Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance

The Senate Committee on Governance and Finance will come to order. So good morning, everyone. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service and for individuals wishing to provide public comment on today's agenda items, the participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 694-8930 we are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building, and I ask all Members of the Committee to please be present in room 2200 so that we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

We're going to start today as a Subcommitee because we do not have a quorum, but we have 12 bills on today's agenda, so we want to get through them expeditiously. And there are five proposed for consent. The consent items today are item number three, SB 82 by Senator Seyarto, item number five, SB 543 by Senator Dahle, and items nine through 11, SBS 878879 and 880, the three annual validating acts that are authored by the Committee.

So what we're going to do is go ahead and get started, and since we don't have any other authors here today, the chair is going to relinquish the gavel, the power of the gavel, and present and very dangerous and present the first Bill.

Good morning, Senator. Thank you for presenting your Bill this morning.

Thank you so much.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much. Well, good morning, Chair and Members, or Vice Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 706. SB706 will allow counties, cities, and special districts to use progressive design-build delivery method to build infrastructure projects. PDB allows local agencies to collaborate with one entity to complete the design drawings and construction for a project and to work together to determine the final cost and schedule for the project.

This approach allows for earlier collaboration between the local agency and the construction team, which helps ensure projects meet agency needs, controls, costs and remain on schedule. SB 991 authorized cities, counties and special districts that provide water service to use PDB for water, wastewater, recycled water and advanced treated water and supporting projects. While this was an important first step, local agencies have many other projects that could benefit from this more collaborative approach than PDB offers.

SB 706 allows local agencies to use PDB for any project that will benefit from this procurement tool, and importantly, the Bill maintains key safeguards for this authority, limiting each agency's use to 15 projects, which must exceed $5 million. These safeguards ensure that local agencies use this authority on the projects that are most likely to benefit from this more collaborative approach. If you've ever served in local government. You know that the method for contracting is very cumbersome, is rife with the possibility of delay and extra cost.

And in a world where we want to be able to build projects expeditiously, avoid extra costs, and do it on time and on budget, this is really the delivery method that provides that opportunity. So with me today to testify in support of the Bill and to facilitate any questions the Committee may have is Marianne O'Brien, President of Design Build Institute of America Western Pacific Region, and Jay Brandon Dekker, former President of Design Build Institute of America Western Pacific Region.

So the witnesses, you can come forward and speak at the mic. There we go.

It works very well.

Just step up. No, it's a little odd, but it'll work.

Are you ready? Yes.

All right. Good morning, Senator Caballero and esteemed Committee. I'm Marianne O'Brien, and I am the 2023 President of the Design Build Institute of America Western Pacific Region. We are 1400 Members strong, 85% of them in California. I am also an architect with Smith Group, the oldest continuously operating AE firm in the country, and I am here to express support progressive design build is by far the best methodology that we have to date. It is advantageous to all parties.

From the owner's standpoint, the most effective use of funding. From the builder's standpoint, it offers the best price risk management strategy because so many project parameters are known when the price is committed to, and from the design professional standpoint, it is fabulous because it brings the best minds together early in the process when there's the greatest chance of impacting the project, whether it's solving a technical challenge or a sustainable design challenge, and bringing the best strategies forward. So I am here to express the support of so many of our design build members to this Bill. So thank you.

Thanks, Marianne.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

Hi, good morning, Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Brandon Dekker. I'm a principal with CannonDesign, and I'm the immediate past President of the Design Build Institute of America, Western Pacific rRgion. This is an exciting moment as design build delivery has evolved over the past several years to one that was considered as an alternative form of delivery not long ago, to one that is now more widely used than other forms of traditional project delivery.

In the latest FMI report sponsored by the Design Build Institute of America, it was stated that by the year 202547% of all capital projects put in place will use design build project delivery. Nearly 85% of all projects will be using some form of design build or alternative form of project delivery. You took a chance on us nearly 30 years ago, and that decision has proven to be a great one as it has transformed the way projects are being delivered in the state.

Progressive design build delivery allows public agencies to complete public projects more quickly and at a lower cost, allowing public dollars to provide greater benefits to the public, especially federal dollars with strict use it or lose it timelines without sacrificing important protections that the public expects. As a representative of the DBIA Western Pacific Region, we applaud you for your support. Thank you very much.

And thank you very much. At this time, we'll go ahead and take testimony for those who are in favor of this measure at the speaker up there. Just kindly come up. State your name, your support and organization you represent.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Heidi Hannaman, on behalf of the California Special Districts Association, in support.

Jeff Neal, representing the County of San Diego, also in support.

Mark Neuburger, California State Association of Counties, proud sponsor and proudly supporting this Bill.

Good morning Brett Mitchell with AECOM and a former district employee of 30 years for K-12 school districts and universities, and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Mark Esidro, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in support. Thanks.

All right. That worked out very well. Okay, so next up, we're going to take any opposition. Were there any opposition? Main speakers? There aren't. Is there any opposition in the room? Going once, going twice. Okay. If there's no opposition in the room, what we're going to go to is the AT&T person to get our teleconference pre-pull in. So at t, do we have anybody who wishes to weigh in on this issue?

To speak on this issue, please press one, then zero. At this time, you'll hear an indication you've been placed into queue. An AT&T specialist will provide you with a line number by which you'll be identified. When we open your lines, if you're on a speakerphone, we ask you to please pick up your handset before pressing any buttons and make certain that your phone is unmuted. We'll go first to line 16.

With Bernard's Builders, and I'm in support of this Bill. City of Los Angeles, thank you.

Next speaker.

We have no further lines in queue at this time.

Great. Now we'll bring it back to the dias. Anybody up here have any questions for the author? No. Would you like to close, Senator?

Is a practical alternative to offer local government, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Great. Thank you very much. And I believe the author and the Chair advises an, aye vote on this and as do I. This is something that is a valuable tool for local government to help answer the question that a lot of people have. It's when is that project ever going to get done? Because the delays in projects are super frustrating and they're expensive. And so I applaud the author for her foresight in carrying this Bill.

Okay. And also, this Bill does have amendments. And do you accept the amendment? All right, thank you. With that, Madam Secretary, you want to call the roll? We don't have quorum yet. I'm sorry. Yeah, we've got two more people. No, we don't. All right. We still have to add some more people. So we're still in Subcommittee mode.

Aren't there seven?

There's eight of them. Great. Well, good morning, Senator.

I'm sorry. Yeah. Madam Chair, could we have. Moved the Bill? No.

We need to wait until we have a quorum to do that. I appreciate it. All right, we'll go back to the top of the agenda. Senator Allen, SB 414. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, let me start by thanking you, the Committee staff, for working closely with my office on this bill. We're going to be accepting the Committee suggested amendment analysis. But as I think you know, Madam Chair, we're hoping that we'll be able to work closely moving forward on this bill to see if we can make it a little more meaningful.

California has been facing one of the, in spite of the day to day and some of the last couple weeks, we know we've had a lot of challenges with the drought. In order to conserve water, many municipalities have implemented strict water conservation policies, including the restriction of lawn watering. And as a result, some Californians have switched to drought resistant landscaping, and local governments have encouraged the transition through incentives for homeowners to replace grass lawns with various alternatives that require less water.

Some homeowners turn to artificial turf because of its advertised ease of installation and care, but the data is now starting to show that it does cause significant environmental problems. According to the US EPA, artificial turfs utilize chemical coatings that include toxins like lead, zinc, PFAs that have been linked to numerous health problems. And like most plastics, artificial turf is a limited lifespan. It's rarely recycled due to the high cost of separating and cleaning the material, as well as market restraints on reusability.

And so when artificial turf needs to be replaced, it's commonly disposed of directly into landfills, where it then continues to legion these toxins into the surrounding soil, water, and air. And that's actually when it gets into the landfill, oftentimes there's a lot of runoff from the turf that ends up just creating more plastic pollution that gets into our water systems. So we were looking to say to local governments, look, you shouldn't be using other people's money to subsidize folks putting in turf.

That was all this was about. It didn't stop people from putting in turf, but it was all about the pretty significant subsidization that's happening right now. Now, I understand that the Chair was concerned about not wanting to be too prescriptive with regards to local decision making.

So with the Committee's amendments now, the bill will just prohibit the use of state funds in local programs to incentivize the installation of artificial turf, which is a relatively small portion, small piece of this pie, but certainly willing to accept the Committee amendments. It's been double referred. But we do look forward to working with the Chair. And one of the things we talked about is how do we encourage a transition to more natural, drought tolerant landscaping and away from these toxic, artificial alternatives?

Is there a way that we can help this transition in a way that's respectful of local needs while also addressing the very significant environmental issues at play? And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that you're taking the amendment and commit to continue working on this. I think this is really important. New science comes out with information every day, and I think we need to be aware of what that is. It looks like we have a quorum, so if we could take the roll and establish a quorum, that would be great.

[Roll Call]

A quorum has been established, so we're going to move on now to lead witnesses in support. Are there any lead witnesses in support? Seeing none. Let's hear if there's any witnesses, support witnesses here in room 2200. Are there any support witnesses?

Madam Chair and Members. Sylvia Solis Shaw here. On behalf of Stop Waste in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Seeing no one move. We'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Is there anybody here in room 2200 in opposition? Seeing none. We'll now move on to witnesses that would like to testify via the teleconference service. Moderator, if you will, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 414, we will begin.

To weigh it on this measure, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad at this time. We'll go first to line 12. Go ahead.

Good morning. This is Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Are there any further witnesses?

Yes, we have one more line. One moment while we provide their line number. We'll go to line five. Go ahead, please.

Good morning. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

And, Madam Chair, we have no other lines in queue.

Very good. We're going to bring the matter back to the Committee to see if anybody has any questions, comments. Senator Skinner?

No question, but I think this is an important bill and appreciate the author bringing it, and I would move it.

Very good. There is a motion. Any further comments or questions? Senator Seyarto?

So, essentially what we want to do is go back on what we've been doing, which is trying to replace turf with something else. And this is a great example. Football fields in all of the high schools have gone into using turf as opposed to grass fields because the grass fields were determined in order to keep them in good shape.

This doesn't impact sports fields at all. This is only for residential.

So it's just residential. And that does not bleed over into our high schools?

No, not at all. Not at all.

Okay. So beyond that, even in residential development, and my property is probably a perfect example, the local agencies, the water agencies, wanted us to switch from having grass turf to artificial turf and natural landscape, which is, we have a combination of both. And their program was important in getting people to do that, which enabled us all to reach that 25% reduction in the usage of water, because that's the big thing. We got to cut back on water use. And so everybody did that.

And then going forward, we want to not do that. And for all the reasons, because we did that in the first place, one of them was when you're fertilizing your lawn and when you're doing all those things, they're leaching into the ground, and now you have other toxins going into the water table. Have there been studies done that show the toxicity rates for turf versus toxicity rates for other chemicals that are being applied to natural turf?

Because people are going to replace this turf with natural turf, and we're going to go back to what we were doing before, reversing our issues with water conservation. Do we have studies that indicate which is worse and why it's worse?

Well, there's no question. So there are studies. There's no question that the best for the environment is more drought tolerant than natural landscaping. Remember, nothing in this bill says that people can't put in artificial turf. In fact, now we're at a point where all the bill says is that if a program receives state funding, which is actually a very small portion of these programs, so if it receives state funding, then they should be subsidizing. If they're going to have a subsidy program, they should only incentivize.

They should only subsidize those folks who want to switch over to natural, drought tolerant landscaping. But nothing in the bill, and this is on a going forward basis, nothing in the bill would require anyone to take out their turf. Nothing in the bill says that people can't put in turf.

It's just disincentivizing local agencies to use money that the state may--

Right. That's all the bill does now.

Because sometimes that line gets really blurred on what becomes state financed or state money. And then they use that because the state will do, the water agencies or the water resource agencies provide incentives, and that becomes state money for local agencies' water districts to create programs to reduce water usage. And then if they don't reduce water usage, everybody starts getting penalized. And so I want to make sure that that doesn't happen, because those are the things that frustrate people. Because then their rates go up in order to do a program that the state wanted them to do.

So I don't, unfortunately, have the Committee analysis here. I thought it would be in the folder. It should be in your packet. If someone from the Committee maybe could just read exactly what we negotiated. Do you have that language, Madam Chair? I'm so sorry, but basically, my understanding is the language would prohibit the use of state funds in local programs that incentivize installation of artificial turf. But if you want greater clarity?

No, that's fine.

I get what you're saying.

I can get it later if you wish.

So what you asked to be read is bill's prohibition applies only when local agencies issue rebates, vouchers, or other financial incentives paid from state funds, but not to those paid entirely from local funds.

Okay, so that seems pretty specific, but I'm sure.

Right.

And state funds have to be segregated anyway. So I think the whole point of that is that the state is taking the position that artificial turf has too many caustic properties that are likely to leach into the water, which is why you see the water agencies in support some of the water agencies.

That's what's going on.

You're right. Yeah, I understand what the argument is. It's just I have some concerns about what the real life implications are regarding water conservation versus removing turf and disincentivizing people to do the conservation part.

But I do think it's telling, Senator, that the very folks who are so concerned about water availability, the water agencies themselves, they've got so many problems now in terms of water quality because of the toxins and plastics that are ending up in the water, that they really want to see a bill. They want to see progress on this from basic so that they can meet their obligations.

Right. Again, it's the PFAS issue and they're not getting the funding they need to be able to monitor their water quality, which is something that the state should be doing.

It's not just monitoring, it's just stopping.

No, I know what you're mean. They need the facilities to clean and do these PFAS operations. So I appreciate your help in helping me understand it a little better.

Yeah, certainly would love your support. And if you're not able to today, I'd love to work with you further because I think it sounds like from everything you're asking, I don't see discord. I don't see discord.

So we do have a motion on the bill. Are there any other comments, questions or concerns? Seeing none, we'll allow you to conclude.

Appreciate the discussion. Certainly look forward to more work with the Committee. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. Please take the roll.

Motion is do pass us amended to Environmental Quality Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Thank you.

The bill is out, five to zero. But we will keep the roll open for add ons later. Members, we have a couple of housekeeping tasks to do. We have Committee rules that have been circulated, and our task today is adoption of the Committee rules as well as to appoint Itzel Vargas as our Committee Assistant. I'll entertain a motion on that. Very good. The motion has been made. Please call the roll.

Motion to adopt Committee rules. [Roll Call] Six to zero.

The motion passes. We'll leave it open for add on later. We're going to take an item out of order, which is file item number 12, originally on the consent but has been pulled for a discussion. SJR three by Senator Roth and then Senator Padilla, you are up next.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. Today I'm presenting SJR 3. It's a simple but important resolution that calls on the federal government to work with the United States Postal Service to grant the City of Eastvale a new and independent zip code. Some of you may remember the City of Eastvale is a relatively new city. It was incorporated in 2010. Some may have been around when we had the fight to obtain state funding for this city and the three other newly-incorporated cities several years ago.

Successful, I might add. Unfortunately, this city has never had its own zip code or an Eastvale mailing address, surprisingly. The current sharing of two zip codes with other neighboring cities has caused problems: mail delivery disruptions, miscalculated insurance rates, business recruitment challenges, and potential delays in emergency service response. The simple solution is to address all of these public concerns through the establishment of an independent zip code for the City of Eastvale.

And that's what this resolution requests of the federal government, the government that has the opportunity and the duty to do so. Here with me today to testify in support of the bill is the Mayor of the City of Eastvale, Mr. Todd Rigby, for brief comments.

Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members, and I thank you for your time in hearing this bill. I'd also like to thank Senator Roth for authoring this bill, as well as coauthors Assembly Member Cervantes and Essayli for their efforts in helping. So why is this so important to the City of Eastvale? The City of Eastvale was incorporated in October 2010. We have gone from a dairyland community in the late 1990s to almost a fully developed city in 2023.

We have less than ten percent of our land left to develop. We also have approximately 70 plus thousand residents. We operate with a budget of approximately 100 million dollars. We have gone from infancy to financial stability in a short 12 years and ranked as number one with a city with the lowest fiscal risk. Currently, our city has two different zip codes: 92880, 91752, which also encompasses other cities outside of the City of Eastvale. 91752 covers approximately 80 percent outside of Eastvale, while 92880 covers 22 percent outside of Eastvale.

Having two different zip codes within the city which we share with other cities has caused much confusion for our residents, businesses, and visitors. This can also result in catastrophic impacts during emergency incidents to get resources efficiently to our city, if not directed properly. The city continues to make a valiant effort to obtain an independent zip code. The City of Eastvale partnered with Congressman Calvert and Congresswoman Torres, and with Congressman Calvert submitted a boundary review request to the USPS and the USPS's reply denying the request.

The city and congressmen have appealed the letter or have appealed the decision and are waiting for a response from USPS. There are currently two bills in Congress in support of Eastvale having its independent zip code. One is HR 696 by Congressman Calvert, and another is HR 860 by Congressman Diaz-Balart. Both bills are referred to the House Committee, Oversight, and Accountability and have received bipartisan co-authorship from representatives across the country.

As of March 20th, we have received over 1,100 letters of support from our residents and businesses. We've also received letters of support from our local, federal, state, and county representatives as well as their surrounding cities: Chino, Corona, Norco, Ontario.

Having SJR 3 advance will send a unified message from the State of California that recognizes our needs, while endorsing our efforts to address the concerns by our residents. We respectfully ask and request your aye vote and ask for your support in passing SJR 3 to assist the City of Eastvale to obtain an independent zip code. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support?

Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Sharon Gonsalves, on behalf of the city Corona, in support.

Very good. Anyone else in Room 2200? Seeing none, we'll move on to witnesses in opposition. Is there anyone here in Room 2200 in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line and ask if there is anybody that would like to speak in support or in opposition on the teleconference line.

To speak on this measure, press one then zero at this time.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns or a motion?

Motion. I'll make the motion.

There is a motion by Senator Seyarto. Senator Roth, you may conclude.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank you and my colleagues for your patience and respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Very good. Please call the roll. The motion is to adopt the resolution. [Roll Call] The Bill is out. Five to zero. We'll leave it open for add ons. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to present SB 797 and appreciate the staff working with us. We will take the amendments recommended by the Committee consultant. This Bill continues to build tremendous support by regional stakeholders. I'm pleased to advise that we have 15 additional organizations and local governments in support of the Bill just in the last couple of days.

SB 797 would establish the lithium extraction Tax Oversight Committee, a unique structure for bilateral consultation, partnership with the state. Input, decision making, analysis and recommendations and reporting to the Legislature for a very, very uniquely structured tax for a very, very unique situation in imperial county that is important not just to that region, but, frankly, to the rest of our state.

It is a natural and necessary third step that builds on two prior pieces of good work by the Legislature in the past, which were AB 1657, which established a blue ribbon Committee to look at analysis of the emerging interest in California and imperial around the Salton Sea in developing lithium extraction, important for our economy, the regional and state economy, important for our transition to sustainable energy and competing in the global market for production of lithium products throughout the world.

It then further, after the conclusion of the Blue Ribbon Committee's work, we enacted SB 125, which created the lithium extraction tax, which is a unique tax based on industry production, with the version of those funds going to the County of imperial for distribution to community benefit throughout affected regions, and 20% of those proceeds going to the California Natural Resources Agency to assist with the very important restoration efforts in areas that are exposed after the receding of the Salton Sea.

This is a unique structure and necessary because it adds a very important value. It provides a formal mechanism for stakeholders throughout the region that go beyond just government to include all sectors, the private sector, the NGO sector, and community Members with specified areas of expertise to be able to have an active, participatory role in oversight, recommendations and reporting to the state that does not exist.

That is why this structure is important because we have to go beyond just the county, which is charged with distributing funds, to have a wider net of inclusion, transparency, and certainly to center the efforts around economic justice and equity issues. This region is very, very important to California's economy, and it's very, very unique in the following ways. The demand is expected to grow by as much as tenfold in the next decade.

The Lithium Valley supply will play a key part in America's transition to clean vehicles, and it has the potential to unleash billions of dollars in economic opportunity in a very historically neglected area. This potential growth is a unique opportunity for both imperial county and any regions affected, which particularly has the highest unemployment rate in the state.

With almost a quarter of predominantly Latino residents living below the poverty line, the county is regularly ranked among some of the most polluted places in the State of California, and this is only exacerbated by the further toxic exposure from the Salton Sea. It is therefore very important to have the broadest structures in place for bilateral oversight, not just for community Members in the region, all of whom would have to come from this region.

Multisector, multi expertise from the region for input, reporting and oversight about the distribution of funds in the region, but also to provide local engagement and input and oversight to the state, which is unique, to be sure, that the California Department of Natural Resources is also distributing funds in a way that reflect the needs and reflect social and other economic equity issues as well.

So it's a unique structure that I think is a natural third piece to the progression so far and provides an added benefit in that way that is not currently present. And with that, I am pleased to announce that today I have Daniela Flores, who is the Executive organizer of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice Coalition.

Welcome.

Good Morning Chair Caballero and Members of the Committee, I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak before you in support of SB 797. My name is Daniela Flores, Executive organizer with Imperial Valley Equity and Justice Coalition in Imperial county. Our coalition is an intergenerational organizing group that came together at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic to address inequities that resulted in our majority Latinx county having the state's highest Covid mortality rate.

We are advocates of health equity, environmental and social justice, as well as civic and democratic engagement. We have been stakeholders, active stakeholders in the conversations about lithiums. Over the years, our coalition launched a community survey to learn from over 200 residents about the ways that they would like lithium tax revenue to be spent, and we have advocated at the state and local level to make those findings known and also for environmental protections, quality jobs and community benefits.

So we're strongly in support of SB 797 as it's necessary to address historic inequities in disadvantaged communities in imperial Valley by improving community engagement and maximizing community benefits from those revenues. Our community has a once in a lifetime opportunity, and that can only be realized through accountability, transparency and community engagement efforts that center equity and accessibility through our community survey this past summer, one of the top community concerns raised was the need for community oversight of the allocation and implementation of tax revenue.

Given historic examples of inequitable distribution of resources and funds and the mistrust between the community and the county. There are no detailed local plans for resident oversight of the lithium extraction tax, and this Bill creates the needed vehicle for public accountability of the tax revenue.

Our community Members have been historically excluded from having a seat at the table, and our coalition is determined to end that practice by valuing and honoring the lived experiences of those most impacted by the lithium development and the environmental injustice in the region. Through our survey, residents expressed strong support for most of the tax revenue to be spent in transportation infrastructure, affordable housing, youth development opportunities, workforce development and overall built environment for our county.

Through the creation of an oversight Committee as proposed by SB 797, we hope to ensure that community benefits materialize and that the County of imperial is not merely an extraction site and instead is transformed into a community where we can all thrive. With that, I thank you for your time and respectfully ask for your aye vote and I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much.

Great. Thank you very much. Very well done. Are there any other witnesses that would like to speak in support here in room 2200?

Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Luis Almedo. I am the Executive Director of Comite Civico Del Valle. We're a leading environmental justice organization with 35 year history operating in the Imperial Valley. Comite Civico Del Valle is in support of SB 797 because Comite Civico believes it is important that the California Legislature have oversight over how Imperial County's lithium taxes are invested. For a very long time, Imperial county policies have catered to agriculture and landowner interests at the expense of working families living locally in distressed communities.

SB 797 will ensure that local government is adhering to the spirit of community inclusivity in the development of local lithium extraction policy and the community investments that the county purports to support Committee civico encourages continued discussion between the office of the Senator PadilLA as well as imperial county officials to ensure that local lithium tax dollars are invested in essential and requested community benefits.

We stand ready to advocate for the community's input to incorporate the imperial county's lithium extraction permitting, citing decision making process that ensures equitable distribution of funds for that. Madam Chair and Members of this Committee, I ask for your vote. Also requesting in support as well:

Equity sure helpline roots Multicultural Center Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Bay Area System Change, not climate change Nyland Chamber of Commerce Communities for a new California West Berkeley alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs Campesino Sunidos Calexico Wellness Center Little Manila, Rising Green Action, Dry Valley Cares, La Uniona, Sala, Fueza Hill, Unevercidapo Pular Earthworks and the California Environmental Justice Coalition. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you very much. Any further witnesses in room 2200.

Madam Chair Mike Monaghan, on behalf of the state Building and Construction Trades Council and we're proud to support SB 797.

Very good. Anyone else seeing no one else here in support? I want to see if there is anybody in the room that's in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Eric Johnson. I'm here representing Imperial county. Regrettably, the supervisors adopted an opposed position to SB 797 at last week's board meeting. As you know, in 2022, the Legislature passed SB 125, which, among other things, created a lithium extraction tax and returns 80% of the revenues from that tax to the county within which the lithium was extracted.

It also sets aside 20% of the revenues statewide to help meet some of the state's obligation to ensure the restoration of the Salton Sea. Specific to imperial county, SB 125 also adds several sections of law to direct the county's distribution of these revenues to communities that are most directly impacted by the lithium extraction activities and specifies to which communities this pertains. SB 125 also holds the county accountable by requiring the county to report annually to the Legislature on expenditure of these tax revenues.

Imperial county pursued this taxing legislation in order to ensure that the impacted communities benefit from the extraction of the riches underneath their feet. The county has engaged in and will continue to seek significant community outreach and input, and they are collaborating on plans for the most effective and impactful use of these new tax revenues.

Without discussing with the county or other communities in the region, Senator PadilLA introduced SB 797, which the county argues undermines local authority in the oversight of the lithium extraction tax revenues. And creates unnecessary and burdensome oversight through a state appointed board. Further, SB 7097 requires the new oversight Commission to report to the Legislature on how the revenues from the collection of the lithium extraction excise tax were allocated. This is wholly duplicative of existing statutory requirements from SB 125.

The state hasn't begun to collect these revenues, and the county is in the middle of the process of community engagement to develop its plan for the best way to distribute the funds once they begin to be received. It is unclear what problem SB 797 is seeking to resolve, and at the same time, the county argues that it is wasting precious state resources for no real benefit.

The county was able to meet with the Senator late last week and is hopeful that communication can continue and the Senator can better explain the need for an additional layer of oversight. Until a problem is identified and a suitable solution to that problem is collaboratively developed, the county must remain regrettably opposed to 797. Thank you.

Very good. Is there anyone else in opposition here in room 2200? Seeing none, we'll go on to the teleconference line and ask is there anybody that would like to speak in opposition or in support of SB 797?

To speak in opposition or support, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 13. Line 13, you were in queue. You seem to have taken yourself out of queue. If you would like to register. Okay, line 13, your line is open. Go ahead. Line 13.

We're going to bring the matter back to the Committee for comments. Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question about the community benefits, either to the author or to your witnesses. But I was glad to hear, very glad to hear that you're talking about community benefits and doing it as early as possible. Having come from a city where it was probably the first community benefits in the country, it really paid off because everybody was there talking about the issues. Labor was there, community, environmental issues were there, park space.

I mean, it wasn't a perfect, because it was the first time, but it was absolutely everybody who needed to be there that was important to be there. So I'm curious now, after community benefits agreements have evolved and gotten better, we've gotten better at it. If you can give an example of what you're looking at as far as community benefits for that region, and I also want to commend labor for being a part of this. So either you and or your witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just generally respond to the question by saying, I think we know that there is a sad and decades long history of the economic and social disposition of folks in this part of the state, and particularly in Imperial County, wherein every few decades a new, bright, shiny thing comes along, promising real investment in the community, in its human and physical infrastructure, in economic opportunities and workforce development and environmental improvement.

And typically, there are a lot of investments made that don't broaden that scope, to even create a framework like we're proposing here, to assure that as broad as possible, a network of stakeholders and interested individuals and organizations are engaged in decision making, not just providing an opinion, but actively encouraged in a structure to be able to participate in decisional matters and participate in analysis and participate in reporting. And that's what's distinct here.

And the intent here, Madam Chair, is to be able to try to avoid a repeat of this sad history. I think the objection, due respect, I would say two things. One, I don't see that the bill's intent here is out of harmony with the concerns of the county. In fact, it seeks to strengthen the process wherein the county has an important role.

But I would also respectfully say that given the fact that the county, as a government entity, is charged with distributing all of the funds, certainly the architecture of addressing community benefits, what they will look like, when they will look like, who will they will impact, must go beyond just a government entity. They must include multisectors outside the county. They must include expertise outside the county.

They must be broad and bilateral, including the ability for locally appointed folks, as I've described, appointed by the state government in partnership with us, to not just provide that input with respect to what the county is doing in imperial, but also, frankly, with what respect we're doing here in the state. And that is also unique.

And so many of the opportunities that could be betrayed here not just is human infrastructure, investments in workforce development, investments in creating the skills, training and educational opportunities that link to an emerging industry. Frankly, that isn't just important to imperial county, but it's important to the State of California's competitive position.

We should also not forget that the ability to be successful around the lithium extraction opportunity here is not just an economic opportunity, it's an environmental opportunity that goes hand in hand, because not only are there economic inequities and justice issues at play here, but we're dealing with a part of the state that has probably 99% of the raw materials that will make California competitive here, but also some of the worst environmental, man made environmental disasters and public health disasters in the State of California.

So I would just respectfully say that across the broad spectrum, whether it's workforce development, infrastructure investment, environmental remediation and cleanup, it is a unique challenge and opportunity for our state. And that is why I feel very strongly, as do many of the supporters growing every day of this Bill, that we must have a structure in place for this unique circumstance and for this unique tax structure that goes beyond just the government entity charged with distributing the funds. It isn't a knock on the county. It is seeking to empower all parties.

Thank you. Well, you may have just answered my question, but what I was just going to say is your answer there was really great about addressing the need for the Advisory Committee and not just the governmental entity. But I just wanted to give you the opportunity to respond to any of the other things that the county said that you would like to respond to.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I would just respectfully disagree with the characterization. I've been out in the county. I've been out in the county in recent months with many of these organizations, including elected Members of the county board. I've made public remarks about my concerns and the work program that I was putting together to help broaden, expand and strengthen and provide a mechanism for meaningful multi sector engagement and priority setting here. And it should not have ever been a surprise to anyone.

Question a little bit about the mechanics of how this would work. So the Committee is formed and they're under the tax and fee Administration, and it's formed with all of these different groups, and they're going to come together and advise, or are they going to come in together and impose by a change in law something onto the supervisors? In other words, are they going to usurp the power of the Board of Supervisors that are elected for that county? What are they going to do and how much power do they have once they've formed the ability to coalesce and let their electeds know?

Thank you for the question. Nothing in the legislation supplants, diminishes or cancels out the role that the county plays here that remains in the existing statute. This structure simply, it's about addition. It simply specifies that the Governor, the Rules Committee in the Senate and the speaker in the Assembly will appoint public Members from the community. And I want to emphasize that, again, these are not folks from Sacramento bureaucracies or government. These are people in the community.

And it specifies further that with each of these subsets of appointments that they have a specific area of valuable added value expertise, and that their role is to be part of a broadening, multisector, not just the government, local government, county government, or any, but the private sector, the NGO sector, and the experts that would be appointed to be part of the decisional input and conversation about setting priorities, what those look like, why they should be priorities, and to report that to the Legislature.

And I think also uniquely to also report about the segment of distribution that's going to natural resources. So it's a unique opportunity for local stakeholders to actually indirectly provide some oversight and input about the actions of the state as well, in a formal structure that doesn't exist.

Right. But once they've made these wishes clear to the board or the agency, the state agency, how are they to impose those things on the county? Board of Supervisors can still get together, weigh in all of the input and vote how they feel is best.

And thank you again for the question. I think that may be a scope, that is, for continuing dialogue as we continue to build support. And I'm very open to working with the county about continuing to work with all interested parties to make modifications to the Bill to iron some of those implementing details out.

But I think it would be difficult for folks to have such a broad coalition of participation, a broad coalition of partnership with the state, especially since they're appointed by the branches of the state government, particularly given their expertise that's prescribed in this proposed statute. To then turn around and just ignore that, I think, would be problematic and would actually, I would argue it would undermine the county's legitimacy. It would diminish public trust.

And so, again, to the point of the Bill, I think that that would, in some ways, almost take care of itself.

Yes. So the county requested a meeting with the Senator. They have already started hearing, having public hearings all over the county.

Can I ask the question of the witness that came up from the county? Can you come forward, please? Sir, did you guys have a meeting already regarding this?

I am talking about a meeting where you took public input.

Okay. And then, so that input went to you guys. Did you have a meeting the other day, the 21st or something, or your last board meeting?

Yeah, the last board meeting. The Board of Supervisors meeting. They took a position on this Bill last Tuesday. On the Bill, yeah. But not. No, the process is ongoing. It is literally just started. Yeah. There is no revenue to be distributed yet.

Absolutely. Yes, sir.

They're working with all of the stakeholders in the county. They're mandated by SB 125 to already do that. They are reporting to the Legislature annually. They will have to report to the Legislature annually already. By statute. This Bill creates a new oversight Committee that will report to the Legislature on its findings and recommendations. It does similar to what SB 120.

I'm just trying to figure out what we're gaining by input wise, whether these groups are being excluded from their input during the community outreach process. So you guys outreaching to people?

Absolutely, they are. Whether or no t they're being excluded, Senator, is really a question for them. But my understanding, my experience with the county is that they are having meetings. They are reaching out to everybody and anybody, anybody can participate. They're doing it all over the county. There is no evidence that the county is doing things that stakeholders are not interested in at this point.

All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate all of your input on this. Thank you, Steve, for your Bill.

Yes, Senator Durazo.

Sorry, I just want to follow up to my first question with regards to the community benefits. Again, I commend you all very much, and I would urge that you make it enforceable. A lot of times, sort of fluff language is included. I'm not trying to say you have all the experience in the world, but I would just remind us that the strength of community benefits, what comes with it, is the ability to enforce it, and that's what really matters.

So whatever all the issues are that you all will determine are the most important. That's all I would urge you to do, because, as the Senator said, these are very critical life issues, life and death issues. And I think we need to make sure as you are coming to the table, but more importantly, what happens at the table as well.

May I respond?

There's no question there. So if you don't mind, I think.

The Senator had made a question earlier and we didn't get a chance.

All right, that's fine. That's fine. Go ahead.

So, when I started my comment earlier, I said we are the most prominent environmental justice organization, but we also provide over 30 programs on average. I am from Imperial Valley. I've lived there all my life. I was a Commissioner in the Lithium Commission. We crafted. I was part of that table that crafted a report to the Legislature. I appreciate the questions because they are important questions. We work very closely with the county, municipalities, but we also carry a heavy load, a heavy weight.

And that is that we have only had one industry for the last 100 plus years, and that industry for those last hundred years has customized policies with its influence. California has left us alone. The United States of America has left us alone. And only in recent years has the Legislature and the Governor and other leaders, such as Senator Padilla, Assembly Member Garcia, have really brought attention to our community. This is not a duplicative. We are not trying to undermine the county.

I talked to the county and other supervisors, such as Supervisor Kelly, Ryan Kelly, who's also served in the Commission with myself. We know that the county has limited tools to be able to overcome the political wall that exists there, that has directed majority of resources to a very small segment of our population. That's why we need roads, we need bridges, we need community centers. We are in the very moment of our history that we can bring in industry and do it right.

But yet meetings are happening in Palm Desert, in Palm Springs, in Riverside, because we can't even host a community meeting that will hold more than 300 people. We don't have that. We have a long way to catch up. And county had an opportunity to lay out, given of how much momentum is out there in this State of California. Leading the nation on equity, on justice, inclusivity. Their first draft was nowhere in that realm. And I helped craft language. We historically put language in SB 125.

Thank you for pushing that through. We put in there that we'd get this historical ask of doing a health impact assessment. We asked to assure that there was $800,000 for community engagement. Those dollars aren't out yet. Yet immediately there was a contract for the programmatic EIR Immediately. Now there's a contract for the health impact assessment. But the community has not gone their contracts. So I can go on and on, but this is our history. This is our situation.

I would stand strong, and the county knows that, that if they can do their part to make this Bill go away, we'll support them. But they're nowhere near anywhere that we can support what they're doing. I'll give you one last thing. Back when President Obama was around, there was a lot of money towards renewables energies. A lot of our agricultural land was transformed into solar projects. Not once has imperial county ever recognized those displaced workers, the farm workers. Not once.

Still today, I talked to them, recognize them in your solar community benefits program. They released the same status quo program. They released their status quo solar tax program. So it's not like we want to be against each other. I want to be hand in hand working with the county. And we did. When we got SB 125, we worked together. We were here talking to you together.

But in this, we really need this Bill right now and hope maybe down the road, if you're able to get your support, maybe down the road, maybe the county will do the right thing and maybe we won't need it. But right now we need it. Thank you for that.

Thank you for those comments. Seeing there's no other comments or questions, I just want to say that really appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. Understand completely the testimony that was just given. That issue of providing agricultural land for solar is happening all over the state, and the local communities are getting no benefit. As a matter of fact, they are losing property tax revenue because solar doesn't pay property tax.

So that there's this great inequity, the energy goes somewhere else and no jobs are created, and it's not in its natural state. You can't have wildlife going through a solar array. And so I want to thank you. Oversight committees are typical when you're doing a bond, and as a matter of fact, they're required in most communities in order to guarantee that there's some participation in the community. And to me, this is exactly the same thing. It can work in partnership with the county.

I'm going to support it today. I recommend on a reco. I would recommend more conversations with the county. I think there's a way to get them to. Yes, but it's changing. To me, it's advisory. And frankly, those advisory committees become very important for the development of leadership that then can take over the elected positions if it ends up that elected don't listen, then that's how you develop community leadership and get an opportunity to understand where the money is going and how it's being spent.

So I really commend you for this and suggest that you continue that dialogue. You moved the Bill. Thank you for the reminder. Please call the roll. zero, you may conclude.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I very much appreciate you and the Members comments and the good conversation. And you have my commitment that the dialogue with the county will continue. I would just again state this is about addition, not subtraction. This proposed legislation will create a structure that will basically broaden significantly participation in the input process here across sectors and to add specified levels of important and necessary expertise. It will build and strengthen community trust and most importantly, will center equity and transparency. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call] We will put that on call.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Very good. Members, I would like to take up the consent agenda items, and then the rest of the bills are Committee Members, and so we can go through that. The consent, just as a reminder, is file item number three, SB 82 by Senator Seyarto. And number five, SB 542 by Senator Dahle. And then the 910 and 11, which are the governance and finance bills. SB 878879 and 880. I'll entertain a motion. There is a motion. Motion is to adopt the consent calendar. {Roll Call] That Bill is out. We will put it on call for the absent Members. And then we took up file item number eight, SB 706, a Caballero Bill. If we could vote on that as well. I'll entertain a motion. I guess I'll move my own bill. Okay, Senator Blakespear, thank you. Please call the roll. And the motion on that is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call] 5-0.

That bill is out. And we'll put it on call as well. Senator Wiener, that gets us to your bill, which is SB 593.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for hearing this today, colleagues. Thank you for considering this bill. SB 593 will allow the City of San Francisco and our redevelopment successor agency to generate funding, locally funded, no impact on the General Fund, to replace more than 5,800 units of low and moderate income housing that were demolished in a truly atrocious period in San Francisco history from the 1950s to the 1970s.

A period known as quote unquote urban renewal, which was really urban demolition and displacement of communities of color. I think it's important because I know there was a comment in the analysis which I appreciate about why San Francisco, others haven't been able to do this. Putting aside the fact that the end of redevelopment, the destruction of redevelopment, there's nothing biblical about that. That was a decision made during a budget crisis by the Legislature.

So there's nothing inherently offensive about a city putting together a plan that it funds locally and asking the state for assistance to help create the structure to allow it to deliver this housing. And so there's nothing offensive about San Francisco doing that. Nothing weird about it.

But I think apart from that, San Francisco, and I'm not saying San Francisco is the only city that did this, but we need to understand this isn't just a city randomly coming forward and say, hey, give us this tool so we can build more housing. I mean, it's a good thing to build housing, but we need to always remember what happened in San Francisco. I want to talk about the western edition. The south of Market area was also impacted.

There was a plan to demolish the Haight-Ashbury. There was a plan to demolish Deboce Triangle. Just really a horrible period of time. But just in the Western Addition, which was known as the Harlem of the West, an epicenter of black community nationally, a really amazing, vibrant community. 10,000 black people were displaced, just pushed out of their neighborhoods because their homes were demolished. 20 to 30,000 people overall were displaced, just bulldozed out of their neighborhood. 883 businesses displaced, 4,729 households displaced. 2,500 victorian homes demolished.

1,100 senior citizens and just in one zone were displaced from their homes, senior citizens. Very few of the limited replacement units that were built were designated as low income. Instead, people were forced or given the option of going into public housing or SROs, which very few chose to do. In 1980, the Western Addition had 5,000 fewer homes than it had in 1950, a 30% decrease. San Francisco's black population in 1970 was 13% of our city. Today it's 5.1%.

So I'm not coming in here to say, hey, please do a special favor for San Francisco. I'm coming in here asking this Committee and this Legislature to give San Francisco a tool to remedy a truly horrific wrong that was done in our city that we want to fix locally. And we need the Legislature to give us this tool to help fix it. This provides a narrowly and tailored funding source through our redevelopment property tax trust fund.

It's just a limited continuation of existing tax increment that will not impact other priorities, that will not pull funding from other entities. This is the money that would have gone to the City of San Francisco. This will help us to build these homes which we were legally required to build and we haven't done so. And when redevelopment ended, it pulled the rug out. So, colleagues, I ask for your support in allowing us to do this.

And with me today to testify are Maddie Scott from Freedom West Homes and Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt with the Citizen Advisory Committee. Or, excuse me, the Chair of the Citizen Advisory Committee at the Hunters Point Shipyard. And we also have with us Thor Kaslofsky, Executive Director of the San Francisco Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, our successor agency who's available for any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for this report. I think it's very helpful to see. I want to welcome the witnesses up to the mic.

Hello, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you so much for hearing our collective voices for justice. My name is Maddie Scott. I'm a mother and a resident of the Western Addition Community for over 54 years. I raised my children there. I serve as the President of Freedom West Homes Corporation for the last six years. I also serve as the Brady Chairperson for the State of California for ending gun violence. On behalf of Freedom West Home, I want to express my support.

Our support and sponsorship for Senate Bill 593 from the San Francisco Housing Replacement Act by Senator Scott Wiener, which will remove barriers by replacing the more than 5,800 units of low income and moderate housing that were demolished in the 1950s and 70s, redevelopment known as urban renewal. We know it as urban removal, a violent act that is felt to this present day that happened to our communities. I raised my children there. I went to the skating ring in that neighborhood.

I went to the movie theaters in that neighborhood. I shopped in my neighborhood. I no longer can do that in my neighborhood. Everything was demolished and destroyed and taken away. Everything. Freedom West Corporation is one of the largest and oldest nonprofit housing Cooperatives in California. Established in 1973 by the late, great Reverend J. Austell Hall of Bethel AME Church. And was where I was able to buy my first home was Freedom West Housing Corporation, where I remain today.

Through the goal of these plans was to create vibrant mixed income communities that resulted in what was the authorization of widespread clearance, mass demolition and relocation of communities, particularly low income communities and communities of color, particularly the black community. The urban removal process resulted in the net loss of 6,709 affordable housing units. It also moved 20,000 families out of the way, 10,000 or 15,000 families that you know nothing about that was not recorded.

It was a violent destruction of our neighborhood that impacted us to this very day that later resulted in the crack cocaine epidemic, the gang wars, and all the other things that we continue to experience in our neighborhood. SB 593 would allow the successor agency to the redevelopment agency of the city and county of San Francisco to replace all of the housing units demolished in 1976, as well as preserve affordability of the replacement built housing built in the 1970s.

This legislation would right the wrongs of the past by funding the preservation and rebuilding of affordable housing, while also sparking the economic revitalization needed to create equitable and sustainable future for our current and future residents of color. This is reparation justice. Passing SB 593 is reparation justice. Passing SB 593 will help bring back families who were displaced. It will help teachers and young mothers and fathers and grandmothers to remain in San Francisco. It will help be the San Francisco that we once could brag about, the city of Saint Francis.

We hope that you will definitely consider passing SB 593 to right the wrongs that happened to us because of that urban removal. It not only impacted us economically, socially, it also impacted us personally. I lost my son to gun violence and I associated with what happened to us in urban removal in San Francisco.

So I stand here on behalf of all of the mothers and fathers who've lost their children to gun violence, who lost their children to mass incarceration, who lost their homes and their businesses in our community. I stand here before you today asking you to please consider passing SB 593 to right the wrongs, the real reparations for Freedom West and the Western Addition Community. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Thank you for sharing your story.

Chairperson Caballero and Members of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, my name is Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt. I am the chair of the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee as well as the chair of the Minnie and Lovey Ward Community Recreation Council. I represent various stakeholders, including the Bayview Hunters Point Community, the city and county of San Francisco, and community organizations. I have worked on affordable housing workforce, education, and community empowerment initiatives for over 50 years.

I would like to thank Senator Wiener for presenting this bill for approval. It's an honor to speak before you and our esteemed legislators today. SB 593 is a long awaited action to correct discrimination and injustice that has decimated African American lives in San Francisco. And this suffering, as Maddie referred to, still continues to this day. When I was a young girl in the Fillmore Western Addition areas, I remember the Smiths, the black couple who owned the dry cleaning establishment on Fillmore street.

The German deli where my family bought Hoghead cheese. Now, you may not know about Hoghead cheese, but some of you do. The Rexall drugstore at Fillmore and Geary, where my family purchased medicine from Ben, a Japanese pharmacist. The Yugoslavian bakery, where we ate pastries. Helen's restaurant, where we purchased delicious Chinese food. And New House Clothing Store, which featured plus sizes, which made them a fortune for women. All of this is a distant memory. Redevelopment forced African Americans and working class folks out of the neighborhood.

Senator Wiener, through this bill, mitigated San Francisco's ongoing housing crisis. Everyone in San Francisco stands to benefit from SB 593, especially low income workers, African Americans, and at-risk families. The replacement housing financing is a necessary and urgently needed source to jumpstart targeted housing replacements. Your yes vote and approval of SB 593 will do what will keep hope alive and uphold justice. Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here today.

Good morning. I'm Bobby Sisk. I'm with Bethel AME Church. I serve as their business development director. And good morning, Madam Chairwoman. And to the rest of the Committee, I thank you for this privilege and opportunity, and certainly to the Senator, I thank you for all of your efforts and work that you've done to this point. Let me go back just a little bit.

Fifty years ago, I was on a board of directors at that time, Bethel AME Church, who was celebrating 171 years in the Western Addition area of San Francisco. It's the oldest African American church in San Francisco. We built and sponsored Freedom West Homes over 50 years ago. Once they got to 98% occupancy, our interest backed out, their board of directors took over, our sponsorship came to an end at that time. Our church is situated on that footprint.

Now we look at what is about to happen with the Western Addition and all the ills that you've heard. I can't tell you anything new about what happened in San Francisco and what has happened in other parts of the country. The real challenge today is what are we going to do about it.

We have an opportunity now to preserve that housing facility that will give those residents their nearly 400 cooperative homes back and also provide an additional 2,600 units in market rate housing that will also be able to support the cooperative end of it. There's going to be a whole lot of activities on those properties. I would not challenge anyone to say that the numbers that we're asking today represents making everybody whole.

If we did a statistical analysis, we would find out if someone stopped your income today and held it for 15 years using the inflation, using other indicators of what your growth would be, you would determine it's almost impossible to put a number when you look at 400 families and other families that have been displaced in San Francisco, the funds that are needed today to help us partnership and shepherd this through.

While it sounds like a lot of money when you look at over 50, 60, 65 years, it's really not a lot of money, but it goes a long way in helping us to correct this injustice. Thank you for your time and your attention. And we ask for your support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other people in support of the bill in room 2200? We're now at the point of identification and support.

Absolutely. Nico de Luca here on Nonprofit Housing of Northern California in support. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

California African American Chamber of Commerce in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Caballero, Members. Thor Kaslofsky, the Executive Director of the Successor Agency in San Francisco on behalf of the citizens of San Francisco, the mayor of San Francisco, and the successor agency of San Francisco. And the Senator laid it out very eloquently, so I won't add anything to my remarks, just to say we're in support.

Thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon, Commission. My name is Bivett Brackett. I am currently the chair of the OCII Commission, which is the former redevelopment agency. And I'm here in support of Senator Scott Weiner's bill.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in room 2200? Seeing none, we're going to move on to opposition. Is there anybody in room 2200 in opposition? Seeing none. We'll go to the teleconference line and ask if there's anyone on the teleconference line that would like to speak in support or opposition.

And to speak in support or opposition, press one then zero at this time.

Very good. Thank you very much. We're going to bring it back to the Committee and see if there are any questions, comments, concerns. Senator Durazo?

Yes. Thank you. Yes, thank you to the author and for everyone who spoke on this bill. Could you summarize exactly what the benefit or the changes that you're seeking? And also, how does it correct all the wrongs that were done in particular to the African American community, but I'm sure more broadly. Anyway, that's just one question.

Yeah. So the trust fund, which now contains the money, the tax increment, that money after paying the enforceable obligations from the redevelopment agency, then whatever's left gets dispersed to the different taxing authorities: the City of San Francisco, the school district, Community College Board, I think BART as well, if I'm not mistaken, and so forth. Those other entities will all get whatever is owed to them.

But money that would go back to the City of San Francisco, that would stay at the successor agency. They could then use that and issue bonds against it to build these 5,800 low and moderate income units. Of all the homes that were demolished, San Francisco has a legal obligation to replace those homes. When the Governor forced the Legislature to kill redevelopment ten or so years ago, and I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's what happened. And it was bad.

Instead of fixing redevelopment, it just threw the baby out with bathwater, and it was a terrible decision. I understand it was a horrible recession, but I wish that a different decision had been made. That pulled the rug out. And so this will allow San Francisco to continue to do that work. So instead of only replacing, I think, 900 or thereabouts of the 6,700, they can replace the other 5,800 as well. That's the goal.

And of course, the neighborhoods that were most deeply impacted were the Fillmore, Western Addition, South of Market as well. And again, as you heard, it's not perfect. This isn't going to right every wrong that was done, but it's going to help us at least to move in that direction.

So I guess I'm trying to understand that the funding that would go somewhere else is going to stay to build the housing that was tore down, but where does the money not go?

To the City of San Francisco, and maybe Mr. Kozlowski could probably answer that even more in detail then--

Because I agree with you with the whole redevelopment agency, it really crushed the housing efforts, and I think that's part of the problem. I'm just trying to understand what would be different in San Francisco from everywhere else in the state.

Yeah. So this would allow our successor agency to not be limited to the existing obligations. But Mr. Kozlowski, I think, could probably answer more thoroughly than I can.

Okay.

Senator, you're doing an excellent job. Thank you. And, Senator, so the portion of property tax increment that goes to the city would continue to go to the city. And a portion of those funds--again, it's not the other taxing entities that the Senator had referenced--those remain intact. That was part of the way that the bill was crafted about those concerns.

Understanding one of the reasons for dissolution was to restore the funding for the school. So we said--we understand that. So that remains protected. It's the remaining portion that goes to the city today that a portion of that would be eligible to be used on this program. So it's a subset of a subset.

The challenge is that redevelopment law was set up to eliminate redevelopment. And so what they're asking is to be allowed to continue to do what the redevelopment agency would have been able to do had it not been disbanded, and--wait, I lost my train of thought.

But for a very limited--

Just for that particular region. In other words, it gives them the ability, despite redevelopment law that was passed. And I want to agree with you, it was a bad dissolution. I really think that part of what we wanted was communities to build affordable housing, and now they're restricted in many ways about how they could do it. So, Senator Seyarto, you had a question? Or you want to defer to Senator Dahle? That's fine.

Well, thank you. Sorry for missing your presentation. I was hung up. I bet it was epic.

It really was. You would have been convinced, I'm sure.

So I've done a lot of work on this bill, actually, more than I care to, quite frankly. I actually had a Zoom. I don't know--some of these folks were on that Zoom with me. And so, look, this is redevelopment. I will just say it. And I was around when they stopped redevelopment, and it was horrible. And it is horrible and it's bad. But I want to get a little more history because I have a none on this. I'm really in the middle.

I'm trying to figure out, I want to get you where you're going, but I also want to make sure that there was a reason that the Governor stopped redevelopment. That's because there's a tax base that goes to the state and to the other taxing authorities out there for obligations. And I'm very familiar with redevelopment. I was on the Board of Supervisors and we were trying to do redevelopment for a blighted area that was Army Depot. Quite frankly, it was the government's. And we got it.

So I want to get a little history. I'm going to ask you, did they eminent domain this property originally and those folks lost their home? So that happened. So the--who was the agency that did that?

The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

Okay. So the agency came in and said, 'we're kicking you out of your home or your business.' Okay. That's happened. Done.

For decades.

Okay. So that happened.

So that's a takings in my mind. It was allowed under the Constitution for redevelopment only. Okay. So that happened. And in the middle of that, we stopped redevelopment. So you didn't have the opportunity to build back?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. Senator Dahle. I don't know if you wanted me to respond, Senator.

Yeah. I missed the opener, so I probably had all these--

And it was great.

Yeah. We're going to go over the entire report. If you could do it very briefly.

Yeah. No, I won't. He said--so incredible. But what I'll say to your question in particular, yes, eminent domain was widely used. There were federal funds that incentivized this type of redevelopment.

Right.

And redevelopment, the demolition preceded by decades the restoring of the unit. So you've seen perhaps some of these pictures. We can provide additional ones of four or five square blocks just sitting there for ten, 15, 20 years. And so we never had a chance to really actually get in there to do that.

The state saw this as a significant issue, and in 1976 amended Community Redevelopment Law, Chapter 970 and said, 'Redevelopment in San Francisco, you have a legal obligation to restore those units,' thus creating the Replacement Housing Program. So the state saw that and made that program.

Okay. To the original owners that was eminent domained or to just for sale? I think that's the issue here. We're talking about people who've been displaced by eminent domain authorities. Are you replacing their home or are you just placing ones for sale?

And Mr. Kozlowski can add to this. People who were displaced received what's called a Certificate of Preference, and so in San Francisco, in all of our affordable housing, when we have lotteries, et cetera, if you have a Certificate of Preference, you can have some preference in the lottery. So that exists, and people have--there are people who are still in San Francisco, people who are living in homeless shelters, people who are living in Antioch or in Vallejo or in Sacramento. And some people may want to move back. Some people may not.

So they were given a fair market value for their property at the time and--no?

That's what the government would argue. I don't know if everyone would.

Okay. That's number one because the testimony is that these folks are going to go back to the--they had a loss and they want the right back to go back. So that's number one. Number two: I want to talk about--so you're going to have the ability to issue bonds and as you build back--the redevelopment money, this is where the Governor came in and said, 'oh, yeah, you get to keep that local base.' As the rate goes up, you get to keep that local base.

I know I'm getting a little bit in the weeds, but this is very important because I want to do this in my county too, or my district because you get to keep that local amount, and there's--somebody loses in that. And it was the state, and a lot of times it was the other taxing authorities lost out on that gain. So where does that go?

City and County of San Francisco would be the one that's losing money, and the City and County of San Francisco is a cosponsor of the bill, so no one is having money forcibly removed from them. This is a voluntary thing by the city.

Okay. But there's a gain. And when that gain is, the school loses if there's a gain and they don't get the part of that.

No, sir. This bill specifically, explicitly leaves intact the other taxing entities, and Senator Wiener went through them, the Bay Area Quality Control--

Right. But at what rate, though? At the established rate or at the rate when you build the homes? Because there is an increase when you have a value there, and that increase would allow those agencies to get more money.

It's the same value that they'd be getting when it goes to them in the first place. This program doesn't exist today. They're getting two cents on a dollar. Whatever they get, they would continue to get that in the future. This program would not change that.

Housing.

Okay. So if you build a home, the gain on that value is taxed at the same rate and gets distributed the same?

That's correct. That's the way the bill is structured.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So having had some extensive experience with the redevelopment agencies in both cities that were existing, that needed to have some redevelopment done, and also cities that were newer that used redevelopment agencies while they were trying to get a grip on how they were going to have inclusive housing and exactly the type of housing that we're lacking today, I really can understand what you're trying to do. And the tax increment is off property taxes. It's the difference between the base value and the value after it's built.

And that increment is what went into the redevelopment agency, and portion of that redevelopment agency money was supposed to be for affordable housing and that element of everybody's housing elements. So when it got kiboshed in 2012, all of those plans went out the window. And it was in the middle of a recession, and so all these cities that had those plans and that's how they were going to fund this, didn't get to do them. Plus, they didn't have anybody interested in building those.

And so we lost a whole decade of building affordable housing, and now we're paying for it. So that's what happened. And all this is doing is trying to do that part of it, the part where you tore things down that were in some cases blighted because the idea of the whole thing was like in the community that I worked in extensively, some blighted areas with buildings that were dilapidated and not being used--whole blocks of them sometimes--they were taking those out.

And today there are residential units in there. There were some senior residential units built using the redevelopment agency, talking about the City of Inglewood, and it was working the right way in most instances. Some cities did get out of control with the redevelopment agencies, and there was some underhanded stuff. And that's where you were talking about they threw the redevelopment agency out instead of fixing it and overseeing it and continuing on with the benefits.

The people that lose--and they didn't lose--were the people that were expecting a tax increment when something got scraped and you put a building of, say, a Kohl's or Lowe's, and the tax increment from that went into the redevelopment agency instead of increasing the amount of property taxes that went to schools and other public agencies to be able to pay for some--not all--but some of their thing.

So they didn't lose out, but they just didn't gain in something that wasn't going to be there in the first place, which was always my argument. So drum roll, please. We're supporting your bill today because I understand it and understand what needs to be done, and I understand why it needs to be done.

And so I appreciate that you've gotten through that and for the pain that a lot of people have had to go through while their homes did not get rebuilt, their neighborhoods--if it was blighted before, it did not get rebuilt. And now we need to make that right. But to Senator Dahle's comment, there's a lot of cities in this, and I hope we start taking that into account as we're dealing with our housing policies going forward.

But thank you for your bill, appreciate what you're trying to do for your district, and I hope other districts are going to be able to look at this and understand that there are some ways to try and deal with this, what we have to do to fix our communities. And this is one of them. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. So just to clarify and follow up on a lot of the things my colleagues have said here, so in the Committee Staff Report, one of the things that it says here is that there's no impact on the General Fund, the state's General Fund, and you both said that it's the city and the county that would be affected by this. It also describes it as 'narrow and tailored funding.' And so I just want to ask the question, is there conceptually any problem with every city and county coming together and having a bill that's similar to this?

I don't want to speak for other cities, and I know there are certainly other cities that I'm sure that would like to be able to do it. I want to be clear that San Francisco--not unique--but the mass bulldozing of neighborhoods that happened in San Francisco and the fact that this is limited to not a reinstatement of broad, far-ranging redevelopment, but literally for 5,800 units of housing, only the homes, only 5,800 of them, and then when that's over, it's over.

It's not like a broad reinstatement of redevelopment to do all the different things that redevelopment used to do. This is very limited and targeted, and that's why we're asking for this. Listen, would I love to find a way to bring redevelopment back in a better way, focused on housing and infrastructure and not some of the abuses we saw? I would love to. That is unbelievably complicated.

Senator Bell had a bill to do it through the General Fund that was vetoed, I think, twice, if I'm not mistaken, and that's an ongoing conversation. This is a very specific harm in San Francisco that we want to remedy with a very specific and limited approach.

Well, I get all that, and I appreciate the righteousness of it and I totally agree with the injustice and I appreciate the testimony. But the question is that is there any--conceptually--is there any reason if a city and a county wanted to dedicate this funding stream to this very specific, narrowly-tailored in their own city and county, if they're really the only ones who are potentially losing, I mean the city and counties are the ones who are not using it for paving their streets or their water infrastructure or building a park or a fire station or whatever the thing is that they would ordinarily do with that money.

So if you can reach agreement, is there any reason that this couldn't be used as a model for other locations? And I don't know if you want to--

Well, I think that if a city or county--and here the city and county are one thing--but if a city or a county or whatever wanted to do something, they could certainly make a proposal to the Legislature and it could be evaluated.

So I don't think this opens the door to all sorts of other ideas coming in, but, I mean, I think we should always be willing to listen to a local government that's saying, 'hey, we have an idea to do this and we want you to authorize us to do it,' and then we can vet it and say, 'is this a good thing or not a good thing?' And here we have the city. It's not taking money away from anyone else. It's just saying 'this is the money that we're going to get anyway, and we want the legal structure to be able to finance these homes.'

So here's a good suggestion because this is going off farther away from the bill, is that this may be a good thing for us to do a hearing on, where we have a discussion with the--I think--with the LAO about some of the abuses that were part of the redevelopment structure, and a discussion because I think, as you heard, Senator Dahle next year is going to have a bill that does exactly this or he's going to do a gut and amend and try to do it this year. But I think there are a lot that might be interested, but it's the particulars of the circumstance.

We wouldn't want to pick an entity that had a lot of abuses and then give them the right to go back and do it again, but you raise a really interesting point. Might this be something we want to look at in the future? And I think the answer is yes, but I think we'd need to know a little bit more about what would be the structure we'd need to use in order to do exactly that?

And I appreciate that. I mean, I don't see this as me going on some fishing expedition. I really see this as trying to fare it out. It doesn't affect the General Fund, it doesn't affect schools. The increment that was just discussed at length is actually being distributed to these other taxing organizations. So I just wanted to really address that question.

And it sounds like what you're saying is it's an alignment of city, county, and state in this particular circumstance for this particular reason, and you're making the case to the state. I'm happy to have another hearing, but I do feel like my questions really is specifically to understand this proposal at depth. Did you want to say anything else in response?

Madam Chair, just briefly, the history is super important, of course, because of the decimation and because of the offensive way that things happened, but this is about in the 50s, 60s, and most intensively during those periods. The restoration did not occur for replacing the housing. The state intervened and said, 'you're legally obligated to do that.' And so this isn't reanimating any of the redevelopment, although if the Legislature has interest in that, that's great.

It is simply the affordable housing component, which was the legal requirement and for it not for the 2012 prohibition, we would be attempting to do this anyway. We would have continued it, but that's why we're seeking relief from the Legislature on this very specific issue.

Okay, thank you. I'll move it.

Thank you.

Okay. There is a motion. Any other comments or questions by the Committee? Senator Wiener, you may conclude.

I think various colleagues, including Senator Seyarto, made my close for me, so I respectfully ask for an aye vote. It causes some pain for me to say that, but--

I'm impressed. So thank you very much. The motion is 'do pass to the Housing Committee,' and there's a really tough chair there, so you may have more obstacles.

[Roll Call]

Bill is out. Six to zero. We'll put it on call. Next, we're going to move on to Senator Dahle's bill, file item number six, SB 692.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I am presenting SB 692. Rural areas face many unique challenges. One of those challenges that irrigation districts in sparsely populated rural areas struggle to fill the board vacancies with directors in their seats. The South Fork Irrigation District, for example, can barely maintain a three person board due to the small population of the district. This bill, modeled after a 2016 bill, AB 1816, which I addressed a similar problem in problem for the Tulare Lake Irrigation District, will allow the South Fork Irrigation District to authorize a person to be a board member if they live within five and a half miles of the district boundary.

This bill will ensure that the irrigation district can have complete board of directors so that the district can continue to operate efficiently. With me today, I have Miles Flournoy, the Director of the South Fork Irrigation District. He can add to the issue, but basically it's in a floodplain. The district is an irrigation district for farmers to farm, and it's in a floodplain. There are only six homes in the actual district.

And so we're trying to broaden the district out for people that actually own land in the district can vote. That's exactly what we're doing here. So if Miles would like to add to that, it'd be great.

Hello, Madam Chairman, Committee. I'm Miles Flournoy. I'm a Director on the South Fork Irrigation District. It's a vital irrigation district to all the farmers and ranchers in the area.

And, yeah, just like Senator Dahle said, by expanding the residency area for the directors to have more candidates, then we'll be able to fill our board. It'll take in the majority of all the landowners that own the irrigated land in the irrigation district and give them the representation they need, and we'll be able to fill our board and continue to do a good job.

Very good. Thank you for being here today. We appreciate it. Is there anyone in room 2200 that would like to testify in support of this bill? Please come forward. Seeing none, we'll see if there's anyone that would like to testify in opposition. Seeing none, we'll move to the teleconference line and ask if there's anyone that would like to speak in support or in opposition of Senate Bill 692.

And as a reminder, please press one, then zero if you'd like to show opposition or support. Once again, it's 1-0. And we have no one in queue at this time.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee and see if there are any questions, comments. Senator Durazo?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the bill. I was reading about that. This may not have anything to do specifically with your bill, but I was looking at what the other requirements are to be a director, and it seems like at some point we ought to revisit all of the requirements that directors have to be voters, landowners, and residents.

It seems like a system that doesn't allow for the breadth of the community that would be concerned or would have issues with the water in that area. So I guess I'm just making a point of being a resident could be changed, but how about the other ones, the other requirements?

Again, I know that's not this bill, so I'm not holding you to that as far as support, but I am concerned that it seems like a very sort of outdated way to get to elect directors for water, which is such a huge issue and concern and life issue for so many people.

Well, I appreciate that, but the way the district was structured originally was, and things have changed. Obviously, it's in a floodplain, so no more building can happen in the floodplain. So you can't be a resident inside of that. You have to be in the district to vote. And we've expanded it out to, and capture more people, actually, that would have the opportunity to run for the board. So that was our goal, is to make sure that there is representation.

They can't even get anybody to sit on the board because there's just nobody there right now. So we're actually increasing more representation by expanding it out and having competition as well.

Other comments or concerns? Senator Blakespear?

Yeah. I know having served on waterboards and wastewater boards that are small, I know that there's always a reluctance to dissolve or to create joint organizations. And I served on the LAFCO board as well. And it just seems like when there are these really small, the overhead, the rent, the administration costs, legal costs, just to really be thinking about the possibility of not having so many small districts and merging or dissolving them.

I know that's not your bill, but I just want to pose that as in a good governance sense, to have so many tiny little districts that have a hard time even having enough board members is just not a great system.

Well, when you have the opportunity to visit the district, it would explain itself. I know that it makes sense to join with other districts when there's literally no other districts and not other boards. These are very rural. Very rural. And I don't know what the, I think the population for the whole county is like 9,000, and most of them live in the City of Alturas. And so these are very sparse little communities out there that just don't.

I mean, per square mile, it's like three or four people for the whole county. So when you talk about trying to combine, it's very difficult to do that. We would be obviously looking at those opportunities if they were available to us. It's not like even in the central valley where you have bigger communities and you have a lot of different. We've, we've looked at, and there was bills before that, but in this case, there's just nobody else out there. And we want to get people. You can't run a board meeting without people there to run the board.

Right.

And you have decisions to make that have to be done for the agencies that regulate you.

It didn't come up in the Committee Analysis, but presumably with 5 miles, somebody's losing 5 miles. Right. If this organization is gaining those residents, well, they have to be in somebody else's district now.

No, this is expanding their actual district, not into another district, and capture more people that will be able to participate.

But those people live in some district.

No, this is a water district.

I know, but there's a water district that covers them where they are.

No. So this is agricultural irrigation. And there's not a competing agriculture irrigation district next to it. It's just for agriculture irrigation. The issue is there are six homes inside that area. So we're expanding that area, actually giving more access to, I think Senator Durazzo's goal, which is trying to get more diversity and all those things that we try to do, this will actually allow that because we're expanding it. We're not covering over, taken away from anybody else. We're just expanding it for that area.

Okay, thank you.

Right.

Got it? Yeah, I got it.

Any other comments or questions?

Thank you.

There is a motion on the bill. We'll allow you to conclude.

Respectfully ask for aye vote. And I like the conversation as well. It's just not pertains to this district.

We obviously need a tour.

Yeah, come on up.

Very good. The motion is do passed to the Senate Floor. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call] Six to zero.

The bill is out, and we will put it on call. And we're going to take up our last bill of the day. So I want to encourage Members to please come down to the Committee if they need to add on to votes. And that's file item number seven, SB 798 by Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Chair. I want to first thank the staff for their work on this bill. I appreciate the feedback. Members, I want to ask you a question. So it's election day, and you're going into the ballot box, and the measure on the ballot says it increases your property tax. It says four cents per hundred dollars of evaluation. And let's say you have a $750,000 house. So now you all have done high education in your life, so this shouldn't be difficult. So what does that cost you? Four cents per hundred dollars of evaluation.

And you have a $750,000 house. Easy, right? Easy. Maybe not. If you know the answer, raise your hand. Okay, so it's rhetorical, but actually it's very real because that's the law that we have today in California, established more than 50 years ago, that says that if you're going to increase taxes, that's how you present it to a voter in a formula that is really difficult, I think, for people to understand.

Let's go back to the last example I made four cents per $100 for a $750,000 house. How do you figure it out? Well, for some people, it's decimal points and it's calculators. But in essence, that's $40 per 100,000 of evaluation. And if it's $750,000 house, you can multiply it by seven and a half and you get $300. Right. But that's the calculation that our laws require now for any voter to try to understand things. And a couple of things happen.

Number one, a voter doesn't understand it and they say, hey, I don't know what this is going to cost me. I'm voting no. And for some other voter, it might be, I don't really know, but it seems small. So I'm going to vote yes. But all that comes out of some level of misunderstanding about what something really the heart of a measure. What is it going to cost me and what is it going to do?

Those are the questions most people try to have answered when they go into the voting booth. And I know this from experience. I've worked on more than 100 of these property tax measures in my life. It's not just a one off with, I've co-chaired a couple of school board measures, property tax measures, but I've also advised on over 100 others. And so we try to understand how a voter behaves, how they think, and it's an important thing to try to understand.

But when you look at California law, now 50 years old, trying to make this calculation on $100, it really doesn't make sense. It's not helping people understand the questions that we put before them, that we expect them, we hope that they'll participate in and engage in. And that's the proposal that's before you today, is to create at least a standard that's easy for a voter to understand and that's to apply it to $100,000 of valuation. Now, that's not difficult, right?

Because if I told you it was $40 for every $100,000 of valuation. You could figure it out a little easier. A little easier than what's there today. So that's the proposal. I think it creates a dollar amount that's more relatable to a voter. I think it simplifies the math for voters to consume. Makes the measures less scary. I think it could encourage even greater support than there is for these types of taxation measures. And with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Very good. We'd like to see if you have a lead witness. There is no lead witness. Is there anyone that would like to testify in support? Please come forward.

Just Ben Golombek with the California Chamber of Commerce in support of the bill. We think it's a good transparency measure for voters around elections. Thank you.

Very good. Is there anyone else in room 2200 that would like to testify in support? Seeing none. I'll check and see if there's anybody that would like to testify in opposition. Anyone in room 2200 that would like to testify in opposition? Seeing none. Will go to the teleconference line and ask is there anybody on the line that would like to testify either in support or in opposition.

And to speak on this measure, please press one then zero at this time. Madam Chair, we have no one queued up.

Very good. And since this is our last bill I want to thank you, Mr. Moderator, for your help today. We really appreciate it very much. And thank anybody on the line as well. We're going to bring it back to the Committee for Committee questions and comments. Senator Blakespear.

Well thank you, Senator. I think this bill makes a lot of sense. Of course things have changed in 50 years and so people's home prices have gone up and nobody is thinking of home prices in terms of $100 increments. So I appreciate you bringing this forward and I support it.

Very good. Other comments or concerns? Seeing none. Senator, we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you, Chair. I think this modernizes our ballot tax rate statements so that voters can understand what they're voting on. And without a respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. There has been a motion to move it. Yes. And so the motion is do passed to elections and constitutional amendments. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call] Five to zero.

The bill is out. We'll put it on call for Members to add on presently. So what I'd like to do is to let the senators know that Members of the Committee that want to be able to vote on bills need to come down to the Committee room precipitously so that we can call the bills again and finish up our Committee hearing today.

I want to thank everybody for being here for your testimony and for helping us to understand how these bills work, and we appreciate all of your participation. So maybe what we'll do. Give me just a second and we'll check it.

Perfect. All right. File number one, SB 414. Motion is do pass as amended to Environmental Quality Committee. Chair voting Aye. Absent Members. [Roll call]. Six to one.

I wanted to abstain on that. I'm sorry.

Hold on just a second. Hold on. Okay, Members, what we're doing is going right down the agenda.

Senator Dahle. No to Aye. Seven to zero.

That Bill is out.

File item number two, SB 797. Motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations Committee. Chair voting Aye. Absent Members. [Roll call]. Six to one.

That Bill is out. Six to one.

Do you want me to take up the consent calendar?

Yeah.

Consent. Consent calendar. Motion is to adopt the consent calendar. Chair Caballero voting Aye. Absent Members. [Roll call]. Eight to zero.

Eight to zero. That Bill is out.

File item number four, SB 593. Motion is do pass to Housing Committee. Chair voting Aye. Absent Members. [Roll call]. Seven to zero.

Seven to zero. That Bill is out.

File item number six, SB 692. Motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. Chair voting Aye. Absent Members. [Roll call]. Seven to zero.

That Bill is out. You want to keep it open? Is it coming back? Okay, we'll put that on call. It appears as if we may get one more vote.

That Bill is out.

File item number seven, SB 798. Motion is do pass to Elections and Constitutional Amendments. Chair voting Aye. Absent Members. [Roll call]. Seven to zero.

That Bill is out. Seven zero. Okay, we'll put that on call. Again, I apologize.

File item number eight, SB 706. Motion is do pass, as amended, to Appropriations Committee. Chair voting Aye. Absent Members. [Roll call]. Eight to zero.

File item 12, SJR Number 3. Motion is to be adopted. Chair voting Aye. Absent Members. [Roll call]. Eight to zero.

That Bill is out. Eight to zero.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. We'll wait five minutes. Let's see if we can finish up the rest of the votes. Going back to finish up the roll call.

File item number six, SB 692. Motion is Do pass to the Senate Floor. Chair voting Aye. Absent Member. [Roll call]. Eight to zero.

Eight to zero. That Bill is out.

File item number seven, SB 798. Motion is do pass to Elections and Constitutional Amendments. Chair voting Aye. Absent Members. [Roll call]. Eight to zero.

That Bill is out. And that concludes our, our agenda items for today. Thank you very much for your participation, and if you have any public comments that you'd like to forward to the Committee, please feel free to do so. We can be located on the Internet under Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Thank you very much, all, for being here today. Hearing is closed.