Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Reminder: Per our by-laws Leadership Group meetings are confidential Working Council May 5, 2016 Brocade 130 Holger Way, Bldg. 120, Room IMC 2, San Jose, CA 95134
DRAFT AGENDA
7:30 a.m. Coffee & Conversation 8:00 a.m. Call to Order & Meeting Confidentiality Reminder
Welcome to new Member Company Representatives
President's Report
2016 Housing Tour - May 14th
Sacramento Advocacy Trip – May 25th
Q2 Board Meeting – June 9th Hosted by SAP Consent Items
Approval of the Meeting Minutes: April 7, 2016 Working Council Meeting
AB 2817 (Chiu) Low Income Housing Tax Credit (reprisal of AB 35), (Housing & Land Use Committee recommend Support)
SB 1069 (Wieckowski) Land Use Zoning, (Housing & Land Use Committee recommend Support)
AB 2507 (Gordon) – Telehealth (Support pending Health Committee Vote)
AB 2763 (Gatto) Transportation network companies: personal vehicles (Staff recommends support pending Transportation Committee meeting [5/4/16])
AB 1300 (Ridley-Thomas) – Mental Health: Involuntary Commitment (Support pending Health Committee Vote)
Discussion / Legislative Action Items
Transportation Measure -- VTA updated option (Pending Transportation Committee recommends Working Council approval)
Fast Track Legislative Process (Operations Committee recommends approval )
Measure AA Education (information update)
AB 2334 (Mullin) Alternative energy financing, (Energy Committee recommends Support)
AB 2699 (Gonzalez) Contractors' State License Board: solar energy systems companies, (Energy Committee recommends Oppose)
AB 2534 (Atkins) Local Control Affordable Housing, (Housing & Land Use Committee recommend Support)
SB 915 (Liu) Teacher Recruitment: Center on Teaching Careers, (Education & Workforce Committee recommend Support)
SB 62 (Pavley) Student financial aid: Assumption of Loans for Education: Governor’s Teaching Fellowships Program, (Education & Workforce Committee recommend Support)
24th Assembly District – Candidate Forum (Time Specific start: 9:00 am –9:55 am) (Confirmed Candidates noted as of 4/25/16) **Bios attached in packet
Marc Berman
Mike Kasperzak
Vicki Veenker
John Inks 2016 Home Run Goal Updates (1-minute reports on top item in each portfolio area from committee co-chair or member) – will be at each chair as a written report Energy Transportation Tax Policy Education Government Relations Health Environment Housing & Land Use Community Technology Policy 10:15 a.m. Adjournment Next Meeting: June 2, 2016 @ Brocade, San Jose, CA
2016 Working Council Meeting Schedule
January 7
February 4
March 3
April 7
May 5
June 2
July 7
August 4
Sept. 1
Oct. 6
Nov. 16 (Strategy Conference)
Dec. 1
Working Council Minutes
Thursday, April 7, 2016
7:30 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.
Brocade 130 Holger Way, Bldg. 120, Room IMC 2
San Jose, CA 95134
Members Present:
Jeff Rangel, Brocade, Chair
Jason Lundgaard, Apple, Vice-Chair
Carol Pawlak, Amgen
Monica Gomez, Applied Materials
Angela Kung, AT&T
Sara Broadbent, Avaya
Vera Imper, BD Biosciences
David Kramer, Blach Construction
Patrick Quinn, Blach Construction
Larry Disenhof, Cadence Design Systems
Chris Schwarz, Canyon Snow on behalf of Lam Research
Brian Hubinger, Chevron
Mike Potter, Cisco Systems
Alan Jepsen, City National Bank
Lennies Gutierrez, Comcast
Michael Prishylak, Direct Resource Management
Mona Tierney-Lloyd, EnerNOC
Anissa Leong, Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Kristina Vasquez, IBM
Steve Joesten, Infinera
Tom Harrington, Intuit
Nancy Noe, Johnson & Johnson
Jennifer Chamberlin, Johnson Controls
Stacey Clark O’Hara, Juniper Networks
Hanh Nguyen, Kaiser Permanente
Mike Alba, LinkedIn
Ashley Howell, Lockheed Martin
Diana Bautista, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford
Sherri Sager, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford
Jennifer Blanco, Marvell
Olga Kitsis, MetricStream
Anthony Lin, PG&E
Jennifer Adams, Plantronics
Brian Larnerd, Polycom
Ron Gonzales, Presencia, LLC
John Tang, San Jose Water Company
Brandon Soule, Sanmina Corporation
Matt Hendricks, Santa Clara University
Serena Poon, Silicon Valley Bank
Pedro Espinoza, SmileyGo
Erika Bustamante, Stanford University
Juan Jurado, Suffolk Construction
Blair Swezey, SunPower Corporation
Debra LaTourette, Synnex Corporation
Margaret Abe-Koga, Synopsys
Janikke Klem, TechCU
John Hogan, TeenForce
Victoria Tung, Texas Instruments
Michelle Moskowitz, University of California, Berkeley
Donna Blitzer, University of California, Santa Cruz
Helen Valine, University of San Francisco
Jessica Rizzo, University of Notre Dame
Debi Schechtman, Umpqua Bank
Sunil Pandya, Wells Fargo
Alex Weis, YAHOO!
Staff Present:
Darlene Alameda-Klink Paul Escobar Tim McRae Kristina Peralta
Casey Beyer Alexandria Felton Charles Melton Juan Quinones
Brian Brennan Margaret Gray Mike Mielke Sarah Qureshi
Angelica Cortez Peter Leroe-Munoz Amanda Montez Don Tran
Rafael De La Rosa Michael Lomio Chris O’Connor Megan White
David Palter
AGENDA
Chair Jeff Rangel called the meeting to order at 8:00am and reminded the group participants of
meeting discussion confidentiality so that people could speak candidly. Self-introductions followed.
President's Report
President’s Report was given by Working Council Chair Jeff Rangel.
Working Council Meeting Location – July 7th
We need a host – can you help? Contact Casey Beyer at [email protected]
DC Advocacy Trip, March 21-23 – Debrief
Transportation funding, Trans Pacific Partnership, Scientific Research funding were covered. For
further follow-up contact Rafael De La Rosa at [email protected]
Workplace Wellness Workshop, April 14th @ Brocade, San Jose
This workshop is designed to promote well-being through Culture, Built Environment and Balance.
For all inquires contact Don Tran at [email protected].
CEO Business Climate Summit, April 15th @ Microsoft, Mountain View
Our 13th Annual CEO Business Climate Summit will occur April 15th from 8:00am-12:00pm. For
questions contact Darlene Alameda-Klink at [email protected].
Young Women’s Leadership Summit, April 20th @ Levi’s Stadium, Santa Clara
We will be hosting close to 400 students at our Young Women’s Leadership Summit from 8:30am-
1:00pm. Contact Kristina Peralta with questions at [email protected]
2016 Housing Tour
On May 14th we will be hosting our Housing Tour from 8:00am-1:00pm. For inquires and questions
contact Don Tran at [email protected]
Sacramento Advocacy Trip – May 25th
On May 25th we will have our Sacramento Day Advocacy Trip. For more information contact Rafael
De La Rosa at [email protected].
Consent Item
Approval of the Meeting Minutes: March 3, 2016 Working Council Meeting
San Jose Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone - Health Committee recommends Support
AB 1736 (Steinorth) - Homeownership savings accounts – Housing and Land Use Committee
recommends Support
*HOV Sticker Expansion/Extension, Transportation Committee recommends Support
San Benito County June Transportation Measure, Transportation Committee recommends
Support
AB 2502 (Mullin/Chiu), Protecting Local Inclusionary Housing Programs, Housing and Land
Use Committee recommends Support (SVLG has historically supported same bill)
*HOV Sticker Expansion/Extension was removed from Consent Items
The consent items were presented as amended due to the HOV sticker being removed. A motion
was made by Ron Gonzales of Presencia and was seconded. Consent items were approved by
voice votes: 0 no votes, 0 abstentions.
Discussion Policy Action Items w/Guest Speakers:
Transportation Measure Deep Dive: Bicycle/Pedestrian projects- Transportation Committee
recommends Support, Chris O’Connor
TPC recommends $250 million tied to Tier 1 of the Countywide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan with the
following criteria
Gap closure across barriers
Increasing safety
Protected bikeways
Mode shift to biking, walking, transit
Matching funds from other source
Money can be spent on education programs like Safe Routes to schools
Complete streets policies for highway interchanges, road maintenance and county expressway
categories
There was a high interest from Liaison Representatives in seeing a map for bike path improvements.
Transportation committee recommends support: 48 yes, 0 oppose, 1 abstention.
Transportation Measure Deep Dive: Mass Transit for Seniors, Disabled, Low-Income and Students -
Transportation Committee recommends Support, John Ristow VTA
VTA’s core bus system carries 75% of the ridership for the entire bus system
Additional service in the core system increase ridership more than other routes
Majority of express buses are funded solely by VTA
Private sector shuttles are expensive to run
Some companies are interested in public-private partnerships with VTA to jointly work on
schedules/routes/funding
Fixed Rail doesn’t work for all of the most vulnerable
Existing Lifeline Transportation Program Funds innovative programs
o Community non-profits and transit agencies can apply
o Programs have to demonstrate impact on “Communities of Concern” – Regional
definition of areas with minority, low-income, seniors, disabled households
Transportation committee recommends support: 48 yes, 0 oppose, 1 abstention.
Transportation Measure Deep Dive: West Valley Corridor Mass Transit – Transportation Committee
recommends Support, John Ristow VTA
Highway 85 key connection between housing centers in the south and job centers in the north
Carries between 105,000 and 137,000 average daily vehicles with heavy congestion in commute
during commute hours
Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) recommends $350 million for mass transit solutions in the West
Valley corridor
Funds would be tied to the results of a VTA State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board that is
evaluating mass transit alternatives on that corridor
Adding express/transit lands and express bus service
Light-rail down the median of Highway 85 – a long term vision for the corridor, but not a part of
the funding measure
Transportation committee recommends support. Working Council passed: 48 yes, 0 oppose, 1
abstention
Transportation Measure: Polling Results - Transportation Committee reports survey, Carl Guardino
(via conference call-in)
Carl Guardino called-into the Working Council meeting to give details about the polling results from
March.
Transportation Measure Overall Expenditure Plan - Transportation Committee recommends Support,
Chris O’Connor
Transportation committee recommends support: passed with 49 yes votes, 0 opposed 2 abstentions.
Discussion / Legislative Action Items
California Drug Price Relief Act - Health Committee Recommends Oppose
Nancy Noe of Johnson & Johnson presented on behalf of the Health Committee. The California
Drug Price Relief Act (CDPR) is a November 2016 ballot measure that would impose price controls
on prescription drugs purchases funded by the state. Eligible state agencies would receive a lower
or equivalent pricing for pharmaceuticals as the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The CDPR has recently qualified for the November 2016 Ballot.
Unintended consequences – veterans and military families -- The measure could increase health
costs for veterans, active duty military, their families and retirees by undermining special price
considerations provided to those who serve our country.
Unintended consequences – state budget, medi-cal providers & providers -- The measure could
actually result in higher prescription drug costs for the state and loss of access or additional
paperwork and hassle for patients and doctors
Unintended consequences – medical research -- The measure could have a chilling effect on
cutting edge medical research and cures. If California and other states pass laws to extend VA
prices on innovative drugs, it would reduce revenues and thus limit future investment in the
research and development of new drugs and cures.
A motion was made by the Health Committee to oppose the California Drug Price Relief Act
approved by hand votes: 25 yes, 1 oppose, 20 abstentions
SB 66 (Leyva and McGuire) Data Collection and Reporting for Career Technical Education Programs
Education and Workforce Development Committee recommends Support
Janikke Klem of Tech CU presented for the education committee. This bill implements statutory
changes to align common outcome metrics for all state-funded Career Technical Education
programs with federal reporting requirements and to authorize the sharing of third-party licensing
and certification data with the California Community Colleges. Overall, SB 66 will strengthen CTE
programs in order to address the growing shortage of qualified employees and to improve the
economic opportunities for California’s students.
Motion made by Education and Workforce Development committee to support SB 66, approved by
hand votes: 45 yes, 0 oppose, 1 abstention.
SB 286 (Hertzberg) - Direct Access – Energy Committee recommends Support
Mona Tierney-Lloyd presented for the Energy committee. The current proposal is to raise the existing
cap by 8,000 GWh over period of 3 years. 75% of sales must be from eligible renewable energy
resources during 2016 and increasing to 100% by end of 2020.
SVLG long supported Direct Access opportunities for its member companies – advocacy, testimony
to CPUC & workshops with DA providers. SB 286 would provide opportunities for new DA customers.
This aligns with goals of the state RPS, which the Leadership Group also supports.
Motion made by Energy committee to support SB 286, approved by hand votes: 39 yes, 0 oppose, 6
abstention.
AB 2454 (Williams) - Demand Response – Energy Committee recommends Support
Mona Tierney-Lloyd presented for the Energy committee. Change of terminology from “demand
reduction” to “demand response” in line with industry nomenclature. Nov 2015: CPUC adopted
decision which devalued certain DR programs & prohibited IOUs from attributing any capacity
value to these programs despite settlement that had said to wait for Lawrence Berkley National
Labs (LBNL) study on DR value. 2015: SCE needed to fill gap left by retirement of 2,160 MW SONGS.
Did not procure sufficient DR in solicitation. Proposed solution requires IOUs to consider the findings
of a LBNL study when assessing the availability of cost-effective, reliable and feasible DR resources,
including both load-modifying and supply-side resources. It also requires CPUC to report to
Legislature within 60 days after the issuance of a final decision approving procurement in excess of
500 MW that the selected resources are consistent with the preferred resources loading order.
Motion made by Energy committee to support AB 2454, approved by hand votes, 37 yes, 0 oppose,
9 abstention
Informational Reports
AB 2395 (Low) -- Telecom Carbon Reduction and Modernization Act (informational update)
Mike Mielke of the Leadership Group presented.
Issue: Establishes state policy for a clearly communicated and orderly transition from outdated
technology to cleaner advanced technologies.
Supported by Ops committee.
• The SVLG supports policies that ensure the economic health and quality of life in Silicon
Valley, including policies that promote a 21st century infrastructure.
• Bill provides a roadmap for notification and withdrawal of legacy telephone services which
are an outdated and environmentally unfriendly option compared to more modern
communication technologies.
- It also provides a path for telecom industry to make a significant contribution towards the
state’s greenhouse gas reduction and water conservation goals
Measure AA Education (information update)
Juan Jurado from Suffolk Construction presented. SF Bay Restoration and Flood Mitigation Taskforce
educates member companies and their employees by providing them with non-partisan and
objective materials about Measure AA and wetlands restoration.
Kick-off meeting held Thursday, March 24. Determined best 3 ways to conduct outreach to member
companies and their employees. Presentations at brown bags and other employee events,
including Earth Day events
Digital and paper materials displayed in strategically-located areas (e.g. common area bulletin
boards, digital monitors in lobbies).
Emails and Intranet posts with short communications and links to learn more
2016 Home Run Goal Updates (1-minute reports on top item in each portfolio area from committee
co-chair or member) – will be at each chair as a written report
Energy Transportation Tax Policy
Education Government Relations Health
Environment Housing & Land Use
Community Technology Policy
10:15 a.m. Adjournment
Next Working Council Meeting Thursday, May 5, 2016 @ Brocade
Time of adjournment: 10:15am
DATE: May 5, 2016 TO: Working Council FROM: Housing and Land Use Committee SUBJECT: AB-2817 Low Income Housing Tax Credits (Chiu)
Action The Housing and Land Use Committee recommends a support position on AB 2817(Chiu), as this is a reprise of AB 35 (Chiu) from last year, which the Leadership Group supported. Last year’s bill was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown after receiving nearly unanimous and bipartisan support in the Legislature. The bill would increase the value of the State Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and increase the annual amount of available credits by $100 million per year for five years.
Background AB 2817 would increase the state LIHTC allocation by an additional $300 million which would allow the state to leverage and additional $200 million in federal 4% LIHTC and at least $400 million in federal tax-exempt bond authority annually for the creation and preservation of affordable rental homes for a broad range of lower income households throughout the state. In addition to increasing the total amount of state LIHTC, AB 2817 proposes to increase the amount of state tax credits awarded to a project that is also receiving 4% federal tax credits from 13% to 50% of the qualified basis. This would more than triple the amount of equity that an investor purchasing a state tax credit would receive which would bring the return on 4% credits in line with 9% credits and result in greater affordability for the project. Essentially, these funds would build and rehabilitate affordable housing and increase the amount of funding for farmworker housing. Analysis The Leadership Group supported the same bill last year and our CEO personally lobbied the Governor’s office in trying to get him to agree to signing. Similar coalitions are moving behind this bill again. The Governor’s veto note mentioned that he wanted to address all tax issues in the budget process. While it may not pass, it will likely be an “ask” from the Democratic Leadership when the budgeting process and discussions start up again.
There is no known fiscal impact yet, as this would require applications. Supporters (major listed only) California Building Industry Association (CBIA)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Housing Consortium
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Housing California
League of California Cities
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
The Arc California
United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Opponents (major listed only) None on file
Attachment #6
DATE: May 5, 2016 TO: Housing and Land Use Committee FROM: Amanda Montez, Senior Director, Housing and Community Development SUBJECT: SB-1069 (Wieckowski) Accessory Dwelling Units
Action Staff recommends a support position on SB 1069, which adds language to the Planning and Zoning Law emphasizing the importance of secondary units or accessory dwelling units as affordable housing stock and easing city imposed barriers to create more accessory dwelling units, particularly in areas with high housing costs.
Background The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to regulate, among other things, the intensity of land use, and also authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, as specified. That law makes findings and declarations with respect to the value of 2nd units to California’s housing supply. This bill would add to those findings and declarations that allowing 2nd units in single-family or multifamily residential zones provides additional rental housing stock in California. SB 1069 most importantly focuses on easing regulatory barriers for homeowners to build affordable housing on existing property. SB 1069 eases these barriers by:
Providing alternatives and exceptions to parking requirements, such as being located within a half mile from public transit or if the ADU is part of the existing dwelling.
Eliminating costly requirements that treat second units like a new land use such as additional sprinkler requirements, new utility/water/sewer hook-ups and new services when the existing home is already served and connected. Eliminating these requirements will reduce the cost of building second units by tens of thousands of dollars per unit.
Establishing that every homeowner may choose to add at least a 500 square foot second unit by building permit if it is located within an existing home or accessory structure without additional code or discretionary requirements other than parking
Analysis Since the committee reviewed the bill, it has grown to be more substantive. This bill will push cities to expand the possible role that secondary units can play in the tight housing market and will be important as cities review their policies. San Jose will be reviewing their policy soon and this is one way for the Leadership Group to comment on the overall value of those units to affordable housing stock in general.
There is no known fiscal impact. Supporters
Bay Area Council
Lily Pad Homes
AARP American Planning Association of California Bay Area Building Industry Association
Bishop Ranch; Blue Shield of California
Bridge Housing California Association of Realtors California Building Industry Association
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund Center for Creative Land Recycling; Chase Communications Colliers International Cushman & Wakefield East Bay Leadership Council Emerald Fund
Facebook Hanson Bridgett HKS
Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network
Karen Chappelle, Professor of City and Regional Planning, UC Berkeley Lennar Urban MacKenzie Communications, Inc.
Manatt Marvell McKinsey & Company Nehemiah Corporation of America New Avenue Nibbi
Nonprofit Housing Association of California North Bay Leadership Council
PLANT Polaris Pacific; Rhoades Planning Group Richard Rosenberg, Chairman and CEO (RET.) Bank of America Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Mateo County Economic Development Association SPUR SVAngel SV@Home TechCU Virgin America
Webcor Builders Opponents California State Association of Cities
April 27, 2016
TO: Working Council
FROM: Health Committee
SUBJECT: AB 2507 (Gordon) - Telehealth Reimbursement
Issue: AB 2507 (Gordon) adds safeguards to ensure that patients and providers have guaranteed
coverage and reimbursements for telehealth services. AB 2507 would provide a viable telehealth
reimbursement structure in California that would require insurers to reimburse telehealth services
in the same way that they would for the delivery of in-person services.
Recommendation: Please note that this measure is currently under review with the Health
Committee. The Staff recommendation is that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group support AB
2507. We will have an official committee position on May 3rd.
Background: Telehealth (also known as Telemedicine) refers to the delivery of healthcare
through various telecommunication technologies. Common means of delivery include
technologies such as telephone and video conference. California payers and fully integrated
health systems are increasingly offering telehealth as consumers demand more accessible care.
Kaiser, one of the State’s largest commercial insurers, expects that the number of virtual visits in
Northern California will exceed the number of in-person appointments in 2016.
Current law in California recognizes telehealth as a legitimate means of health care delivery;
however, the language of the law is insufficient to guarantee that health care providers will be
reimbursed for telehealth services. As a result, patients who utilize telehealth services find that
health plan providers will deny coverage for some services. Conversely, healthcare providers do
not receive reimbursements for some services.
Analysis: Currently, 27 of the 50 states within the United States have parity laws which enforce
coverage for telehealth services. Each particular state adopts their own provisions and safeguards
within parity laws to guarantee coverage and reimbursements. For example, Nevada is the only
state to have telehealth services covered under worker compensation claims. Parity laws in states
such as New York amend the definition of what constitutes an originating site (for a patient) and
distant site (for provider) to guarantee coverage and reimbursements.
Supporters assert that the bill does not mandate or change the way services are delivered but
rather treats telehealth as an equivalent substitute for traditional in-person appointments. By
guaranteeing reimbursements for telehealth services, a financial incentive is created for
healthcare service providers to develop sustainable and large scale programs to increase health
care accessibility for their entire patient network. From a patient perspective, supporters contend
that AB 2507 would remove barriers that restrict patient access, convenience, and ability to
choose a preferred method of healthcare delivery.
Although no parties are formally listed as opposing AB 2507, health plan providers have
expressed concerns that reimbursement is complicated and will vary based on a payer’s
negotiated rate for telehealth services. Because payers all have individual reimbursement
practices, it is difficult to align a single, negotiated reimbursement system.
Financial Impact: A fiscal impact analysis has not been conducted by the State Legislative
Analyst Office.
Status: AB-2507 was introduced on 2/19/16 and was heard in Health Committee on 4/19/16.
The bill was amended on 4/25/16 and is currently in the Committee of Appropriations. It is
expected to be heard on May 4th
.
Support:
Stanford Health Care (sponsor)
Adventist Health
ALS Association Golden West Chapter
American Association for Marriage and Family
Therapy
Association of California Healthcare Districts
California Academy of Family Physicians
California Association of Physician Groups
California Children’s Hospital Association
California Council of Community Behavioral Health
Agencies
California Life Sciences Association
California Medical Association
California Primary Care Association
Center for Information Technology Research in the
Interest of Society
Center for Technology and Aging
El Camino Hospital
Health Care Interpreter Network
John Muir Health
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
National Multiple Sclerosis Society – CA Action
Network
Occupational Therapy Association of California
Providence Health & Services
Rural County Representatives of California
Sutter Health
The Children’s Partnership
Oppose:
America’s Health Insurance Plans
Association of California Life and Health Insurance
Companies
California Association of Health Plans
California Chamber of Commerce
California Right to Life Committee, Inc.
DATE: April 27, 2016
TO: Working Council
FROM: Pending 5/4 TPC – Transportation Policy Committee
SUBJECT: AB 2763: Transportation Network Companies: Personal Vehicles
[Gatto]
ACTION
Support AB 2763 (Gatto) which clarifies the definition of a personal vehicle under
Section 5431 of the Public Utilities Code to include rented or leased vehicles,
allowing those who enter into short-term leases to participate in ridesharing
services.
BACKGROUND
Current law authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to
regulate various transportation services, including charter-party carriers of
passengers, including TNCs.1 In March, the CPUC issued a Proposed Decision
(PD) which excludes rented vehicles from its list of TNC-eligible “personal
vehicles.”
AB 2763 seeks to clarify the definition of a personal vehicle, eligible for use, as
one that is “owned, leased, rented, or otherwise authorized for any period of
time by the participating driver, meets all inspection and other safety
requirements imposed by the commission, and is not a taxicab or a limousine,”2
which would extend the CPUC’s definition to vehicles rented for less than four
months.
General Motors (GM) has also been working on the “Maven” program, a new
personal mobility brand, which includes a citywide car-sharing program
featuring new GM vehicles located throughout a metropolitan area. Maven is
partnering with Lyft in order to make clean, safe, new vehicles available to low
and moderate income individuals seeking work as independent TNC drivers. In
1 Fact Sheet for AB 2763(Gatto) – 03.09.2016
2 Assembly Bill No. 2763, Introduced by Member Gatto
Chicago, the partnership allows an individual to rent a vehicle on a weekly
basis, and includes insurance and vehicle maintenance in the pricing structure.
The CPUC PD would end pilots such as Evercar in Los Angeles, which currently
provides around 200 EVs to TNC drivers at an affordable cost. Evercar has
proven successful in LA, and has been greeted by strong demand from TNC
drivers. Breeze, a similar company operating in six cities nationwide including Los
Angeles, provides a similar short-term hybrid-car lease service for TNC drivers.
ANALYSIS
The Leadership Group has historically supported the expansion of TNC service as
it helps promote carpooling and removing single occupancy vehicles from
roadways. Assemblyman Gatto’s legislation would help lower-income TNC
drivers access vehicles, including hybrid and electric vehicles.
The CPUC Proposed Decision would limit eligible TNC vehicles to those owned or
leased for over four months, and therefore could create a barrier for lower-
income individuals, who otherwise couldn’t obtain a longer term lease, from
participating as TNC drivers.
Staff recommends a support position on AB 2763, as it would potentially help
reduce SOV use, as well as increase the supply of TNC drivers and their access
to electric and hybrid vehicles.
SUPPORTERS
- Lyft
- Uber
- GM
OPPONENTS
- None on file
April 27, 2016
TO: Working Council
FROM: Health Committee
SUBJECT: AB 1300 (Ridley-Thomas) – Mental Health: Involuntary Commitment
Issue: AB 1300 makes clarifying changes to better define the various steps of a 5150 detention
process to ensure consistent statewide application and that patients receive the most appropriate
care in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their needs.
Recommendation: Please note that this measure is currently under review with the Health
Committee. The Staff recommendation is that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group support AB
1300. We will have an official committee position on May 3rd.
Background: The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, a California law governing involuntary
civil commitment for psychiatric treatment, was enacted in 1967. LPS developed a statutory
process under which individuals could be involuntarily held and treated in a mental health
facility in a manner that protected their constitutional rights. The LPS Act also sought to end
inappropriate lifetime commitment of people with mental illnesses.
Under existing law, when a person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to
himself or herself, or gravely disabled, he or she may, upon probable cause, be taken into
custody by a peace officer, member of the attending staff of an evaluation facility, designated
members of a mobile crisis team, or other designated professional person, and placed in a facility
designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services as a
facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation.
The California Hospital Association reports that since the passage of the LPS Act, the changes in
the mental health delivery system has adversely impacted a patient’s ability to receive prompt
evaluation and treatment as required by the current law. Furthermore, California’s 58 counties
have fragmented and inconsistent application of the LPS Act, which has led to increasing
dependence on hospital emergency departments to care for mentally ill patients without the
necessary resources. This has resulted in individuals with mental illness waiting for hours, days
and sometimes even weeks for assessment and treatment.
AB 1300 seeks to modernize the LPS Act by standardizing the 72 hour hold process and easing
the transfer of psychiatric patients by appointed liaisons to move patients from emergency rooms
to psychiatric facilities and facilitating transportation between counties. Some key points of the
bill include:
Specifying that the period of 72-hour detention for evaluation and treatment begins at the
time the person is initially detained
Articulating when a 5150 stops, is discontinued, and who makes the decisions
Emphasizing prompt provision of services in LPS-designated and non-LPS designated
facilities
Prohibiting probable cause determination from considering the availability of beds or
services at designated facilities within or outside of the county
Prohibiting a peace officer or other authorized professional employee of an emergency
transport provider from being detained any longer than the time necessary to complete
documentation of the factual basis of the detention for evaluation and safely complete the
transfer of physical custody of the person
Analysis: In 2013, SB 364 (Steinberg) revised the law related to the 72 hour treatment and
evaluation for individuals with mental health disorders. SB 364 added to the types of facilities
that a county is allowed to designate to provide services to mental health disorder patients and
allowed county mental health directors to develop procedures to train professionals who detain,
evaluate and treat the patients subjected to Section 5150. AB 1300 would further expand and
clarify the LPS Act. Supporters of the bill contend that AB 1300 will define the steps of the 5150
detention process and will ensure that patient receive the most appropriate care in the least
restrictive environment. However, opponents of the bill are concerned that AB 1300 will result in
lower access to care for individuals with mental health disorders by limiting access to emergency
departments.
Financial Impact: The bill has been keyed fiscal but further analysis is not yet available.
Status: The bill was introduced to the Assembly on 2/27/2015 and passed both the Committee
on Health and the Judiciary Committee. AB 1300 is currently re-referred to the Appropriations
Committee.
Support:
California Hospital Association (co-sponsor)
California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians (co-sponsor)
California Emergency Nurses Association (co-sponsor)
Alameda Health System
Antelope Valley Hospital
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Aurora Vista del Mar Hospital
California Medical Association
Citrus Valley Health Partners
Cottage Health System
Dignity Health
District Hospital Association
El Camino Hospital
Emergency Nurses Association
Fremont Hospital
Good Samaritan Hospital- Bakersfield
Good Samaritan Hospital- San Jose
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital
John Muir Health
Long Beach Memorial Hospital
Mad River Community Hospital
Madera Community Hospital
Mammoth Hospital
Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital Long Beach
Mission Community Hospital
O’Conner Hospital Parkview Community Hospital Medical Center
Pomona Valley Hospital
Redlands Community Hospital
Ridgecrest Regional Hospital
Saint Louise Regional Hospital
San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital
Sharp HealthCare
Sierra View Medical Center
Southwest Healthcare System
Stanford Health Care
White Memorial Medical Center
Oppose:
Consumer Attorneys of California
NAMI (National Alliance on Metal Illness) California (Oppose unless amended)
California State Association of Counties
Committee Process for Taking a Position on Legislation
Procedure To determine an official Leadership Group position on legislation, the following steps are taken. Historical or Legacy Position If legislation is consistent with a historical or legacy position of the Leadership Group, staff and the respective policy committee may adopt that position with regard to the legislation. New issue If legislation introduces a new issue not previously considered by the Leadership Group, Leadership Group staff will first present the legislation to the relevant policy committee. The policy committee will hear the matter at a committee meeting, receive information from SVLG staff, discuss the matter, and vote on a recommended position towards the legislation. A simple majority of votes cast will determine the position taken. Next, the SVLG Policy Lead will present this recommended position at the immediately- following Working Council meeting. Prior to the meeting, the Policy Lead will draft and provide a policy brief on the issue that is distributed electronically to Working Council attendees. At the Working Council, the group will hear the matter, discuss the issue, and take a simple-majority vote to support or oppose the Policy Committee recommendation. After this vote, the Leadership Group will have an official position on the legislation. The Leadership Group Board will be advised of this position at the Board Meeting immediately following the Working Council vote.
Fast-Track Process for Taking a Position on Legislation
Purpose This process is intended to make the Leadership Group more nimble in addressing fast-moving legislation where our normal process is too slow to make a meaningful impact on the decision. Member companies should provide as much advance notice as possible when seeking a Leadership Group position on legislation. Longer lead-time allows for more thorough deliberation, and often yields a greater range of options around coalition-building and amplifying the Leadership Group’s message. Considerations Consider whether the Fast-Track Process is appropriate:
Does SVLG have a strong historical or legacy position on the issue?
Has the legislation under consideration been previously socialized with the committee?
Is the legislation authored or championed by a legislator key to SVLG’s local, state, or federal efforts?
Is the legislation time-sensitive and likely to move in the immediate future?
Is the request coming from a member company or a partner organization?
Will the proposed legislation significantly impact the interests of member companies?
Do we expect broad and/or intense opposition within our membership? The Policy lead will weigh the answers to the above questions, and exercise his or her discretion in deciding whether to initiate the Fast-Track process. The Committee process is to be the default process, unless there is compelling evidence to use the faster method, as determined by the questions above. Process Historical or Legacy position
If there is a strong historical position on the legislation, SVLG staff (“staff”) may generate a letter consistent with the legacy position, after informing and receiving approval from committee co-chairs.
New issue
Staff will decide on a process to address the matter quickly - this may include an email vote among committee members, an emergency phone meeting, or other measures
- When considering the process, staff will consider that email votes should be reserved for issues that will not engender controversy; where member companies are expected to have conflicting views, a more formal discussion is recommended - Controversial issues are those that engender opposing opinions among large segments or industry clusters of member companies; they are also issues on which some member companies care intensely about the issue
Staff will then inform the Policy Committee co-chairs and Operations Committee Chair and Vice-Chair of the matter, and seek approval for the proposed process
If the co-chairs of both the Policy and Operations Committee approve, staff will draft a brief of the matter for the policy committee, and conduct the email vote or emergency phone call; a supermajority of votes cast is needed to support or oppose legislation
If the policy committee approves of a position, send a brief and summary to the Operations Committee for a vote; this vote may occur via email or a conference call
If the Operations Committee approves, the Leadership Group can officially support or oppose the legislation
Staff will inform the Working Council of the vote at the next Working Council meeting
Date: April 27, 2016 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council From: Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director; Ria Varghese, Energy & Environment Coordinator RE: AB 2334 (Mullin, Ting) Alternative Energy Financing
Issue This bill would increase the annual award cap of the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Authority (CAEATFA) sales and use tax exclusion (STE) from $100 million to $350 million. Recommendation Energy & Tax Committees voted to Support Summary In 2010, the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA) was formed and tasked with administering a sales and use tax exclusion (STE) for advanced manufacturers and manufacturers of alternative source and advanced transportation products, components or systems. Currently, the STE program is authorized through 2020 and is capped at $100 million for each calendar year. This bill would:
Extend the sales and use tax exclusion to any contractor for use in the performance of a construction contract for the participating party that will use that property as an integral part of the approved project,
Provide an additional sales and use tax exclusion amount of $475 million for the 2016 calendar year and $250 million for each calendar year thereafter, including any amounts not granted or granted but unused from the previous calendar year.
This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Analysis The STE program awards projects in a variety of industries including solar, biomass, electric vehicles, biotechnology and aerospace, among others. It employs a rigorous application process that requires applicants to submit detailed business plan information in order to determine the projected environmental and economic benefits of the projects. In 2015, the program became oversubscribed by $66.1 million. This year, the program is already oversubscribed by $98.5 million, leaving projects that would have significant economic and environmental benefits to the state go un-awarded. The top priority of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group Energy Committee is to advocate for policies that promote financing and deployment of clean energy and engage in efforts to implement key clean energy legislation, to the benefit of the tech sector. AB 2334 would promote alternative energy and advanced transportation by allowing qualifying technologies to be exempt from sales and use taxes, incentivizing their continued development and deployment. Status Introduced on February 18, 2016. Hearing at committee on Revenue & Taxation held on April 4. Placed on suspense file (involves funds greater than $150,000) and will go back to the committee on May 9. Support: CA State Treasurer John Chiang (sponsor), Proterra, Motiv, ChargePoint, California Against Waste, California Manufacturers & Technology Association Opposition: None on file.
Date: April 27, 2016 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council From: Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director; Ria Varghese, Energy & Environment Coordinator RE: AB 2699 (Gonzalez, Weber) – Contractors’ State License Board: solar energy systems companies
Issue This bill would require a solar company selling, financing, or leasing a solar energy system, to provide each customer with a “solar energy system disclosure document”, informing customers of the risks and rewards of solar energy system ownership and warranty issues prior to the sale, finance or lease of a solar energy system. Recommendation Energy Committee voted to Oppose and in the interim between the joint Energy-Environment committee meeting and Working Council, communicate concern and reasons for opposing the bill to the author’s office. Summary This bill would require the Contractors’ State License Board (CSLB), on or before July 1, 2017, to develop and make available on its Internet web site, a “solar energy system disclosure document” which a solar energy systems company must provide each customer prior to completion of a sale, financing, or lease of a solar energy system. This document should include all of the following information:
a) The amounts and sources of financing obtained. b) The total cost and payments for the system, including financing costs. c) The calculations used by the home improvement salesperson to determine how many panels the
homeowner needs to install. d) The calculations used by the home improvement salesperson to determine how much energy the
panels will generate. e) Any additional monthly fees the homeowner’s electric company may bill, any turn-on charges, and any
fees added for the use of an Internet monitoring system of the panels or inverters. f) The terms and conditions of any guaranteed rebate. g) The final contract price, without the inclusion of possible rebates. h) The solar energy system company’s contractor license number. i) The impacts of solar energy system installations not performed to code. j) Types of solar energy system malfunctions. k) Information about the difference between a solar energy system lease and a solar energy system
purchase. l) Information on how and to whom consumers may provide complaints.
Existing law requires a home improvement contract to contain, as specified, a notice stating that the owner or tenant has the right to require the contractor to have a performance and payment bond. This bill would require the board to establish through regulation requirements for a contractor to maintain a blanket performance and payment bond for the purpose of solar installation. Existing law prohibits the down payment for a home improvement contract from exceeding $1,000 or 10% of the contract amount, whichever is less. Existing law exempts from this restriction a contractor who, among other things, furnishes a blanket performance and payment bond. This bill would subject a contractor for the installation of a solar energy system to the restriction despite having those performance and payment arrangements.
Analysis Many of the provisions required by the proposed “solar energy system disclosure document” are already required by Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) Solar Business Code as well as state or federal law, including (b), (e), (f), (g), (h)and (l). For leases and PPAs, a Federal Leasing Act Disclosure under Reg. M is already required and currently included in customer agreements. The top priority of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group Energy Committee is to advocate for policies and programs that promote financing and deployment of clean energy. The bill as currently written requires information that is duplicative of current requirements that presents a risk of chilling solar sales - particularly the provisions in (i) and (j) including information about solar systems that fail and are not performed to code. The earlier version of the bill had additional duplicative requirements and slanted information that would have had an even stronger likelihood of chilling rooftop solar sales. While the author and her staff have been working with the affected industry, having additional duplicative documents/requirements for sales of solar energy systems would set a bad precedent for promotion of cutting edge clean technologies. Additionally, the requirement regarding the performance and payment bond is new in the April 13th amended version is onerous and may be duplicative of warranty requirements. Status: Introduced on February 19, 2016 and last amended on April 13. Referred to committee on Business & Professions (B&P) and Judiciary committee. Hearing at B&P committee was held on April 12 and the bill was passed as amended (15-0-1) and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations (Asm. Gonzalez is its Chair). Support: California Municipal Utilities Association, Northern California Power Agency Opposition: None on file.
DATE: May 5, 2016 TO: Working Council FROM: Housing and Land Use Committee SUBJECT: AB-2734 Local Control Affordable Housing Act (Atkins)
Action The Housing and Land Use Committee recommends a support position on AB 2734, which would redirect state savings that accumulated as a result of the closure of redevelopment agencies and redirect them from the state general fund back to local governments for use in affordable housing development.
Background AB 2734 directs the Department of Finance to calculate the state savings resulting from the elimination of redevelopment agencies and requires that 50% of those savings (up to $1 billion a year) be redirected to address affordable housing needs each year. This approach begins to restore affordable housing funding lost when redevelopment agencies were eliminated. Like with AB 1335(Atkins),which the Leadership Group endorsed last year, half of these funds would be provided directly to local governments, and half of the funds would fund successful state affordable housing production programs. The funding is essentially modeled after the AB 1335 model. In terms of how it will managed, the following is pertinent:
Provides that the appropriation shall be suspended for any fiscal year in which the transfer of General Fund revenues to the Budget Stabilization Account is suspended, reduced, or funds are returned to the General Fund from the Budget Stabilization Account.
Requires HCD to create an equitable formula for allocating the funds to local agencies for housing purposes that is geographically balanced and takes into account factors of need, as specified.
Can be used for land acquisition for affordable housing and has limits on how cities can use the funds (ie. Rapid re-housing of the homeless and low income vouchers).
Analysis The Leadership Group has a history of supporting the recapture of redevelopment funds by cities. This would technically not be a new position. The challenge here comes from the fact that this will be redirected from the general fund, which may not be supported by the governor. AB 2734 did pass out of the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee with a bipartisan vote. This does not guarantee passage, but it is at least a sign that the author is reaching out to the other party in preparation of a vote. While it may not pass, it may be an “ask” from the Democratic Leadership when the budgeting process and discussions start up again. Atkins’ office reached out directly to ask for support.
There is no known fiscal impact yet.
Supporters (major listed only)
American Planning Association California Chapter Association of Regional Center Agencies California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association California Housing Consortium Cities of Glendale and Santa Monica Housing California League of California Cities National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter Orange County Business Council San Diego Housing Federation
Opponents (major listed only) None on file
April 27th, 2016 TO: Working Council FROM: Education Committee SUBJECT: SB 915 (Liu) Teacher Recruitment: Center on Teaching Careers
Issue: Senate Bill 915, subject to an appropriation, requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to reestablish the California Center on Teaching Careers (Cal Teach) with the purpose of recruiting qualified and capable individuals into the teaching profession.
Committee Recommendation: Support.
Background: California is facing a growing teacher shortage. The effects of the shortage are strongest in math, science, and special education fields. The Department of Education has also designated English, History, Social Sciences, Computer Education, and K5 general education as shortage areas. Furthermore, enrollment in teacher preparation programs is declining. Over the last decade, the state has eliminated California’s teacher recruitment and financial aid programs, further contributing to the gap between the demand and supply of qualified teachers.
During a teacher shortage, lowincome students of color and students with special needs are disproportionately impacted. Because of the lack of fullycredentialed educators, 51% of special education teachers are teaching on substandard credentials. Without a supply of qualified teachers, districts are forced to use longterm substitute teachers or hire teachers on a waiver or permit. Between 2012 and 2015, the number of provisional and shortterm permits issued nearly tripled from about 850 to more than 2,400.
Senate Bill 915 proposes to reestablishes the California Center on Teaching Careers (Cal Teach), a successful program from the late 1990s that existed prior to state budget cuts. Specifically, this bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish Cal Teach with funding made available through Proposition 98 funds. The Cal Teach center would use a variety of methods to carry out its responsibilities, including conducting media campaigns to recruit teacher candidates, providing informational resources about credential pathways and financial assistance options through a website and a call center, and conducting outreach to alreadycredentialed teachers to fill shortage areas.
Analysis: Proponents of reinstating the Cal Teach program believe that California must take purposeful steps to revive the appeal of the teaching profession and guide prospective students through the credentialing process. There are no opponents of this bill on file. However, the Legislative Analyst’s Office released a report suggesting that market forces will cause teachers who previously left the profession and outofstate teachers to fill the vacancies without stateled recruitment efforts.
There are many contributing factors to the growing teacher shortage. Notably, enrollment in educator preparation programs has dropped by more than 70 percent over the last decade.The Learning Policy Institute, led by Linda DarlingHammond, Professor of Education Emeritus at Stanford University, issued a report pointing to the late 1990s as an instance where market forces failed to solve a shortage period and this resulted in a “huge influx of underprepared teachers.” The report calls for a “comprehensive set of strategies at the local and state levels that are focused on increasing the number of wellprepared entrants to the field of teaching.” These recommendations include the reinstatement of Cal Teach and the establishment of incentives to attract diverse, talented individuals to teach in highneed locations and fields.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) asserts that stateled recruitment efforts are unnecessary because the shortage will “decrease without direct state action.” The LAO acknowledges the existence of a shortage, but suggests that teachers who have left the profession may reenter it to fill vacant positions and teachers will come from other states to help alleviate the shortage.The LAO recognizes the problem of perennial shortages in rural schools, science, math and special education subjects. Cal Teach centers would help to recruit those teachers who have left the profession and outofstate teachers that the LAO believes will fill open positions.
Senate Bill 915 would address recommendations made by the Learning Policy Institute and it would also help to recruit previously credentialed teachers, as recommended by the LAO. The legislation would bring together key stakeholders including the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the University of California, and the California State University to redevelop and implement the Cal Teach program. Furthermore, Senate Bill 915 builds in program evaluation, requiring the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, in consultation with the Legislative Analyst, to evaluate Cal Teach before January 2020.
Financial Impact: Funding would be contingent upon an allocation of Proposition 98 funds in the Annual Budget Act. Funding needed to operate this program could range between $2.6 million and $14.7 million, depending on the level of recruitment that would be pursued by the Center.
Status: 3/10/2016 passed in Senate Committee on Education and referred to Committee on Appropriations. 4/11/2016 placed on Senate Appropriations Suspense File.
Support: Californians Together Coalition, Common Sense Kids Action, Students First, Students Matter, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Oppose: None on file.
April 27th, 2016 TO: Working Council FROM: Education Committee SUBJECT: SB 62 (Pavley) Student financial aid: Assumption Program of Loans for
Education: Governor’s Teaching Fellowships Program
Issue: This bill reinstates and refines the Assumption Program of Loans for Education (APLE) to meet California’s current teaching needs.
Committee Recommendation: Support.
Background: California is facing a growing teacher shortage. In MidOctober of 2015, more than 3,900 statewide teaching positions remained open on EdJoin, the educator job portal. The effects of the shortage are strongest in math, science, and special education fields. During a teacher shortage, lowincome students of color and students with special needs are disproportionately impacted. Currently, 51% of special education teachers are teaching on substandard credentials. In 20132014, twice as many students in highminority than in lowminority schools were being taught by teachers on emergency credentials.
Contributing factors to the growing teacher shortage include the burden of student loan debt in correspondence with low starting salaries. The elimination of previously existing support programs like the Governor’s Teacher Fellowship, Cal Grant T programs, and the funding for new participants in the Assumption Program of Loans for Education (APLE) has exacerbated the problem.
Senate Bill 62 would reinstate and improve the the APLE program, targeting funding towards teachers committed to teach in the highestneed subjects and areas. The APLE warrants are given to credential candidates who demonstrate financial need and commit to teach for four years at a school with large numbers of disadvantaged students, a school with a large number of teachers using emergency permits, or a rural school, and in a subject declared a shortage area by the Department of Education.
Analysis: Proponents of reinstating the APLE program argue that California must take purposeful steps to avoid a more widespread shortage of teachers. Reinstating previously successful incentives for teacher recruitment and retention will increase the pipeline of students entering credentialing programs. There are no opponents of this bill on file; however, the Legislative Analyst’s office released a report suggesting that the teacher shortage may be resolved through market forces.
The Learning Policy Institute, led by Linda DarlingHammond, Professor of Education Emeritus at Stanford University, issued a report calling for a “comprehensive set of strategies at the local
and state levels that are focused on increasing the number of wellprepared entrants to the field of teaching.” The report points to the late 1990s as an instance where market forces failed to solve a shortage period and this resulted in a “huge influx of underprepared teachers.” Carolyn Nelson, vice president for academic affairs at Cal State East Bay, testified that “increased enrollments in teacher pathways correlated directly with APLE awards.”
A November 2015 poll commissioned by Edsource and conducted by the Field Company found that 85% of Californians support forgiving teachers’ student loans. Over 10 years ago, the state spent $80 million on statewide teacher recruitment efforts. If APLE continues to be phased out, and no other programs arise, the state will be spending no money on teacher recruitment.
On the contrary, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) believes that stateled recruitment efforts are unnecessary because market forces will help the shortage decrease as prospective teachers identify the increasing job openings in the field. The LAO acknowledges the existence of a shortage, but suggests that teachers who have left the profession may reenter it to fill open positions. The LAO recognizes the problem of perennial shortages in the fields targeted by the APLE program, but believes that loan forgiveness programs only incentivize the limited subset of students who have student loan debt, and are “poor at attracting all types of candidates (those without debt) into teaching.”
Senate bill 62 reinstates the APLE program and narrowly targets loan recipients according to identified areas of need. The program would forgive up to $11,000 of college loan debt. Funding of the program is contingent upon the annual Budget Act. Senator Pavley’s Office reports that, while it will be a challenge, they are in positive discussions with the Governor’s office to include funding in this year’s budget, should SB 62 pass.
Financial Impact: Depending on the number of awards, this would cause a cost pressure of up to tens of millions from the General Fund. The implementation of APLE would be contingent upon funding provided in the annual Budget Act and the number of award recipients would be dependent upon the amount allocated. Status: Passed through Senate 06/02/15; Passed in Assembly Committee on Higher Ed. 06/15/15; Currently pending a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
Support: Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson (Sponsor); Dr. Linda DarlingHammond, Chair of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing; California Student Aid Commission; California Teachers Association; California Federation of Teachers; Association of California School Administrators; California School Boards Association; Los Angeles County Office of Education; Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.
Oppose: None on File.
Assembly District 24 Candidates Marc Berman Marc Berman is a council member for the City of Palo Alto. A lawyer by training, Marc is the Development Director at the Silicon Valley Education Foundation, a non-profit focused on STEM education and closing the achievement gap in public schools in Silicon Valley. Website Link: http://www.voteberman.com/
Mike Kazperzak Mike was first elected to Mountain View City Council in 1998, serving from 1999 to 2007. Having “termed-out” of office in 2007, Mike took a two-year break from City Council and was again elected by the people of Mountain View to City Council in 2008. Now in the sixth year of his current tenure on City Council, Mike has served Mountain View in this role for a total of 14 years. Mike served as Mayor of the City of Mountain View in 2003 and 2012.
Website Link: http://www.kasperzakforassembly.com/ Vicki Veenker For nearly 25 years, Vicki has advised top inventors as an IP attorney, fought poverty as President and board member of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, promoted sport and women's equality with the founding of Women's Professional Soccer, and resolved disputes as a volunteer mediator for federal courts. Website Link: http://www.vickiforassembly.com/
John Inks
Mr. Inks has a sixteen-year record of service with the City of
Mountain View as a volunteer mediator, Parks Commissioner,
Environmental Planning Commissioner and Council member. He was
Mayor in 2013, and also served on regional transportation and water
advisory committees and as City Liaison to Avenidas Senior Day
Health. Separately from Council business, John has also supported
many residents and businesses with zoning issues and processing
development applications.
Website Link: http://www.inks4assembly.com/
