Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

All right, good afternoon everybody, and welcome to this hearing of the Assembly Committee on Reventax. Before we take up bills today, I again remind everybody in the audience and members of the public that the Committee is not accepting remote testimony. As always, we are accepting a written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. Please make sure to submit letters at least one week prior to the Committee hearing in order for them to be reflected in the analysis.

We have reinstated the suspense filed this year. Bills with a fiscal impact of plus or minus $150,000 will not be eligible for a vote immediately after the presentation. With this in mind, only three bills on today's agenda will be eligible for a vote today. Additionally, two bills have been pulled from today's agenda by the committee. File item seven, AB 1361 Hoover and file item nine, AB 346 Quirk-Silva and it does not look okay, so it does not look like we have a quorum.

So we will be starting as a Subcommitee and we will begin by taking up AB 1583 by Assemblymember Connolly. Assemblymember 1589. Welcome Assemblymember, and you may begin whenever you are ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair and Members. I'm honored to be presenting AB 1589 today, a tax deduction targeted to help parents and students with the rising cost of college, and pleased to be co-presenting with Assembly Member Ta. I'd like to thank the Committee and staff for working with my office to hear this bill and as you hopefully know, it has been significantly amended since the time of the bill analysis and we believe substantially addresses the issues raised in that analysis.

Our youth today continue to suffer under the ever increasing cost of college. That's the basis of this bill. With college being one of the best ways to make a livable income, the rising costs threaten the upward mobility of many Californians. 529 college saving plans are a proven avenue to address this financial burden, but they have long been underutilized by many low and middle income Californians.

According to a CalMatters report, today the average student in California graduates with over $20,000 in debt from a four-year university. Since 1977, the cost of UC undergraduate fees has increased at five times the rate of inflation. Yet still, California is among the last 10 states in the nation that lacks a state income tax deduction for 529 college saving plans. Additionally, they are vastly underutilized by California's fastest growing demographic group, Latin and Hispanic families.

According to a CSU study, 41.6% of students experience food insecurity at some point, and over 10% of students experience homelessness. This bill seeks to incentivize the ability to go to college by including a tax deduction from gross income that benefits those on the margins of financial aid, such as families whose children might not qualify for Pell grants. It establishes a $5,000 deduction, per beneficiary, for single earners who make less than $75,000 and less than $150,000 for joint earners.

This will be done with the finalization of amendments while on the suspense file as noted before. At this time we are focused on public 529 plans, but we are open to working with opposition that has been expressed going forward. While this bill may not solve all the problems of the high cost of college, we can take a step to safeguard the right to an education that all children deserve, and I respectfully ask for your consideration.

Yeah, so I'd like to thank my colleagues for introducing AB 1589. He graciously allowed me to sign on as a principal co-author so he had withdrawn my AB 1026, which was very similar. Assembly Member Connolly did a great job presenting, so I will simply echo a few points he made. California has recognized the value of higher education. However, students who graduate with debt can see their dream crushed before their career even begins.

We need to incentivize saving for college and 529 ... are great for Californians who want to prioritize high education for their children. 40 other states have made 529 college saving plan contributions tax deductible, but California has not yet followed suit. We are at the forefront of higher education and are trying to stop college from becoming completely unaffordable. This will add in this endeavor without putting a strain on state resources. I humbly ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

No.

All right, any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in opposition?

Thank you. Good afternoon. Joanne Bettencourt, representing SIFMA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. SIFMA is a national trade association made up of broker dealers, investment banks and asset managers, many of whom have a strong presence in California. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill due to the fact that it only applies to the state-sponsored plan.

If the bill were to be amended to include all 529 plans, then we would remove our opposition. So that is what we are opposed for. If the bill does not have parity, then we would respectfully request that the bill be held on the suspense file. Thank you.

Thank you.

Brandon Knapp representing California Tax Reform Association in opposition. We apologize for not getting the letter in time, but we will get it to your office soon. Thank you.

All right, do we have any questions from the Committee? I have a question that the CalKIDS program basically allows families of low-income students to create a college savings account, and it's seated with state investment of some amount between $500-1,500. Is this program duplicative with what you're suggesting, or does it complement?

It would complement it. Yeah, it would be additive to CalKIDS.

All right. Okay, very good. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you again for your consideration. We respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, very good. And with that--okay, yes. We're waiting for a quorum before we can send it to Suspense. And we will make that recommendation. Yes, thank you very much. All right, we have Assembly Member Dixon, and we still don't have a quorum, so we will be voting on AB 511 today. Assembly Member Dixon, whenever you are ready.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. And Members. I'm here today to present on Assembly Bill 511.

I want to start off by saying that we will be accepting Committee amendments. AB 511 will create the California ALS Research Network Voluntary Contribution Fund for California taxpayers to designate when filing their California State income taxes. The average lifespan for someone diagnosed with ALS is less than two years. There is no survival rate for this diagnosis. California currently has the nation's largest ALS population, which makes this Bill even more vital.

California leads the nation in clinical trial sites and is home to the nation's leading ALS clinicians, clinics, biotechs, and companies who pursue treatments for ALS. Having this additional revenue from AB 511 will enable the ALS clinical and research community to harness the opportunity to leverage our robust infrastructure and expertise that already is present in our state.

With a predictable revenue source, the network and its partners can continue to bring together some of California's brightest minds to bridge the gap between the researchers bench and the patient's bedside. Research is one of the few areas where there is hope for patients diagnosed with ALS. I would appreciate your indulgence when I explain a personal story. 20 years ago this month, I lost my otherwise healthy mother to the scourge of ALS, a disease where otherwise healthy middle aged men and women are given a death sentence.

The survival rate for ALS, as I mentioned, is the average of two or three years at the most. The two drug therapies available 20 years ago are the same therapies available today. These therapies may slow the unremitting progression by a matter of only weeks, not months or years. ALS is what is called an orphan disease. Cancer victims number in the millions, sadly, and pharmaceutical companies focus their research on market demand.

ALS victims number, on average, maybe 25 or 30,000 victims at any given time because they die in a very short period of time. And their families and friends and committed organizations comprised of small but dedicated and passionate advocacy groups, the research community lacks the enormous financial support to mobilize breakthrough remedies for ALS. Lou Gehrig died of ALS, as we all know, in 1941, 82 years ago.

In these intervening years, over 2 million people have died of ALS that could have been prevented for these people to continue to live healthy and productive lives. This Bill, and I'm very grateful that we've initiated this Bill with my colleagues. Also, I don't see Mr. Zbur here, would create more dollars for generously and easily provided by individual taxpayers to support ongoing research to identify the cause and the cure. And your support is greatly appreciated. Thank you. My primary expert witness to speak in support of this Bill is Sheri Strahl, Chief Operating Officer of Golden West of ALS Association.

And I'm just going to say thank you, Assembly Member. I'm Fred Nother, representing the Golden West chapter of the ALS Association for about 20 years. And we wanted to have Sheri Strahl, the coo of the organization, speak to how these dollars would be used very briefly.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on this important issue. ALS is a devastating neurodegenerative disease for which, as you've heard, there is currently no cure and only limited treatments. Scientific discovery is the critical upstream answer to ending ALS as we know it, and AB 511 will fund the essential work of the California ALS Research Network. This will be a wise investment for taxpayers. AB 511 leverages existing infrastructure.

The California ALS research was created by the Golden West chapter. This ensures the meaningful use of taxpayer designated dollars from day one to promote ALS research in California, foster the sharing of scientific ideas, and ultimately accelerate scientific discovery. All too often, the scientific world researchers are siloed and ideas are secreted away until publication. The California ALS Research network tears down those walls. We create a safe space where researchers can come together to talk about findings, brainstorm solutions, and share unpublished results.

This work builds on the importance of collaboration between California's medical practitioners, scientists, biotechs, and pharmaceutical companies. And it promotes a transparent environment that removes obstacles to discovery and propels the best ideas being tackled by the right minds. This is how we will get closer to meaningful treatments and cures for ALS and ultimately create a world without ALS. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition, questions from the Committee? Yeah. It's a devastating diagnosis, and certainly this is a disease that needs resources toward research. So the first thing I wanted to ask you is, this has been tried before a couple of times, and has dropped off the list because it was not raising sufficient funding. So could you explain to me how this time we will make sure that people are aware of how they should be supporting.

Madam Chair, Fred Nother. I'm happy to reply. You're correct. There have been two times before, and the funds before that were used for research. But in a more general way, this is a new and different recipient targeted to California as well. And I think we would all recognize there's a growing interest in ALS.

We all know one of our dear colleagues passed away a few months ago, who, in the last months of his life, there was no greater champion for this very kind of thing than he was. And I'm hoping, I mean, speaking selfishly, that a Bill like this will have the momentum to generate a lot of interest from the capital community to get to their friends and others to check those boxes and subscribe to this donation. So we're optimistic we can put together the kinds of numbers to get past that goal.

Absolutely. So the number of people diagnosed with ALS is increasing nationwide and in California. And this is another reason why we need research to really understand why that's happening and what we can do about it.

So I'm just curious. Anecdotally, it seems that the number of cases are going up. Are we seeing a higher rate?

All right, well, thank you. And unfortunately, we are not yet going to be able to take a vote. So we will vote as soon as we get a quorum.

Yes, of course. I Apologize.

May I make a closing?

Assuming that you folks remain here for a few more hours, at least three, you might be interested to know that two people will be diagnosed with ALS, and two people will pass away from it during this hearing. It is unrelenting, and it doesn't discriminate against anyone. Anyone can be a victim. I just want to thank you all. Thank you, Members. And I ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Assembly Member Dixon. All right, next up, we have file item 3, AB 26. Assembly Member Fong. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. AB 26 exempts from state taxes up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt forgiveness. California residents have the most federal student loan debt of any state with over 3.8 million student loan borrowers that have an average debt of $37,000. Over half the students who attend a public two or four year University in California come from families that earn under $40,000 annually, and the Federal Student Loan Debt Relief Plan is important for California's economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.

AB 26 will ensure that Californians who receive debt relief are able to maximize the benefits by not having to pay state taxes on this debt relief. And we'll do all that we can to support Californians who are working hard to get back on their feet during these very challenging times and to contribute to the state's economy.

And as the Committee analysis indicates, our office is working with the Committee on Section 41 amendments to add a report from the LAO and a sunset and here to testify in support of this Bill is Stephanie Goldman, representing the Student Senate for California's Community Colleges, and it was certainly asked for an aye vote when the Bill is voted on. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Chair and Committee Stephanie Goldman, Associate Director of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges. We're the official representation of all 1.8 million community college students in California. We're in strong support of this Bill due to the financial relief it would provide to borrowers, including current and prospective community college students who may want to complete their education but are holding back because of existing student debt.

While California community college tuition and fees are the lowest in the country, California is home to prohibitively high cost regions, and many students have had to borrow from the Federal Government even before transfer to pay for textbooks, transportation, food, housing, and other basic needs.

The debt accrued from federal student loans continues to be a serious financial burden to past and present student borrowers, but it's especially crippling to low income student borrowers who are largely served by our community colleges, as well as those students who didn't complete their education. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, if current trends continue, approximately 40% of jobs in the state will require a bachelor's degree by 2030.

Exempting the $10,000 to $20,000 of given federal loan debt from state income taxes would relieve a heavy financial burden for borrowers who want to return to college and complete their education, thereby boosting the state's economy in the long run. Your support of California student borrowers is deeply appreciated.

All right, do we have any other witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition? Do we have questions from the Committee? Support? Opposition?

My apologies. Good afternoon. Chair and Members ... on the behalf of the American Federation for State, County Municipal Employees in support of AB 26.

Thank you very much, sir. Do we have questions from the Committee? So there is potential budget language also to deal with this issue. How would this Bill work with that? Or what are the differences? Maybe you could explain that.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thank you for that great question. This Bill, specifically AB 26, would relate to the President Biden's proposal while Assembly Bill 35, which provides a state tax exemption to conform with a federal tax exemption, but that's not specific to the Biden proposal.

[Roll Call].

Okay. All right, thank you very much. So what we will do, why don't we go ahead and establish a quorum.

All right, we have a quorum. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. And then without objection, we will be referring this Bill to our suspense file.

Thank you so much.

And I am going to go very quickly through. So we will move AB 1589, Connolly to suspense and we are going to have a vote on AB 511. Do I have a motion? Okay, so we have a motion and a second. And the motion is do pass amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. Excuse me. The motion is do pass as amended two Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, so that Bill has passed and now we are on. Let's see who we have. We have. Assemblymember Garcia. Welcome, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, this Bill would require the California tax credit allocation Committee to award 10 points to farmworker housing projects under the Low income housing tax credit and grant these projects an additional five points under the amenities category. By incentivizing the development of farmworker housing in rural areas, the Bill will help alleviate the dire housing situation faced by many farm workers in California. Respectfully ask for your Aye vote with me today is Marco Lizarraga, Director of La Campbesina, California, representing La Coparativa.

Thank you, Garcia. And thank you, chairperson Irwin and Members of the Committee. My name is Marco Luis Araga and I'm the Executive Director of La Cooperativa Campesina. We're an organization that is a statewide organization formed by five entities funded by the Federal Government to serve farm workers in the State of California, and we've been doing that for 55 years. I'm here today to express my support for AB 1439.

Introduced by Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia, this Bill will aid in the development of affordable, Low income farm worker housing in rural areas, which is desperately needed. For many years, farm workers in California have faced a lack of affordable housing options, living in cramped spaces, substandard living conditions, under bridges. They were the first homeless people that we faced in the State of California. The recent tragedy in Half Moon Bay, where survivors were found living in shipping containers without insulation, highlights the dire need for change.

AB 1439 aims to address this issue by requiring the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee to give farm worker projects the same five points that high opportunity sites receive in their state Low income housing tax credit regulations. The tax credit Allocation Committee allocates federal and state tax credits to developers for the construction of affordable rental housing for Low income California. However, rural communities are often penalized for their lack of access to amenities such as public transportation, parks, grocery stores, et cetera.

AB 1439 would also award 10 amenity points to farm worker projects, allowing them to better compete for tax credits and incentivizing the development of farm worker housing in rural areas. It's one of the most significant sectors in California's economy. Agriculture employs 1 million workers, accounting for 7.3% of the state's private sector labor force and producing nearly $50 billion in revenue in 2018. I think it's time that we prioritize the well being of these essential workers and address their dire, dire housing conditions. I urge the Committee to please support AB 1439.

Thank you very much. Do we have other witnesses in support?

Marvin Pinella, on behalf of the California Human Development Center for Employment Training, the Central Valley Opportunity center, and the Farm Worker Institute of Education, Leadership Development in Support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. Members Alejandro Solis, here on behalf of Los Amigos De La Comunidad Incorporated and comites in support of AB 1439. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Do we have any questions from the Committee? No questions. All right. And Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Just thank you. And your Committee team for the analysis respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Do we have a motion? In a second. Sorry. So we have a motion by Assemblymember Pacheco and a second by Assemblymember Tom Wallace. Are you seconding? Yes. Okay. All right. And the motion is do pass to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Ms. Highland, please call the roll motion is do pass to the Housing and Community Development Committee. [Roll Call] All right, we need two more votes on that. That Bill is on call and we will move to sorry, Mr. Haney. Assembly Member.

I enjoyed being a Member of the Committee for a Few Minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members AB 441 would authorize the Franchise Tax Board to distribute annual tax credit payments of the California Earned Income Tax Credit, young child tax credit and foster youth credit in advance. Monthly payments to Californians it would only apply to filers who qualify for $1,000 or more from the combination of existing tax credits.

This would allow Californians to receive a much needed, consistent source of cash each month by simply allowing them to keep more of their hardearned money via already existing tax credits. Nearly 30% of households struggle with incomes that vary substantially from month to month. These destabilizing swings in income can make it difficult for families to pay rent and keep food on the table. In some cases, they may even be forced to turn to high risk financial services like payday loans just to get by.

Additionally, many people who experience homelessness point to an unexpected economic crisis they couldn't weather, such as a medical Bill or job loss, as a reason they lost their housing. Monthly payments of state tax credits are a way to fight poverty year round and prepare families to deal with these unexpected economic needs. Some families can receive more than $3,000 when they file their state tax returns. Dividing that sum up monthly would give them extra money each month to put towards their living expenses.

In fact, research on the federal child tax credit and Earned Income Tax Credit shows that the monthly payout a monthly payout would cut poverty by a third more than the same amount of money paid in an annual refund. But right now, Low income Californians do not have that option to receive their tax credits through monthly payments, greatly limiting how impactful these existing tax credits can be.

Everyone should be able to pay their bills without fear of going hungry or missing a rent payment by providing them with the opportunity to receive a much needed, consistent source of cash each month. AB 441 will directly help Californians I know that there are some technical details that still need to be worked out, and we are committed to working with both the Committee and the Franchise Tax Board on addressing these concerns.

There are some challenges and questions that relate to the Federal Government and ensuring that these don't impact federal benefits. And again, we are committed to working together with the Franchise Tax Board and this Committee to address those as this moves forward. Ultimately, we want to set up the infrastructure and have the best possible policy in place as we work through the Federal Government's process to make sure that we can have this in place to benefit Californians.

I want to thank your office, Madam Chair, and the Committee staff and the sponsors can also address these issues. Here to testify and support with me today is Susannah Parsons, Director of policy and legislation at All Home, and Ashley Banta, Executive assistant and project manager at Opportunity House. Vacavelle Solano Services Corporation.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair Irwin and Members of the Committee thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of this Bill. All Home is a Bay Area organization focused on addressing the cycle of homelessness and poverty and creating more housing security and economic mobility for people with the lowest incomes. Research shows that one of the most common causes of homelessness is an unexpected financial crisis, like a job loss or medical bills that a family or individual cannot recover from.

That fact reflects the reality that many people face severe income instability month to month. Even before the pandemic, one in three people in the Bay Area had trouble paying their bills each month. But we have learned from homelessness prevention programs that regular payments, even small amounts, make a difference and allow people to better meet their immediate needs, such as rent, food and childcare.

And research on the advanced child tax credit payments in 2021 showed that sending the credit as monthly installments as opposed to one lump sum, tripled the CTC's impact in reducing poverty because it helped to smooth income volatility throughout the year. Paying tax credits monthly as people earn them is a powerful change that would increase the financial stability of Californians who are struggling to make ends meet. Bills come every month and tax credits should too.

With AB 441, we can bring the success of the federal CTC program to California and join other states that are pursuing similar policies this year. This Bill amplifies the impact of our existing tax credit programs and is a critical step toward preventing homelessness and poverty in our state. We appreciate the thoughtful feedback of the chair, staff, the Administration and other Members, and are committed to developing the best, most impactful policy going forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Ashley Banta and I'm here in support of AB 441. As a person of impact, right. I experienced economic insecurities firsthand in my childhood and as an adult. As a child. I experienced firsthand the impact of living paycheck to paycheck and what happens when a working parent becomes permanently disabled. Our whole life was turned upside down when my father was placed on permanent disability and we could barely afford the necessities of life.

I was raised in survival mode and taught few coping skills for major crisis. When my father passed away, I had no coping skills and fell into addiction. Over the past four years, I have been clean and have been working on putting my life back together, and I now work in the field helping others overcome addiction, homelessness and poverty.

Regaining the life skills necessary for economic security doesn't happen quickly, though, and I've learned to navigate myself and now others through our government benefit systems, as well as going back to school to advance my education and others as well. But today I still struggle to make it by financially, month to month.

Raising four children on one income in 2021, I did receive the federal tax credit in monthly installments, and I can't emphasize enough how beneficial it was for it to be automatically dispersed into my bank account monthly. The extra money paid for monthly necessities and allowed me to not have to use credit cards to cover these expenses. Receiving my tax returns at the end of the year, I usually save that money and budget over the next few months to cover monthly expenses.

And that's on a good year. On a bad year, when an emergency financial emergency situation occurs, that tax return money is needed to cover that expense, and my credit cards are used to cover those monthly needs. And at the end of the year, my refund is used to pay back my credit card debt.

Receiving monthly payments for my state tax credit would take tremendous pressure off having to decide between buying food, gas, or extracurricular activities for my kids, even as little as $60 to $100 a month. That helps cover gas getting my kids to and from school and makes a huge impact on my daily life.

Right. Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Having these tax credits automatically dispersed would make a huge impact on my life and many others who I work with that live paycheck to paycheck and are working so hard to overcome to become economically stable. So thank you for your time today.

Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Andres Ramirez, on behalf of Economic Security Project and Ending Poverty in California, both co sponsors of the Bill along with All Home, and also on behalf of the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California and Larkin Street Youth Services, both in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Sarah Bouabibsa with Young Invincibles. And we're here in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Questions from the Committee? So you did mention that you're going to continue to work with the FTB. It does seem like there are some significant implementation concerns, so get your work cut out for you. And certainly we understand the importance of stable income and smoothing out the payments every month. But we do need to make sure that you work with the FTB, as I mentioned.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members Kathleen Van Austin. I represent John Burton Advocates for Youth based out of San Francisco. We're very grateful that foster youth are included, and as much stability as we can give them is really critical as they come into adulthood.

Absolutely. And I think, as you can see from the many supporters behind this Bill who work with Low income Californians, there's tremendous interest in this strategy as an anti poverty strategy and how it can deliver for many Californians who are struggling right now. But there are a lot of issues to figure out with it. And that's exactly why we brought this Bill forward. We want to make sure we set up that infrastructure.

We figure out these technical issues together so that we're prepared to implement this and reach as many people as possible with the highest impact.

Certainly appreciate that. And would you like to close, or.

That's fine. As a close, I appreciate the Committee and your feedback and your staff's feedback and the sponsors. And I hope we can move this Bill forward and continue to figure out those issues.

All right. Thank you very much. And with that objection, this Bill will be referred to our suspense file. Mr. Gallagher.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Sorry I skipped you. I missed that.

You're fine. Always a pleasure to be in your Committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, it's a pleasure to be able to speak to you about AB 556, which is a very important issue in my district. It would provide an additional three years for victims of the 2018 campfire to purchase or construct replacement property for their homes, businesses without triggering a full reassessment of their property. Current law requires that a replacement property be acquired or constructed within five years of the disaster in order for the property owner to keep their base year value.

Unfortunately for victims of the campfire, the five year timeline is not sufficient. The 2018 campfire remains California's deadliest and most destructive wildfire. Hazardous waste cleanup and debris removal post fire took years. Moreover, many victims still have not received their full settlement payments from the PG and e Wildfire Victims Trust, and many are still waiting. AB 556 would ensure that victims who choose to build or acquire property elsewhere in paradise or in Butte County have enough time to do so.

One of those victims is Jane, who was unable to be here today. She's a 67 year old retiree with no family or any type of support. She lived in paradise for 30 years and purchased her home in 1988. It was supposed to be her forever home. But the campfire brought an abrupt and shocking change to those plans.

Unfortunately, high housing costs, loss of friends who have moved or passed away, and a massive change in the natural environment have made it difficult for Jane to move forward without the huge financial and emotional commitment to rebuild. So this is for people like Jane who are still seeking to recover, want to rebuild their homes and still get that protection from reassessment.

AB 556 will relieve some pressure on her and other victims to meet the rapidly approaching five year deadline, which is coming up in November. That's another reason for the urgency here. I also want to thank the chair for her work in partnership on this. We're working together on a Bill that allows people to rebuild on their existing properties. With the disaster that you faced as well in your district, this is important policy, and I would ask for your respectful support as this moves forward.

Mr. Chair and Members, Matt Broad, on behalf of the town of paradise, we are proud to sponsor AB 556, along with AB 1500. The chair's companion Bill with me today is Rose Tryon, who is Vice Mayor of paradise and a town Council Member. She'll speak on the importance of this legislation for residents of the town post campfire.

And with me to testify today is Matt Broad, who represents Town of Paradise, and Rose Trion, who is the vice mayor of the Town of Paradise.

I'm happy to answer any questions and urge your aye vote when you see this Bill. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rose Tryon. I am currently vice mayor of the town of Paradise. I am also, I hate to say, victim of the 2018 campfire. And it's still a little hard to talk about. So it's my first time testifying, so I'm a little bit nervous, so please bear with me. I am here to support AB 556 by Assemblymember Gallagher.

AB 556 would ensure that victims of the 2018 campfire whose homes were damaged and destroyed have additional time to purchase or construct replacement property without triggering a full assessment of that replacement property. As you probably remember, the campfire completely destroyed our community. By the time it was 100% contained, 86 Members of our community had perished, tens of thousands were displaced, and over 18,000 buildings were destroyed. To this day, the campfire remains the deadliest, most destructive fire in California history.

Although we have emerged from the campfire and are working towards building a stronger and more resilient community, efforts to rebuild from the devastation of the campfire have encountered significant roadblocks. With a looming deadline of November of 2023. The near absolute destruction of the town of paradise meant that the cleanup effort, which removed 3.6 million tons of debris, delayed the construction for a full year.

Since then, difficulty finding home builders, skyrocketing cost of raw materials and even contractor fraud, unfortunately to say, have slowed the town's recovery efforts. Many victims did not receive their PG&E settlement payments until last year, and some are still waiting for those payments. Despite these challenges, the residents of paradise remain committed to rebuilding their homes in a more resilient community. AB 556 simply extends the period for victims of the campfire.

This is a common sense measure that gives residents of paradise the flexibility that we currently need. In turn, it would help ensure the revitalization and recovery of our town. I ask you all to please vote aye on this measure. Thank you very much for your time today.

Thank you very much. And are there any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in support?

Good afternoon, Committee Members. Kareem Drissy, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, in support and respectfully requesting aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much. Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in support.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of Butte County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Great. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none, are there any questions or comments from the Committee? Thank you. Assemblyman Gallagher, would you like to close? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's again an honor to be able to present this legislation, much needed legislation. And I want to say, rose, great job on your first testimony. Thank you for conveying why this is so important.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's again an honor to be able to present this legislation, much needed legislation. And I want to say, rose, great job on your first testimony. Thank you for conveying why this is so important.

And so I just ask the Committee, when the time comes for a vote, would love to have your support in helping to extend this much needed relief for victims of the campfire. Thank you.

Without objection, this Bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you. Thank you. Next chat.

Well, thank you for calling my number right now. I appreciate that. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Assembly Bill 1066 would authorize local county boards as supervisors to increase the maximum exemption amount on low-value properties to 15,000. It's currently set at 10,000. This bill would also apply the inflation adjustment factor for calculating the maximum exemption value to both the total base year value of real property and the full value of personal property.

I want to make note that the CPI was added to the if it was added to the 10,000 when this statute was created, it would be close to $15,000 now. But the real reason to increase the value from 10,000 to 15,000 is ensure we're using the time, costs and resources of our county assessors adequately. Here is how assessor resources and costs are affected by the low property value.

If an assessor is needed for 2 hours of labor to assess a $15,000 business property, i.e. new oven, refrigerator, kitchen, appliance, it would cost $200 in labor, 2 hours at $100 an hour, but the total revenue collected would only be $150. For this exact reason, the property value exemption needs to be increased in order to ensure the time of our assessors doesn't actually cost the county money.

I want to note that the committee, as this bill is going to the suspense, my office and the sponsor have been working and will continue to work with all the county assessors, ensuring that all county assessors are in full support of this bill. Today I have Jon DeVille, who's the El Dorado County Assessor, to testify in support of AB 1066.

Good afternoon, Assemblymembers. I have a prepared statement that I'd like to read and you can ask some questions.

Whenever you're ready, go ahead.

Thank you. As the sponsor of this measure and in my capacity as the Assessor of El Dorado County, I am in strong support of Assembly Bill 1066 relating to the exemptions for low-value properties. This amendment to Section 155.20, the Revenue and Taxation Code, increases the maximum exemption allowed by the authority of a local county board of supervisors from 10,000 to 15,000 and adds an annual inflation adjustment tied to the California Consumer Price Index.

This bill will require a local county board of supervisors approval to exempt real property and business personal property as long as the value is so low that if not exempt, the total taxes, special assessments and applicable conventions of the property would amount to less than the cost of assessing and collecting them. This action is discretionary, meaning each county will be given the choice to enact the exemption.

Counties that elect not to set a low value threshold exemption can choose not to set a low value threshold or they can set a low value lower than the maximum allowed of 15,000. If approved. Significant time and resources are spent on chasing low-value business, personal and property, and the opportunity cost of reprogramming resources to more efficient activities will be a more effective use of staff time.

For example, in El Dorado County, business personal property makes up roughly 2% of the total role, yet over 15% of staff time is dedicated to the function of valuing personal property.

Approving Assembly Bill 1066 to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation will update the existing 10,000 maximum to a new maximum of 15,000 with the CPI inflationary factor and in turn will provide flexibility to local government property tax administration by allowing for reallocation of staff resources to pursue more efficient assessment activities which will benefit the public and ultimately provide tax relief to struggling small businesses. I wholeheartedly support this bill.

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in support? Are there any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the committee? Assemblymember Patterson, would you like to close?

Well, thank you very know, as much as I love to cut taxes across the board, this measure really has to do with saving counties money that are spending a lot of time and resources on assessing these low-value property taxes. And so with that, when the time comes, look forward to your support.

Well, thank you sir. Without objection, this bill will be referred to our suspense file object. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. All right. Next up is file item number 12, AB 1249 by Assemblymember Ta. Assemblymember, begin when you're ready.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. First I have to thank the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. AB 1249 would provide a sale tax holiday for back-to-school shopping a week before school start. This legislation will allow consumer to purchase target product and not have additional costs on sale tax. According to National Retail Federation annual back-to-school spending survey, families with children in K-12 school spend on average almost $800 on supplies.

School supply are necessary and repairing a child for school can be additional financial pressure for families struggling to meet all of their other financial obligations. In the end, sale tax omittedly fall on low income California is the hardest. In addition, California high sale tax contribute to structural inequality because every consumer pay the same tax rate at the register. We have a low-income household paid a higher percentage of their income because they have few fever resources to begin with.

AB 1249 would apply to school supplies, set up pencil by the calculator and many other item with a sales price of less than $100. While the opposition to this bill we mentioned that this will reduce overall funding for education, I believe AB 1249 would significantly affect individual Californians who are struggling to get by. Please support AB 1249 when the time is appropriate. And now like to introduce Scott Kaufman with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to testify in support AB 1249.

AB 1249 is a simple and common sense bill that would create a back-to-school sales tax holiday weekend. Inflation has made the cost of everything increase over these last few years. That has only exacerbated the already high cost of back-to-school shopping where parents on average, as was mentioned, spend $800 a year on school supplies. The effect this has on low-income working families is obvious and especially damaging. School supplies are a necessity.

And AB 1249 would only apply to a specified list of school supplies such as pencils, binders, and calculators with a sales price of less than $100 or the first $1,000 of electronic items like a computer, tablet, or printer. Ensuring that students are prepared when they show up for school is worth it. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in support? And are there any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in opposition?

Brandon Knapp, representing California Tax Reform Association, in opposition. And again, apologies for the letter not being in time. We'll send it to the author as soon as we get it in. Thank you.

And are there any questions or comments from the committee? Okay. Well, with that Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yeah, I really appreciate the committee staff and I humbly ask for the aye vote when the time is appropriate.

Well, thank you, Assemblymember. Without objection, this bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next up is file item number 10, AB 1128 by Assemblymember Santiago. Welcome, Assemblymember. Please begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Very much appreciate the opportunity to present California's potential young child tax credit that we think.

There you go. Next time I should invite. That we think is incredibly important. As we know, the Federal Government ended its young child's tax credit over a year ago. That potentially put about 1.7 million families in danger falling back into children. Sorry. In danger falling back into poverty. Today we have that opportunity to continue to try to help those young people and young families and children who are starving.

And the bottom line is the pandemic may have been over, but today this is more important and more needed than ever. Particularly with the high cost of inflation. The rents are skyrocketing. We saw the incredible prices on gas cartons of eggs have gone from $4 to $9, and there's no relief insight. The wages are just not kept up.

We have the opportunity to do that here by extending the young child tracks credit from it currently is today zero to five years old, to six to 18 years of age. Likewise, if you're a student, it would continue 19 to 23. By providing any household that currently qualifies for the CalEITC, similar guidelines, 30,000 for a family or below would be able to qualify for the young child tax credit to a household they would receive $1,083.

So this is incredibly important, and I would urge the committee to pass this. And we have two witnesses here today. Thank you.

Thank you. Your primary witnesses may begin whenever they're ready.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the committee for having us here today. It is a pleasure to be here testifying on behalf of AB 1128. My name is Sam Wilkinson with GRACE End Child Poverty in California. A proud co-lead of the CalEITC Coalition. I'd also like to acknowledge the years of advocacy and labor that have made California's young child tax credit what it is today.

A fully refundable annual tax credit of up to $1,083 for families earning 30,000 or less with children six years and younger to curb the devastatingly high cost of living throughout the state. However, the struggle to afford housing, childcare and other costs of living does not end when a child turns six. AB 1128 will address the current cliff families face by ensuring all CalEITC-eligible filers qualify for the young child tax credit.

Nearly two thirds of families who qualify for the CalEITC are not eligible for the YCTC because they have children in their household above the age of five. AB 1128 will provide this critical mass of folks with dependents who are too old to qualify for the YCTC with immediate support. Research from the California Budget and Policy Center currently shows that roughly three-quarters of those eligible for the CaliITC are filers of color, more than 50% are women, and one-third are immigrants.

Expanding the YCTC to reach these filers, filers who have been historically excluded from state-sponsored wealth-building opportunities, directly reduces the state's racial wealth gap and supports the state's values. This bill will directly affect 700,000 families and 1 million children in the state, the majority of who, as has been mentioned, are families of color and is in tremendous step towards redistributing the growing wealth gap to families who are struggling to afford the steep costs of housing, health care and childcare. Plus, we know it works.

Research proves that the YCTC has successfully reduced poverty among more than eight in 10 families of color who are eligible. AB 1128 will provide families in poverty with direct cash relief, and there's no better investment to make than on families who can use these dollars to afford basic needs for themselves and their families. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Anna Hasselblad with United Ways of California. We're the State Association of all Local United Ways across the state and we are a proud co-sponsor of AB 1128 along with our partners in the CalEITC Coalition, AB 1128 by Assemblymember Santiago it hits the sweet spot as child tax credits are the most targeted and effective ways to reduce poverty, help families deal with inflation, improve lifelong results for children and families, and boost local economies.

One in three households in California struggles to get by despite an overwhelming majority of those households having at least one working adult in them. This is, according to our study, the real cost measure. These families are hampered by low-wage jobs, the high cost of living, and are disproportionately at the mercy of rising prices like rent, childcare and groceries.

Like you've heard, this is why now is the exact right time for California to step up and ensure that children and families on the brink of poverty are prioritized first. Many United Ways help low-income families file their taxes for free via volunteer income tax assistance, also known as VITA services. The stories of how meaningful tax credits can be for a family struggling to afford the rising cost of living are really pretty incredible.

If you get a chance, you should visit your local VITA site and really thinking about how 700,000 more families receiving just over $1,000 annually and what an impact that would make. I'm going to share two examples from the community just very, very briefly. Yvonne Vega, who is a mother of four and a medical assistance from Santa Rosa has shared how important tax credits are.

If credits are expanded as children get older, she said she can use it as a little savings account for her children to draw on to buy them clothes when they get larger than they are now, as well as perhaps save for a down payment or a deposit for a larger living space. Juan Carlos from San Francisco recently shared that he was, quote, surprised that there was this help for free, that I was able to receive a refund.

Juan also said, quote, it not only helps us, but the whole community because many of us do not know about these services or that we have access to tax credits. The economy is rough, rent is high, and food is expensive, too. This refund will help me provide for our basic needs. So really we're thinking about this as a way to help families afford basic needs, critical things that a household needs. And simply put, tax credits change lives. They really, truly do.

So we have a rare opportunity to make a down payment on the future of prosperity by expanding the young child tax credit as outlined in AB 28. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote when it comes time to vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And I see them lining up. Are there witnesses in the room wishing to speak in support?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Andres Ramirez on behalf of All Home and Economic Security Project, both in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Crystal Strait on behalf of Golden State Opportunity Fund in support.

Sarah Bouabibsa from Young Invincibles in support.

Brian Weinberger with NextGen California, in support.

Kathy van Osten, John Burton Advocates in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And do we have any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in opposition, seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Well, Assemblymember, I just have one question that maybe you can speak to. But if we're expanding the age, shouldn't we remove the word young from all the relevant sections of code so we can rename the program more people, be able to understand that they may be eligible for it? Or is that something you guys have discussed?

Just traditionally, it's been called that, the young child tax credit. I mean, I'm open to a conversation about it, but just because historically it's been called that. And look, to me, anybody under 40 is young. All right.

Well, good point there. Would you like to make a closing statement?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Without objection, this bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you Assemblymember.

Thank you.

All right, we're going to do a little bit of housekeeping here, and we are going to lift the call on item number five. AB 1439. Call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

I want to replace the call on that Bill.

Mr. Valencia, would you like to add on to item number two?

That Bill is a do pass to appropriations. It has passed. [Roll Call]

We are going to lift the call on item number five again. AB 1439. Garcia, call the absentees.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has passed. Thank you. And then add you on to. Mr. Grayson, would you like to add on to item number two, AB 511. zero, you're on that one. We'll move to item number five. AB 1439.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

Welcome, assemblymember. You gonna ask questions? File item 14, AB 362 is being heard for testimony only today. Assemblymember Lee, if you're ready, we'd love to hear from you.

One second, Mr. Vice Chair, I'm passing a visual aid as well, but thank you chair and Members. Today I am presenting for presentation only AB 362 which would study the efficacy of a land value tax system in California. I would like to thank the Committee staff and the chair for all their work on engagement on this Bill.

And this Bill today in print directs the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to study a statewide land value taxation system as a potential alternative to our current property tax system. And land value tax is not a new idea. LVT for short has existed since the 19th century after American political economists and journalist Henry George articulated it. The idea is simple. A land value tax would simply tax the value of land without regard to the structural improvements.

This means that someone who improves their property will not be punished for it. Land value taxes incentivize improvements to property and housing development and our current property tax system creates a disincentive for landowners to develop vacant lots because adding or improving structure would result in higher taxes. This is resulting in making California one of the most expensive places to live as we suffer from a housing crisis.

With my district in the Bay Area being one of the most expensive areas in our state and given this crisis, it is time we reassess our current system to better understand what options we can employ as policymakers to incentivize more developments. Allentown in Pennsylvania implemented a partial LVT in 1996 and upon ensuing this tax, the city experienced a 32% jump in building permits while also seeing a tax decrease on residential parcels.

The arguments offered in opposition can only truly be tested through a rigorous study of a land value tax, which is exactly what the Bill seeks to do. What I presented today is a kind of neat visual to illustrate the point at a very easy way to understand is a property tax system right now is the value of the land plus the buildings or structures on top of it. Land value is taxes only about the land.

So as you see from the visual right now is that as you improve the property, your property taxation rate can go up. But with the land value tax, which only taxes and assesses the land itself, the physical earth beneath it, your tax rate can stay stable. In that essence too is the more efficient and more productive your use of land is, you have more people or more means to share that tax burden.

So in the illustration, you see how the empty lot and the land value tax and the five story apartment have the same taxation rate, but the amount of payers like so say, if in the five story condos could be five residents, five households sharing that property tax versus vacant lot being only one property holder. And this has been shown to improve and make land use more efficient.

And really that's what this Bill is seeking to do, is to ask for a study about this, show what the efficacy of it, what's the dollars and cents impact of it, because there is a real potential, possibly that we could have a way to help alleviate our housing crisis and also lower the tax burden of residential parcels.

That is actually a real possibility, but we'd only have that data to show if we had a robust study of it, and which is why I'm asking the state to do so. I think there are benefits and merits to it, and that's why I would like to ask for a study and hoping that as we continue to work on this Bill and continue to build engagement, that we can build support for this. And I continue to work on honing this policy in the future.

And with that, today, I'm also pleased to be joining my witness in support, Ansel Lundberg, the co chair of House Sacramento.

Thank you, Assemblymember Lee. Thank you, chair members. Good afternoon. Appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of Assembly Bill 362. So I'm a housing advocate in Sacramento, and I'm here to talk a little bit about why I think we should study a land value tax. The reason is that so we can better understand how this policy could benefit a city like Sacramento or any of the communities that you may represent.

There's a concrete example of a change you might see in this city due to a land value tax. The lot at 16th and J Street near Memorial Auditorium, you're seeing several surface parking lots in the middle of the downtown of a regional economic hub. And the reason is because those landowners face zero carrying cost for not developing those lots. We want to see housing, small businesses, and opportunities for growth and prosperity in our communities.

We don't want to penalize these things so that land is being under assessed under the current system, while the landlord can speculate and harvest that land value that was actually created by the economic activity happening around that lot. So I believe that a land value tax can help by simultaneously generating revenue for public services in growing areas, as well as rewarding landowners that develop their properties. So these are major questions like how do we pay for public services?

And I believe that a study would bring value and knowledge to help understand how to answer that question. Finally, I just want to indicate land prices are the perfect signal for what should go where in our cities. Housing should go near jobs, jobs can go near transit, and we can have restaurants and shops where people want to be. So studying an LVT will help us understand how to optimize and incentivize these things.

So with that, and for these reasons, I ask for your support of Assembly Bill 362 by Assemblymember Lee.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair. and members Annalee Akin, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jack Yanos, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, in opposition. Both for the concerns raised in the analysis and also for the reasons outlined in our letter, respectfully requested. No vote at the appropriate time. Thank you so much.

All right. Do we have any questions from the Committee?

I do.

Assembly Member Petrie-Norris.

Yes. Hi. So I'll first say that I do appreciate your commitment, Assemblymember, to think innovative ways to fuel more housing production. But I think my concern about the Bill is really illustrated by your graphic. So in your graphic, you've got kind of a current system that equals a tax base of $14,300. In your land value tax thing, you say that everybody would just have $1,000, but that only equals $6,000.

In order to actually have the same tax base using a land value tax, everyone would have to pay $2,383, which means that every single family homeowner would experience an almost 100% increase in their taxes. And that's kind of at the crux of what's problematic about this Bill to me, and I think your witness actually said that a land value tax is a perfect signal for what goes where. And I guess if we were just plain monopoly and starting from scratch, that's great. But we're not.

We're starting from a world where people live in those homes, and the idea of increasing their taxes by nearly 100%, I think, is, for me, just a non-starter. So I do want to collaborate with you and work with you on, I guess, innovative and creative ways, to perhaps to diversify our tax base. But this is not an approach that I can support.

Yeah. So, remember, I think I was just pointing out the fact that this illustration is about one parcel, like, evolving over time not, say like a neighborhood, a strip of neighborhood. While I don't quite follow the math, I don't think necessarily would result in individual taxpayers making or paying more taxes to make up that kind of deficit. I think what you're alluding to is the potential that residential parcels or parcels in general could fall in their tax burden, actually.

Because what you're talking about right now is the difference. Right. Obviously, the totality in the property tax system is different. It is higher because it's land plus structure, which results in a higher net. There is a possibility in a world where we switch only to land, that no matter the single family home, the apartment owner, whatever the property structure is, they're paying a flat land tax. Right. Assuming that the price doesn't change and stuff. Right.

So they could actually be paying less of a tax in general, actually. But I think these are the kinds of questions and debacles with which we need to have a study, robust study about is analyzing what is, and that's what kind of was in my Bill is about the burden of an individual taxpayer, what perhaps a single-family homeowner would be. And then also on the revenue side. Right. What would a government look like? What would our revenue, would they fall? Would fall? Would it increase?

So I think that's why it's important to have a study look at the impacts of not just the homeowner, but then also the government revenue side, too. And that's what we're seeking to do. So just want to clarify that aspect.

Thanks. Thank you.

I certainly appreciate your presentation today. And you're out of the box thinking. Have you considered, instead of having a Bill, to actually go to an educational institution and to have them come up with a study?

Yeah, I think it's one of the options we've entertained, but there's nothing more certain than having the power of Legislature say you should study this, than us suggesting something that's out of the box that people might not be as interested. Often we in Legislature ask or even our own departments to do something politely, and they don't always comply with us. So I think it's always nice to have our kind of commitment to want to get more information, get more facts.

So the heart of this, the study, was just to get more facts, get more information, because at the end of the day, we know a lot of theories and a lot of potential for this, and if the math doesn't work out, then we don't have to go there.

But I would suggest, as you continue to work on this concept, that maybe you approach some of our educational institutions in the meantime. All right, well, thank you very much for your presentation.

Absolutely. Thank you so much.

All right, next up we have file item 13, AB 1268. Assemblymember Irwin, please begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. AB 1268 will add the ability to sign a California organ tissue donor registry on state income tax forms. Organ and tissue donation save thousands of lives each year, with a donor often being able to impact the lives of up to 75 people who are desperate, in desperate need of life saving transplants. Unfortunately, California lags behind other states in donor registration while over 20,000 individuals wait a transplant.

By far the most effective registration method donate life California has found is through the DMV, asking applicants for driver's licenses and identification cards to sign up for the registry. With our needs to grow the registry and trends showing drivers license applications dipping among young people, it is appropriate to look for new methods to register donors. I'm pleased to have with me as my witness, Jim Martin, CEO of Donate Life California.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Committee and Chair. I'm sorry? So Donate Life California is the nonprofit, state-authorized, organized tissue registry. In 2006, the California Legislature established our relationship with the California DMV and in the 17 years since, our registry has grown to almost 18.6 million Californians. While the Donate Life California registry is the largest in the nation, as Assemblymember Irwin said, we still lag behind national averages. Nearly 104,000 people in the United States are waiting for a life-saving transplant and of those, 20,000 are from California.

Of the 20,000 waiting for a transplant in California, 46% are from the Hispanic Latino community, 21% are from the white non-Hispanic community, 20% are from the Asian community, and 10% are from the black non-Hispanic community. One person's donation gifts can save up to eight lives with organ donation and improve up to 75 others through tissue donation. And nationally, 17 people die each day waiting for a life-saving transplant.

The DMV partnership with Donate Life California has been amazing with over 98% of registrants coming through the doors of the DMV in the current driver's license and ID application process. A record 4866 transplants took place last year in California and there is more work to be done. AB 1268 provides a critical opportunity to increase the number of registered donors in California and requires the Franchise Tax Board to include a checkbox on the resident income tax returns.

This process will allow for more individuals to make the decision to become organ donors and it will make it easier for those already registered to update their information. Thank you for your support.

Thank you, and do we have any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in support? Are there any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments for the ommittee? We have a motion and a second. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, so we have a motion by Ms. Petrie-Norris, second by Mr. Ta. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill is passed. Thank you.

All right. We are almost finished here. We're just waiting for some Ms. Rivas, but can we--for anybody that's missed votes? All right. You are up.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I want to begin by thanking David and the Committee for his thorough evaluation of this measure and for working closely with my staff. I would also like to accept the amendments proposed by the Committee.

AB 1097 would revise the definition of a qualified purchaser under the Qualified Purchaser Program (QPP) to eliminate the requirement that the person receive at least 100,000 in gross receipts per calendar year from business operations and instead require that the person make more than $10,000 in purchases subject to use tax per calendar year. This threshold will apply to purchases where the use tax was not collected, and these modifications to the QPP program will be operative for five years to determine the modification's impact on revenues, tax administration and taxpayer compliance.

This measure would streamline the Qualified Purchaser Program to relieve the administrative burden that small businesses face when reporting a pay use tax on out of state purchases. Since 2019, online marketplaces have been required to collect sales tax on sales through their marketplaces, which has significantly closed the tax gap that originally led to enactment of the QPP. Now that the tax gap has been closed, the QPP no longer provides consequential revenue to the state and subjects California businesses to unnecessary registration and filing requirements.

Under current law, a qualified purchaser is required to register with the CDTFA and report and pay use tax directly to CDTFA on purchases made from out of state retailers. In 2021, CDTFA received 14.9 million from 21,012 taxpayers through the QPP. Most of this amount was reported by a small number of taxpayers.

Approximately 78% of tax payments were made by 227 taxpayers with tax liabilities of at least $10,000. Approximately 14% of tax payments were made by 20,027 taxpayers with tax liabilities less than $1,000. I don't have any witnesses in support, but I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, and we have nobody in the audience in support? Anybody in the audience in opposition? Any questions from the Committee? And would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote whenever it's appropriate.

All right. And then, without objection, this Bill will be referred to our suspense file.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. And we are going to hold the roll open for five minutes.

Oh, Ms. Rivas has to do. Yes, you have to add on. I'm sorry, you still have to add on. All right. So we are going to first add on to AB 511.

[Roll Call].

Okay. And then we have AB 1439.

[Roll Call].

And then we have AB 1268.

[Roll Call].

All right. So we will hold the roll open for six minutes. All right, we have. Why don't we start with item 13. AB 1268.

[Roll Call].

And Ms. Bains, you're done. You're done. You only needed to vote on one. Yes. All right.

Item number two.

Item number two. AB 511.

[Roll Call]. And one more.

And one more. AB 1439.

[Roll Call].

All right, you are finished. Okay. And with that, we will adjourn the April.

Six minutes. Or until all Members have voted, whichever is sooner.

With that, the April 10 Rev and Tax Committee is adjourned.