAL
LEGISLATION. THE SENATE APPROVED
DOES PROPOSE THE ASSEMBLY
APPROVED BUT SET ASIDE TEN
MILLION OF THAT ONE HUNDRED AND
SEVENTY FOR ONE PARTICULAR WRECK
THAT RECLAMATION DISTRICT AND
REPAIRS TO LEVEES IN THAT AREA.
SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR YOU HERE
IF YOU DO STE BOUT SET ASIDE TEN
MILLION OUT OF THAT ONE HUNDRED
AND SEVENTY IT MAY BE HARD TO
DRAW DOWN THE FULL AMOUNT. OF
FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THOSE
FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED PROJECTS
AND.
ALL RECLAMATION DISTRICTS CAN
APPLY FOR FUNDING FOR FLOOD
CONTROL GRANT PROGRAMS THAT THE
DEPARTMENT RUNS.
THANK YOU DISCUSSED.
THANK YOU AS THE ANALYST NOTES
OUT WE SUPPORT THE SENATE
VERSION ON THIS THIS PARTICULAR
PROJECT WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN
THE ASSEMBLY SIDE DOESN'T FIT
THE BROADER PHILOSOPHY THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAD WE PUT
TOGETHER OUR FLOOD
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT WHICH WAS.
THAT PROJECTS WOULD LEVERAGE
FEDERAL FUNDS PROJECTS WOULD
REDUCE LIABILITY AND THAT
PROJECTS WOULD PROTECT.
KEY INFRASTRUCTURE AND LIVES.
THANK YOU SIR NIELSEN.
MISTER CHAIRMAN THIS SIR.
.
WELL EXPENDITURES VIOLATIVE OF
HOW WE'VE HISTORICALLY FUNDED
RECLAMATION DISTRICTS.
AND I THINK TOO LITTLE ON TOWARD
TO DIRECT THIS MUCH AT ONE
PARTICULAR RECLAMATION DISTRICT.
WHO WHO WISH
PROJECT IS NOT EVEN BEEN A PART?
OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD
PROTECTION BOARDS OVERALL PLAN
WHICH IS A VERY VERY
EXHAUSTIVELY DEFINED PLAN OF HOW
ALL OF THESE RECLAMATION
DISTRICTS FIT TOGETHER.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO PLAN YOU
JUST DON'T DO THESE THINGS
PIECEMEAL AS THIS PROPOSAL.
PROPOSES TO DO.
THANK YOU.
PACKED COMMITTEE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS.
OKAY.
SEEING NONE ISSUE FIFTEEN GOGGLE
CULTURAL DIESEL ENGINE
REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADES.
WELL.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED THIRTY
MILLION ONETIME GENERAL FUND FOR
AGRICULTURAL DIESEL ENGINE
REPLACEMENTS AND UPGRADES BOTH
HOUSES.
ADOPTED THE PROPOSED FUNDING I
JUST WANT TO NOTE ONE SMALL.
MISTAKE THERE IS A MINOR
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
HOUSES THE SENATE ALSO ADOPTED
SOME BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE
REQUIRING THE FUNDS TO GO TO
LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS FOR DIESEL
RISK REDUCTION AND WE DON'T
REALLY HAVE ANY. WE DON'T HAVE
ANY CONCERNS WITH PROPOSED
LANGUAGE.
THANK YOU MISS COST. WE SUPPORT
EITHER HOUSES ACTION ON THIS
ITEM WE HAVE A COMPLEMENTARY
PIECE AND ARE IN THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSED CAP AND TRADE
EXPENDITURE PLAN. BECAUSE BUDGET
YOUR CAP AND TRADE EXPENDITURES
ARE SLIGHTLY.
LOWER THAN THE CURRENT YEAR ON
USING GENERAL FUND AND GIGI ARE
A FUNDS MAKE THAT MAKES THIS
PARTICULAR PROGRAM HOLE BASED ON
THE NUMBER WE UTILIZED IN THE
CURRENT YEAR.
THANK YOU.
SENATE NIELSEN.
MISTER CHAIRMAN I WOULD ASK THE
LA.
AND.
.
DIRECTOR ACOSTA TO COME AT.
I'M GENERALLY THE GUY THAT
WANTS TO PUT EVERYTHING OUT TO
THE LOCALS
AND DIRECTING THIS.
STRAIGHT TO THE A PC DO YOU USE
ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS.
THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS NOW
WILL BE TAKEN OFF THE TOP
DIMINISHING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
OF FOR THESE PURPOSES.
WHY COULDN'T WE JUST CONTINUE
TO DO WITH THE WAY WE'VE BEEN
DOING IT INSTEAD OF DIRECTING IT
STRAIGHT TO THEM AND ENCOURAGE
AN ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE?
OPERATION COSTS THAT DIMINISHES
THE IMPACT OF THOSE FUNDS I MEAN IS THAT.
.
CURRENTLY THE WHAT THE PROGRAM
IS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED THE
FUNDS ARE ALSO GIVEN TO THE
LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS AND SO THIS
A PROPOSAL WOULD CONTINUE THAT
CURRENT STRUCTURE.
IF I MAY THE LANGUAGE CONFORMS
TO CURRENT PRACTICE WHICH IS THE
FUNDING IS PROVIDED TO THE LOCAL
AIR DISTRICTS.
THANK YOU FOR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE WE WILL MOVE ON TO
ISSUE SIXTEEN BE SAFE PROGRAM.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED AT ONE
POINT NINE MILLION IN GENERAL
FUND TO DEVELOP TO BE SAFE
PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY ONE POINT
FIVE MILLION FOR THE. CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE TO CONTRACT WITH
COUNTIES TO ENFORCE EXISTING
LAWS ON HIVE REGISTRATION OTHER
LAWS TO PREVENT APIARY STAFFS.
AND THREE INTERN FIFTY THREE
THOUSAND FOR THAT APARTMENT FOOD
AGRICULTURE TO ABIDE OUTREACH
AND EDUCATION TO COUNTIES. AND
STAKEHOLDERS REGARDING BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
BUT THAT ASSEMBLY APPROVE THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS BUDGETED
THE SENATE APPROVED THE LA A
RECOMMENDATION.
THAT IS TO A THREE YEAR LIMITED
TERM BASIS FOR THE THREE HUNDRED
FIFTY THREE THOUSAND GENERAL
FUND FOR TO POSITIONS TO
ESTABLISH THE PROGRAM.
AND ALSO APPROVED THE ONE POINT
FIVE MILLION. ON A ONE TIME
BASIS.
AND ADOPTED PROVISIONAL LANGUAGE
REQUIRING CFA TO REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE REGARDING FUNDING
NEEDS.
AND THE FUND WOULD REQUIRE I'VE
THAT REPORTING LANGUAGE WOULD
REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD
AND AGRICULTURE TO PREPARING
POOR ON HOW THIS PROGRAM COULD
BE. FUNDED USING FEES ON.
.
THAT THAT PEOPLE THAT MANAGE THE
APRS.
NOW PUT THAT ON THERE IS A
QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS IS
APPROPRIATE TO BE FUNDED WITH
THE GENERAL FUND OR WITH FEES.
AND ARE ON THE ONE HAND IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO FIND IT WITH
GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THERE'S A
BROAD BENEFIT TO SOCIETY FROM
THESE BEES POLLINATING. NOT ONLY
COMMERCIAL CROPS BUT ALSO.
PLANTS IN PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS AND
GARDENS.
ON THE OTHER HAND THE PRIMARY
BENEFICIARIES OF THAT.
MANAGE THE HIVES
OUR COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE SO
THERE'S SORT OF A QUESTION OF
WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR
THIS PROGRAM WE FIND WITH FEES
AND GENERAL FUND OR A MIXTURE OF
BOTH.
WE THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE TO HAVE
THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE COME BACK ANY YEAR
AND TELL US WHETHER IT'S
FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT.
A FEE FUNDED PROGRAM.
WHEN THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON
WHETHER IT SHOULD BE FEE FUNDED
OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE MEXICO
GENERAL FUND AND FEES.
THANK YOU MISS COST THEM. I
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A
CONFERENCE COMPROMISE WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS THAT
COMPROMISE WOULD APPROVE THE
ADMINISTRATION'S UP PROPOSAL BUT
ON A THREE YEAR LIMITED TERM
BASIS INCOMPLETE THE PROPOSED
REPORT BY JANUARY TEN TWENTY
TWENTY ONE. WHICH WOULD INFORM
AYE FUTURE PROPOSALS FOR ON
GOING RESOURCES.
THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS.
SENATOR NIELSEN.
BUT.
CONSTRUCTIVE THOUGHT A NEW
PROPOSAL WE NEED TO EXAMINE IT
BUT DIED LIKE TO SET THIS ONE
ASIDE FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION WHEN
WE GET TO THE TIME. VOTING.
THINK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE SEVENTEEN
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROJECTS.
ALEJO.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED THIRTY
MILLION ONE TIME GENERAL FUND
FOR AGRICULTURAL ENERGY
EFFICIENCY PROJECTS THE ASSEMBLY
ADOPTED THE PROPOSED FUNDING THE
SENATE REJECTED THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL. AYE
WE RECOMMEND THE SENATE ACTION
OUT THERE ARE CURRENTLY CAP AND
TRADE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THESE
ACTIVITIES IN BOTH HOUSES
BUDGETS.
ADOPTS THIRTY FOUR MILLION IN
CAP AND TRADE FOR THESE
ACTIVITIES.
IN ADDITION THIS IS A NEW
PROGRAM THAT.
THE ENERGY COMMISSION IS
IMPLEMENTING AND THE CURRENT
YEAR AND THEY'RE NOT EXPECTED TO
MAKE THEIR FIRST AWARD IN OF THE
FUNDS UNTIL LATER THIS YEAR AND
SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO LET
THE PROGRAM ROLLOUT. AND
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EXPECTED
BENEFITS ARE BEFORE ALLOCATING
ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUND DOLLARS.
ACOSTA.
THANK YOU WE SUPPORT THE
ASSEMBLY VERSION SOMEWHERE THE
PREVIOUS ITEM ON AGRICULTURALLY
HAD DIESEL ENGINE REPLACEMENT WE
HAVE TO
SINCE THE FUNDING FOR THESE
PROGRAMS. ONE IN THE CAP AND
TRADE EXPENDITURE PLAN THE OTHER
IN THE GENERAL FUND SIDE AGAIN
GOING BACK TO THE FACT THAT OUR
BUDGET YEAR I CAP AND TRADE
EXPENDITURES ARE SLIGHTLY LAST.
IF COMPLEMENT THESE PROGRAMS
WITH THE COMMENSURATE AMOUNT
WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.
THANK YOU AND YOU'RE REFERRING
TO THE ISSUE THAT WE DISCUSSED
IN ISSUE FIFTEEN CORRECT. THAT'S
CORRECT THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
IF WE COULD MAKE THIS OTHER SET
ASIDE TO MANAGER.
SENATOR NIELSEN JUST IN TERMS OF
PROCESS.
IS IT YOUR EXPECTATION THAT
WERE ONLY SAID IN THE SIDE THE
ONES.
YOU IDENTIFIED OR ALL OF THE
AGENDA ITEMS TODAY THAT.
MEMBERS OF YOUR CAUCUS AFTER
THE ENGINE DIES THE MEN CHAIR I
IT I WOULD ARGUE ANYONE ANY
MEMBER OF THE. CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE BRINGS UP I AM.
B. AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
ONES THAT I BRING UP.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT I'M
ASKING
FOR THAT CONSIDERATION PERFECT
THANK YOU SIR.
SENATOR MOORE LA REID LOOKING AT.
USING SOMETHING THAT SUMMER TO A
CONSENT CALENDAR.
ARE I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT FOR
THE CHAIR TO COME BACK AND POSE
THAT QUESTION TO HIM PROBLEMS
AND HOW HE INTENDS TO MANITOBA
HAVE SUCH HIGH REGARD FOR YOU I.
THOUGHT MAYBE YOU COULD JUST.
HAVE BEEN AND TAKE CARE OF IT
WHILE WE WERE HERE I THINK.
MADAM CHAIR YOU'RE VERY WELCOME
SIR.
THAT MEANS YOU REALLY ENJOYED
LAST YEAR I SURE.
I THINK EVERYBODY WE READY TO
MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE ITEM.
GREAT ISSUE EIGHTEEN AB ONE
NINETY FIVE SUSPENSION.
BUT NICK SCHROEDER WITH THE LA
OH.
THE ASSEMBLY ADOPTED TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE DOES NOT INCLUDED
IN OUT BY THE SENATE OR THE
GOVERNOR.
AND THE TBL WOULD SUSPEND AB
ONE NINETY FIVE FOR TWO YEARS AB
ONE NINETY FIVE AND.
REQUIRE SPECIFIC INFORMATION
INCLUDED. ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT UP
BALLOT MEASURES.
ACOSTA. THINKING WE SUPPORT THE
SENATE VERSION WE UNDERSTAND I'M
AT THE HOUSE NOTED THAT GOVERNOR
SIGNED AB ONE NINETY FIVE INTO
LAW WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS
A POLICY BILL ON THIS ISSUE AND
WE BELIEVE THAT THE APPROPRIATE
VENUE FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
MISTER OBERNOLTE.
SO ARE AB ONE NIGHT IF I WAS MY
BILL OBVIOUSLY I HAVE.
SOME.
STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS I
JUST WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE LET
EVERYONE KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON
HERE SO A THREE YEARS AGO I
AUTHORED. LEGISLATION AB EIGHT
OR NINE THAT IMPOSE A
REQUIREMENT FOR TRANSPARENCY IN
BALLOT LABELING FOR TAX
INCREASES AND WHAT IT DID IS
REQUIRE. THAT OF A TAX INCREASE
APPEARS ON A BALLOT FOR VOTER
APPROVAL YOU HAVE TO CLEARLY
STATE THAT IS A TAX INCREASE WE
HAVE TO STATE THE RATE OF THE
TAX AT THE RATIO OF THE TAXES IS
AUTHORIZED. I HAVE TO BE RIGHT
THERE ON THE BALLOT LABEL NOT
BURIED IN THE VOTER INFORMATION
PAMPHLET SO THAT PASSED WITH
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR
SIGNED IT. AND EVERY YEAR SINCE
THEN I'VE AUTHORED CLEAN UP
LEGISLATION THAT FIXES LITTLE
IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS THAT
HAVE ARISEN.
SO LAST YEAR TO CLEAN UP BILL
WAS AB ONE NINETY FIVE AND AMONG
OTHER THINGS IT ANSWERED THE
QUESTION OF IF A BALLOT IF A
BOND MEASURE.
APPEARS ON THE BALLOT FOR VOTER
APPROVAL IS THAT BOND MEASURE
ALSO SUBJECT TO THOSE
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS AND AB
ONE NINETY FIVE SAID YES. IF IT
RAISES PROPERTY TAXES YOU DO
HAVE TO MAKE THOSE DISCLOSURES.
THAT WAS VERY UNCONTROVERSIAL
THE BILL HAD NO OPPOSITION I
DON'T THINK I GOT A SINGLE NO
VOTE IN EITHER CHAMBER IN THE
GOVERNOR SIGNED IT SO. SINCE
THEN A COUPLE OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS ON THE LETTER THAT
I'M SURE EVERYONE'S RECEIVED.
HAVE COME FORWARD WITH SOME
CONCERNS ABOUT THE WORDING OF AB
ONE NINETY FIVE AND THE CONCERNS
THAT THEY HAVE WORK ARE VERY
VALID THERE ASKING QUESTIONS
LIKE WHAT HAPPENS IF THE RATE OF
THE BOND IS NOT KNOWN.
EXACTLY WHEN THE BOND ISSUES PUT
ON THE BALLOT WHAT IF IT'S TIED
TO SOMETHING LIKE LIVE MORE.
WHAT IF THE?
RATE OF THE TAX THAT HAS TO BE
CHARGED AGAINST PROPERTY IS
DEPENDENT ON THE OVERALL
EVALUATION.
OF THE ENTIRE DISTRICT YOU KNOW
IF I CAN GO UP OR DOWN WE DON'T
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS WE HAVE TO
ESTIMATED WHAT ABOUT THAT SO
THOSE THINGS I THINK ARE VERY
VALID SO I I AUTHORED.
LEGISLATION THIS YEAR JUST IN
JANUARY AB TWENTY NINE FORTY
EIGHT I THINK IT IS.
THAT WOULD ADDRESS THOSE
PROBLEMS BUT IN MY NEGOTIATION
WITH THESE GROUPS IT'S BECOME
VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT THEY REALLY
WANT. IS TO NOT HAVE TO TELL
VOTERS THAT APPROVAL OF A BOND
WILL INCREASE THEIR PROPERTY TAX.
AND THAT'S BEEN A STICKY ISSUE
FOR US BECAUSE IT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT I AM WILLING TO
DO I WANT TO FIX THE
IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS DON'T
WANT TO GET RID. OF THE
REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE.
SO.
THAT BRINGS US TO TODAY ARE
THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AN END RUN
AROUND THE LEGISLATURE AND PASS
THIS THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS
A COMPLETE EXEMPTION.
FORM THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY
DO ANY KIND OF DISCLOSURE WHEN
THEY PUT A BOND ON THE BALLOT.
DAY I'M SURE SENT ALL OF YOUR
LETTER THE TO TO PROBABLY OF
READ AND I JUST WANT TO TAKE A
MINUTE AND DEBUNK SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID. A
ABOUT THIS ISSUE FIRST OF ALL
ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD IS
THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR BOND
MEASURES TO COMPLY. WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF AB ONE NINETY
FIVE AND THAT IS COMPLETELY
FALSE THERE HAVE BEEN. NUMEROUS
POSITIVE INPUT ON THE BALLOT IN
THE LAST YEAR SINCE ONE NINETY
FOUR NINETY FIVE WAS SIGNED THAT
HAVE LANGUAGE THAT.
THAT COMPLIES GOING TO PASS
THIS AROUND IF YOU WANNA TAKE A
LOOK THIS IS JUST A FEW OF THEM.
YOU CAN READ THROUGH THE
LANGUAGE IT'S A LITTLE WORDY BUT
AND AND I THINK TWENTY EIGHT
NINETY FIVE OR TWENTY NINE FORTY
EIGHT THAT WERE DOING THIS YEAR.
WOULD FIX WITHOUT BUT IT
CERTAINLY IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE
ANOTHER ONE OF THE ASSERTIONS AS
THAT IT'S CONFUSING TO VOTERS
AND WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE
FACT IF YOU READ LANGUAGE. IT'S
NOT CONFUSING TO VOTERS IT'S
CONFUSING TO BOND LAWYERS WHAT
THE EXACT DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO FIX.
BUT IT THERE'S NO VOTER
CONFUSION.
.
ANOTHER THING THAT THEY'RE
CRITICIZING IS THAT THEY'RE
SPENDING A THIRD OF THE WORDS ON
THE BALLOT LABEL.
ONE THE DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE AND
THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE
TO REDUCE ACTUALLY SO I'M
WORKING TO IT TO GET THAT. TO TO
BE LOWER BUT EVEN IF IT IS A
THIRD THEIR SPENDING TWO THIRDS
OF THE BALLOT LABEL TELLING
ABOUT ALL THE GOOD THINGS THAT
BOND DOES THAT A THIRD TALKING
ABOUT. WHAT THE BOND ACTUALLY
COSTS SO I DON'T THINK THAT
THAT'S OF A BAD COMPROMISE AND
AND THIS THE CLIP I CAN'T
BELIEVE THAT THEY PUT THIS IN
THEIR LETTER? BUT I ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT THEY'RE CRITICIZING
IS THAT THEY'VE DONE POLLING AND
DECIDED THAT SOME OF THE BONDS
THAT THEY WANT. TO.
.
YOU PUT ON THE BALLOT ARE LESS
LIKELY TO PASS IF THEY MAKE THE
DISCLOSURE.
SO THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND
THERE SAYING VOTERS MIGHT NOT
VOTE FOR THE BOND IF THEY KNEW
WHAT THEY WERE VOTING ON.
WHICH I THINK IT IS A RIDICULOUS
REASON TOOK TO NOT DO THE SCHOOL
DISCLOSURE BUT IF YOU THINK
ABOUT THAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT
DOES MAKE A THE BAR A LITTLE BIT
HIGHER. IF YOU HAVE TO MAKE A
DISCLOSURE BUT MANY BONDS HAVE
PASSED WITH THE DISCLOSURE IN
THERE AND I THINK IT'S JUST FAIR
THAT VOTERS KNOW BOTH THE GOOD
AND THE BAD OF WHAT THEY'RE
VOTING ON THE NEED TO KNOW. WHAT
THE BOND WILL DO? AND THEY DID
YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST
THEM.
AND. THE LAST THING I WANTED TO
ADDRESS IS THAT THE CLAIM IS
THAT THE REASON WHY WE HAVE TO
DO THIS IN THE BUDGET.
IS IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET THIS
ISSUE FIXED BEFORE THE BOND
MEASURES GO ON THE BALLOT FOR
THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.
AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR
FIVE MONTHS NOW ALREADY ON
SOLUTION. YOU KNOW THEY'RE
TRYING TO DO AN END RUN AROUND
HERE WHICH IS YOU KNOW IT'S THAT
THAT'S THEIR RIGHT. BUT ARE WE
CAN STILL GET THIS FIXED THROUGH
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS ARE
GONNA VEHICLE IN THE SENATE I'M
I'M HAPPY TO ADD URGENCY TO THAT
AMENDED THE LANGUAGE I THINK WE
CAN GET THIS. FIXED IN PLENTY OF
TIME TO GET THIS ADDRESSED FOR
FOR NOVEMBER SO.
I WANT TO ASK YOU TO.
TO PLEASE LET US FIX THIS
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S
REQUESTED.
AND A LET'S ADOPT THE SENATE
VERSION SO I ASK YOU WHEN WHEN
IT COMES TIME TO VOTE ON THIS
AND ASK FOR SEPARATE VOTE. AND
IVF PLEASE VOTE NO OR EITHER A
EITHER A NO VOTE OR AN
ABSTENTION.
AND GIVE US THE CHANCE TO SIT
DOWN AND FIXES LEGISLATIVELY
BECAUSE IF WE EXEMPT THEM FROM
ANY KIND OF DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE
THIS PROVIDES THEM NO INCENTIVE
TO SIT DOWN AT THE NEGOTIATING
TABLE. AND GET THIS DONE THROUGH
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
AND I A BETWEEN NINE FORTY DID
YOUR VEHICLE THAT'S CORRECT AND
IT'S
IN THE SENATE WHERE ARE NO IT IS
AND IT IS NOT PASSED OUT OF THE
ASSEMBLY AB SIX. THAT YOU THAT
YOU LIVE IS YET ANOTHER BEE HIVE
OF AB SIX IN THE SENATE AND
SENATE RULES AND I I WOULD.
I JUST I WAS GONNA MOVE FORWARD
WITH SOMETHING WHERE I'M TRYING
TO HELP PEOPLE AND THEY'RE GOING
TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO BE
IN A COMMITTEE RIGHT SO.
AB SIX WILL AMEND THAT LANGUAGE
AND AND.
AND I THINK IT COULD BE DONE
VERY AYE EXPEDITIOUSLY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
BOB DYLAN AT JUST ONE I I I
THINK AS FAR AS THE POLLSTERS
SAID ARE CONCERNED DUH. I THINK
THE CONCERN RELATES MORE TO
VOTER CONFUSION THAT IT DOES TO
VOTER UNDERSTANDING. OF THE KIND
OF LANGUAGE THAT TOOK A THAT WE
SEE HERE. I'M I THINK CAN FAIRLY
BE INTERPRETED TO BE A CONFUSING
THE VOTERS IT'S ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT WE HAVE VOTER
PAMPHLETS THAT EXPLAINED WHAT
BALLOT MEASURES ARE ALL ABOUT IN
GREAT DETAIL.
AND THE.
.
LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT ITSELF
IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SUMMARY.
DON'T KNOW THAT IF I COULD
ADDRESS THAT I. WE INTEND TO
MAKE IT A SUMMARY BUT WE ARE WE
DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE ANYBODY
BUT ONE THING THAT I DON'T WANT
TO DO.
IS
TO AVOID SAYING TO PEOPLE THIS
WILL INCREASE YOUR PROPERTY
TXES IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS BOND.
THAT'S A THAT'S THAT'S REALLY
THE STICKY ISSUE AND AND THE
OTHER THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE RATE OF THE BOND AND THINGS
LIKE THAT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT
I'M FINE PUTTING IN THE VOTER.
INFORMATION PAMPHLET.
AND THE TAX RATE STATEMENT BUT.
I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT
THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT NOT TO
DISGUISE THE FACT THAT IT IS A
TAX INCREASE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MOVE ON
TO ISSUE NINETEEN LANGUAGE FOR
COUNTY VOTING SYSTEMS
REPLACEMENT FUNDING ALEJO.
OF THE SENATE ASSEMBLING
GOVERNOR INCLUDED THE SAME
FUNDING LEVEL TO REPLACE VOTING
SYSTEMS AND THE COUNTIES.
UP AT THE ASSEMBLY TOP TO TBL
NOT INCLUDED.
BY THE SENATE OR THE GOVERNOR.
OF THE LANGUAGE WOULD.
SPECIFY HOW COUNTIES ARE
ELIGIBLE TO STICK TO ACQUIRE THE
FUNDS.
PAST THANK YOU WE SUPPORT THE
SENATE VERSION I JUST KNOW THAT
WHEN WE BUILT THIS PROPOSAL WE
INCLUDED AN ESTIMATE FOR THE ONE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR POINT
THREE MILLION DOLLARS GENERAL
FUND.
AND THAT ESTIMATE ASSUMES THAT
STATES AND COUNTIES WILL SHARE
FIFTY PERCENT OF THE ESTIMATED
COSTS.
OF REPLACEMENT AND ALL COUNTIES
WITH FIFTY OR MORE PRECINCTS
WOULD ADOPT THE VOTE CENTER
MODEL AUTHORIZED BY AS BEFORE
FIFTY RECENTLY. ON I THINK OUR
PROBLEM WITH THE ASSEMBLY
VERSION OF THIS ITEM IS THAT
SOME OF THE ITEMS WILL LIKELY
INCREASE COST BEYOND WHAT WE'VE
BUDGETED FOR THIS.
INCLUDING.
LOOKING AT A DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR
VERSUS THE MATCH COMPONENT WE
HAVE AS WELL AS INCLUDING
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. ON
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
OBVIOUSLY WOULD SHIFT COSTS IN A
DIFFERENT WAY WHICH WE HAVE BEEN
ACCOUNTED FOR IN OUR ESTIMATE.
THANK YOU THE QUESTIONS.
CENTER NIELSEN AMATEUR I THINK
WE SHOULD THE.
HAVE THIS ONE SEPARATELY
CONSIDERED WE DON'T HAVE ANY
LANGUAGE YET HAVE TO LOOK AT AND
BEFORE WE PULLED.
THAT WE SHOULD NOT JUST ASSUME
WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT AND.
LET OUR STAFF ANALYZE IT.
AND THE MEMBERS CONSIDER.
SO NOT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
SCENE NINE ISSUE TWENTY VETERANS
RESOURCE CENTERS
.
AFTERNOON ERIC ROBERT THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE SO
THE ISSUE OF BETTER RESOURCE
CENTERS AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
I'M IN THE ASSEMBLY PROVIDED
FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS ONE TIME
PROP NINETY GENERAL FUND. FOR
COLLEGES TO CREATE OR EXPAND
THEIR BETTER RESOURCE CENTERS
THE GOVERNOR AND SENATOR TOOK NO
ACTION.
I MEAN JUST FOR SOME CONTEXT
LAST YEAR OF THE STATE CREATED A
NEW ONGOING CATEGORICAL PROGRAM
FOR VETERAN RESOURCE CENTERS
THOSE FIVE MILLION ONGOING. AND
ALSO INCLUDED FIVE MILLION ONE
TIME.
FOR COLLEGES INTERESTED TERROR
DIDN'T IN ARE CREATING ARE NEW
OR EXPANDING THE RESOURCE
CENTERS.
I'M THE FUNDING IS TO BE
DISTRIBUTED THROUGH A
COMPETITIVE GRANT APPLICATION
WITH THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS PER
COLLEGE. AND THE FUNDS HAVE NOT
YET BEEN DISTRIBUTED
APPLICATIONS ARE DUE AT THE END
OF JUNE.
THAT IN DIRE THE AVAILABLE
FUNDING.
THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR
PERSONS ABOUT THIRTY COLLEGES
I'M SO IF YOU YOU DID PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING THIS WOULD.
COULD BE USED TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING BEYOND THOSE
THIRTY IF THERE WAS A IF THERE
WAS GREATER DEMAND.
WE DON'T HAVE.
INFORMATION ON THE NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS YET BUT BASED ON
OUR DISCUSSES THE CHANCES OF THE
CONFLICT THERE ARE MORE THAN
HUNDRED COLLEGES WERE ON BUT I
AM INTERESTED IN APPLYING
THROUGH IN IT AS PART OF A
WEAPON ARE.
ACOSTA.
THANK YOU ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT
THE SENATE VERSION OF THIS THIS.
IS ONE OF THE.
COMPONENT PIECES OF THE PROP
NINETY EIGHT PACKAGE AND WILL
COMPORT TO THE FINAL PROP NINETY
PACKAGE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU ISSUE TWENTY ONE RE
ENTRY INMATE EDUCATION.
SO ON THIS ISSUE BOTH HOUSES TO
PER FAME ACTION THEY ADDED FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS IN ONE TIME PROP
NINETY EIGHT GENERAL FUND. FOR
COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO COMMUNITY
COLLEGES FOR SUPPORTING CURRENT
FORMERLY INCARCERATED STUDENTS.
I'M TO QUALIFY FOR THE GRANT
BECAUSE OF MUST AGREE TO PROVIDE
SOME MATCHING FUNDS AND MARK
BECAUSE COULD USE THIS FUNDING
FOR SUPPORT SERVICES LIKE
COUNSELING. ARE TUTORING ARAB
MENTORING
I'M THAT THIS IS OUR PART OF
JUST CONTACT AND A SERIES OF
ACTIONS INSTEAD OF TAKING IN THE
PAST. TO OUR OUR INCREASE ACCESS
TO EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR OUR
INMATES OR.
PROVIDING GREATER ACCESS FOR OF
OUR.
TO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE FEDERAL
INCARCERATED I'M A FEW YEARS AGO
ARE THE LEGISLATURE PASSED S. B.
THIRTY NINETY ONE WHICH MADE IT
EASIER FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
TO PROVIDE FIFTH RECONSTRUCTION.
AT THAT THE CDC ARE INMATES
THURMOND AND FIFTEEN SIXTEEN THE
FIT ALSO DIRECTED THE CHANCES
OFFICE TO IDENTIFY DISTRICTS.
WILLING TO USE SOME OF THEIR
FUNDING ON A ONE TIME BASIS TO
MATCH SOME PRIOR FOUNDATION
FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF
PILOTING SOME PROGRAMS TO
PROVIDE BETTER SUPPORT FOR.
FOR THE STUDENTS.
TO VOTE TO ACCEPT THE
LEGISLATURE'S INTERESTED IN
PROVIDING THIS ADDITIONAL
SUPPORT WE THINK THIS IS A
PARTICULAR STUDENT GROUP THAT IS
A PROBLEM OF WHAT HAS.
OF MANY CHALLENGES WE THINK
THAT THAT IS A REASONABLE AND
THERE IS A SIMILAR ACTION THAT
ALL HOPE BOTH HOUSES APPROVAL
WITH ME REVISED PROPOSAL TO
INCREASE. FUNDING FOR OUR NEW A
PROGRAM FOR FOSTER USED BY FIVE
MILLION SO WE COULD THERE ARE
SOME SIMILARITIES THERE.
WE WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THESE
ARE ONE TIME FUNDS.
WHEREAS THE NEED FOR THE POOR
THE PROGRAM IS LIKELY ONGOING
ONGOING NEED TO PROVIDE SUPPORT
FOR THIS PARTICULAR RISK GROUP
OF STUDENTS.
THANK YOU MISS COSTA. ABSENT THE
POLICY MERITS OF THIS PARTICULAR
PROPOSAL BOTH HOUSE FUNDED THIS
LEGISLATIVE AUGMENTATION BY
REJECTING THE ADMINISTRATION
STUDENT CENTERED. ON A FUNDING
FORMULA IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES
WHICH WE STILL SUPPORT.
THANK YOU QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
CENTER AYE SKINNER.
.
S. WANTED TO.
.
TO THE ISSUE AND PUT SOME
CONTEXT WE HAVE.
FORTUNATELY AGREE PRESENCE OF
OUR COMMUNICATIVE SYSTEM WITH IN
OUR STATE PRISON FACILITIES.
AND WITH.
THE PROP FIFTY SEVEN EDUCATION
CREDITS
WE HAD THERE'S MORE MOTIVATION
FOR MANY OF OUR INCARCERATED
FOLKS TO.
.
TO FURTHER THEIR EDUCATION AND
TO PARTICIPATEWITHIN ME
COMMUNICABLE ITCH.
OFFERINGS THAT ARE IN THE
SYSTEM AND AS RESULT WHEN NAY.
THOSE.
THAT ARE.
RELEASED.
BECAUSE OF ALREADY THEIR
FAMILIARITY.
WITH BETWEEN COLLEGE PROGRAM
HAVING BEEN EXPOSED TO IT WITHIN
THIS STATE FACILITY. DAY IF THEY
WANT TO PURSUE EDUCATION ARE
THERE'S ARE INDEED WE'VE CREATED
A BRIDGE
SO THERE'S ALREADY A GOOD
RELATIONSHIP.
AND.
OBVIOUSLY OUR REENTRY FOLKS ARE.
SUCCESSFUL RE ENTRY INTO
COMMUNITY IS. NOT.
BUT HAS A LOT OF OBSTACLES AND
SO THE MORE SUPPORT WE CAN
PROVIDE AND FOR THOSE.
FOLKS WHO WE RELEASE
WHO DO AND THEN END UP AT A
COMMUNITY COLLEGE BEING ABLE TO
PROVIDE THEM VERY.
.
VERY.
TARGETED OUR OR SPECIFIC TYPE OF
SUPPORT.
I THINK THE DATA SHOWS INDICATES
THAT THEY WILL BE LESS LIKELY TO
RECEIVE DEBATE.
AND I THINK GIVEN THE COSTS OF
OUR PER PERSON INCARCERATION
WHICH IS EXPECTED BY. TWENTY
TWENTY ONE I BELIEVE EITHER
NINETEEN TWENTY OR TWENTY TWENTY
ONE TO HIT NINETY THOUSAND YEAR.
INVESTMENTS THAT WE MAKE THAT
REDUCE RECIDIVISM ARE.
VERY.
SMART INVESTMENTS SO SICK GOOD
PROGRAM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
COMMENTS.
THANK YOU SEEN NONE WE'LL MOVE
ON TO ISSUE TWENTY TWO CAL GRANT
AWARDS FOR CREDIT.
FOR PROFIT UNIVERSE
COLLEGES UNIVERSITIES.
ELIOT.
GRAYSON CONCENTRA O. THE ISSUE
BEFORE YOU PERTAINS TO FINANCIAL
AID FOR STUDENTS ATTENDING FOR
PROFIT INSTITUTIONS WITH WASP
ACCREDITATION WAS BECAUSE THE
BODY THAT ACCREDITS MOST
NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS AS WELL
AS PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE
STATE.
FOR SOME CONTEXT AND EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN IT'S ANTICIPATED ABOUT
FOUR OF THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE
HOW THEY ARE FOR PROFIT AND LOSS
CREDITED. WILLING LOW CAL GRANT
RECIPIENTS IN EIGHTEEN NINETEEN
ABOUT SIX TO SEVEN HUNDRED
STUDENTS AT C. SACK DISSIPATES
WILL BE ENROLLED AT THOSE
INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE A CAL
GRANT.
BOTH HOUSES OF. OF.
AGREED TO PROVIDE A. FOR JUST
OVER NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR
THE AWARD AMOUNT FOR.
STUDENTS ATTENDING THOSE
INSTITUTIONS ARE THAT'S A
THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE THAN WHAT
THE ADMINISTRATION HAD PROPOSED.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
HOUSES IS THAT THE ASSEMBLY
PROPOSES.
TO TIE A THAT A ONE THOUSAND
DOLLAR DIFFERENTIAL TO THOSE
INSTITUTIONS.
ADMITTING MORE COMEDIC COLLEGE
TRANSFER STUDENTS OR PROVIDING
MORE INSTITUTIONAL AID.
OF FOR CAL GRANT STUDENTS THE
SENATE ADULT JUST DID NOT ADOPT
SUCH EXPECTATIONS ARE TO THAT
THOUSAND DOLLARS DIFFERENTIAL.
FOR SOME CONTEXT ARM THE BOTH
HOUSES ALSO PROVIDED A SIMILAR
WORD AMOUNT FOR THE NONPROFIT
INSTITUTIONS AND BOTH HOUSES AND
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED.
TO A TIE THAT THOUSAND DOLLAR
DIFFERENTIAL TO THE TO THE
NONPROFIT SECTOR ADMITTING A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH
AN ASSOCIATE DEGREE FOR TRANSFER.
WE RECOMMEND GOING WITH THE
SENATE ON THIS ACTION.
THE ASSEMBLY WAS TRYING TO DO
WHICH WAS TO TREAT THESE FOR
PROFIT INSTITUTIONS THE WAY BOTH
HOUSES ARE TREATING. OTHER
NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS
BUT THE TO THE CHALLENGE HERE IS
THAT THE NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS.
HAVE A BODY THAT.
REPRESENTS THEM IT HAS
COMMITTED TO TO HELP COORDINATE
THEIR ACTIVITIES WE WE WEREN'T
AWARE OF SUCH A BODY THAT WOULD
DO THIS FOR THE FOR PROFIT
INSTITUTIONS.
WE THINK IT'S ALL MORE
CHALLENGING TO TREAT THEM
EXACTLY THE SAME.
AND IT ONE ONE.
OPTION YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS
TO IS TO IT TAXIS EXPECTATIONS
ARE ABOUT THE INSTITUTION LEVEL
RATHER THAN THE SECTOR LEVEL BUT
THEN AGAIN YOU'RE NOT. THAT THAT
WOULDN'T EXACTLY TREATING THEM
THE SAME WAY YOU'RE TREATING THE
NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS FOR THAT
REASON WE WE COULD WE CAN THINK
OF ARE WE COULDN'T CERTIFICATE
THAT.
THANK YOU WE DON'T SUPPORT
EITHER VERSION OBVIOUSLY BY
BUYING OUT THIS PORTION AND IT.
CREATES.
FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLAR GENERAL FUND COST NOT
ACCOUNTED FOR THE GOVERNOR'S
FISCAL PLAN.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF MEMBERS.
THANK YOU AYE YEAH ISSUE TWENTY
THREE.
YOU SEE RESEARCH
LL.
THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU PERTAINS TO
THREE RESEARCH PROPOSALS ADOPTED
BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE NOT THE
SENATE OR THE GOVERNOR. YOU
CONCEIVE EACH PROPOSAL LISTED ON
YOUR AGENDA FOR THE SAKE OF TIME
ALONE INTRODUCED THEM
COMPREHENSIVELY WE DO HAVE
COMMENTS ON EACH ONE THOSE ALL
WALK THROUGH EACH ONE OF THOSE.
ON THE FIRST ISSUE FOUR SEVEN
AND A HALF MILLION FOR OPIOID
RESEARCH WE UNDERSTAND THE
PURPOSE OF THIS FUNDING AS
PRIMARILY TO RETRAIN PHYSICIANS.
ON A MANAGING PAIN A USING
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OTHER THAN
PRESCRIBING OPIOIDS.
I'M I DISHED UP A PORTION OF THE
FUNDS ARE ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR
RESEARCHING ALTERNATIVE
PRACTICES AS WELL.
EXPERTS HAVE IDENTIFIED A
RETRAINING PHYSICIANS AS ONE.
BUT STEP THAT THE STATE COULD
TAKE TO ADDRESS THE BROADER OPI
CRISIS AND STATE.
I'M SO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE
LEGISLATURE IS REALLY WHETHER
THE ASSEMBLIES ACTION TO PROVIDE
MORE FUNDING FOR THIS PARTICULAR
PROGRAM WOULD BE THE BEST WAY.
TO RETRAIN PHYSICIANS ACROSS THE
STATE OR WHETHER THE ISSUE IS
MORE FUNDAMENTAL IN THE WAY WE
EDUCATE PHYSICIANS AND CONTINUED
EDUCATED RETRAIN PHYSICIANS IN
MOTHER MARK MORE TARGETED ACTION
COULD BE DOWN THERE TO ADDRESS
THAT ISSUE.
ON THE SECOND PROPOSAL FOR.
PROVIDING A RESEARCH FUNDING
FOR RESEARCHING THE OF THE
DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT OF CONSUMING
SUGAR AND SOLID FOOD VERSES
LIQUID.
HERE WE WOULD JUST NOTE THIS IS
A QUESTION OF SORT OF
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY UP TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE
WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE FUNDING
FOR THIS WE RECOMMEND DELETING
TWO MILLION DOLLARS OF THIS FUND
THAT WOULD BE USED FOR.
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD. THE
LEGISLATURE ALREADY PROVIDES A
FUNDING FOR AND SUPPORT FOR YOU
SEE LOTS OF.
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD THROUGH
THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS
WE DO THINK THAT ADDITIONAL TWO
MILLION DOLLARS WOULD BE
UNNECESSARY.
AND THEN FINALLY FOR THE TWO
MILLION DOLLARS FOR FIREARM
VIOLENCE RESEARCH WE RECOMMEND
GOING WITH THE SENATE HERE. OF
WE WOULD KNOW THAT THE THE
SENATE WAS APPROPRIATED FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS AND SIXTEEN
SEVENTEEN AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT
MOST OF THE FUNDING IS IS STILL
ON SPENT AND SO WE'D WE
RECOMMEND. I HAVING A CENTER
SPEND DOWN MORE THAT FUNDING
REPORT BEFORE PROVIDING.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING AT THIS TIME
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISS COSTA.
WE SUPPORT THE SENATE VERSION.
THANK YOU QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
CENTURY ALSO.
MADAM CHAIR JUST TO BE A
SEPARATE ITEM TO VOTE THANK YOU.
SO NOW IT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS.
YES MISTER OBERNOLTE THANK YOU
MADAM CHAIR IT AMPLIFYING CENTER
NIELSEN SCOTT A REQUEST. I WOULD
REQUEST WHEN IT COMES TIME TO
VOTE ON THIS TICKET SPLIT OFF
THE OPIOID RESEARCH FROM THE
OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD BE.
.
A PROBABLE.
SO NOW IT I WOULD.
SENATOR SKINNER.
.
WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS ITEM AND
OBVIOUSLY SENATE DIDN'T HEAR IT.
INDIVIDUALLY THAT.
.
PLACES THAT THE ASSEMBLY IS
PROPOSING RESEARCH.
KIDNAP IT WOULD SEEM TO HAVE
GREAT MERIT.
WHAT MY ISSUE IS IS THE TERM?
SUBSTITUTING.
IT A FACT FINDING THAT NEW
RESEARCH THROUGH THE ELIMINATION
OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS.
SOME OF WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED
LEGISLATIVELY.
AND.
FOR EXAMPLE THE CALIFORNIA
PROGRAM ANALYSIS TO CARE THE
HEALTH INITIATIVES OF AMERICA
VERY SUTTER THINGS I KNOW THE
YOU SEE MEXICO INITIATIVE WAS
RELEASED DONE THROUGH THE BUDGET
IN TWENTY FOURTEEN FOR EXAMPLE.
AND.
.
IT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THE
SITUATIONS WHERE.
WELL AT LEAST FOR MYSELF I WOULD
NOT WANT TO BE PUT IN THE
POSITION OF HAVING TO SAY.
NO TO THIS EXISTING RESEARCH AND
PROGRAMS.
IN ORDER TO SAY YES TO.
A PROPOSED. RESEARCH
SO THAT WOULD BE A DIFFICULTY
FOR ME.
OKAY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
WHO CONDUCTS?
ISSUE TWENTY FOUR TEACHING ABOUT
LABOR PILOT PROGRAM.
HOWEVER.
BRIAN ANDERSON LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE THE ASSEMBLY.
PROVIDES TWO POINT SEVEN
MILLION AND ONE TIME PROPOSITION
NINETY EIGHT FUNDING TO
ESTABLISH.
THE.
LABOR HISTORY EDUCATION PILOT
PROGRAM AND THESE FUNDS SHOULD
BE ALLOCATED TO SIX COUNTIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OVER A
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OUR
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT. THE BOOK
OF THE FUNDING WOULD BE USED TO
PAY A TEACHER FULL TIME IN EACH
OF THESE COUNTIES TO DEVELOP AND
DISSEMINATE CURRICULUM RELATED
TO LABOR ISSUES.
THANK YOU ACOSTA. THIS IS AYE
AND AUGMENTATION THAT WILL
CONFORM TO THE FINAL PROPOSITION
NINETY EIGHT PACKAGE.
THANK YOU SIR NIELSEN.
WELL MISTER CHAIRMAN ON THAT
POINT WHEN WE GET TO THE. PROP
NINETY EIGHT QUOTE PACKAGE I'D
LIKE TO SURE BE ASSURED THAT
THAT'S GONNA BE A SEPARATE ITEM
TO BE CONSIDERED.
ALSO.
AND THAT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE
MOST ASSUREDLY SHOULD BE WE NEED
TO KNOW WHAT THIS TEACHING ABOUT
LABOR MEANS WHAT WILL BE THE
CURRICULUM WHAT ARE THE
EXPECTATIONS.
WELL LOOK ALL.
WILL BE A BALANCED PRESENTATION
THERE A LOT OF ISSUES HERE THAT
IT IS NOT A SIMPLE.
.
THE ISSUE.
SO BEFORE WE. DO MORE AND MORE
ON THIS WE NEED TO SEE SOME
SPECIFICS ABOUT THE CURRICULUM
AND. GOAL.
THE DURATION VISIT FOR JUST ONE
YEAR.
WHAT WE TRIED TO CREATE HERE IS
AN ONGOING PROGRAM THAT WILL BE
EXPANDED TO ALL SCHOOLS?
AND IF SO HOW.
OKAY THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR.
CONNECTS.
OKAY SEEN NONE ISSUE TWENTY FIVE
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES BRIDGE
PROPOSAL ELLIOTT.
SENATE HEADACHE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE.
THIS ISSUE CONCERNS BRIDGE
FUNDING FOR VENDORS THAT PROVIDE
SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES THE
ASSEMBLY APPROVED FIFTY MILLION
ONE TIME FROM THE GENERAL FUND
TO BE SPENT OVER TWO YEARS.
TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARY RATE
INCREASE FOR VENDORS IN HIGH
COST AREAS OF THE STATE. NAMELY
THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE A LOCAL
LOCALLY MANDATED MINIMUM WAGE
THAT EXCEEDS THE STATE MINIMUM
WAGE.
THE STATE WOULD DRIVE DOWN ABOUT
THIRTY EIGHT MILLION IN FEDERAL
MATCHING FUNDS ON TOP OF THE
FIFTY MILLION.
THIS ONE TIME APPROPRIATION IS
MEANT TO BRIDGE.
THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN NOW
AND WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES CAN
COMPLETE ITS ONGOING. RATE STUDY
AND IMPLEMENT ANY
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT RATE
STUDY.
WE WOULD JUST RAISE A COUPLE
ISSUES FOR LEGISLATIVE
CONSIDERATION.
WE WOULD NOTE THAT RIGHT NOW THE
STATE IS IN A REALLY INCREDIBLY
DIFFICULT.
POSITION.
ON THE ONE HAND IT DOES NOT WANT
TO BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE.
POLICY DECISIONS MADE AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
ON THE OTHER HAND THE STATE HAS
ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY UNDER
THE WENCH MEN OUT TO PROVIDE
SERVICES AND SUPPORTS FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES.
AND IF THOSE SERVICES AND
SUPPORTS ARE NO LONGER ADEQUATE
BECAUSE VENDORS CAN NOT BY THE
VENDOR RATES CANNOT KEEP PACE
WITH RISING COSTS THE STATE WILL
STRUGGLE TO FULFILL ITS
OBLIGATION UNDER THE LANTERN ACT.
THIS PROPOSAL UNDER
CONSIDERATION DOES HAVE SOME
DRAWBACKS NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH
IT'S A SHORT TERM SOLUTION TO A
LONG TERM. PROBLEM.
THAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY WISH
TO WEIGH THOSE DRAWBACKS AGAINST
ITS BENEFITS PRIMARILY THAT IT
WOULD.
POTENTIALLY STAVE OFF.
PRO PROGRAM CLOSURES UNTIL A
MORE LONG TERM SOLUTION CAN BE
IDENTIFIED.
THANK YOU.
TIMES AFTER CLEAR FINE POINTLESS
BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T MIND BEFORE
WE MOVE ON TO YOUR TESTIMONY SO
YOU SAID IT'S IT'S IT'S A LONG
TERM PROBLEM SO. IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING READ THE PROPOSAL
THAT REALLY IS A BRIDGE UNTIL
THE SURVEY IS COMPLETED AND AND
MY ASSUMPTION IS. AND THEREFORE
THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN TAKE
ACTION ON THEIR SURVEY RESULTS
AND. PERHAPS INCREASE
OUR REIMBURSEMENT SO WHY DO YOU
NOT SEE THIS AS TRULY SHORT TERM.
SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THERE
PROPOSING I ASSUME TO FIX.
WELL I THE IE CERTAINLY DIDN'T
MEAN FOR THAT TO COME OFF AS
CYNICAL.
THE IT'S YOU KNOW EVERY IT'S
EVERYBODY'S HOPE THAT THE RATE
STUDY WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY
INFORMATION TO RESTRUCTURE THE
RATE STRUCTURE THAT THE RATE
SYSTEM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES AND
PROVIDE SOME. ACTIONABLE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE CAN TAKE.
AT THE SAME TIME IT'S NOT THE
FIRST TIME I READ STUDY HAS BEEN
DONE IN THIS DEPARTMENT. AND IT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT COSTS ARE NOT
GOING THAT COSTS ARE HOLDING
STEADY OR GOING DOWN COSTS
CONTINUE TO RISE.
IN SOME OF THESE AREAS
PARTICULARLY THE AREAS WHERE.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN
INCREASING THEIR MINIMUM WAGE SO.
HOPEFULLY THE RATE STUDY YOU
KNOW WILL PROVIDE SOME SOLUTIONS
BUT.
I THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE WILL HAVE TO
CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT. EVEN IF
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RATE
STUDY ARE IMPLEMENTED. AND THAT
AS AS I CAN RECALL THERE BEEN
TIMES WHEN RATE STUDIES HAVE
BEEN COMPLETED AND NO ACTION
TAKEN SO THAT WE CAN ALL KIND OF
IN THE ACTUALLY.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION
IS COST. THANK YOU WE SUPPORT
THE SENATE VERSION AGAIN THIS IS
A GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATION BUT
I WOULD ACT OF SOME OF THE
COMMENTS REYES BY THE ANALYSTS
ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL. ONE
I THINK WE HAVE CONCERNS THAT BY
UTILIZING THE LOCALLY ENACTED
MINIMUM WAGE WE ARE SETTING A
PRECEDENT ON THAT COULD INCREASE
GENERAL FUND COST. ON WHAT'S
REALLY A LOCAL DECISION
SECONDARILY WE TOO WOULD LIKE TO
SEE THE IRATE STUDY BE COMPLETE
WHICH IS DUE TO THE LEGISLATURE
BY MARCH FIRST OF TWENTY
NINETEEN TO INFORM THESE ODD
DECISIONS.
DO YOU AT ALL ACKNOWLEDGED THE
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE WITH REGARD
TO THE LANTERN ACT AND THEREFORE
THE STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY
VERTICALLY TO THIS SERVICE
POPULATION THAT WOULD. NOT
NECESSARILY SET A PRECEDENT
ACROSS THE BOARD ACROSS ALL
STATE.
DEPARTMENT SO WITH REGARD TO
MUNICIPALITIES THAT INCREASE.
THEIR MINIMUM WAGE.
I THINK I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN
OTHER PROGRAM AREAS WHERE WE CAN
GET GET CONCERNED ABOUT A LOCAL
DECISION DRIVING OUR COSTS WE
OBVIOUSLY HAVE A STATEWIDE
MINIMUM WAGE. ON AND SO THAT
DOES CREATE GENERAL FUND COST
PRESSURES AYE.
I AGREE THAT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY
SOME UNIQUE ELEMENTS HERE GIVEN
THE LANHAM ACT AND THE STATE'S
RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH INTO NIELSEN.
BUT IT SURE LIKE TO SEPARATE
ITEM ON THIS ONE IT'S A VERY
SIGNIFICANT. POTENTIAL I THINK
SO NOTED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
I'M.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER.
ARAMBULA.
I WAS LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT
COMPANY FORGET.
CREDIT TO MY A A TO NOT MY HEART
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILL REMEMBER
ARAMBULA.
I COULD.
I'M I I DID WANT TO MAKE A FEW
COMMENTS IF I COULD AND I WANTED
TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN WHO HAS
MADE THIS A TOP PRIORITY FOR.
HIM AS WELL AS THE AFRICAN
AMERICAN CAUCUS ON THE ASSEMBLY
SIDE.
I DID WANT TO MENTION A FEW
EXAMPLES WHERE I DO BELIEVE WE
HAVE ADJUSTED OUR POLICIES AT
THE STATEWIDE LEVEL. TO MATCH
LOCAL MINIMUM WAGE IN ONE OF
THOSE BEING AYE CHESS ES.
AM I WANTED TO ASK DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE IF I COULD IF THERE WERE
CREATIVE WAYS TO HELP US TO
BRIDGE THIS DIVIDE.
I DO FEEL THAT THE LONG TERM
SOLUTION IS GOING TO BE THIS.
RATE STUDY THAT WE ARE IN THE
PROCESS OF WORKING THROUGH BUT
IS THERE ANOTHER MECHANISM FOR
US TO.
BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BRIDGE
FUNDING AND WOULD THAT HAVE TO
BE A MORE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH
WHERE YOU HAD A.
SIMILAR APPROACH FOR ALL
COUNTIES RATHER THAN TARGETING
IT TOWARD THOSE COUNTIES THAT
WERE HIGH PRICE AND WHAT DOES
THAT DO TO CHANGE THE TOTAL
PRICE FOR THIS.
BECAUSE THE LARGEST CONCERN THAT
I HAVE.
IS ACTUALLY THE CLOSURE OF
FACILITIES.
IT'S WHEN WE. HAVE MADE IT SO
TOUGH FOR ENDS TO MEET.
THE PLACES AND HIGH COST.
COUNTIES ARE NOW CLOSING THEIR
FACILITIES AND WHAT COST THAT IS
THEN TO THE STATE FOR US TO
RESTART AND RECREATE MANY OF THE.
WE DO BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER
WAYS TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE AND
WE BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE.
GOVERNMENT.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT'S GO TO ISSUE TWENTY SIX
HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
ELIO WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
CHAD ALAMO AT THE ANALYST'S
OFFICE BE ASSEMBLY BUDGET
PACKAGE INCLUDES THREE POINT SIX
MILLION DOLLARS GENERAL FUND ONE
TIME.
FOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT
WORK WITH HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS.
SERVICES THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED
WITH THESE GRANTS INCLUDE.
MEAL PREPARATION DELIVERED
MEALS ON SOME IN HOME HEALTHCARE
SERVICES AS WELL AS A ASSISTANCE
WITH DAILY ACTIVITIES OUR OFFICE
IS NOT HAVE A PARTICULAR
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE
PROPOSAL. HAPPY TAKING.
VICTIMS COST.
THIS IS A GENERAL FUND
LEGISLATIVE AUGMENTATION WE
DON'T SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
SENATE MORLOCK.
YOU MISTER CHAIR I I SEEM TO
RECALL THAT.
MATT FONG WHEN HE WAS STATE
TREASURER HE TRIED TO GET SOME
KIND OF.
I GUESS RESTITUTION.
FOR.
.
THINGS THAT WERE DONE BY GERMANY
DURING WORLD WAR TWO.
AND.
HE'D JOINED IN WITH A COALITION
OF OTHER.
I STATES AND COUNTRIES.
AND SO I'M WONDERING.
IF WE WE SHOULD BE CONTACTING
THE STATE TREASURER AGAIN TO SEE
IF THERE'S.
A FUNDING OPPORTUNITY THERE'S
WELL FOR THIS.
PARTICULAR NEED.
THANK YOU.
TAYLOR.
COMMENTS.
OKAY.
GONNA MOVE TO ISSUE TWENTY SEVEN
FAMILY URGENT. RESPONSE SYSTEM.
HI BEN JOHNSON WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE BUT
ASSEMBLY TOOK ACTION TO PROVIDE
FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS GENERAL
FUND AND IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN AND THIRTY MILLION
DOLLARS ON GOING TO CREATE THE
FAMILY URGENT RESPONSE SYSTEM.
WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A
STATEWIDE HOTLINE FOR FOSTER
CARE.
PARENTS TO CALL INTO IN CASES
OF EMERGENCY AND OR OR CRISIS
FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND THEN ALSO
TO ESTABLISH MOBILE CRISIS
RESPONSE TEAMS THAT COULD GO AND
DELIVER ON SITE SERVICES.
TO AMELIORATE THAT SITUATION
HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS
THOUGH EXCUSE ME THE SENATE DID
NOT TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM.
THANK YOU THIS COST. WE SUPPORT
THE SENATE VERSION THIS IS A
GENERAL FUND LEGISLATIVE
AUGMENTATION WE DON'T SUPPORT AT
THIS TIME.
THANK YOU COME BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE.
SENATOR MITCHELL THANK YOU VERY
MUCH EVERYTHING CLARIFICATION IS
THIS.
EXPANSION AWE OF A CURRENT
PROGRAM IS DOES IT EXIST AT ALL
WITHIN THE C. FEE. IT DOES NOT
THIS WOULD BE A NEW PROGRAM
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES.
INTERESTING
AND OKAY THANK YOU.
QUESTION FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON
THAT CERTAIN SO MY UNDERSTANDING
IS IT'S.
IS CORRECT THAT IT IS NOT IN
EXISTING STATEWIDE PROGRAM.
THOUGH THERE ARE SOME REGIONS
THAT HAVE SOMETHING ANALOGOUS
THOUGH IT'S NOT YET INTEGRATED
INTO.
THE WHOLE STATEWIDE CONTINUUM OF
CARE.
I'M AND THERE MAY BE SOME SUMMER
PROGRAMS.
IN CERTAIN COUNTIES.
THERE ARE SORT OF MOBILE
RESPONSE TEAMS OUT WITHIN THAT
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM AS WELL
AND OUT WITH THE STATE
LEGISLATURE WHICH BUDGET
LEGISLATURE HAS FUNDED OVER THE
YEARS UP BUT THIS WOULD BE
UNIQUE TO THE FOSTER CARE
POPULATION.
THE CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM
WAS.
.
MY MEMORY SERVES ME.
.
TO ASSIST US IN THE TRANSITION
AWAY FROM GROUP HOMES.
IT WOULD SEEM THAT.
IN SOME CASES THE YOUNG PEOPLE
THAT WERE IN GROUP HOMES WERE
CONSIDERED.
MOST DIFFICULT TO PLACE WITHIN
THE. ARE.
TYPICAL FOSTER CARE STRUCTURE.
AND.
.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF. PART OF THE
MOTIVATION OF THIS
AND I APPRECIATE THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE ANYTHING THAT'S.
MUST GIVE US THE RESPONSE THAT
ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE.
STRUCTURE OF THE.
OF MAY REVISE IS.
GENERAL FUND THAT YOU CAN'T
SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
BUT.
IN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE I AM
GUESSING YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE
ABLE TO COMMENT ON THIS BUT THIS
SEEMS TO ME.
TWO VERY MUCH FIX. THE GOALS OF
THE CONTINUUM OF CARE BECAUSE IN
IN MOVING AWAY FROM GROUP HOMES
WE ARE PUTTING SOME OF THE MOST
DIFFICULT.
A PLACE KIDS INTO.
THE DIFFERENCE YOU KNOW TO
FOSTER CARE HOMES
WHO WOULD THEN HAVE THAT MANY
MORE CHALLENGES.
AND THIS IS TO DEAL WITH THOSE
TYPE OF URGENT CHALLENGES.
SO I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT.
ALRIGHT.
AND PERFORMANCE THINKING SURE.
YOU CHRIS GOT DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE SO CURRENTLY THERE ARE
AS.
DELEO NOTED THAT NOT SPECIFIC
TO FOSTER CARE BUT CRISIS
SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH.
EARLY AN AREA PERIODIC SCREENING
DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT. AND ALSO.
I WOULD NOTE THAT I.
ON THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH
FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY
DID RECEIVE SOME. MOBILE CRISIS
FINDING AND THAT THEY HAVE.
I BELIEVE TO SB.
EIGHT THIRTY THREE AND SOME
ALSO SOME GENERAL FUND.
IN THERE AND RANGE OF TWENTY
SEVEN POINT TWO MILLION SPECIFIC
FOR CRISIS SERVICES AGAIN NOT.
SPECIFICALLY TARGETED TO FOSTER
YOUTH BUT AVAILABLE FOR YOUTH
AND.
BUT THERE IS NO MYSTERY HERE.
BUT THERE IS NO DIRECT LINK.
TO THOSE SERVICES BOTH IN THE
CCR THAT IS CORRECT NOW NINETY
RECTALLY MAY BUILD ENOUGH.
THANK YOU SIR.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ARAMBULA.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I JUST
WANTED.
.
THERE'S A POLICY.
THE BILL.
MADAM VICE CHAIR A. B. TWENTY
FORTY THREE THAT.
I'M CARRYING THIS YEAR THAT'S
DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER
THAT'S BEFORE US SOME WOULD JUST
ENCOURAGED SENATORS WHO HAVE
QUESTIONS.
TUB FOLLOW UP WITH THAT POLICY
BILL THAT IS AN ATTEMPT TO DEAL
WITH THE VERY REAL PROBLEM THAT
I BELIEVE SENATOR SKINNER.
SUMMARIZED QUITE WELL WHICH IS.
THE FACT THAT WE CRIMINALIZE
TOO OFTEN OUR GROUP HOMES AND
FOSTER KIDS AND IS THERE A.
RESPONSE SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH THE
CRISES.
I BELIEVE THAT FURS IS AN
APPROPRIATE PLACE AND WE'RE
TRYING TO BOTH HAVE A BUDGET AND
POLICY DISCUSSION THE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
CLASSICAL THANK YOU SIR SKINNER
CAN'T HELP IT CHAIR OF SUB FIVE.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD NOTICE
YOU POINTED OUT AND.
SENATOR ROBERT LIKE THAT FROM
HER ASSEMBLY MEMBER ARAMBULA
THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY VERY FREQUENTLY
THESE ARE THE YOUTH THAT THAT
THE YEAR TWO WOULD. HAVE BE ABLE
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS
SERVICE AND THE FAMILIES WHO
WOULD. OUR YOUTH THAT MIGHT
OTHERWISE.
AND MOSTLY END UP IN OUR.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
BUT THE OTHER COROLLARY HERE IS
THAT A LARGE PERCENT OF THEM ARE
IN THE FOSTER ARE SYSTEM DUE TO
THEIR OWN PARENTS BEING
INCARCERATED.
SO IT WE IT'S THAT USUAL.
.
I TUITION WHERE THINGS ARE VERY
INTEGRATED AND THE MORE WE CAN
DO TO.
KEEP KIDS OUT OF FOSTER CARE
SYSTEM WHICH IS COURSE KEEPING
THEIR PARENTS OUT OF BEING
INCARCERATED AND KEEPING THOSE
KIDS WHO ARE THEN IN FOSTER CARE
SYSTEM OUT OF BEING INCARCERATED.
THEN.
WE CAN REDUCE THAT GROWING UP
BUDGETARY GENERAL FUND PRESSURE
HUNDRED PERCENT GENERAL FUND
THAT CDC ARE REPRESENTS
WHICH IN THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN
IN THE LEGISLATURE AND. CLEANING
THE TWO YEARS I HAD INTRO MAPPED.
HAS GROWN PROPORTIONATELY MORE
THAN ALMOST EVERY OTHER PORTION
OF THE BUDGET EXCEPT FOR KATE TO
TWELVE SCHOOLS.
THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE ON TO ISSUE TWENTY
EIGHT ELIA.
FOOD BANK INFRASTRUCTURE
AUGMENTATION.
THE ASSEMBLY INCLUDED TWENTY
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ONE TIME
GENERAL FUND AND THE SENATE FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS ONE TIME GENERAL
FUND FOR A GRANT PROGRAM TO BE
RUN OUR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES.
TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO COMMUNITY
FOOD BANKS
FOR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ARE
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO. ART
REFRIGERATED FOOD STORAGE FOOD
DELIVERY AND TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS THAT FOOD BANKS USED
TO MANAGE THEIR INVENTORY.
OUR OFFICE DO NOT MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION ON THESE ITEMS
LET MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES.
THANK YOU THIS COST.
HIS IS A LEGISLATIVE
AUGMENTATION WE CAN'T SUPPORT
THIS TIME.
SIR SKINNER.
THANK YOU.
.
THIS IS ONE OF THESE.
.
THE INTERESTING IRONIES OF
CALIFORNIA IN THAT.
WE RIGHT NOW THE ECONOMY'S GOING
GETTING.
GO TORRENT GAVE US WAS A HIT
THERE WERE IS GOING GREAT IS
GROWING IS STRONG.
AND OUR UNEMPLOYMENT SITS AT THE.
I'M NOT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN
ALL TIME LOW BUT IT IS IT GIVES
VERY LOW RATE.
AND YET.
WHEN WE AYE INTERACT WITH OUR
FOOD BANKS UP AND DOWN THE STATE
THEY HAVE MORE DEMAND.
THEN ALMOST AT ANY OTHER TIME.
AND.
WE KNOW THAT PART OF THE PART OF
THAT IS DUE TO THE. OTHER COSTS
THAT HAVE INCREASED SUCH AS
HOUSING COSTS WHICH PUT FAMILIES
IN A SITUATION WHERE. IN ORDER
TO MAKE THEIR ENDS MEET THEY.
IT YOU KNOW TO COVER THEIR
HOUSING COSTS.
OR EVEN HEALTH CARE COSTS THEN
THEY END UP.
HAVING TO RELY ON A FOOD BANK.
AND ALSO STILL EVEN WITH THE
LOW UNEMPLOYMENT. WE STILL OF A
LARGE PERCENT OF OF. JOBS THAT
ARE LOW WAGE JOBS SO WE HAVE A
GREAT DEAL OF.
WHAT WE'D CATEGORIZES THE
WORKING POOR?
AND WHAT WE'VE.
SEE WITH THESE FOOD BANKS IS
THAT THE FACT THAT WE'VE NOT
MADE THAT SIGNIFICANT OF AN
INVESTMENT IN THEIR
INFRASTRUCTURE.
THEY DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE
FREEZER FACILITIES AND WAREHOUSE
FACILITIES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
SOME OF THE FOOD DONATIONS THAT
THEY GET.
FROM WHETHER IT'S.
COMPANIES CORPORATE ENTITIES OR
OTHERS
AND SO GIVEN THE DEMAND ON OUR
FOOD BANKS AT THIS TIME. AND
KNOWING THAT IF THERE
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS WERE MORE
ADEQUATELY COVERED THAT THEY
WOULD BE ABLE. TO RESPOND TO
THAT DEMAND BETTER I THINK THIS
IS A WISE USE OF FUNDS EVEN
THOUGH IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE
STRUCTURE OF THE MAY REVISE.
SO THE MORE LOOK.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR OF MISS
COSTA.
I WANT AGAIN THANK YOU FOR THE.
PRIORITY THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS
BEEN PLACING IN THIS BUDGET ON
HOMELESS.
AND IN THE HOMELESSNESS EFFORT
I'M JUST WONDERING IF HE WOULD
CONSIDER INCLUSION OF. THESE
REQUESTS IN ITS OVERALL
PORTFOLIO.
AS HE ADDRESSES HOMELESSNESS
THIS. THING OUT.
SENATOR SKINNER THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER.
COMMENTS
OKAY.
SING NOT ISSUE TWENTY NINE
FOSTER PARENT RETENTION
RECRUITMENT AND SUPPORT PROGRAM.
MEN JOHNSON AND JOHNSON WITH THE
LA OUT.
THIS AUGMENTATION RELATES TO.
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
THAT WOULD PROVIDE TWENTY ONE
POINT SEVEN OR SIX MILLION
DOLLARS GENERAL FUND FOR.
FOSTER CARE FOSTER PARENT
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION THE
ASSEMBLY AUGMENTED.
BEYOND THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
IT TO INCREASE GENERAL FUND
SPENDING ON THIS ITEM TO FORTY
THREE POINT THREE MILLION
DOLLARS IN EIGHTEEN NINETEEN.
AND THEN ONGOING AS WELL WHILE
THE SENATE DID AUGMENT FOR
TWENTY EIGHTEEN NINETEEN ALSO.
MAKING THE GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATION FORTY THREE POINT
THREE MILLION BUT DID NOT TAKE
ACTION ON.
TO APPROVE FUNDING ON AN
ONGOING BASIS.
WE RAISED.
NO ISSUES WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL.
RELATED TO THIS.
THIS ITEM GIVEN THAT CC ARE
CONTINUE OF CARA FORM EFFORTS
ARE UNDER WAY AND.
ADDITIONAL FOSTER CARE GIVERS
ARE NEEDED FOR THAT UP FOR THAT
FOR THE EFFORT TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
WE DO THINK THAT UP APPROVING
THIS ON A LIMITED TERM BASIS
DOES MAKE SENSE AS WE CONTINUE
TO EVALUATE.
THE EFFECT OF THIS FUNDING ON
IMPROVING OF THE NUMBER OF
FOSTER CARE GIVERS IN THE SYSTEM.
THANK YOU IT WAS COST. BOTH
HOUSES DID APPROVE OUR PROPOSAL
WHICH WE APPRECIATE OBVIOUSLY
THE ADDITIONAL AUGMENTATIONS WE
CANNOT SUPPORT THE FACT.
THANK YOU.
BUT THE COMMITTEE ANY QUESTIONS
COMMENTS.
OKAY SENILE THE WORLD MOVED
ISSUE THIRTY CLINICAL.
CLINICS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SAME
DAY VISITS.
I'M THE ASSEMBLY TOOK NO ACTION
ON THIS ITEM UP THE SENATE
APPROVED THREE MILLION DOLLARS
IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN NINETEEN AND
ONE POINT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS
ANNUALLY THEREAFTER.
TO ALLOW FEDERALLY QUALIFIED
HEALTH CENTERS AND OTHER.
CLINICS WITHIN THE MEDICAID AND.
SAFETY NET HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
TO BE A REIMBURSABLE AT LEE FOR
MENTAL HEALTH AND.
GENERAL PHYSICAL HEALTH
SERVICES ON THE SAME DAY.
THANK GOODNESS BECAUSE.
WE SUPPORT THE ASSEMBLY VERSION
OBVIOUSLY IT'S A LEGISLATIVE
AUGMENTATION WE WOULD KNOW THAT
WE HAVE A CONCERN THAT THE
SENATE'S COST ESTIMATE FOR THIS
PROPOSAL IS UNDERSTATED. WE AT
THE ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATE THE
COST EXCEED ONE HUNDRED MILLION
GENERAL FUND ANNUALLY.
THANK YOU ETCETERA.
THIS GOES THIS QUESTION GOES TO
FINANCE COULD YOU PROVIDE SOME.
FURTHER EXPLANATION MAY BE A
BASIS FOR YOUR COST ESTIMATE OF
ONE HUNDRED MILLION.
ADAM DORSEY FIND IT SO.
THE WAY THAT THIS
PROPOSAL IS STRAPPED IT IS
PROBLEMATIC FROM FOR A NUMBER OF
REASONS AND.
THE WAVE IT CLINIC BUNDLED RATES
WORK TODAY IS THAT. ALL OF THE
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
AVERAGE PERSON THAT WALKS INTO
THE CLINIC.
ARE CAPTURED INTO A RATE FOR
THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THAT CLINIC.
SEE YOU TAKE ALL OF THE SERVICES
THAT ARE DELIVERED BY THE CLINIC
OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR ANY
DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF VISITS
AND THAT'S THE RATE.
AND THE WAY THAT THIS LANGUAGE
IS DRAFTED IS THAT.
YOU'RE YOU'RE ABLE TO BILL TWICE
FOR THE SAME PATIENT.
WHEN THOSE COSTS ARE ALREADY
INCLUDED IN THAT BUNDLE GREAT
WITHOUT HAVING TO GO BACK IN.
AND REDO THE RATES OF THE U.
PAUL THE SERVICE TO YOUR BILLING
FOR SEPARATELY OUT.
SO IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE PULLED
OUT. UM SERVICES FROM THE RATE
LIKE DENTAL CAN BE BILLED
SEPARATELY.
MFPS WE ARE IN THE PROCESS A
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS
OF PULLING THAT UP FOR THE RATE.
THE CLINIC GOES AND THEY REDO
THEIR RATES THAT THOSE COSTS
AREN'T DOUBLE COUNTED.
AND THIS PROPOSAL DOESN'T DO
THAT.
AND SO IT ALLOWS CLINICS TO GO
IN AND BILL THAT BUNDLED RATE
MULTIPLE TIMES AND AND THAT IS
WHAT MAKES THIS PROPOSAL SO
EXPENSIVE AND ALSO WE HAVE
POLICY CONCERNS WITH THAT
APPROACH.
DO WE KNOW TODAY WHETHER. UNDER
THE CURRENT SITUATION WHETHER.
PATIENTS ARE GOING IN FOR THEIR.
PHYSICAL PROBLEM AND ON THE SAME
DAY SEEING SOMEONE FOR A.
SAVE YOUR WHOLE SERVICES.
YES ABSOLUTELY THAT THAT CAN AND
DOES HAPPEN DO WE KNOW TO WHAT
EXTENT.
THE WORDS ARE CLINICS. NOT
SCHEDULING PEOPLE ON THE SAME
DAY BECAUSE OF THIS THIS ISSUE.
FOR EXAMPLE MAN DIDN'T IN FACT
SCHEDULING THEM IN A SUBSEQUENT
DAY AND THEN THE PATIENT DOESN'T
RETURN.
OR ARE. THEY NOT WITHSTANDING
THE FACT THAT THE BUNDLED RATE.
APPARENTLY AT LEAST.
TO THEIR PIC STATUS NOT
SUFFICIENT. NOT SCHEDULING THEM
FOR THE SAME DAY SERVICE AND IN
FACT IT MAKES SENSE YEAH SO.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE
WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THE
CLINICS OVER THE YEARS AND AND
WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD TO TRY
TO.
WORK WITH THEM I'M TO COME UP
WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT
METHODOLOGY AND.
THOSE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN YOU
KNOW ONGOING OFTEN ON.
YOU KNOW FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS
NOW.
AND IT WAS TO GET OUT THAT
INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND AND AND
MAKING SURE THAT THERE WAS AN
INCENTIVE TO SEND SOMEONE AWAY
WHEN THEY COULD BE SEEN ON THE
SAME DAY.
SO WHILE WE ARE.
WE STRONGLY PETE THAT THAT THAT
THE RAPE THAT REIMBURSEMENT
METHODOLOGY THAT THEY'RE
ENTITLED TO UNDER FEDERAL LAW
ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THEIR COSTS.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE MAY BE.
AND AN INCENTIVE THAT ISN'T
QUITE RIGHT FOR THE CLINIC TO
SEND THEM AWAY SO THAT THEY CAN
BILL FOR THAT BUNDLED RATE AGAIN
IF THEY COME BACK ON A DIFFERENT
DAY. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT WORK
GROUP WAS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS IS
THAT INCENTIVE PROBLEM THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I DON'T WANT TO TALK AGAINST THE
SENATE PROPOSAL HAVE YOU THOUGHT
ABOUT A PILOT PROGRAM TO REALLY
TRY TO DRILL DOWN.
ON A RELATIVELY SMALL SCALE TO
DETERMINE WHAT THE ACTUAL COST
IS BY. CHANGING THE.
PAYMENT METHODOLOGY.
YEAH THE AND THAT THAT IS WHAT
THE GROUP WAS DESIGNED TO
ADDRESS THAT THE ISSUE IS THAT
WE WOULD HAVE TO COME TO AN
AGREEMENT OVER WHAT THAT LOOKS
LIKE WITH THE CLINICS BECAUSE.
THIS I'M THIS TYPE OF BUNDLED
RATE IS A FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT
IT'S ITSELF THAT SADDAM YOU KNOW
THERE'S FEDERAL LAW LAWS THAT
ENTITLED THE CLINICS THAT
I SEE.
THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSE
SOARED MISTER MISTER CHAIR FOR
THE.
EXTENDED QUESTIONING NOT AT ALL
SENATOR MITCHELL.
THANK YOU WHICH STRUCK ME UP
ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS I APPRECIATE
THE NOTION OF THE BUNDLE GREAT
HOW THAT MAKES SENSE FOR FQHCS
BUT AS YOU TALK ABOUT WE'VE
ALREADY CARVED OUT.
THERE'S A FAMILY THERAPIST AND
AND DENTAL SERVICES.
YOU KNOW.
THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT'S A
DIFFERENT PRACTITIONER WHO
PROVIDED ME WITH THE CARE.
IT'S A SPECIALIZED PRACTITIONER
I'M NOT GONNA GO TO THE FQHC AND
SEE MY PCP FOR MY.
TO THE EXTRACTION.
AND SO I'M WONDERING IF.
YOUR CHALLENGES WITH THE WAY IN
WHICH THE SENATE PLAN.
DEVELOPS IT AS OPPOSED TO.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THAT
IS A VALID.
.
SERVICE TO CARVE OUT.
THAT NOT THE WHAT BUT THE HOW WE
DID IT LIKE YOU'VE DONE DENTAL
IN MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST.
I DON'T THINK THAT.
.
I DON'T THINK THAT ARE IT OUR
OBJECTIONS HAVE FOCUSED BOTTOM
AROUND.
YOU KNOW WHETHER IT'S.
GOOD POLICY TE.
.
TAKE CAN TO CONTINUE THESE CARVE
OUTS NECESSARILY I THINK THE WAY
THAT THIS IS DONE THAT DOESN'T
REQUIRE THEM TO GO BACK AND
RELOOK AT THAT BUNDLED RATE TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT
ACCOUNTING FOR IT.
I THINK THAT'S THAT'S ONE ISSUE
I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE.
MAYBE AN EASIER PILL TO SWALLOW
IF IT WERE JUST THAT NEVER JUST
COME IT WOULD JUST DOLLARS RIGHT.
.
I THINK THAT I THINK THAT.
.
THE WHAT WE HAVE INDICATED DE
I'M RECENTLY ON THIS PROPOSAL IS
THAT.
IT WOULD BE A MONEY ISSUE IF
EVERYONE WERE FORCED TO COME IN
AND REDO THAT RATE AND THAT IS.
ON A POLICY BASIS.
MAYBE A MORE FAIR WAY TO GO
ABOUT DOING IT I'M EVEN IF IT'S
COSTLY OP IF IT'S STILL COSTLY
AS IS THIS PROPOSAL IS.
AND IT TURNS BE IT BEEN COSTLY I
THINK IT GETS TO SENATOR ROTH'S
PIECE.
AND AND SO MY QUESTION I BASK
IN THE PAST IN TERMS OF.
YOU YOU KNOW I HOPE THAT WERE
NOT.
CONTROLLING COSTS BY DEVELOPING
SYSTEMS THAT.
ON MAKE IT COMPLICATED FOR
PEOPLE TO TO RECEIVE THE
SERVICES IN THE HELP THEY NEED.
THAT BY REQUIRING THAT IT NOT BE
ON THE SAME DAY THAT WE ARE
COUNTING BASICALLY SCORING
SAVINGS BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
PEOPLE AS THIRD PERCENT PERCENT
OF THE POPULATION WON'T COME
BACK.
BUT.
HOW HOW YOU'VE COME?
TO THIS FEE IS CURIOUS TO ME.
IF INDEED THESE ARE SERVICES
THAT FQHC PATIENTS ARE ENTITLED
TO. AND WE'RE WE'RE.
BY VIRTUE OF THEM NOT COMING ON
SEPARATE DAYS WE'RE NOT PAN OUT
THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY TODAY YOU
FOLLOW ME. I I DO I I THINK THAT
THIS IS ONE OF THE. POINTS THAT
WOULD BE REALLY TAKE ISSUE IS
THAT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION ON
PEOPLE GETTING MULTIPLE SERVICES
IN THE SAME DAY AND IN FACT THAT
IS THE WAY THE RATES ARE BUILT
THERE BUILT AROUND THE IDEA THAT.
PATIENTS COME IN AND THEY ARE
GETTING MULTIPLE SERVICES ON ONE
DAY AND THAT'S WHY THAT THAT
BUNDLED RATE IS.
YOU KNOW OFTENTIMES MUCH MORE
THAN GOING AND SEEING A PRIMARY
CARE PHYSICIAN.
AND SO.
THERE ISN'T A PROHIBITION ON
RECEIVING MULTIPLE SERVICE DAY
ALTHOUGH WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
THIS KIND OF INCENTIVE ARGUMENT
IS THAT.
MAYBE I A CLINIC WOULD BE ABLE
TO GET MORE IF THEY SEND SOMEONE
BACK THEY CAME BACK THE
FOLLOWING DAY THEY COULD BUILD
THAT READ AGAIN AND THAT WAS THE
IDEA BEHIND THIS WORK GROUP TO
TRY TO GET AROUND AN ALTERNATIVE
HIM AT ALL.
THINKING THAT YEAR THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SIMILAR PROBLEMS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR A LOT NOW
I'M REALLY CONFUSED AND KIND OF
FLUMMOXED BY THIS BECAUSE THAT
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE.
ISSUE THAT'S PRESENTED TO US
HERE ON IS A DIRECT RESULT OF
THE CLINIC SAYING THAT THEY
CAN'T.
REFER IN THE SAME DAY A MINUTE
THERE'S A TWENTY FOUR HOUR
WAITING PERIOD AND AYE I IMAGINE
WE'RE NOT GOING TO. RESOLVE THAT
TO A DIFFERENCE BUT IT'S.
BIZARRE TO ME THAT.
THERE'S DISAGREEMENT ON WHAT
WOULD APPEAR TO BE SUCH UP A
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE.
AB.
THE THE OTHER THING THAT IS A
BIT TROUBLING TO ME IS THAT FOR
AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS
PATIENTS WHO ARE IN NEED OF FOR
ACUTE CARE SERVICES. I'M IN THE
MOMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO WAIT
AND THAT THEREFORE.
THE POTENTIAL IS A GREAT
POTENTIAL IS THAT SOME WILL NOT
SOME WILL RECEIVE CARE DOWN THE
ROAD.
WHICH DURING WHICH THERE.
.
OF SYMPTOMATOLOGY MAY GET WORSE.
THERE'S A A HUGE.
PREVENTION ISSUE HERE THAT TOOK
A AT THAT SEEMS TO EXIST BUT
WHAT I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND
THIS MIGHT.
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S
THIRTY TWO OTHER STATES.
THAT HAVE IN SOMEWHERE ANOTHER
SOLVE THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW SAME
DAY VISITS AND A.
IT IS THERE.
HAS THERE BEEN A REVIEW OF OF
WHAT OTHER STATES ARE DOING AND.
I THINK.
IT'S NOT A QUESTION YOU CAN
ANSWER THE TIME THAT WE HAVE
TODAY.
.
WHY IT IS THAT TO HOPE A ONE OF
THOSE MODELS MAYBE JUST ONE OF
THEM OUT WHAT WORKED RELATIVELY
WELL IN CALIFORNIA YEAH JUST TO
CLARIFY I MEAN THERE IS NO
PROHIBITION ON SAME DAY VISITS
THEIR RATE ASSUMES THAT THAT
PEOPLE ARE ARE GETTING?
MULTIPLE SERVICES WHEN THEY
WHEN THEY COME INTO THE CLINIC.
TODAY BUT WE HAVE MADE.
EXCEPTIONS IN STATE LAWS.
THROUGH YOU KNOW PREVIOUS
LEGISLATION.
TO BILL FOR SERVICES SEPARATELY.
AS WE TALKED ABOUT SO LET ME
MAKE SURE I'VE FORGIVE ME FOR
INTERRUPTING THAT WERE. OUR
NOMENCLATURE SAME BECAUSE YOU'VE
REPEATEDLY SAID.
THERE'S NO PROHIBITION ON SAME
DAY SERVICES AND WHAT I'M
READING IS THAT THERE IS A
REQUIREMENT OF A TWENTY FOUR
HOUR GAP. IN SERVICES BETWEEN
REFERRAL FROM PRIMARY CARE. AND
THEN BEING SEEN BY MENTAL HEALTH
PROVIDER DOES THAT EXIST.
THE ISSUE IS THAT THEY.
THE CLINIC CANNOT BE ABLE THIS
BUNDLED RATE MULTIPLE TIMES ON
THE SAME DAY THEY HAVE TO THEY
CAN THEY CAN BUILD THE BUNDLED
RATES.
YOU KNOW THE FOLLOWING DAY OR
IN IN A COUPLE DAYS WHATEVER IT
IS THIS OTHER HOUSE TO BE A
TWENTY FOUR HOUR GAP. IN ORDER
TO BE.
PAID.
OUT IF THEY WANT TO BE PAID A A
A A SEPARATE RATE IF YOU WILL A
SEPARATE ANOTHER BUNDLED ES YES
RATE.
S. MEMORABILIA.
YOU KNOW OFTENTIMES WE.
.
GET MIXED UP IN THE NOMENCLATURE
OR THAT TERMINOLOGY AND AND YET
THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM. THAT
SEEMINGLY IS GOING ON ADDRESSED
INSIDE LIKE TO.
SEE IF WE CAN BE CREATIVE TO
ADDRESS THIS SERVICE AND I'M
GOING TO.
BRING MY MORE RURAL. ASPECT OF
THE STATE INTO THIS DISCUSSION
THAT.
IT'S MORE DIFFICULT FOR CERTAIN
PARTS OF OUR STATE TO GET TO OUR
FQHCS AND RURAL HEALTH CLINICS
AND.
GETTING BACK THE NEXT DAY IS
DIFFICULT PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU
HAVE MULTIPLE PROBLEMS.
MIGHT ISSUE STEMS FROM WHETHER
THE RAIDERS SUFFICIENT.
TO MEET BOTH.
SERVICES THAT ARE NEEDED IN THE
SAME DAY BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE
HEARING FROM THE GROUND LEVEL
FROM THE FQHCS IS THAT IT'S NOT.
SO IS THERE A NEED TO LOOK AT
THAT RATE THAT CAPITATED RATE TO
AUGMENT IT. TO MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S MEETING THE MENTAL HEALTH
NEEDS OF OUR STATE OR HOW BEST
CAN WE INSURE THAT WE ARE.
YEAH ALLOWING PEOPLE TO RECEIVE
MULTIPLE SERVICES ON THE SAME
DAY AND FOR PROVIDERS AND
CLINICS TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE
LIGHTS ON AND THE DOORS OPEN.
SO THAT MEAN THAT'S A REALLY
HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER BECAUSE
EVERY CLINIC IS DIFFERENT.
CLINICS WILL ASK FOR A CHANGE
IN THEIR SCOPE AND A CHANGE IN
THE RATE.
WHEN I'M WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE
THEY NEED THEY NEED IT.
YOU KNOW WHEN THEY START
OFFERING NEW SERVICES OR
WHATEVER THEY CAN THEY CAN
REQUEST IN THE RAIN.
AND THE WAY THAT IT WORKS IS
THAT WHEN YOU FIRST GET THAT
RATES IT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF
THOSE COSTS RIGHT SO ALL OF
THOSE COSTS ARE CALIFORNIA RATE
AND THEN IT GROWS EVERY YEAR BY
THE MEDICARE ECONOMIC INDEX.
SOME CLINICS COST MAY GROW
FASTER SLOWER THAN ANY I BET.
YOU KNOW THERE IS THERE IS THAT
RIGHT THERE THAT IS A FEDERAL
ENTITLEMENT FOR THESE CLINICS
THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THOSE
COSTS IN GROWS EVERY YEAR.
BET THAT YOU KNOW HOW MANY
CLINIC FAIRS YOU KNOW I'M IS
REALLY AN INDIVIDUAL SITUATION
MAYBE THEN YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE
ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE MADE AND.
YOUR COST ANALYSIS SO YOU HAD
STATE THAT IT WOULD BE CLOSER
TOWARDS A HUNDRED MILLION AND SO.
WHICH ASSUMPTIONS DID YOU MAKE
THAT WERE NOT MADE IN THE SENATE
SIDE THAT LED YOU TO THAT
CONCLUSION.
AND AND.
START THAT YEAH SO WE'RE
FINALIZING AN ESTIMATE RIGHT NOW.
.
AND IT'S BASED ON A COUPLE
DIFFERENT SCENARIOS SO I'M WE
HAVE A RANGE AT THE MOMENT.
THAT KIND OF TRIES TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT SORT OF AN ASSUMPTION
AROUND. HOW MANY CLINICS WILL BE
DO WILL DO BETTER UNDER THE
CURRENT SORT OF GREAT
METHODOLOGY AND AND NOT PASSED
TO TO BUILD MULTIPLE TIMES IN
THE SAME DAY?
VERSUS.
HOW MANY CLINICS THAT DO YOU IN
SO WE HAVE A RANGE BASED ON SORT
OF AN ASSUMPTION AROUND WHO ASKS
FOR THIS CHANGE? AND AND THAT
RANGE IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE
LIKELY BETWEEN YOU KNOW HUNDRED
AND THREE HUNDRED MILLION.
DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR
ASSUMPTIONS ARE AROUND THAT.
BUT.
AS WE FINALIZE THAT WILL MAKE
SURE TO GET YOUR STAFF.
AND AND WE ARE WORKING
DILIGENTLY ON THAT NIGHT ME JUST
AND BY ECHOING SENATOR ROTH'S
COMMENTS I THINK A PILOT PROGRAM
LOOKING AT A.
SMALLER SIZE TO.
REALLY DETERMINE WHAT THE
FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS ARE FOR
THE STATE WOULD BE.
IN ORDER PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF
THE CRISIS THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT
OF US AS A STATE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU SIR SKINNER.
THANK YOU.
.
I APPRECIATE MY. COLLEAGUE FROM
THE ASSEMBLIES COMMENTS ON THIS
AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT
IT'S AN ISSUE. BUT IT WOULD
CLEARLY BE AN ISSUE IN RURAL
AREAS JUST BECAUSE OF.
DISTANCES IN SUCH TO THE
CLINICS BUT IT'S ALSO AN ISSUE
IN URBAN CLINICS.
WE'RE DEALING WITH MOST THESE
CLINICS ARE OBVIOUS THEY'RE
DEALING WITH LOW INCOME
POPULATIONS THEY ARE AS.
AS I TALKED ABOUT IN THE.
.
FOOD BANK ITEM IT'S.
THE WORKING POOR IN MANY OF
THESE FAMILIES THE.
PEOPLE WHO ARE.
.
THEY'RE WORKING SIXTY HOURS
EIGHTY HOUR WEEKS THEY'D
RELIEVED VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM
TO. GET INTO THE CLINIC IN THE
FIRST PLACE AND ONCE THEY GET IN
OBVIOUSLY ARE CLINICS WANT TO
TRY TO PROVIDE. AS MUCH SERVICES
POSSIBLE AT THE POINT THAT THEY
HAVE THE CLIENT PRESENT
AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE MENTAL
HEALTH NEEDS.
YOU CAN OFTEN TIMES HAVE A
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE.
PERHAPS THE PATIENT IS.
THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT THEIR PRIMARY
CARE PROVIDER HAS TO PUSH THEM A
BIT TO SEEK AND SO TO HAVE TO
EXPECT THAT THE.
TO RESCHEDULE IN RETURN ON A
DIFFERENT DAY REALLY COMPLICATES
TREATMENT.
SO I THINK THAT.
THIS IS A.
AN IMPORTANT AREA IF WE WANT
OUR CLINICS TO BE ABLE TO CAN.
TO PROVIDE THE TYPE OF QUALITY
OF CARE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
AND.
THAT REALLY ADDRESSES THE
CLIENTELE THAT THEY'RE SERVING.
THANK YOU.
NEITHER.
QUESTIONS.
COURTESY NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
ON TO ISSUE THIRTY ONE.
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANCE FUNDING
LL WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
HELLO SONYA PICK FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE.
THIS ISSUE RELATES TO THE
CALIFORNIA VECTOR BORNE DISEASES
SURVEILLANCE GATEWAY ALSO KNOWN
AS CAL SERVE.
THE SENATE APPROVED ONGOING
FUNDING OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT
THE CAL SERVE GATEWAY.
ALONG WITH PLACEHOLDER TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE THE ASSEMBLY TOOK
NO ACTION IN THE GOVERNOR HAD NO
PROPOSAL. THE LA DOES NOT TAKING
A POSITION ON THIS BUT WE WOULD
NOT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
FOR CONTEXT.
THE CAL CERVANTES WAY WAS
DEVELOPED ABOUT A DECADE AGO.
EN IS JOINTLY MANAGED BY THREE
PARTNERS THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH.
THE MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA AND
THE CENTER FOR VECTOR BORNE
DISEASES THAT YOU SEE DAVIS. THE
DATABASE ITSELF IS HOUSED AT UC
DAVIS.
WHILE THE DEPARTMENT MONITORS
AND OVERSEAS ACTIVITIES AND USES
THE DATABASE TO GENERATE
STATEWIDE REPORTS.
MORE THAN SIXTY ENTITIES
PRIMARILY LOCAL VECTOR CONTROL
DISTRICTS.
SUBMIT SURVEILLANCE DATA TO THE
SYSTEM AND USE THE SYSTEM TO
ASSESS.
CURRENT AN IMMINENT.
VECTOR BORNE DISEASE THREATS.
THE SYSTEM CURRENTLY HAS NO
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT IT IT
RECEIVES FEDERAL FUNDING
PRIMARILY THROUGH TWO. GRANTS
IT'S SORT OF UNCLEAR WHETHER
THOSE.
SOURCES OF FEDERAL FUNDING WILL
BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN LASTLY I JUST NOTE
THAT IF THIS FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND IS APPROVED IT WOULD
PAY FOR TWO ADDITIONAL STAFF AT
UC DAVIS AND. INCREASE THE
PROGRAM'S DATA VISUALIZATION.
CAPABILITIES AND RISK MAPPING.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISS COSTA.
THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE
AUGMENTATION WE DON'T SUPPORT AT
THIS TIME.
THEY.
FIVE YEARS ON THE ORANGE COUNTY
VECTOR CONTROL BOARD.
IN AN ORANGE COUNTY WE FOUND
THAT WE HAD A.
SUCH A RISE IN WEST NILE VIRUS
THAT WE WOULD LIKE ONE OF THE
HIGHEST.
IN THE NATION AND WE WE WE DID
ALL THE STUDIES.
OF WHERE THE OCCURRENCES WERE
AND IRONICALLY IT WAS IN THE
POORER PARTS OF.
SANTA ANA WHERE OUR WATER SYSTEM
PIPES WERE LEVEL AND WATER
WASN'T FLOWING THROUGH SO.
MOSQUITOES FOR.
LAYING EGGS IN FEUD OPEN A
MANHOLE COVER YOU HAVE THOUSANDS
COME.
POPPING OUT.
AND WEST NILE VIRUS SOME PEOPLE
DON'T HAVE A REACTION SOME IT
KILLS.
SO I THINK THIS IS WORTHWHILE
BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO BE THE
NUMBER ONE.
IN THE NATION.
ON A CERTAIN.
ISSUE THAT WE CAN WORK ON SO I
I'M I'M I'M.
THANKFUL THAT THE SENATE IS
PROPOSING THIS KIND OF
INITIATIVE THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIR.
THANK YOU MANY OTHER QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE.
OKAY OBSCENE NOW WILL MOVED
ISSUE THIRTY TWO VALLEY FEVER.
THANK YOU AT THIS ISSUE RELATES
TO RESEARCH AND OUTREACH ON
VALLEY FEVER. BOTH HOUSES
PROVIDED ONE MILLION IN FUNDING
FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH FOR
VALLEY FEVER OUTREACH IN
AWARENESS ACTIVITIES. HE TELLS
ALSO PROVIDES FUNDING FOR
RESEARCH BUT THEY DIFFER ON BOTH
HOW TO SPEND.
WELL HOW MUCH TO SPEND AND THEN
WHO TO GIVE THE OF FUNDING TO.
WELL THE ASSEMBLY APPROACH
PROVIDES THREE MILLION TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA THE
SENATE APPROACH PROVIDES TWO
MILLION VIA THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH. TO THE VALLEY
FEVER INSTITUTE ACT KERN MEDICAL
IN LOCATED IN BAKERSFIELD.
AT THIS TIME WE WE THE ILIO
LACKS.
AN ANALYTIC.
.
BASIS FOR THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF
FUNDING AND WHETHER IT SHOULD BE
TWO MILLION THREE MILLION SOME
OTHER AMOUNT.
I'M REGARDING WHO SHOULD CONDUCT
THE RESEARCH ON VALLEY FEVER WE
NOTE THAT EACH OF THE ENTITIES
MAY USE THE FUNDING SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENTLY. FOR EXAMPLE A KEY
PRIORITY ACT KERN MEDICAL IS TO
SORT OF BUILD UP THEIR RESEARCH
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EXAMPLE
EXPANDING ITS RESEARCH AND
TREATMENT FACILITY. DEVELOPING A
BLOOD AND TISSUE REPOSITORY AND
BUILDING UP PHYSICIAN EXPERTISE
IN TREATING VALLEY FEVER.
THE U. THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA MEANWHILE WOULD
PRIMARILY USE THE FUNDING FOR
SOME VERY SPECIFIC RESEARCH
PROJECTS.
SUCH AS UNDERSTANDING THE MOST
LETHAL FORM OF VALLEY FEVER.
IN DEVELOPING A TRIAL ON ANTI
FUNGAL TREATMENTS.
SO YOU MAY WISH TO FACTOR THESE
TYPES OF DIFFERENCES.
AS THE WAITER DECISION.
THANK YOU MISS COST.
AGAIN THIS IS ANOTHER
LEGISLATIVE AUGMENTATION WE
WOULD NOTE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN
BY BOTH HOUSES DOES NOT INCLUDE
RESOURCES FOR AT THE DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH TO ADMINISTER
THE OUTREACH AND AWARENESS
PORTION. OF THE PROPOSALS WE
ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF THIS
PROPOSAL WERE TO MOVE FORWARD
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONAL LANGUAGE
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO EXPAND THE
ONE TIME FUNDS OVER A TWO YEAR
PERIOD.
TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH.
SUFFICIENT TIME TO DEVELOP AND
MONITOR CONTRACTS
FOR THE PUBLIC AWARENESS
CAMPAIGN.
THANK YOU.
I TO THE COMMITTEE.
SENATE NIELSEN JUST IF WE COULD
KEEP THE ITEM OF FOUR OH OPEN
FOR THE DISCUSSION OF VOTE LATER.
THANK YOU.
SEVERAL.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I'D JUST
LIKE TO NOTE THAT IN TWENTY
SEVENTEEN THERE WERE THREE
THOUSAND NEW CASES.
OF.
THIS WEST REGISTER SHE THE
VALLEY FEVER.
AND THE IN KERN COUNTY.
SO IT'S A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT I
APPRECIATE OF THAT THERE'S AN
AUGMENTATION BEING DONE FOR AND
I. I SEE WHAT MAY BE MORE WISDOM
IN.
FOCUSING ON THE EPICENTER OF HIS
PARTICULAR.
ISSUE BY WITH THE CURRENT.
CURRENT MEDICAL FACILITY THANK
FUTURE
THANK YOU.
MISTER OBERNOLTE.
OCT QUESTION FOR THE LA O. DOES
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
HAVE.
CURRENTLY. THE INFRASTRUCTURE
EXPERTISE TO ADMINISTER A
PROGRAM LIKE THIS.
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE
IS SOME RESEARCH ACTIVITY GOING
ON AT UC DAVIS AND UC MERCED.
ARMS OF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
SHARED WITH US.
.
SOME OF THE. PROJECTS THAT WOULD
LIKE TO.
YOU HEAT IT UP UNDERTAKEN AS A
RESULT OF THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING
BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS
SOME. INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE UC
DAVIS WE WE DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE
INFORMATION BEYOND THAT.
WELL IT I THINK I CONCUR WITH MY
COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE THAT.
THE CURRENT MEDICAL OUT MIGHT BE
A MORE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO. PUT
THIS RESEARCH AND I CERTAINLY
SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL TO.
MAKE A LANGUAGE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH
THAT IT COULD BE EXPENDED OVER
TWO YEARS.
THANK YOU SIR NIELSEN.
MR REENTER.
VALLEY BOY I'VE ACTUALLY HAD TO.
NOT PERSONALLY BUT THE
ACQUAINTANCES AND EMPLOYEES DEAL
WITH ASH
AFFLICTION.
SOMETIME AGO.
BUT NOW I'M VERY CONVERSANT WITH
WHAT'S GOING ON DOWN IN KERN
COUNTY.
NOT ONLY FROM A CENTER FULLER
BUT FROM A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE
THAT I KNOW DOWN HERE IT IS IS
VERY SERIOUS AFFLICTION THEN.
AND DOES MORE DETENTION.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT TO KERN.
FACILITIES SHOULD BE HANDY
WHERE THE EPICENTER IS WHERE THE.
FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH.
THAT DOLLARS SHOULD BE SPENT.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE THIRTY THREE.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEMBER
STAFF IT.
CAROLYN SHE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE
OTHER HOUSES TOOK SIMILAR
ACTIONS ON THIS ITEM.
SPECIFICALLY OF THE HOUSES
REDUCE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
BOARD õBER
INDIVIDUALS STARTING IN JANUARY.
THIS WAS CONSISTENT WITH OUR
ANALYSIS.
.
DO TO THE REDUCTION OF WORKLOAD
AND I DO THE CHANGES IN THE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
RESPONSIBILITIES ARE ENACTED
LAST YEAR. I THE GOVERNOR HAD
PROPOSED TO REDUCE BOARD.
MEMBER STAFF TO EAT.
THANK YOU MISS COST.
I AS THE ELSE'S NOTED WE DID.
SOME RESEARCH ON THIS AND
PRESENTED OUR FINDINGS TO THE
LEGISLATURE THE ALEJO HOUSES
WHILE WE FEEL THAT THE LA AND
THOSE.
SURVEY COMPORTS I WITH AND THE
RANGE OF WHAT WE FOUND WITHIN
OUR REPORT AND SO WE WOULD BE
FINE WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION
AND THE ACTION ADOPTED BY BOTH
HOUSES.
THANK YOU.
ETCETERA. THANK YOU MISSED YOUR
EYES WARM MAKE SURE THAT I'M
CLEAR ON THIS DIDN'T BOTH.
SUB COMMITTEES BOTH IN THE
ASSEMBLY IN THE SENATE TAKE THE
SAME POSITION ON THIS ITEM YOU
SAID SIMILAR. AND SIMILAR
METHODS ARE THE SAME.
SIMILAR MEANS A CONFERENCE ITEM
THE SAME NORMALLY DOESN'T MEAN A
CONFERENCE ITEM CORRECT DNA
ACTIONS WERE THE SAME OKAY
PERFECT THANK YOU MISTER.
THANK YOU SO OR LOCK.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I.
I YOU KNOW HAVING SERVED AS A
COUNTY SUPERVISOR I WOULD I
WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE
MORE EXEMPT EMPLOYEES AND.
WHAT CAN WE DO AT THIS LEVEL TO?
MODIFY THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
TWO TO PERHAPS FOR SIX.
A MEMBER CAN PROPOSE.
MODIFICATION.
AND HOPE.
FOR A.
SUPPORTIVE VOTE.
AND THERE WILL BE WE COULD
ACTUALLY VOTE ON IT.
THIRTY IT'S LIKE RIGHT NOW OR.
NOT RIGHT NOW.
OKAY SORRY NO.
C. WE SHOULD JUST FOLLOW YOUR
RECOMMENDATIONS OR THAT WE WOULD
HAVE BEEN
DONE BY NOW.
IT CENTER DEALS.
MISTER CHAIRMAN I JUST WOULD
REQUESTED IN THIS BE A NOT AND
CONFERENCE ITEM AT THE REQUEST
OF THE.
MEMBERS.
I'M SORRY CITY GETS NOT NOT A
CONFERENCE ITEM TO WE COULD WE
WOULD READ VERY MUCH THANK YOU.
ETCETERA.
WELL MISTER CHAIR I WILL I'VE
BEEN APPROACHED YOU KNOW I SPENT
A LOT OF TIME ON THIS ISSUE.
BOTH LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR
MUCH MORE TIME THAN I EVER
ANTICIPATED AND FRANKLY MORE
TIME THAN I EVER WANTED TO SPEND.
OUR I HAVE BEEN APPROACHED ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS BY.
.
INDIVIDUALS SEEKING RELIEF FROM
THE ACTIONS OF BOTH THE ASSEMBLY
AND THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEES
THAT HEARD THIS MATTER AND
FRANKLY WHEN I TOLD THEM WAS YOU
KNOW. WE'RE IN A TRANSITION MODE
HERE AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
FRANKLY YOU WIND UP HAVING AT
THE END OF THE DAY. AND THERE
WILL BE A BCP PROCESS THAT
BEGINS I IN THE FALL AND EXTENDS
INTO TWO THOUSAND AND. NINETEEN
IN THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE
TIME TO REALLY REVISIT. WHAT
YOUR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
ARE AND WHETHER YOU NEED TO
EXEMPTS STAFF FOR CIVIL SERVICE
AND NON EXEMPT STAFF?
AND FRANKLY THAT'S THE
SUGGESTION THAT I MADE THEM SO
I'M. A LITTLE BOTHERED BY THE
FACT THAT WE'RE HAVING TO TALK
ABOUT THIS YET AGAIN. I WILL
DEAL OBVIOUSLY PERSONALLY WITH
IT IF AND WHEN IT COMES BACK UP
SO THAT'S MY STATEMENT ON THE
SUBJECT MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU SENATOR.
SEE NO FURTHER COMMENT REMOVED
ISSUE THIRTY FOUR BUDGET DEFICIT
SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
LL FEEL FREE TO BEGIN WHEN
YOU'RE READY.
AND I SAID AT THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE BOTH HOUSES AND
THE GOVERNOR OP PROPOSED
DEPOSITING AND
FUNDS INTO THE BUDGET
STABILIZATION ACCOUNT OF STATES
RAINY DAY FUND. SO THAT IT
REACHES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
MAXIMUM AT THE END OF TWENTY
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN.
THE SENATE AND GOVERNOR WOULD
BOTH PUT THOSE FUNDS DIRECTLY
INTO THE BSA WHEREAS THE
ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL IS TO HOLD
THESE FUNDS TEMPORARILY IN A
THIRD RESERVE ACCOUNT. THE
BUDGET DEFICIT SAVINGS ACCOUNT
AND THEN TO.
TRANSFER THE FUNDS AT THE END
OF THE FISCAL YEAR FROM THE BDS
AID TO THE BSI.
THE CONSCRIPT.
THE ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS
PRUDENT RESERVES WE'VE VIEWED
THIS AS A CONFORMING IDEM BASED
ON WHAT WE DECIDE TO DO WITH THE
OVERALL RESERVE STRATEGY AS PART
OF THE FINAL BUDGET.
THANK YOU.
SERVICE.
AGAIN ON ITEM I'D LIKE TO
DISCUSS THE.
WE WE USED WITH THE. MANY WORK
FOR DECADES.
THE GET THE RAINY DAY FUND.
NOW THIS INDIVIDUAL.
NOW FUND MAY HAVE MERIT BUT I'M.
WARY OF IT.
I'M WONDERING IF PEOPLE ARE
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY
AROUND. THE RAINY DAY FUND WE
ALREADY HAVE.
AND STATUTE CONSTITUTION SO THEY
ARE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT.
AND I THINK IT PARTICULAR THE
THE PROPOSAL WAS ON.
BROUGHT FORWARD BECAUSE I WANTS
THE RAINY DAY FUND WAS FILLED
THIS WAS ANOTHER OPTION TO SAVE
FURTHER MY.
WELL MISTER CHAIRMAN ONCE THE
RAINY DAY FUND IS FILLED THE
ACCESS IS SUPPOSED TO GO TO AND
INFRASTRUCTURE.
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER AFLOAT.
SO.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE TO RESERVE
ACCOUNTS WE GOT THE BSA AND
WE'VE GOT THE SFE YOU.
SO THE BSA HAS A MAXIMUM AMOUNT
THAT WE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO IT.
TOO WAS ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE
THE SFU DOES NOT. AND.
BUT IF WE. RATHER THAN CREATING
A THIRD ACCOUNT. AS THE ASSEMBLY
PROPOSAL.
SUGGESTS IF WE INSTEAD JUST PUT
THAT MONEY IN THE EXISTING SFE
YOU WHAT WITH THE CONSEQUENCES
OF DOING HAPPY.
THE CONSEQUENCES IN TERMS OF.
YOUR FRIEND TO A SALES TAX
TRIGGERS ARE.
I'D I DON'T THERE'S NO CAP ON
THE US IF YOU USE NO I'M
QUESTIONING THE YOUTH THE NEED
TO CREATE A THIRD. TYPE OF
RESERVE ACCOUNT.
AND I KNOW THAT THERE IS A
SALES TAX TRIGGERED LIKE TO TALK
ABOUT THAT LITTLE BIT BUT I ALSO
LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT IF WE.
WHETHER NOT WE WOULD HIT THE
TRIGGER IF WE.
IF WE INSTEAD PUT THAT MONEY
INTO THE SFU CHART.
AT SO UNDER THE CURRENT REVENUE
ESTIMATES ADOPTED BY THE
ASSEMBLY.
IT WOULD BE UNDER THOSE REVENUE
ESTIMATES WE WHAT THE STATE
WOULD NOT HIT.
EITHER OF THE THRESHOLDS.
ESTABLISHED IN STATUTE.
THAT WOULD REDUCE THE SALES TAX
RATE IF THE SFU BOUNCE REACHES A
CERTAIN SIZE.
UNDER ONE OF THOSE THRESHOLDS
IT'S IT'S FAIRLY CLOSE.
BY AND SO YOU KNOW IF
CONDITIONS CHANGE.
IN THE FUTURE THEN IT COULD
POTENTIALLY INCREASE THE
LIKELIHOOD OF REACHING THAT
THRESHOLD BUT.
UNDER THE CURRENT ESTIMATES IT
THEY WOULD NOT OKAY SO TO
SUMMARIZE THE REALLY ISN'T ANY
REASON WHY WE NEED TO CREATE A
THIRD TYPE OF RESERVE ACCOUNT.
GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE CAN PUT
THIS MONEY IN THE SFE YOU
WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES THAT
ACCURATE.
BUT WHY WOULD DEFERRED TO THE
ASSEMBLY ON THE POLICY MERITS OF
THE PTSA BUT. I IT WOULD NOT
HAVE ANY IMPACTS ON THE SALES
TAX TRIGGERS UNDER THE CURRENT
REVENUE ESTIMATES A THREE. OKAY
BUT THANK YOU OF THE ARMY NOT
OBVIOUSLY I AGREE WITH I
DISAGREE WITH THE ASSEMBLIES
POSITION I DON'T THINK WE NEED A
THIRD TYPE OF RESERVE ACCOUNT
AND. I EVEN IF WE WERE TO HIT
THE TRIGGER.
AND.
WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REDUCE
THE STATE SALES TAX RATE BY A
QUARTER PERCENTAGE POINT I DON'T
THINK THAT THAT'S AN
INAPPROPRIATE ACTION FOR US TO
TAKE. ANY YEAR THAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH A NINE BILLION
DOLLAR BUDGET SURPLUS.
I THINK IT'S IT'S VERY FAIR TO
RETURN SOME OF THAT A SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF THAT. TO THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING IT AND AS
I UNDERSTAND IT IF WE WERE TO
EVER SPEND DOWN THAT MONEY AND
DRAW ON THAT RESERVE THE SALES
TAX WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GO BACK
UP. AS WE FELL BELOW THE TRIGGER
THRESHOLD IS THAT RIGHT.
THAT'S RIGHT THE ASSESSMENT IS
MADE ANNUALLY OKAY WELL MISTER
CHAIR I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY
WE NEED A THIRD TYPE OF RESERVE
ACCOUNT. ESPECIALLY IF THE
REASON FOR CREATING IT WOULD BE
TO AVOID REDUCING THE STATE
SALES TAX RATE.
THANK YOU.
SCUTTLED JOB DISCUSSED YEAH
OBVIOUSLY DEFERRED TO THE CHAIR
AND THE ASSEMBLY ON THIS BUT
JUST ONE TECHNICAL MATTER ABOUT
THE PSA THE PSA IS SOMEONE OR
SEVERAL OTHER.
.
FORMULA THAT WE HAVE IN THE
BUDGET WHICH IS THAT IS DRIVEN
OFF OF OUR REVENUE NUMBER AND SO
WE HAVE SEVERAL TRUE UPS ON THE
PSA DEPENDING ON WHERE WE LAND
WITH OUR REVENUES. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
ASSEMBLIES AND TAT THIS TO
INCLUDE THIS GUYS.
MECHANIZATION TO SEE WHAT THAT
FINAL NUMBER WOULD BE ON SO THAT
DURING THE TRUE UP WE WOULD MAKE
SURE THAT THE BSA AND NOW IS AND.
CONFORMING WITH OUR FINAL
REVENUE NUMBERS.
THANK YOU SEND MORE LOCKED THANK
YOU MISTER CHAIR SO WE HAVE.
THE BSA THE S. F. E. YOU IN SO
YOU CAN HAVE A FOUNTAIN.
APPROACH
SO WHEN YOU GET CLOSE TO THE MAX
YOU'D THEN OPEN THE THIRTY CAL.
AND SO I LIKE THE IDEA MORE
SAVING.
I THINK IT'S
SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE LOOKING
AT SO I'M.
I'M NOT NEGATIVE TO THIS IDEA SO
I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT.
IS THIS GOOD FISCAL PRUDENCE OR
IS IT A A A INDIAN RUN.
SO THAT WERE DOING WHAT THE
TAXPAYERS WANT US TO DO BUT WERE
ALSO BEING SMART BUT POWER
HANDLING OF.
A FINANCES.
I THINK ITS IT EFFORT TO
CONTINUE TO. I ENCOURAGE MORE
SAVING BY THE STATE.
SO I'M WONDERING INSTEAD OF A
THIRTY CAL.
WHY DON'T WE JUST PUT THE MONEY
INTO THE?
PENSION PLAN.
AS A PREPAYMENT WHICH WHEN YOU.
NEED THE MONEY YOU'RE JUST
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE PAYMENT
TO THE.
PENSION PLAN AT A LATER YEAR BUT
AT LEAST FOR MAKING THE WHAT
SEVEN PERCENT ON YOUR MONEY.
AND THEN YOU STILL HONOR THE
THRESHOLDS.
AGAIN AS A LEGISLATURE WE COULD
PROPOSE AND ANY PARTICULAR AYE
BUT THAT'S NOT ITEM TYPE.
BEFORE SO WE'RE DISCUSS.
YOU'RE WELCOME.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE THIRTY FIVE
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE.
BRIAN BROWN ANALYST'S OFFICE A.
THE GOVERNMENT MAY REVISION
INCLUDED JUST OVER A BILLION
DOLLARS FROM THE GENERAL FUND AS
WELL SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS FROM
THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCOUNT.
FOR DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
ACTIVITIES ACROSS THE TWENTY
PLUS DEPARTMENT.
THERE REALLY TWO ISSUES BEFORE
YOU IN CONFERENCE FIRST IS THE
FUNDING AMOUNT ITSELF. THE
SENATE APPROVED THE FULL FUNDING
PROPOSAL BY THE ADMINISTRATION
WHERE THE ASSEMBLY REDUCE THE
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT TO FIVE
HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS.
THE SECOND ISSUE IS
ACCOUNTABILITY RELATED BUDGET
BILL LANGUAGE ADOPTED BY THE
SENATE.
THE BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE WAS IN
RESPONSE TO SOME CONCERNS RAISED.
REGARDING ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSAL AND INCLUDING THAT
DESPITE THIS BEING A VERY LARGE
PROPOSAL THERE IS ACTUALLY A
LACK OF SUFFICIENT INFORMATION
ON THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS BE.
UNDERTAKEN WITH THIS BILLION
DOLLARS AS WELL AS.
SOME CONCERN THAT NOT ALL THE
PROJECTS SEEM TO BE OF THE
HIGHEST PRIORITY.
AND THAT THE PROCESS ITSELF THE
NOTIFICATION PROCESS WOULD WORK
TO THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
COMMITTEE.
WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
OPPORTUNITY FOR LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT.
SO THE BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE.
HAVE A COUPLE OF PIECES BUT
WOULD. REQUIRE MORE CLEAR
DEFINITION OF WHAT KIND OF
PROJECTS IN THE UNDERTAKEN WITH
THIS FUNDING AS WELL AS INCREASE
SOME REPORTING CRIME AS THE
LEGISLATURE.
WE RECOMMEND SORT OF A
COMPROMISE PROPOSAL GIVEN SOME
THESE CONCERNS I I SHOULD SAY WE
HAVE AT THE OFFICE. THINK THE
INEFFICIENT SHOULD BE COMMENDED
FOR. PUTTING MORE FUN AND AS
THEY'VE DONE IN SEVERAL RECENT
YEARS TOWARDS DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE AND MAINTAINING A
STATE ASSET BUT GIVEN SOME THESE
CONCERNS RAISED WE THINK AN
APPROACH OF TAKING THE ASSEMBLY
FUNDING LEVEL OF FIVE HUNDRED
FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS RATHER
THAN THE FULL BILLION. AS WELL
AS THE SENATE BUDGET BILL
LANGUAGE WOULD BE.
REGIONAL APPROACH AS WELL AS
FREE UP SOME ADDITIONAL GENERAL
FUND MONEY FOR OTHER PRIORITIES.
THANK YOU DISCUSSED.
WE SUPPORT THE SENATE AMOUNT
THAT WAS ADOPTED ON THE ISSUE OF
THE LANGUAGE WE WOULD JUST KNOW
THAT ARE PROPOSAL'S IDENTICAL ON
A TO THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS
AGREED TO AN IMPROVED AND AND
SIXTEEN SEVENTEEN. WHICH
PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING
PROVISIONS LETTUCE LEGISLATIVE
NOTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
FOR EACH DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO
ALLOCATION OF ANY FUNDS AND A
THIRTY DAY REVIEW PERIOD. FOR
COMMENTS
QUARTERLY NOTIFICATION REGARDING
ANY CHANGES TO THE INITIALLY
APPROVED DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
LESS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS.
AND THIRTY DAY PRIOR.
SEES ME THIRTY DAY NOTICE PRIOR
TO ADDING ANY PROJECT WITH
ESTIMATED COSTS GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION DOLLARS.
THANK YOU.
ETCETERA. THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
WE ACTUALLY HEARD THIS ITEM IN
THE SENATE SO.
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE
ADMINISTRATION.
.
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR WHATEVER
WE CALL OURSELVES.
THE.
.
THE SIZE OF THE OF THE THE ONE
BILLION DOLLARS OBVIOUSLY WAS OF
INTEREST WHAT WAS OF MORE
INTEREST WAS THE A CONTINUED
APPROPRIATION NATURE.
OF OF THE AS I RECALL OF THE
EXPENDITURE.
WASN'T
AND IS IN THIS A WAVES IS THE
SAME ONE THAT I HEARD WHERE YOU
HAD THE LAUNDRY LIST OF PROJECTS
WITHOUT SPECIFICITY IS IS A
DIFFERENT ONE.
CHRIS SLEEPS PARTNER FINANCE
YET THAT THIS SO FUNDING CAME
WITH THREE YEARS OF AVAILABILITY
FOR FOR THE FUNDS BUT I MEAN
THIS IS THE LAUNDRY LIST OF
PROJECTS FOR RESTORE WITH THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAN WE
MOVED DOWN. SO THERE WAS NO
SPECIFIC PROJECTS LISTED THERE
WAS NO TRIAGE IN YOUR PROJECTS.
UNLIKE WHAT WE DID IN TWENTY
SIXTEEN SEVENTEEN WHERE WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT THE SACRAMENTO
AREA PROJECTS.
WHERE WE TALKED WHERE WE SPOKE
ABOUT IT? AYE I THINK IT.
YOUR.
YOU MAY BE CONFUSING THE
PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE FUND WITH
THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
ALLOCATION ALWAYS IS DIFFERENT
SO SO THIS IS.
THE SAME APPROACH WE USE FOR
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE.
TWO YEARS AGO.
THEN MAYBE I AM TO IT'S NORMAL
AND I'M COULD WE'VE HAD THAT
WERE PROPOSALS RGARDING STATE
BUILDINGS WHICH IS I THINK WHAT
YOU'RE REFERENCING THIS IS FOR
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND OUR
PROPOSAL IS SIMILAR TO THE
APPROACH THAT WE TOOK PREVIOUSLY
WHICH ALLOWS FOR. THIRTY DAY
NOTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT
BEFORE FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED.
WELL I GUESS I COULD GET TO THE
ME SPEAK TO THE JOY THAT'S THE
JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
COMMITTEE. OKAY I'M THE ONE TO
RAISE THE ISSUE ABOUT THAT
BECAUSE AT THE TIME.
I WAS NOT TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH
THE WAY THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE
BUDGET COMMITTEE WERE I GUESS
I'M GETTING THE POINT REGARDLESS
OF WHICH ONE OF THESE IT IS WE
HEARD SEVERAL.
I WAS NOT TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH
THE WAY THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE
BUDGET COMMITTEE WORKED AT THE
TIME.
I HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN
INFORMED ABOUT THE WAY THE
PROCESS WORKS.
THE WAY THAT PROCESS WORKS
BECAUSE ALTHOUGH. IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE MODIFIED
THE NOTIFICATION PERIOD A LITTLE
BIT IN THE IN THE IN THE
LANGUAGE THAT WAS PROPOSED AND
I'M.
COMFORTABLE WITH THAT TOO.
A BECAUSE I WHAT I WANTED TO
MAKE SURE HAPPENED WAS THAT THE
JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
COMMITTEE AND ITS CHAIR WHOEVER
THAT IS AT THE TIME. HAVE THE
ABILITY TO PUT THE BRAKES ON.
PROJECTS WHEN WE WERE NOT
SPECIFICALLY INFORMED.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAGE
ING AND HAD A DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION AS TO WHICH PROJECTS
WERE PUT ON THE LIST.
AND MY NOW AM I ON THE SAME PAGE
WITH YOU WELL AS TO WHAT WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT AND SUBCOMMITTEE
YES OKAY SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE
FOR MY COLLEAGUES THAT. WE RAISE
THE ISSUE AYE MUCH LESS
CONCERNED ABOUT THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET COMMITTEE
PROCESS AT THIS POINT AND SO.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THEM.
AND FRANKLY OF WHICHEVER.
PROCESS IT IS IF WE WIND UP
WITH
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SUMMER LOCK.
SURE I.
SHE THE ASSEMBLY.
RECOMMENDATION HAS TEN MILLION.
DOLLARS OF PROPOSITION SIXTY
EIGHT FUNDS FOR AGRICULTURAL
FAIRS FOR CAL EXPO. WHICH WE
ALREADY COVERED ON THIS IS THE
ESSAY MY THEM THAT WE WERE TO
COVER.
THAT THE TEN MILLION FOR CAL
EXPO. SO SINCE WE WERE
DISCUSSING DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT.
THIS ITEM WAS ALSO JUST
MENTIONED THAT THIS IS
WE HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED THE
ITEM PREVIOUSLY BUT FEEL BUT
FEEL FREE ONE GUY JUST A CARE
JUST AS LONG AS MY THOUGHTS ON A
CLEAR FIVE.
I'M JUST CROSSED BUT MISTER
CHAIR SO.
SO THAT WE DISCUSSED THIS
EARLIER BUT WE TOOK IT WE TALK
ABOUT A CD FAA.
STUDY BACK IN TWENTY FOURTEEN
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS.
DOES ANYONE IS ANYONE HERE ABLE
TO SPEAK TO THAT STUDY.
AB JUST.
WHAT WHERE MY COLLEAGUE JOHN
MARTIN MENTIONED EARLIER SO THAT
WAS A STUDY DONE A FEW YEARS AGO
TO ASSESS THE TOTAL? ESTIMATED
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEED ACROSS
THE THE FAIRS.
I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC
NUMBERS OFF TAUGHT MY HEAD BUT.
.
THE IT WHICH WE DISCUSSED AT THE
TIME THAT THEY WERE THE SHARE OF
THAT THAT WAS PACIFIC TAKALIK
BILL AND THAT'S HOW IT CAME UP
IN THAT CONTEXT.
THE DEPARTMENT HAS INFORMED US
THAT THEY THINK THAT REPORT OF
THE LITTLE BIT OUTDATED AT THIS
TIME SO THEY PROBABLY WANT TO GO
OUT AND DO ANOTHER ASSESSMENT TO
DETERMINE WHAT THE STATE WIDE
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS ARE
AND HOW MUCH OF THAT IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO CAL EXPO. FOR
THE INFORMATION I HAVE ON THAT
STUDY WAS THAT IT WAS.
COMMISSIONED QUICKLY. THAT IT
WAS A RUSHED THROUGH THAT IT
ASKED EVERY FAIR GROUNDS FOR
JUST THREE CAPITAL PROJECTS.
AND IF THEY HAD TWO WEEKS TO
TURN IT AROUND.
SO I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION OF
DOING ANOTHER STUDY MIGHT BE
HELPFUL.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
OKAY OBSCENE NO OTHER QUESTIONS
ITEM THIRTY SIX WE'RE JUST GONNA
HAVE.
MISS COSTA PRESENT.
ABSOLUTELY I'D LIKE TO OFFER A
CONFERENCE COMPROMISE.
.
THE THE START WITH THE HISTORY
TRADING OF THE BEST A LITTLE
MORE LIKE A VERY EXCITED THIS IS
GOOD.
.
WE HAVE A PROVISION WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCES BUDGET
THAT SPECIFIES HOME BY ENTITY
THE NUMBER OF HARD COPIES THAT
WE PROVIDE OF THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET TO MULTIPLE ENTITIES
INCLUDING THE LEGISLATURE.
THE HISTORY OF THAT PROVISION IS
THAT FOR THE. TWO THOUSAND FOUR
FIVE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DID NOT
PROVIDE HARD COPIES OF THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PUBLICATION TO
THE LEGISLATURE OR LEGISLATIVE
STAFF.
INSTEAD WE PROVIDED THOSE
OFFICES WITH THE CD ROM.
THIS FORMAT CHANGE WAS.
NOT WELL RECEIVED BY THE
LEGISLATURE.
AND SO THEY ADDED PROVISIONAL
LANGUAGE REQUIRING.
SPECIFIED QUANTITIES BE
DELIVERED TO THE LEGISLATURE AND
OUR BUDGET PROVISION.
HISTORICALLY WHEN WE PROVIDED
THESE COPIES FOR THE LEGISLATURE
WE ONLY INCLUDED COPIES FOR THE
RELEVANT BUDGET STAFF.
BUT AS TIME HAS GONE ON POLICY
STAFF OF ALSO AND AND COMMITTEE
STAFF REQUESTED A HARD COPIES
RELEVANT TO THEIR ASSIGNMENTS.
AND SO WE'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT
WE ACTUALLY DELETE THIS
PROVISION IN OUR BUDGET AND WORK
WITH EACH RESPECTIVE CAUCUS TO
PROVIDE THEM WITH THE NUMBER OF
HARD COPIES THAT EACH CAUCUS
REQUEST.
BIGGEST SECOND.
SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO.
TO MY HEARING FIVE OO FIVE OO.
ON THE CONFERENCE COMPROMISE.
WE.
BOND.
UNDER THE OCEAN.
I WAVED WITH RELUCTANCE BECAUSE
I THINK IT'S ALMOST SILLY THAT
THIS ISSUE THIS ONE THING WE'RE
VOTING ON OF THE FOUR FIVE AND
NOW WE'RE. VOTE NON NUMBERS OF
DOCUMENTS BUT BY GOSH IF THE.
PEOPLE OUT THERE WATCHING THIS
MUST THINK THIS PLACE IS A
LUNATIC ASYLUM.
THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOTE
IT'S A REALLY GOOD DOCUMENT.
AND IN THAT IT WAS NOT MY CAUCUS
WHO MADE THE REQUEST FOR THE
ADDITIONAL.
COPIES OF THE BUDGET I I WON'T
RESCIND MY MOTION BUT I WILL SAY
THAT OUR SITE IS FIVE. ZERO.
WE ARE FORCED BY ZERO FOUR ZERO.
ISSUE THIRTY SEVEN PRECISION
MEDICINE LA OUT.
THAT'S THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED
THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS FOR
PRECISION MEDICINE FUNDING BOTH
HOUSES AUGMENTED THE GOVERNOR'S
THIRTY.
I TWELVE MILLION TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE YOU
SEE.
DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR
REGENERATIVE CURES.
THE SENATE'S TWELLMAN
AUGMENTATIONS NOT REFLECTED IN
YOUR AGENDA AND THAT'S BECAUSE
IT WAS TAKEN TO A DIFFERENT
AVENUE.
PACIFIC COOLEY US THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
I'D THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
ACTIONS IN THE HOUSES EYES THEIR
RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL TO CREATE A NEW
NONPROFIT INSTITUTE.
I TO ADVANCE PRECISION HEALTH
AND MEDICINE THAT WOULD.
ADMINISTER THE ADDITIONAL GRANT
FUNDS FOR FOR PRECISION PER FOR
PRECISION MEDICINE.
THE SENATE ADOPTED A MODIFIED
VERSION OF THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL.
A THE ASSEMBLY REJECTED THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO CREATE AN
INSTITUTE. AND WOOD INSTEAD HAVE
THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
ALLOCATED THROUGH THE OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND RESEARCH HAS AS HAS
BEEN DONE WITH PASSED AROUND THE
FUNDING FOR PRECISION MEDICINE.
ó WE RECOMMEND GOING WITH THE
ASSEMBLIES APPROACH WE DON'T SEE
A A COMPELLING REASON TO CREATE.
A A IN IT A NEW INSTITUTE ó
AND THERE IS SOME RISK INVOLVED
IN CREATING SENDING UP A NEW
ENTITY WITH ONE TIME FUNDING.
OTHER WHEN THE FUNDING RUNS OUT
YOU HAVE THIS ENTITY IN A BOARD
AND STAFF THAT'S BEEN
ESTABLISHED COULD GREAT SOME
FUTURE BUDGET PRESSURES.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
SUGGESTED THAT. THE PLAN WOULD
BE TO HAVE THE INSTITUTE'S
ONGOING OPERATIONS BE FUNDED
FROM PRIVATE DONATIONS.
BUT HASN'T PERFORMED ANY
EVIDENCE OR PLAN OTHER THEY
COULD.
SECURE RELIABLE PRIVATE FUNDING
TO DO SO.
THANK YOU MISS COST. THANK YOU
WOULD NOT SUPPORT EITHER HOUSES
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM WE
KNOW THAT THE SENATE SUNSET DATE
COMPLICATES LONG TERM I PLANNING
AND COMPLEX WITH THAT PERIOD OF
AVAILABILITY IN THE BUDGET
LANGUAGE FURTHER IS THE ALICE
NOTED. PART OF OUR PROPOSAL IS
THAT WE'RE CREATING A NEW
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE IN A SUNSET
DATE REALLY COMPLICATE THOUGHT
PROCESS.
WE ARE HAVE.
WE STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE ASSEMBLY ACTION THAT
INCLUDES THE UC DAVIS AYE
INSTITUTE ON MOSTLY BECAUSE I WE
HAVE A PEER REVIEW MODEL AND THE
PRECISION MEDICINE WORLD SO
WE'RE JUST NOT SURE IT'S A GOOD
MATCH.
OBVIOUSLY IT'S WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE MERITS OF THAT
PARTICULAR PROGRAM.
WE ALSO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
ASSEMBLY IS ACTION TO DENY THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTE.
ON BECAUSE.
IN RECENT HISTORY WE'VE BEEN
PROVIDED ONE TIME FUNDS FOR THIS
ACTION AND WERE REALLY PUTTING
FORTH A GOVERNANCE MODEL THAT WE
HOPE WILL INCREASE THE
SUSTAINABILITY OF PROFICIENT.
PRECISION MEDICINE GOING FORWARD
AND BETTER INTEGRATE THE
SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES I HAD
DETERMINED INTO THE HEALTHCARE
DELIVERY SYSTEM.
WITHOUT WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SIR MORLOCK.
THANK YOU MISTER CHARGES TWO
QUICK QUESTIONS THE FIRST IS.
IT'S IT UNDER ISSUE THIRTY SEVEN
PRECISION MEDICINE
IT SAYS SECRETARY OF STATE AND
I'M JUST WONDERING.
WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN?
THE TYPE OF.
ALL QUE I WIN.
I'M SECOND QUESTION IS.
BACK IN TWO THOUSAND FOR THE
VOTERS APPROVED PROPOSITION
SEVENTY ONE WHICH WAS THE
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR.
REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IT WAS.
.
ACRONYM ASCII R. M. TERM.
AND THEY ISSUED THREE BILLION IN
BONDS.
TO DO.
.
STEM CELL RESEARCH AND THEY
BROUGHT IT UP JUST BUT I THINK
THAT NOW WE SHOULD ALL THAT ALL
THE BONDS BUT.
BUT THEY'D GOTTEN NO MONEY
LITERALLY NO MONEY MAYBE A
HUNDRED SEVEN NINE THOUSAND. IN
ROYALTIES RESIDUALS AT TO PAY
DOWN THAT DEBT SO I THINK IN.
THIS YEAR'S BUDGET WE MIGHT BE
SEEING A PAYMENT OF SOME SEVEN
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS JUST TO
PAY. ON THIS PARTICULAR BOND
THAT'S NOW BEING UNDERWRITTEN BY
THE TAXPAYER SO. I I'M I'M JUST
WONDERING WHY WE'RE HERE WHY DID
INSERM.
YOU KNOW PROVIDE THE RESEARCH
WE'VE ALREADY INVESTED THREE
BILLION OR PAINT SIX BILLION.
TO PAY IT OFF.
EITHER THE GENERAL FUND AND I
JUST I. I I'M JUST LIKE KINDA
JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
WHAT'S GOING ON.
THANK YOU.
YOU'RE WELCOME.
REYES TAXPAYER DOLLARS A LOT OF
MONEY IN IT ANYBODY ORDER TAKER.
SKINNER MOVED TO.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING
OUR BOND FUNDS OBVIOUSLY
PRECISION MEDICINE AND WE'VE HAD.
OF SEVERAL RECENT BUDGET FOR
THEIR ONE TIME DOLLARS A THINK
ANY TIME I WHICH USED TO PROVIDE
LEGISLATIVE AUGMENTATIONS ARE
THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES
FUNDING FOR RESEARCH. THEIR
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU KNOW THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THAT YOU
GENERATED FROM THOSE ENDEAVORS
ALMONDS I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE
PRECISION MEDICINE A SEPARATE
APART FROM SOME OF THE RESEARCH
PROPOSALS WE HEARD EARLIER IN
THE AGENDA.
I DON'T CARE MANAGERS.
MISTER CHAIRMAN OF THIS IS A
CORE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE DOING WITH
GOVERNMENT FUNDS.
IT IN TERMS OF WHAT I'M SORRY
MAMA WHAT IT WILL.
WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF
DOING THIS SO I'M.
WONDER WHY WERE WERE FUNDING
THIRTY MILLION IN THE GOVERNOR'S.
A PROPOSAL AND AND AND FORTY TWO
MILLION THE ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL. I
DON'T GET IT I DON'T.
WHERE WERE NOT JUST AS A FREE
MARKETPLACE?
TRYING TO FIND CURES AND AND DO
THINGS BUT I I DON'T SEE WHY
WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ESPECIALLY
WHEN WE'VE. SENSIBLE FOR
THIRTEEN YEARS WE'VE GOT AN
EXAMPLE OF HOW.
WHAT WE'VE GOTTEN THAT THEY'D
NOTHING FOR THREE BILLION?
DOLLARS PLUS INTEREST.
MAYBE A MAKING.
MAYBE I'M MAKING AN ARGUMENT.
AGAINST THIS BUT I. I'M JUST
TRYING TO. GET AN ANSWER OF OF
WHY ARE WE IN THAT SWEETNESS
COSTS GO TO TRY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS
SO MAYBE SOMEONE GIVE ME A
REPORT I APOLOGIZE MISTER CHAIR
I DON'T KNOW POLITICS.
I I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THIS IS A CORE FUNCTION OF
GOVERNMENT EVERY NOTE THAT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IS A
CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED
ENTITY. AND THAT ONE OF THEIR
CORE MISSIONS IS THE CREATION OF
NEW KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS AFFECTION
WAITED THROUGH RESEARCH.
SENATE MITCHELL.
I THINK I WAS GOING TO CITE THE
EXAMPLE OF THE UNIVERSE OF
CALIFORNIA ALSO ALSO THE BREAST
CANCER RESEARCH FUND. THAT
OPERATES OUT OF OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT DEBTS
ANYWAY SO I'M I'M I'M I'M
CURIOUS ABOUT.
YOUR PROPOSAL MISS COSTA AND SO
IF YOU CAN THAT SO THE CREATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE TO
ADVANCE PRECISION HEALTH AND
MEDICINE.
IS AN EXPECTATION THAT WOULD
HAVE ON GOING PUBLIC.
DOLLARS.
JUST OUR DEPARTMENT FINANCE A
NOTE THE EXPECTATION IS THAT
THEY IT IS A NONPROFIT ENTITY
AND.
WOULD BE.
OPERATED OR OPERATIONAL BASED
ON A PRIVATE DONATIONS GOING
FORWARD WE DID INCLUDE LANGUAGE
THAT ALLOWS FOR.
UNSPENT FUNDS TO DATE TO BE.
CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE
INSTITUTE IN THE EARLY YEARS OF
STANDING UP BUT IT'S ENVISIONED
TO BE KIND OF A A SELF
SUSTAINING.
PRE COMPETITIVE SPACE FOR IDEAS
TO COME TOGETHER. AND SO YOUR
ISSUE WITH THE SENATE PROPOSAL
IS BECAUSE IT INCLUDES A SUNSET.
CORRECT WHICH IS ALSO.
CREATES A NONPROFIT SPINOFF
CORRECT.
CORRECT THE THE CONCERN WITH THE
SENATE PROPOSAL IS THE SUNSET
DATE AND I'M EVEN MORE
SPECIFICALLY THE SUNSET DATE.
COMING BEFORE THE END OF
AVAILABILITY OF THE THE FUNDS
THEMSELVES
YEAH.
THANK YOU.
ETCETERA.
WELL YOU KNOW.
WE HEARD THIS TO AND PERHAPS
AND CONFUSED ABOUT THIS ONE AS
WELL BUT.
I I'VE WAS NEVER INITIALLY A
SUPPORTER OF PRECISION MEDICINE
IS THOSE I'VE BEEN CONVINCED THAT IT'S I
GUESS HERE TO STAY. MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE OF THIS
PROPOSAL. IS THAT THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO GET THIS.
S. THING.
STANDING UP ON ITS OWN.
A AND THEN MOVING OFF OF THE.
PUBLIC PAYROLL SO TO SPEAK AND
INTO THE MAINSTREAM SO THAT IT
CAN SOLICIT.
A PRIVATE DONATIONS TO FURTHER
THIS RESEARCH WHICH FRANKLY IS
WHERE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE AYE.
I HAVE BECOME A CONVERT ON THE.
ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATE
SOME HOUSE AND SOMETIMES NEEDS
TO SEED RESEARCH AND. I BECOME A
CONVERT ON PRECISION MEDICINE I
DO THINK THERE'S.
THIS SEED MEDICINE SHOULD BE
ENOUGH AND HOPEFULLY THIS
INSTITUTE WILL STAND UP ON ITS
OWN. I'M I'M I AM CONVINCED I'M
HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I'M A LITTLE
CONFUSED ON THE SUNSET DATE
MYSELF AT THIS POINT SO. WE
SHOULD PROBABLY TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT DURING THE THE CONFERENCE
PROCESS.
THANK YOU MISTER BOB.
THANK YOU.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SO. ON.
JUST JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE
LOGIC TO CREATE A. NEW INSTITUTE
YOU HAVE THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA THAT ALREADY HAS BEEN
ADMINISTERING.
THESE FUNDS.
THEY SEEMED FULLY EQUIPPED WITH
MANAGING THESE FUNDS AS WELL AS
DOING THE RESEARCH COULD YOU.
HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT
PROBLEM HAS ARISEN THAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO SOLVE TO CREATE A.
COMPLETELY NEW BUREAUCRACY TO
MANAGE THESE FUNDS.
I THINK UP A LOT OF IT REALLY
GOES TOWARDS.
CREATING A SELF SUSTAINING.
ENVIRONMENT GOING FORWARD WHERE
THIS CAN CONTINUE BEYOND ONE
TIME.
ONETIME AUGMENTATIONS AND I
THINK. TO DATE I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ON SOME
OF THE.
RESEARCH PROJECTS AND THE ON
ONE TIME.
AUGMENTATIONS THAT WE'VE DONE A
ONE TIME FUNDING HAS BEEN MET
WITH PRIVATE DONATIONS IN AND.
MATCHES SO WE DO THINK THAT
THERE IS SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN
A FUNDING THIS FROM ALTERNATIVE
SOURCES SOURCES ON AN ONGOING
BASIS AND THINK THAT THERE'S A.
SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO CALIFORNIA
TO IT TO DOING SO.
UT YOU HAVE PHAM.
A SITUATION WE HAVE THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ALREADY.
ON.
RAISES FUNDS GETS AUGMENTATIONS.
THEY ALSO QUITE.
USE TO RAISING ADDITIONAL MONEY
FOR THEIR.
FURTHER RESEARCH TO WHY HAVE A
NEW BUREAUCRACY VERSUS JUST
LEAVING IT WITH THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA. UNLESS IT DOES IT
WOULD SEEM TO BE. AND NOT THE
BEST USE OF A START UP FUNDS.
I THINK.
IN ADDITION.
IT GOES BACK TO A LITTLE OF
WHAT OF WHAT WE MENTION IN TERMS
OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
NONPROFIT ENTITY AND THE.
ABILITY TO BRING.
TOGETHER IDEAS.
THIS IS.
REALLY AN AREA WHERE.
THERE'S A LOT OF COMPETITION IN
TERMS OF CONSTANTLY.
INNOVATING AND.
WE THINK THAT THIS NONPROFIT
ENTITY AND THAT STRUCTURE WILL
FACILITATE THE SHARING OF IDEAS
ACROSS DIFFERENT ON HEALTH
INDUSTRIES. ON. AND CREATE THAT
THAT SELF SUSTAINING MODEL.
I AM I AM JUST NO I THINK WE
WERE TRYING TO REFLECT SOME OF
THE ON GOING DISCUSSIONS WE'VE
HAD WITH THE LEGISLATURE EVERY
YEAR I'VE BEEN IN CONFERENCE
THIS IS BEEN ONE OF THE ISSUES
THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED AND SO WE
REALLY WANTED TO LOOK AT NEW.
GOVERNANCE MODEL
ON THAT WOULD TAKE IT OUT OF OUT
IN THE STATE.
I'D KNOW THAT I'M IN THE TIME
WE'VE PROVIDED FUNDING FOR
PRECISION MEDICINE MEDICINE THEY
HAVE MADE FINDINGS IN THE AREAS
OF CHILDHOOD CANCER ACUTE
INFECTIOUS DISEASES.
HYPERTENSION DEPRESSION PROSTATE
CANCER GENETIC DISORDERS
DRAMATIC BRAIN INJURY STROKE
HEART DISEASE AND MULTIPLE
SCLEROSIS.
SO THE WORK THEY'RE DOING IS
REALLY INNOVATIVE AND WE'D LIKE
TO CONTINUE IT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK I
MEAN THE UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA'S
IN CONFERENCE EVERY YEAR TO. IS.
THE DEPARTMENT GONNA PROPOSE
SPINNING OFF A GOOD CHUNK OF THE
UNIVERSITY INTO A PRIVATE
NONPROFIT TO DO RESEARCH IS THAT
WHERE WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS.
MY POINT SIMPLY WAS THAT WE ARE
TRYING TO REFLECT WHAT WE HEARD
AND CONFERENCE WHICH WAS AND.
AND UNCOMFORTABLE LESS WITH IT
BEING WITHIN A STATE ENTITY AND
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED THIS
NEW GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE.
SENATE MITCHELL.
I AS YOU REYES OF THE ROLE OF
YOU SEE I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE
ADMIN RATE IF WHAT YOU THINK THE
ADMIN RIGHT WOULD BE FOR THIS
NEW ORGANIZATION. AND PREPARE TO
ADD ME RIGHT FOR YOU SEE WHEN
THEY DO THESE.
INDIVIDUALIZED RESEARCH.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT SENATOR
MITCHELL BUT WE'LL GET BACK TO
WITH THE COMPARISON THANK.
ETCETERA.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE ANSWER HIS
QUESTIONS SO I'LL ASK YOU TO
HOPEFULLY IT'S AN INTELLIGENT
ONE. WITH RESPECT TO THE OF THIS
WAS ADMINISTERED.
OUT OF FOAM THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH.
SO THE.
THE GRANT AWARDS WERE THEY JUST
TO UC INSTITUTIONS IN THE PASTOR
OF THE GOING TO WHERE THEY'VE
BEEN ISSUED.
TWO OTHER. ENTITIES.
DO YOU KNOW CENTER I BELIEVE THE
THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE ROUNDS OF
FUNDING I THINK AS YOU RECALL.
AB TWO ROUNDS OF TEN MILLION
DOLLARS THE FIRST ROUND WAS ALL
TO YOU SEE I BELIEVE IN THE
SECOND ROUND INCLUDED YOU SEE
AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS.
WHICH OF COURSE I MEAN I'M NOT
AN ADVOCATE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
FOR THIS OBVIOUSLY BUT THAT
COULD. MITIGATE TOWARD
ESTABLISHING A NONPROFIT SO THAT
ELIMINATES THE.
CONCERN THAT UC'S SIMPLY
FUNDING UC'S OWN RESEARCH
EFFORTS AND NOT THE EFFORTS OF
OTHER. OF PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS
THAT YOU KNOW COULD PERHAPS
FURTHER THE. BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
IN THIS EFFORT. A IF I MAY
MISTER CHAIRMAN JUST ASK ONE
OTHER QUESTION ON THE NOT IS
THIS IS THIS THE CREATION OF
THIS NONPROFIT INSTITUTE IS IS
TRULY A NONPROFIT IT'S NOT ONE
OF THESE STATE QUASE I.
ORGANIZATIONS ISN'T.
AND IF THE ANSWER IS NO.
I'M CLIP OF THE REASON I AM
CONFUSED ABOUT THE SUNSET IS I'M
NOT EXACTLY HOW WE SUNSET A
CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION.
THEY'RE PROBABLY A FEW THAT WE
COULD WORK ON BUT.
IT IS A NON PROFIT AND THE
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE ATTACHED
TO THE PROPOSAL.
ALSO INCLUDES AN A AD ABOARD
OVERSIGHT WITH THE AND DIRECTOR
OF THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
RESEARCH SERVING ON THE BOARD
AND I AM. ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
APPOINTED BY THE LEGISLATURE BUT
IT IS ENVISIONED AS A NON PROFIT.
NO I SEE I SEE HOW WE. SUNSET IT
THEN WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO BE OF
THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE
IS GOING TO BE APPOINTING THE
BOARD.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU SAID I THINK I AM. MY
AND MY CONCERN WITH THE PROPOSAL
THAT STRUCTURE IS. GIVEN THE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF RESEARCH
THAT THE UNIVERSITY CURRENTLY
DOES THROUGH A VARIETY OF ITEMS
MANY OF THEM IN THE SCIENCE AREA.
AYE IT'S.
NOT CLEAR TO ME WHY THIS
PARTICULAR ITEMS GETTING SPUN
OFF AND WHY NOT OTHER ITEMS.
PERHAPS.
IF THIS IS AN AREA OF INTEREST
LEGISLATURE IT WE SHOULD BE.
TAKING A MORE THOROUGH REVIEW OF
ALL SCIENCE RESEARCH WITHIN THE
UNIVERSITY WHICH IS BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IF THERE IS A CONCERN
OUT OF MINISTRY OF STRUCTURE
WHAT. WHAT I WOULD SAY OR JUST
ARMY ENCOURAGE THE DEPARTMENT TO
TAKE A LOOK AT IS AT THE
UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA SAN
FRANCISCO THERE IS A MODEL
CALLED QB THREE IT'S BEEN VERY
VERY SUCCESSFUL? ITEM BEEN
EMBRACED BY THE OUR PRIVATE
SECTOR YET REMAINS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF HAS. A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF AUTONOMY AYE DOCTOR
REG KELLY'S BEEN IN CHARGE OF IT
AND IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT THAT
MODEL IF YOU IF YOU ACTUALLY
VISITED AND MANY LEGISLATORS.
HAVE HAVE VISITED ON THE SPACE
IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A TYPICAL
A LABORATORY THAT LOOKS MUCH
LIKE A TIME INCUBATOR IN OUR
PRIVATE SECTOR BIOTECH
ENVIRONMENT IT'S BEEN EMBRACED
BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. BUT YET
HAS A VERY LEAN AND MEAN ON
ADMINISTRATIVE ARM FUNCTION
WHICHIS WHY I THINK IT'S ALSO
BEEN EXTRAORDINARILY SUCCESSFUL
YET. ON HOUSE OF MUCH OF THE
TOWN.
SECURITY OF THE UNIVERSITY AND
HAS BEEN ABLE TO REALLY THRIVE
SUCH SPINS REALLY SEEN AS A
MODEL. AND.
BIOTECH SPACE AS A.
VERY STRONG.
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT
I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE I
REALLY. BLEW LOOK TO THAT AS
POTENTIAL MODEL RATHER THAN A
WHOLE NEW. BUREAUCRATIC CON
FUNCTION.
THEN WITHOUT WILL MOVE TO ISSUE
THIRTY EIGHT CENTS US ARMY.
AND THE SENATOR BAUCUS IS NOT
SECRETARY OF STATE IS ANOTHER
TYPE OF.
IF YOU CAN HEAR ME.
SEC SENATOR MORE LIKE OUR
JUSTICE A THERE'S A TYPO ON THIS
ONE AS WELL.
ISSUE THIRTY.
THE IT'S ALSO NOT SECRETARY OF
STATE.
LA HEALTH CARE LAUNCHER AT THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE OF
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED.
FORTY MILLION DOLLARS I GENERAL
FUND.
FOUR SENSES OUT REACH FOR THE
COMPLETE CAO COMMITTEE OVER
THREE YEARS.
I THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE BOTH
AUGMENTED THESE AMOUNTS ARE
SPECIFICALLY ASSEMBLY ADOPTED A
HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE MILLION.
POINT A HUNDRED FIFTY THREE
POINT THREE MILLION FOR SENSE AS
I REACH OVER THREE YEARS THE
ASSEMBLY ALSO INCLUDED OF
REPORTING LANGUAGE REGARDING THE
COMPLETE CAO COMMITTEES
ACTIVITIES.
INCLUDING.
A LANGUAGE ACCESS STRATEGY.
THE SENATE ADOPTED A HUNDRED
AND THIRTY FIVE POINT THREE
MILLION OVER THREE YEARS BUT DID
NOT INCLUDE ANY REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
THANK YOU MISS COST.
THIS IS A GENERAL FUND
LEGISLATIVE AUGMENTATION WE
DON'T SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU ARE TO THE COMMITTEE.
OKAY SEE.
SEE KNOW OUR COMMENTS ISSUE
THIRTY NINE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
WILDFIRE DEGREE MISTER CHAIR.
I'D SO REMARKABLE RESEARCH.
AND.
THE AT THE NINETEEN NINETY
CENSUS ACTUALLY COST THE STATE I
THINK OVER TWO BILLION.
IN UNDER CAL ARTS AND SO I WAS
ASKING A QUESTION WOULD AND I.
SWELLED UP PLEASE PASS THAT
ALONG NO I I THINK I THINK YOUR
ON.
CONCERT IS VERY WELL HEELED AND
I THINK THAT'S WHY. WE ARE ON.
TRY TO DETERMINE THEIR. ADEQUATE
AMOUNT OF FUNDING I THINK COME.
WILL HAVE A LOT AT STAKE IF OUR
POPULATION IS UNDER COUNTED
WHETHER IT'S IN TERMS OF.
REPRESENTATION HOUSE
REPRESENTATIVES WHAT THERE'S
THROUGH ALL THE FORMULAS A
FEDERAL FUNDING DO YOU THINK WE
COULDN'T BE.
AND MORE AND MORE AGREEMENT
WITH US SO WE ARE TRYING TO
DETERMINE HOW BEST TO ENSURE
THAT THERE IS AN ACCURATE COUNT.
THERE WAS A REPORT THAT CAME OUT
IN NINETEEN NINETY THAT WERE
REFERRED TO THE NINETEEN NINETY
CENSUS AND.
MADE OF ARE UP A PRETTY DETAILED
ANALYSIS OF HOW MUCH THE STATE
LOST IN FUNDING BY THE
UNDERCOUNT SO I.
I JUST.
IT'S CRITICALLY WHAT WHAT'S THE
COST BENEFIT RATIO AND AND
THEY'RE GOING TO BE A SIZEABLE.
THAT THAT THE THE BENEFITS ARE
ON.
VERY LARGE AND I THINK WE'RE
TRYING TO DETERMINE THAT.
ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF FUNDING
REALLY BASED ON.
.
HOW MUCH MONEY COULD WILL BE
PLACED IN?
HOW MUCH EFFORT COULD BE
ACTUALLY EXECUTED FOR MAKING
SURE THAT THE MONIES PROPERLY
SPENT BUT YOU'RE YOU'RE UPSET
RIGHT THAT THE STAKES? IN THE
COST BENEFIT ARE ARE HUGE.
WITHOUT THE DEPARTMENT FILE TYPE
AWAY OWN ISSUE THIRTY NINE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRE
DEBRIS.
WHENEVER YOU ARE READY.
BRIAN BROWN ANALYST'S OFFICE
ISSUE THIRTY NINE IS A PROPOSAL
FOR FIVE POINT FIVE MILLION FROM
THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER LOCAL
SHARE OF COSTS FOR DEBRIS
REMOVAL FOLLOWING THE DECEMBER
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES.
.
THE IT WORTH NOTING THAT MAY
REVISION INCLUDED TWENTY NINE
MILLION DOLLARS FOR SIMILAR
COVERING OF LOCAL COST SHARED
FOR THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
WILDFIRES OF THIS WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH THAT THOUGH. ON
HISTORICALLY THE STATE DOESN'T
ALWAYS
A COVER THESE BECAUSE IT DOES
SOUND OF A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
THANK YOU MISS COSTA. THINK AT
THE TIME OF DEVELOPING THE MAY
REVISE AYE THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA COUNTIES THAT WERE
IMPACTED BY THE DECEMBER WILD
FIRES AND MUD SLIDES HAD NOT YET
REQUESTED A WAIVER OF THEIR
LOCAL SHARE OF COSTS THAT WE
DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTIMATE. WE NOW
KNOW THE LATEST ESTIMATE OF THE
LOCAL COSTA SHARE FOR THESE
COMMUNITIES IS APPROXIMATELY
FIVE POINT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS.
ESTIMATES ARE STILL SUBJECT TO
SOME UNCERTAINTY AS WE MAKE OUR
WAY THROUGH THE FEDERAL
REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS.
AND ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNOR'S MAY
REVISION WE DO SUPPORT INCLUDING
THESE COST.
SO WE'RE HEARING ANOTHER
CONFERENCE COMPROMISE.
WE WERE GOING TO GET OUT. YES
FIDO. ABOUT FIVE FIVE OO FIVE OO
THANK YOU.
WITH THAT WILL MOVE TO. ISSUE
FORTY OTHER INVESTMENTS.
BEN JOHNSON WITH THE LA JOH.
THIS ITEM HAS AN ASSORTMENT OF
IN AN ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS
I'LL RUN THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE
A THE ASSEMBLY APPROVED UP
ONGOING FUNDING TO INCREASE
PEDIATRIC DAY HEALTH CARE RATES.
ARE ON THE SENATE SIDE THERE.
THEY USE PROPOSITION FIFTY SIX
FUNDING TO INCREASE TARA PROVIDE
A SAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF FUNDING
FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS AND UP
THAT WOULD BE ON AN ON GOING
BASIS ACCORDING TO THE SENATE'S
ACTION.
NEXT THIS THE ASSEMBLY PROVIDED
SIX MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE
FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE PROGRAM.
THE SENATE TOOK NO ACTION ON
THIS ITEM AND THEN THE ASSEMBLY.
ADOPTED FOSTER PARENT RETENTION
AND RECRUITMENT.
TRAILER BILL WE ACTUALLY COVER
THIS ISSUE EARLIER IN ISSUE
TWENTY NINE I BELIEVE.
IT'S RELATED AT LEAST THIS
TRAILER BILL THAT WAS APPROVED
BY THE ASSEMBLY.
WOULD EXPAND WHAT THE ALLOWABLE
USES OF THE FUNDING SOMEWHAT.
AND PROVIDE GOD PROVIDE SOME
CHANGES FOR.
THE PERIOD THIS A CITY FAR I
HOW OFTEN COUNTIES ACTUALLY HAVE
TO SUBMIT PLANS AND SO FORTH FOR
SPENDING THE FUNDING.
AYE SENATE DID NOT APPROVE
TRAILER BILL ON THAT ITEM WOULD
WOULD YOU ALSO LIKE ME TO RUN
THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL
INVESTMENTS THERE NODDING
CONFERENCE BUT THERE NOTED IN
THE STAFF COMMENTS AS ISSUES FOR
DISCUSSION.
ADVOCATE BY THAT SHOT REPUBLIC.
OKAY FIRST.
THE.
THERE A PROPOSAL WOULD FOOT
PROVIDE THREE MILLION DOLLARS
FOR THE WORK WORKING WARDROBES
PROGRAM I BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR
VETERANS. NEXT.
PROVIDE TWO POINT SEVEN MILLION
DOLLARS FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
VERTICAL PROSECUTION THEN I'LL
TURN OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR
THE OTHER ITEM.
I THINK YOU KENNETH COUPON WITH
THE ANALYST'S OFFICE ALSO THE
LARGEST ITEM. THAT IS TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION IN ONE
TIME PROPOSITION NINETY EIGHT
FUNDING TO HELP SCHOOL DISTRICTS
HIGHER AND RETAIN SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGISTS.
AND I TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT.
MORE DETAIL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE
IT IS THE LARGEST PROPOSAL.
SO THOSE ADDITIONAL
PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE WOULD BE
INTENDED TO ENGAGE IN A VARIETY
OF ACTIVITIES RANGING FROM
PROVIDING ADDITIONAL COUNSELING
AND THERAPY FOR STUDENTS HELPING
FAMILIES ENGAGE WITH TEACHERS.
AT THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION WOULD ADMINISTER THOSE.
FUNDS AS A COMPETITIVE GRANT.
THAT THIS ITEM WILL BE PART OF
YOUR OVERALL PROPOSITION NINETY
EIGHT PACKAGE.
SO JUST A FEW THINGS YOU MIGHT
WANT TO CONSIDER. A FIRST IT'S A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OVER
CURRENT SPENDING LEVELS I
DISTRICTS NOT TODAY SPEND ABOUT
EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION
PER YEAR IN SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST
SO THIS WOULD BE ABOUT A THIRTY
PERCENT INCREASE ON A ONE TIME
BASIS.
THE PROPOSAL I SINCE IT IS FOR
ONE TIME FINDS YOU MIGHT WANT TO
THINK ABOUT WAYS TO STRETCH THAT
FUNDING OVER MULTIPLE YEARS.
THAT COULD INCLUDE PERHAPS
CLARIFYING THAT FUNDING I
DISTRICTS COULD DRIVE DOWN OVER
MULTIPLE YEARS A PERHAPS
REQUIRING A PLAN FOR DISTRICTS
TO RETAIN THOSE.
ADDITIONAL HIRES AFTER THE
GRANT HANDS.
AND THEN FINALLY YOU MIGHT WANNA
THINK ABOUT INCLUDING.
IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC GOALS
AFTER THE GRANTS TO INCLUDE
THOSE IN YOUR AND.
IMPLEMENTING LANGUAGE SO IF YOU
WANTED A DISTRICTS TO REALLY
PRIORITIZE A DISTANT MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELING HE MIGHT WANNA
INCLUDE THAT IN THE.
PLANTING LANGUAGE
I WITH THAT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS
I THINK YOU MISS CONSTANTLY.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN A
TACKLE MY COMMENTS BY FUNDS
SOURCE AMONGST THE PROPOSAL'S
I'LL START WITH THE PEDIATRIC
DAY HEALTH CARE RE INCREASE. THE
SENATE APPROVED EIGHT MILLION
PROP FIFTY SIX FOR THIS PURPOSE.
FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD WE WOULD
NOTE THAT WE THINK THAT COSTS
ARE UNDER ESTIMATED ON THAT AND
SENATE'S ACTION. IN WE BELIEVE
THEM TO BE APPROXIMATE FOUR
POINT NINE MILLION IN EIGHTEEN
NINETEEN AND TEN POINT EIGHT
MILLION AYE IN TWENTY ONE TWENTY
TWO.
I WOULD NOTE ON THAT SAME ITEM
ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE ON THE
UTILIZED.
AT WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE
ESTIMATE AS WELL WHICH IS WE
BELIEVE THAT ON THE ASSEMBLY
ACTION THE COSTS ARE UNDERSTATED
BY FOUR POINT NINE MILLION AND
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN. AND SIX POINT
EIGHT MILLION A AND TWENTY ONE
TWENTY TWO.
FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE A A IS A
GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATION WE
DON'T SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
THE FOSTER PARENT RETENTION
RECRUITMENT AND SUPPORT AGAIN
IT'S A GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATION
WE DON'T SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
THE WORKING WARDROBE PROGRAM
ANOTHER GENERAL FUND
AUGMENTATION WE DON'T SUPPORT AT
THIS TIME AND THEN LASTLY THE
HUMAN TRAFFICKING VERTICAL
PROSECUTION.
THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION
WE DON'T SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
LASTLY FOR THE SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGIST PROPOSAL AGAIN THAT
WOULD BE A CONFORMING ACTION
WITHIN THE FINAL PROP NINETY
EIGHT PACKAGE.
THANK YOU.
AND NOT TO THE COMMITTEE AND.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
SENATOR MORLOCK.
I I YOU KNOWS A COUNTY
SUPERVISOR FOR YEARS AT THE
SENATE MUCH WITH A FRIEND AT
LIVE PROGRAM I I WONDER IF IT'S.
CANISTER DIPS PURPOSE IN.
I CAL LIKE IF YOU SOME.
SUPPORT.
ARE SOME STUDY THAT WOULD
SUPPORT CONTINUING ITS I AGREE
WITH THE.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
FRIDAY NIGHT I
SENATOR MITCHELL.
IF YOU HAD HAS IT NOT
HISTORICALLY BEEN PAID FOR BY
YOU KNOW LOCAL EITHER CEDAR
COUNTY PARK REC DEPARTMENT
THROUGH THE STATE EVER.
FUNDED FREDDIE MAC Y..
THERESA COLOR DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND BASED ON THE
INFORMATION WE WERE ABLE TO FIND
A FEDERAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND
PREVENTION TREATMENT GRANT DID
FUND IT IN ABOUT ONE POINT ONE
MILLION. FOR A FEW YEARS BETWEEN
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN FIFTEEN TO.
TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN SEVENTEEN
TO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO FIND FOR
HISTORICAL TWENTY.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD NOTE ON
THIS ITEM IF I'M READING UP
PROPERLY IS THAT IT'S OPERATE ON
BEHALF OF THE PARTICIPATING
COUNTIES TO THE TULARE COUNTY
OFFICE OF EDUCATION. UTILIZING
THE LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY DOES
MAKE ELIGIBLE FOR PROP NINETY
EIGHT FUNDS.
THANK YOU.
CENTER ON A MISTER CHAIR ON THE
SCHOOLS SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST A
CATEGORICAL PROGRAM.
IS IS THIS REQUEST BASED ON A
STUDY THE OF A NEED FOR
ADDITIONAL.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS AND IS IS
IS THE TWO HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION
TIED TO OF.
PARTICULAR.
SHORTFALL IN SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
GENESIS OF THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT
OF THAT EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY
MILLION SCHOOL DISTRICTS
CURRENTLY SPEND. MOST OF IT IS
RELATED TO SERVICES FOR STUDENTS
TO HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC
DISABILITY AT THE RECEIVING AT
THROUGH STATE FEDERAL LAWS THAT
REQUIRE. DISTRICTS TO SERVE
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES.
THE MOTIVATION FOR THIS
PROPOSAL WAS TO EXPAND SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGIST SERVICES TO
STUDENTS IN GENERAL EDUCATION
WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC
DISABILITY BUT COULD STILL
BENEFIT FROM THOSE SERVICES I
DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A
SPECIFIC.
.
STUDY BEYOND THAT MOTIVATIONAL
SO WE WE DO SO WE DON'T HAVE A
REPORT THAT SAYS WE'RE SHORT.
THREE HUNDRED SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THAT EQUATES TO
TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS OR.
WE'RE SHORT FIVE HUNDRED IN THAT
EQUATES TO FIVE HUNDRED MILLION
THOUGH I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
OF HIS A CORRELATION BETWEEN THE
DOLLARS AND.
A DOCUMENTED I'M SURE THERE'S A
NEED.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC
STUDY ON THAT BASIS THIS IS A
MEMBER S..
HAD THAT'S RIGHT THIS IS COMING
FROM THE ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN
CAUCUS I SEE OKAY THANK YOU
MISTER
.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER.
COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK.
OKAY.
SO I'LL WITH THAT WE ARE GOING
TO FEW JOURNEY TODAY AND GET
READY FOR TOMORROW I JUST IN
TERMS OF. A HOUSE KEEPING I
THINK THAT THE GOAL. AYE IS OUR
OUR BUDGET STAFF
WILL BE ARE WORKING TO PREPARE
THE CONFERENCE AGENDA FOR
TOMORROW.
THE GOAL WORLD TO BE A TO GET
THE AGENDA ITEMS OUT TO
EVERYBODY HOPEFULLY EITHER LATE
TONIGHT OR FIRST THING TOMORROW
MORNING.
WE WANT TO ALLOW PLENTY OF TIME
FOR DISCUSSION IN BRIEFING WITH
IN.
EVERYONE'S SOUND.
CAUCUSES AND WITH THE IDEA THAT
WE WILL PROBABLY CONVENE
RECONVENE AS A CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE PROBABLY LATE IN THE
AFTERNOON TOMORROW AND OBVIOUSLY
IF THINGS. THE EXCHANGE OF
PEOPLE THE MORE TIME YOU CAN
FEEL FREE TO LET OUR STAFF NOW.
BUT THAT IS LOCAL.
SENATOR MOCK.
ARE WE MEETING ON FRIDAY AS WELL.
I THINK THE HOPE IS THAT WE CAN.
GO THROUGH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
AND.
WE USUALLY END UP BY MEETING
LATE INTO THE NIGHT AND I THINK
THAT TO THAT THE GOAL BE THAT
WE'LL SEE HOW FAR WE CAN GET TO
MARK.
NOW WE VOTING TOMORROW.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE OUT.
OKAY.
ANON THE VERY I DIFFER NOT THAT
DIFFERENT ITEMS PASS
SORRY DID LIKE.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT. OUR FOR
FEET HIM WHAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT
OF US AND SO IT'S A LITTLE GREAT
SITE.
POSTERS FOR ASKING QUESTIONS BUT
NO NO NO NO DON'T KNOW POINT
JUST REPRESSIONS. I'M GOING TO
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS BEST AS
I CAN AS WELL.
YEAH I DON'T I DON'T MIND I'VE
WAS FLEXIBLE LAST YEAR YEAH
ABSOLUTELY SO I'M JUST TRYING TO
YES.
MANAGE MY TIME APPROPRIATELY SO
WE MEET TOMORROW AFTERNOON COULD
GO TELL NINE O'CLOCK.
OR EVEN LATER I MEAN I THINK THE
LAST COUPLE YEARS WE'D.
GONE VERY LATE A VERY BUT AT
LEAST BOTH YEARS LAST YEARS. WE
HAVE GONE BOTH FLEW VERY LATE
INTO THE EVENING SUBCULTURES ARE
PROVIDING PEACHES.
OR WHATEVER I HAD IN MIND. AYE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAN THAT
AND THAT'S.
SO.
AND AGAIN IF YOU FOR LIKE IF
THERE'S ANY.
ISSUES CONCERNS PREFER LET MY
STUFF NOW OKAY THANK YOU.
WE ARE ADJOURNED