Senate Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

Let me note for the record that item number two, Assembly Bill 1973 by Assemblymember Lackey, was on consent. It's been pulled from consent, and we'll hear that Bill in just a few minutes. We do not have a quorum, so we will not be able to begin as a Committee. We'll begin as a Subcommitee.

And with that, I want to invite Senator Low. This is item number five, AB 2238 by Senator. Assembly Member Low. I didn't say congressman. I only have one other choice left. What was that? Wait a second.

As I got demoted?

Yes. Okay. Assembly Member Lowe, thank you for your patience today and for your witnesses patience. Today we're prepared to hear your Bill. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and colleagues, as I also want to acknowledge the fact that many of us are running around, and so for Members of the public, yes, thank you very much for your patience.

Similarly to the Chair, thank you again also for a robust conversation with respect to the Bill before you, which is Assembly Bill 2238 which would add the state treasurer and lieutenant Governor to the Franchise Tax Board.

Of course, when this was brought to my attention about the transparency and accountability, I was elated to be able to author this legislative proposal.

And of course, I know that for additional insights, we'll be hearing from our constitutional officer, state Treasurer Fiona Ma herself, who has also taken time out of her busy schedule to be with us here today. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote when you at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Assembly Member, and we welcome our state treasurer. Thank you for being here. And again, our apologies for being late to start.

Thank you so much, Senator, Senators, for hearing this Bill. This is my 6th year as state treasurer, so I kind of understand what's happening now through my office. And we've gone through good times, we've gone through Covid, and now we're going through deficit times.

I chair 18 boards, commissions, and authorities through my office alone, and the Governor's Office of Finance. Governor's Office of Finance, as well as the comptroller and myself are on all three of those boards. I take in $3.7 trillion of revenues every year. My short term portfolio is about 200 billion.

I issue all the bonds for the State of California and I sit on all of the financial boards except the Franchise Tax boards, which I feel like is the most important board since our state is so highly dependent on personal income tax and corporate income taxes, and I'm not on that Committee, so I don't have the ability to proactively ask those questions.

And sometimes it's macroeconomic questions, like how many of the one percenters are actually leaving the state, how many of them are filing part year tax returns, how many corporations are coming to the state or leaving the state, which is what we heard of, which is part of the problem.

And then most recently, with the Federal Government postponing the deadline for filing. That could have been a policy question that we could have been able to respond to since we are so closely aligned with our cash flow and cash investment. So just being on the board would be very helpful for myself.

But future treasurers, to have that monthly meeting, to be able to ask those questions. Members do talk, but it's not about, you know, hey, what is going on for the next three months, the next six months, when are we going to get out of this deficit?

And if the Franchise Tax Board has issues that they need to run by a policy Committee, the treasurer's office should be on that board.

So for greater accountability, good government transparency, the ability to have the treasurer, you know, have that more current update on what is happening with those important revenue sources would greatly help not only the treasurer's office, but advise all of you.

The Lieutenant Governor was added because the Lieutenant Governor Chairs the California Commission for Economic Development, which provides support and guidance to the Governor, legislative and private sector regarding development of California's economy.

And her not also understanding what's happening in the personal and corporation tax world also gives her a disadvantage in terms of being able to be that spokesperson or that advisor on issues that are important to, you know, whether we're in a deficit, out of a deficit, where we're going, trends, etcetera.

So that's why I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Treasurer. Any other witnesses that you have? Primary witnesses, Assembly Member? I don't believe so. So we'll open it up to others here in the hearing room who would like to indicate their position of support. Name and affiliation.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis in support. Thank you.

Great. Anyone else in the hearing room in support? Seeing none will go to opposition here in the hearing room. Is there anybody who's here in opposition that wants to get primary testimony in opposition, not seeing anybody. Anyone would come to the mic and do any. Me too's in opposition. Not seeing anyone.

We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions. Senator Bradford, any questions for you? I don't have any. Thank you very much. Assembly Member. Thank you. Treasurer? Thank you. Thank you so much. When we have a quorum we'll entertain a motion. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Okay. I don't know who was here first. Mister Lackey.

Mister Lackey. Okay. Assembly Member Lackey. So we're going to move now to file item number two. This is Assembly Bill 1973 by Assembly Member Lackey. Sir. Thank you for being here. We welcome your testimony today.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair Members, for allowing me to present AB 1973. The Bobcat fire of 2020 tore through the Angeles National Forest, destroying over 115,000 acres of precious land and burning the homes and livelihoods of many. The toll of this tragedy is immeasurable and the scars has left upon our community are very deep and enduring.

However, now the following settlement. Now following the settlement, my constituents must face a tax on the payments that they are intended to. That were given to them, intended to alleviate their losses. To me, it's cruel irony that those who have already endured so much must now shoulder the burden of taxation on their journey towards rebuilding their lives.

AB 1973 will ensure that those well deserved settlement payments are received in their full amounts and would be exempt from taxation. This legislation draws upon the precedent set by Senate Bill 1246 and AB 1249, which provided similar exemptions for victims of past wildfires such as the Camp Fire, the Thomas Fire, and Woolsey Fire.

By passing AB 1973, we not only provide crucial financial assistance to those who have lost everything in the Bobcat fire, but also reaffirm our commitment to standing with communities in their time of need. And that's my testimony.

Thank you, sir. Any witnesses and support do you have here today?

No, we just learned that we were going to have to do presentation short time. No worries.

Just want to make sure I ask appropriately. Does anyone here in the hearing room would like to indicate their position of support? Please come to the microphone. Seeing none, we'll go to opposition. Anyone here in the hearing room in opposition scene? None. We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments.

Senator Lackey, I support your Bill. It's consistent with what we have done as a state in the past. And I think it's only appropriate that we have this type of a remedy for those people who have been so hurt by those fires. So when we have a quorum, we'll entertain a motion, sir. Thank you for being here.

Thank you for your time. Do you want to close? Anything you want to say in closing?

No. You did a good job of doing it for me. Thank you very much.

Bye bye. Thank you, Assembly Member Chen. You've been very patient. Thank you so much for being here. We're going to move now to file item 12. This is Assembly Bill 3134. Again, appreciate your patience and you may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I really appreciate your time. Also wanted to thank Senator Bradford for once again saving a day for allowing us to start. You look very handsome today, by the way. You look good in a fireman's outfit, don't you think? Very attractive.

Again, thank you, Mister Chair, for your time and for allowing me to present AB 3134. I first want to thank your incredible staff for working with my team on the bill.

Existing law authorizes a refund of taxes or assessments as a result of reduction in the value of taxable property or specified corrections to be paid to the latest recorded owner of that property as shown on the tax rule, if there has been no transfer of the property during or since the fiscal year which the taxes subject to refund were levied and the amount of refund is less than $5,000 under existing law, the county may authorize to be paid a refund of taxes or assessments without claim for refund filed to the assessee of that property.

If there has been no transfer of the property during the or since the fiscal year for which the taxes subject to refund were levied, the amount of refund is less than $5,000. AB 3134 would take important steps to expedite the payment of the property tax and assessments refunds to taxpayers.

This measure would increase the existing $5,000 cap for automatic refunds without a claim required to $10,000, capturing a larger universe of claims that can be immediately disbursed to taxpayers.

This bill would also authorize an order for refund of taxes or assessments to be paid to a disabled veteran or veteran's surviving spouse without claim for refund filed if the refund is due to the disabled veterans exemption.

Lastly, this measure would provide a reasonable limit for accrued interest payments on the amounts due to taxpayer who has been provided timely notice. Here to testify with me, we have Chad Rindy, who is the Sacramento county finance Director. Thank you very much and you may begin whenever you're ready.

Chad Rindy, representing the State Association of Auditor Controllers today. Thank you, Senators, for your time.

As stated, this bill is intended to streamline our property tax refund process to allow more situations where we do not require claims or additional paperwork from taxpayers before we are able to produce those refunds and remit them to them, including situations the Assemblyman described for disabled veterans, increasing the threshold from 5000 to 10,000 for automatic refunds, and the situation of public acquisition of property.

This would benefit not only the Auditor comptroller offices to make our offices more efficient in doing this critical task, but also to get monies owed back to our taxpayers out in a more expedient manner. Thank you for your consideration of this small but important measure to improve our property tax system. Appreciate your time today.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses who want to indicate their support, come on up to the microphone.

Clifton Wilson. On behalf of the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors in support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Eric Larry. On behalf of the California State Association Of Counties in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here in the hearing room in support? All right, anyone here in the hearing room in opposition want to come forward. Anyone in opposition seen them? We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Assembly Member Chen, thank you for working on this bill. It's something I'm happy to support.

Today when we have quorum, we'll entertain a motion. Would you like to close?

Thank you Mister Chair. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. All right, we're looking for authors here in Senate Revenue and Taxation. So for staff who are listening and Members who may be watching, please come on down so we can hear your bill and take care of our business this morning. Okay, we'll be in short recess.

All right, the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation will come back to order. We are going to next hear file item 10. This is Assembly Bill 2854 by Assembly Member Erwin. We have a permission letter from her to have our staff Member Wesley Whitaker present on her behalf.

This is a big moment for Mister Whitaker, I am sure. Well, I will evaluate and see how he does. I will give a report into the Assembly Woman. Mister Whitaker, we welcome you on behalf of Assembly Woman Erwin. Have you ever done this before?

No, sir.

Well, welcome to the Assembly.

Thank you.

This is exciting for you. So we look forward to your testimony today on behalf of Assembly Member Erwin. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senators, today I'm presenting on behalf of Assembly Member Erwin AB 2854 which will bring much needed transparency to local government revenues under your leadership.

Mister Chair, this Committee has already dug into this issue earlier this year, so I'll spare you all some of the thorny details about exactly how sales taxes are allocated among our cities, but it suffices to say that under existing law, retailers with multiple places of business in California can organize their operations in such a way that the local portion of their sales taxes that they collect and remit can be funneled to one jurisdiction.

In exchange, businesses will enter into an agreement with that jurisdiction to get a portion of those sales taxes rebated back to them. This can pit cities and counties against one another in a zero sum game where the jurisdiction that has an agreement with the business sees an increase in overall revenue at the expense of many other jurisdictions.

At the informational hearing organized by Assemblymember Erwin on this topic last fall, she heard firsthand from city leaders about the impacts of these agreements, including in cities that historically have benefited from them, like the City of Fresno.

The city manager for Simi Valley testified at the hearing and explained how their communities roads are in a constant state of disrepair due to a steady stream of heavy trucks entering and exiting a concrete batch plant in the city.

Despite these and other environmental impacts, the City of Simi Valley doesn't receive a single cent of Bradley Burns revenue from these concrete sales because all sales made by that concrete manufacturer are booked out of one sales office in a city that is miles away from any of their batch plants and the associated impacts.

While AB 2854 does not change a city's ability to enter into any of these kinds of agreements, it does, however, advance a key policy recommendation that is endorsed by a broad cross section of California cities and counties, because the only information we currently have is the result from stories of a few tenacious reporters.

The California Taxpayers Association even held a webinar on May 14 where one of their panelists admitted that we currently have no idea how many of these agreements are in place or how much revenue is being rebated annually.

By requiring cities to submit this information annually to the California Department of Tax and fee Administration, policymakers at both the state and local levels will be better equipped to decide whether the claimed benefits from these agreements are worth the loss in crucial tax revenue. Here with us today on behalf of the City of Placentia is Damian Arula.

I did.

You read them very well.

Thank you Mister Whitaker, did you write those remarks?

Thank you.

We welcome your witness. Thank you for being here today.

Good morning, honorable Chairman, Chair Glazer, Members of the Committee, my name is Damien Arrula and I have the honor of representing the City of Placentia in Orange County today in support of AB 2854 by Assembly Member Erwin. Placentia's population is approximately 51,000 and we are one of the oldest cities in Orange County.

We are about to celebrate our centennial anniversary and are nearly built out with limited opportunities for industrial and retail growth. Like many cities in California, we are primarily a bedroom community with limited commercial, retail, industrial and hotel uses.

We have no sales tax rebate agreements with any businesses in our city and rely on sales and use tax generated from traditional sources.

While we have commercial retail, these areas are relatively small retail centers like most communities and we don't have what I referred to as a retail destination driver, which can be difficult to provide a Nordstrom level of customer service based upon the current sales tax landscape.

I share all of this with you to simply indicate that I believe Placentia is a good representation and barometer of many communities throughout California that may not have a large retail destination, destination hotels, or any other uses that may generate additional revenue.

I also wanted to briefly give you an update on how communities like Placentia have had to respond to and address these impacts from the existing Bradley Burns sales tax landscape. These actions include passing a 1% transactions and use tax in our city. It's known as Measure You in November 2018.

While it is essentially the same 1% as the Bradley Burns sales tax, the allocation of transactions and use taxes are vastly different in California and are more favorable for bedroom cities like Placentia as the entire 1% is allocated to the City of Placentia and is not distributed to other agencies via the county or state pool.

In addition, automobiles purchased by Placentia's residents outside the city are subject to the 1% transactions tax at the time of purchase, regardless of where the vehicle is purchased from. The city where the dealership resides collects the Bradley Burns tax, but Placentia recovers the full 1% transactions and used tax.

It should be noted that Placentia supports the equity statement and series of policy recommendations on sales tax agreements put forth by the bipartisan city manager sales tax working group put together by the League of California Cities, of which I was a part of.

While we support the city manager working group's bipartisan recommendations on sales tax agreements, Placentia believes that more transparency around sales tax agreements is needed in order to craft the best public policy possible. Given the wide range of stakeholders, this Bill does not create winners and losers.

This Bill simply puts everyone on an equal playing field of information to better understand and guide the Legislature on how future public policy decisions regarding sales tax allocations could potentially address all communities needs.

It is a step in the right direction that will allow us to examine how to continue to improve sales tax reform in future years for communities such as Placentia and many others. To wrap up, I would say that good bipartisan transparency measures are definitely needed on sales tax agreements, and we support the comments made by Assembly Member Erwin.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and your consideration of AB 2854 as we work together to improve sales tax reform for all California communities. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. All right, anybody here in the hearing room who would like to register their support for the Bill to please come to the microphone? Anyone here in the hearing room? Okay, we'll go to opposition. Anyone here in the hearing room who want to speak in opposition, please come forward.

Seeing none, we'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. No questions there. Say again? Yeah, yeah. I think you should.

Try my best.

All right, Mister Whitaker, thank you for the terrific presentation. Really good. Did you read everything on those notes or did you take some things out as you were speaking?

I modified a couple places that just.

Shows you're ready to elevate into the position itself. So staff doesn't always have it right when you're presenting.

Usually my Boss crosses a few things out, so I'm just trying to be consistent.

Terrific. I'm. Thank you to her for bringing this Bill forward. As you know quite well, I think that the, this tax system that you're trying to provide transparency for is in many ways corrupt. It does create a series of winners and losers. The winners are about 7% of the cities and the losers are about 93%.

And it allows more than $1.0 billion in taxpayer money that would go for public services to be given back to these companies that have manipulated this tax code. So you're certainly in the sweet spot for me, as you know, in a place that requires significant reform, more so than even what's in this Bill.

Just thank you and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

You didn't have a written clause?

But obviously what's in this Bill is prudent and appropriate, and when we have a quorum, we're going to be able to take a motion to hopefully advance it. Anything you want to say in your close,

That one I had memorized.

All right. Thank you, sir. Thanks for coming. Thank you. And you did great. We're going to put it in the evaluation. That's a plus. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we're looking for authors here in the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation. We're going to take a short recess while we wait for authors.

We're going to call the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation back to order. We have a wonderful author here in the room. We're going to move to file item eight. This is Assembly Bill 2555 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. Thank you for being here, and we welcome your testimony.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senators. Today I present Assembly Bill 2555. This Bill extends current tax exemption laws on medicinal cannabis donations for chronically ill medical patients and veterans until January 12030. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which allowed individuals with chronic medical conditions to lawfully obtain cannabis for medicinal purposes.

This enabled people suffering from HIV AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, and post traumatic stress disorder to use cannabis to help alleviate their symptoms. In 2016, California's voters again passed Prop 64, which approved cannabis for adult use.

SB 34, authored by Senator Wiener in 2020, established a clear path for compassionate care programs, allowing cannabis licenses to donate cannabis and cannabis products to Low income patients and veterans, and exempting these products from taxation until January 2025.

With this sunset date rapidly approaching, AB 2555 will extend the tax exemption on donated cannabis products for another five years. And with me today, we have Richard Miller, a patient advocate on behalf of Americans for safe access, and Joy Cassiopeia, US army veteran and Member of compassionate veterans, to make comments.

Great. Well, thank you, Estelle woman, for presenting the Bill. We look forward to hearing from your witnesses. You have two minutes each. Who would like to begin?

That's me. Good morning, Chairman Glazer and Committee Members. My name is Joy Lilly Cassiopeia. I'm a disabled army veteran and Sacramento resident. I am an active Member of compassionate veterans and a medical patient who relies on the donated products I receive through the SB 34 compassion programs here in California.

During my service, I depended on various medications to manage my pain and PTSD. When I left the military in 2015, I sought alternatives to the pharmaceuticals that left me feeling disconnected and numbing. I found more effective and holistic approaches through research and support from a physician that helped me to discover medicinal cannabis dosage and products.

Yet, financial barriers often made access difficult. When I couldn't afford the cannabis medicine I needed, I thought my only option was to return to pharmaceuticals. That's when I discovered the compassionate veterans community and started receiving compassionate donations through their program.

This community has shown me the power of having choices in healthcare and the importance of accessible, dignified care. AB 2555 is not just about maintaining access to cannabis. It's about ensuring that vulnerable communities continue to receive essential health care. The expiration of the current tax exemptions threatens the stability and continuity of these vital services.

This bill is about protecting our most vulnerable populations and upholding the bare minimum standards of health care access. It aligns with our state's intent to prioritize health care equity and social justice. By supporting AB 2555 you affirm your commitment to ensuring that all Californians, especially those most in need, have access to safe and effective medical care.

Your support for AB 2555 will preserve California's compassionate care legacy and ensure our communities can thrive. Let's uphold our state's values of compassion and health care equity. Thank you. I'm very anxious. Thank you.

You did very well. Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. Now you can just. Mister Miller, thank you. Floor is yours.

Honorable Chair, esteemed Members of the Committee, Richard Miller.

On behalf of Americans for Safe Access and the American alliance for Medical Cannabis, I come to you today as a voice for those patients often unheard or unable to be here, our veterans, our seniors, and those patients suffering chronic conditions and economically disadvantaged patients, to express our unwavering support on AB 2555.

This bill is not just a piece of legislation, it is a lifeline to so many that struggle on a daily basis with chronic disability conditions that require medical cannabis to alleviate their suffering or pharmaceuticals won't work or come with too heavy side effects.

By addressing the systemic inadequacies in our tax system, AB 2555 paves the way for a more just and compassionate society. It ensures that our revenue policies reflect our values of fairness and empathy. It also provides essential support to those medical cannabis patients most in need.

From my experience working and providing compassion medicine to approximately 200 plus compassion patients at a therapeutic alternative here in Sacramento, I do agree with the Committee's analysis that this is a but for tax benefit.

It is important to understand that these products, which companies voluntarily donate and which are received by economically vulnerable medical patients, would not have been sold and therefore would not be subject to the sales tax in the first place. The patients would not and could not afford these products.

Failure to implement AB 2555 would be forcing patients to either go without or seeking untested, unregulated markets, putting their health at further risk. For many veterans, the battle doesn't end when they return home. They carry the physical and emotional scars that make everyday life struggle.

Medical cannabis offers them the chance to peace and pain relief without the heavy reliance on prescription medications that often come with severe side effects. By extending the sales and use tax exemptions on donated medical cannabis, we are showing our veterans that we honor their sacrifice and are committed to their well being.

Our seniors, many who have lived on fixed incomes, face chronic conditions that traditional measures can no longer alleviate effectively. They deserve access to safe, effective, and affordable medical cannabis. By supporting AB 2555 we can ease their financial burdens and provide them with the compassionate care they so need and deserve. That and you can wrap up.

Let's not forget the countless individuals and families who endure financial hardships. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2555.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right, we're going to open it up for those who would like to do me, too. Here in the hearing room in support of this legislation, please come on up to the microphone. Name and affiliation, please?

Good morning, Mister Chairman and Members. Amy O'Gorman Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association in very strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Jenkins.

Good morning. Grace Kopham with Brownstein on behalf of Kiva Confections, in support of this bill.

Thank you. Good morning. Nicole Redler, founder of Recompass in support.

Allison Glenn, compassion patient in support.

Ellen Computy, Director of California Normal, representing California's cannabis consumers, in strong support. Thank you.

Kristen Spangerberg, representing the Veterans Free and Safe Access Ranger station, in 100% support.

Thank you.

Sharon Pendarvis, a patient of a therapeutic compassion program and also an ASA Member Advocate to see four Low income patients. And I am in favor of AB 255.

Thank you very much.

Zachary Bond, Purple Heart veteran, in complete support of this.

Thank you, Zachary. Thank you very much.

Marsha Blout from. Sorry. In support. Sorry.

All good. Thanks for being here.

Sherry Martinez, compassion patient and support.

Thank you.

Adiola Adipe. As a parent patient of a cancer survivor and Aid Into Relief, I am in support.

Thank you for being here.

Angela Kadara, patient. I've had osteoarthritis arthritis since my early thirties. I am in full support. Thank you.

My name is Royce Kohler. I'm a retired social worker, and I'm in complete support of this bill.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else here in the hearing room who would like to indicate support? Come on up to the microphone.

Andrea Rodolphe, compassion. I 100% agree with it.

Thank you very much for being here. Appreciate it. Thank you. Anybody else here in the hearing room? All right, we'll go to opposition. Is there anyone here in opposition to this legislation? Seeing that? We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Bradford, followed by Senator Dahle.

Thank you. I just want to thank the author for this common sense measure I heard first hand from not only our veterans, but individuals who are seeking medical assistance to benefits that are derived from medicinal cannabis.

And I'm happy that we can alleviate this tax because I also have a measure to alleviate the tax on tax just at the regular retails and make it far more accessible and affordable for individuals.

And I've heard firsthand from our veterans who have stated they are far less suicidal and are in better care because of medicinal cannabis versus to prescribe drugs that doctors usually do provide to them. So thank you for this and extending this tax, and I'll make the motion win appropriate time.

Thank you. Senator Bradford, Senator Dahle.

I'd just like to lend my comments to this Senator from Gardenia. Heard from many veterans in my district, and not only just veterans, but people who need compassion. And this is a tax that we need not need. So thank you for bringing the bill forward. Look forward to voting for it.

Terrific. I also joined in supporting the bill. Appreciate Senator Bradford's leadership in this space for a long time. We're going to keep this on the up and up. Assembly Member, thank you for bringing this bill forward.

Would you like to close respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much, Senator.

When we have a quorum, we will entertain a motion. Thank you all for being here. Thank you to all the guests who came to testify as well.

Okay, we are going to move, we have another author in the room, so we are going to move to file item three, Assembly Bill 2061, by Assemblymember Wilson, and then file item four, Assembly Bill 3259, by the same author. Welcome to the committee. And you, which Bill would you like to go first on?

File item 3, 2061 prepared to go in order.

All right. In order. Order is good sometimes. All right. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Mister chair. Senators, I'm pleased to present AB 2061, which will establish a new exemption from the state portion of the sales and use tax for the purchase of zero emission ferries by public transit agencies such as Long Beach Transit, Weida and Golden Gate Ferry, through 2030.

This will reduce the cost to deploy zero-emission ferries and to help them comply with the California Air Resources Board, also known as CARB Commercial Harbor Craft regulations. The CARB approved amendments to the CHC regulations in 2023, and it would require public transit agencies to deploy zero-emission ferries by 2026.

Now, when California's public transit ferry operators face. Excuse me, California's public transit ferry operators face impeding transit operations funding shortfalls due to the pandemic's impact on partnerships. This bill will provide capital outlay cost savings, allowing additional funding to be maintained for transit operations.

Exempting zero-emission ferries purchased by public agencies from state sales and use tax is estimated to save California's public transit ferry operators millions of dollars, and it will help us reach California's greenhouse gas reduction goals. With me to testify in support is Terrence Candle, government and regulatory affairs specialist for San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority, or SF Bay Ferry.

Great. Thank you very much. Mister Candell, floor is yours. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Chair Glazer and committee members. I am Terence Candell, the government and regulatory affairs specialist for the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, the agency that operates San Francisco Bay Ferry.

San Francisco Bay Ferry is a regional transit agency that is tasked with operating and expanding ferry service on the San Francisco Bay and with coordinating water transit response to regional emergencies. We carry over 3 million passengers annually on 17 high-speed, passenger-only ferry vessels.

WETA is a co-sponsor of AB 2061, which would establish a new partial sale and use tax, which would provide an exemption for zero-emission ferries purchased by California transit agencies.

This exemption would assist the three transit agencies in the state that operate a total of 28 ferry vessels, accelerating our transition to zero-emission and reducing the impact cost of complying with the California Air Resource Board's commercial harbor craft, or CHC, regulation. CARB's recent amendment to the CHC regulation went into effect on January 1, 2023.

This regulation requires a substantial reduction of emissions by the ferry industry on an accelerated timeline, incentivizing implementing new zero-emission technology and requiring ferries operating on routes on under 3 miles to be fully zero emission by January 12026.

Transitioning to zero-emission requires a significant capital investment, and this is at a time when ferry operators are working to recover from the devastating financial impacts of the pandemic. In fact, WETA has estimated that it would cost $500 to $700 million to upgrade our electrical capacity at ferry terminals, replace old diesel vessels with new zero-emission vessels, and convert newer diesel vessels to zero-emission technology.

WETA is working hard to secure competitive grant funding, advocating for new and expanded grant funding sources and means of implementation cost reduction, including seeking this tax exemption in 2019 and 2022. Similar bills, AB 784 and AB 2622 were passed to provide bus operators with this same sales tax exemption for purchasing zero-emission buses.

With this bill, WETA is proposing that we provide that same benefit to public transit ferry operators. Thank you for considering the proposal, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else here in the hearing room who wants to indicate their support for this legislation. Come on up to the microphone.

Hi, Grace Copland, on behalf of the Bay Area Council, proud to co sponsor this measure.

Thank you. Good morning. Ben Triffo with the League of California Cities in support.

Good morning, I'm Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Great. Thank you very much. All right, we'll move to opposition. Is there anyone here in the hearing room in opposition? Please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Questions or comments. Assembly Member, I'm happy to support your bill today.

It's a good Bill for the reasons that you have stated and your witnesses stated. Is there anything you'd like to say in your close?

Just appreciate the support. And I think it's important that this is just the state portion and these are investments that we make when we do receive those funds. These are the type of investments we make.

So this is just asking parity between our buses and our ferries that do the same thing, transport people to their jobs, to their recreation, to all the things that they need to do to have a good quality of life. And this is something that we should invest in. And so with that, when the time is appropriate, I respectfully ask the Senators for an aye vote.

Thank you, ma'am. And when we have a quorum, we'll entertain a motion to do just that. So with that, we'll close the hearing on this bill and we'll move on to file item four. This is Assembly Bill 3259, and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. My witnesses are coming up. Great. Mister chair. Senators, I'm pleased to present AB 3259. This is a district bill that would provide needed flexibility for residents in Solano County to vote on local revenue measures to protect essential services and improve critical transportation infrastructure.

Specifically, this bill would raise the statutory transaction and use tax limit above the 2% cap to allow cities within Solano County to vote on measures that raise local revenue at a rate not to exceed 0.5% with a sunset in 2029.

Currently, a citizen initiative put on the ballot by residents in the City of Venetia would, if approved by voters, put the city above the cap. Earlier this year, voters in the City of Venetia overwhelmingly approved a three-quarter cent general purpose sales tax increase to support public safety and essential services.

At the same time, residents in Benicia had formed a coalition to draft the citizen initiative for the November ballot for the specific purpose of increasing revenue to improve road conditions. However, with the recent sales tax initiative approved by the voters.

If the November citizen ballot initiative were to pass, it would then put the city above the 2% county cap. This bill does not raise or enact any new taxes. It simply empowers voters within Solano county by allowing them to decide whether to approve local revenue measures that would exceed the 2% cap until 2029.

With me to testify in support of this bill are members from the City of Benicia. We have Mayor Young and city manager Mario.

Terrific. Usually the mayor goes first, so. All right, welcome.

Thank you, sir. And I want to thank Assemblywoman Wilson for sponsoring this bill, not only on our behalf but for other cities in Solano County as well. And as she stated, the City of Benicia, like a lot of local governments, is facing some significant financial challenges.

We were successful in March in getting a sales tax measure approved by the voters. Concurrently, there was a citizen effort to put on the ballot a measured a special tax just for road improvements and received much more than the necessary number of signatures.

So there is an expectation on the part of the citizens that they'll be able to vote on improving their roads. And this can only happen if this bill goes forward and provides them the opportunity.

It's an exercise in self-government and willing to tax yourself to improve your own local conditions, and we would certainly hope that the committee would support it.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you, mayor. And thank you, assemblywoman. Just to conclude and provide context for the committee, in Benicia's case, our roads have a pavement condition index of 56, and for context, a pavement condition index of 70 is good or fair.

Our condition will continue to worsen and worsen and worsen unless we have local investment to improve those roads. And so the matter before you today is our ability to employ self-help to allow our own residents the opportunity to tax themselves to fix our roads.

Without that additional revenue, the City of Benicia does not have the wherewithal to make the proper investment to improve our roads. If we have this, not only will be able to be successful in improving our infrastructure, so too will other communities in Solano County.

In fact, later today, I'm meeting with the other city managers in Solano County, where they're already looking ahead to taking advantage of this legislation for action in 2026. So it's not just the City of Benicia that you're aiding. You're aiding other communities. And I will conclude again by saying this is a self-help initiative. And so when the time is appropriate, we ask for an aye vote on this legislation.

Thank you thank you. For both of you. We're going to open it up for those in the hearing room who want to also indicate their support with their name and affiliation, please come to mind.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else here in the hearing room in support? All right, we'll go to opposition. Is there anyone in the hearing room who wants to speak in opposition? Please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Any questions or comments?

Assembly Member, I did come from a local city 10 years, and I know this self help plea is one that I certainly advanced in my service principally for our road conditions.

And one of the things that I always regretted when I was on the council was the Metropolitan Transportation Commission would put out there list of, like, 101 cities and jurisdictions in the Bay Area and where you ranked, because for many years, my town was at the bottom. At the bottom.

And it was only through our leadership of our community and the good support of our citizenry that we're now at the top. And that took a long time, and it took money to do it.

But these types of measures that you're advancing or what communities need as tools, it's still their choice, and it's for that reason I'm happy to support your bill. Anything you want to say in closing?

Thank you. I just remind the committee in particular, this is for our whole county, but the City of Benicia was once our state capital, so that tells you how old it is and how old some of those roads are.

And so, so glad that the citizens have decided upon themselves to chip in, so to speak, and to say, to ask to chip in so that they can get it done, and happy to facilitate that for them. So I respectfully, at the appropriate time, ask for an aye vote.

Would you say that Benicia is like your, your favorite city?

Oh, you're trying to get me in trouble. Oh, my gosh. It is one of my favorite cities of the eight cities that I represent.

That's why you're an outstanding Assembly Member, and we appreciate you. Okay, thank you for.

Is my favorite capital, California.

You don't have Martinez? You don't have Martinez?

I do not.

All right. Okay, terrific. Thank you for the presentation. We'll take up a motion when we have a quorum. Thank you all. Thanks for being here. Terrific. Okay, we're going to move next to file item seven. This is Assembly Bill 2443 by Assemblymember Carrillo. Thank you for your patience here today. Another one.

Good morning. Thank you Mister Chair and Senators, thank you for allowing me to present a similar bill to the previous one. This is a very simple bill that will allow three cities in my district, the cities of Victorville, Palmden, and Lancaster, all my favorite cities, to raise critically needed resources at the local level.

One of the primary things that communities in my district have in common is that they have been left behind. When the people of Los Angeles County think about these cities, they're not thinking about the City of Palmdale and Lancaster. And when the people think of San Bernardino, county, they're not thinking about Adelanto and Victorville.

For example, measure H in Los Angeles County funds homelessness programs throughout the county, but it only returns $0.15 for every dollar to Palmdale. My communities in the high desert are consistently forgetting about and left out of critical resources at both the state and the county level.

This measure simply allows them to do it themselves, to raise funds locally to meet the local needs of this city. I do not have any primary witnesses with me today, Mister Chair, but I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Terrific. Thank you Assembly Member, anyone here in the hearing room who would like to indicate their support for this legislation?

Mister Chairman, members of the committee, Paul Gonsalves, on behalf of the cities of Palmdale and Victorville, we like to thank the author for his leadership on this issue. He did a great job of explaining the need. Happy to answer any questions if need be. We respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else here in the hearing room in support? I will go to opposition. Anyone here in the hearing room in opposition? Come on forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Terrific. Assemblymember Carrillo, consistent with my view of these matters, I'm happy to support your bill.

Appreciate you bringing it forward on behalf of your favorite cities. Anything you want to say?

I also want to add to the record the City of Atalanta and the City of Hesperia are also my favorite cities in the San Bernardino County.

A good diplomat. Terrific. At the appropriate time, when we have a quorum, we'll entertain a motion. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you. All right. This is only happened once in my chairmanship have I had a representative from the staff of a member to speak on behalf of a bill, and now we have it happening twice in a single hearing. We're going to move next to file item six.

This is Assembly Bill 2353 by Assemblymember Ward, and presenting on his behalf is Silverio Rizalamus. Am I pronouncing that right?

Yes, sir.

Have you ever presented a Bill before?

No, sir. First time.

Okay. I'm sure you'll do great. The floor is yours. I wouldn't read those remarks. Who prepared them for you? I would add lib.

Thank you, sir. I'll try. Well, first of all, good afternoon, chair and members. I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present AB 2553 on behalf of Assemblymember Chris Ward, who is unfortunately unable to be here as he is currently chairing the Assembly Housing Community Development Committee.

I'd also like to thank the committee staff for their work and accept all of the committee amendments. AB 2353 would ensure that nonprofit affordable rental housing developers can access existing welfare property tax exemption without floating unnecessary tax payments while their application is under review.

Currently, affordable rental housing developers must pay property taxes upfront and seek reimbursement after the Board of Equalization and the county assessor have approved a developer's exemption.

As a result, affordable housing developers float hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary tax payments for as long as three years, only to get the money back, albeit without the interest incurred once their application is approved.

AB 2353 would reduce the cost of developing affordable housing by allowing non-profit affordable housing developers to withhold relevant tax payments without penalty while their welfare exemption applications are under review. If the property has received a reservation of tax credits from TCAC or an award of funds from HCD and is able to demonstrate that construction has begun.

For witnesses and support, I have Mark Stivers Director of Advocacy with the California Housing Partnership.

Terrific. You did that very well. Thank you for the testimony of your witness. Please.

Morning, chair and members. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. We are always looking for ways to reduce the cost of developing affordable housing and stretch our state dollars further. One opportunity that we have here is how we administer the welfare exemption, property tax exemption, and Mister R described the bill quite well.

But I just want to put a little bit of data to this in that there's about 163 affordable housing developments at the the state funds per year.

Assuming that it takes two years to get the welfare exemption for each of those developments and that the savings to each development is about 200,000 a year, that means we have $64 million in private capital from affordable housing dollars that's tied up just waiting for these refunds to be the applications to be processed and the refunds to be administered so that money can be put to building additional affordable housing.

And so we ask for your support on this bill. Thank you.

Terrific. Anybody else here in the hearing room who want to indicate, please come to the microphone.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Grace Copland on behalf of Housing California and support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in the hearing room on support? Seeing none, we'll go to opposition. Anyone here in opposition to this measure, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Seeing none, thank you for presenting the Bill on behalf of your assemblymember Ward.

I'm happy to support the Bill. And we have a quorum. We'll entertain a motion at that time. Is there anything I want to say in closing?

No, sir. Thank you. I just respectfully asked for your aye vote.

You didn't have any written closing remarks prepared.

Those were my questions.

The staffers are not always on top of things there. Thank you for presenting. We appreciate it. Thank you, guys. Okay. All right, we're looking for a single author, I believe, and that's Assemblymember Gabriel. Is he chairing budget? Is Assembly budget going? No, no, this is in his office. Okay.

Would you ask him to please come on down and let me ask the remaining Members of our Revenue and Taxation Committee to please come to the hearing room so we can establish a quorum and dispense with our business? With that. We'll take a short recess. We, I believe, have a quorum now.

So the secretary, please call the attendance.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a quorum present. So, members, we have dealt with all the bills on our agenda except for one. We have no motion. So I would ask your attention to see if we have motions to advance these matters. First, let's begin with the consent calendar. Senator Dodd has moved the consent calendar.

And that's Assembly Bill 1879, file item nine, Assembly Bill 2564. And file item 11, Assembly Bill 2897. Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is adopt a Consent Calendar. [Roll Call] 4-0.

All right, we'll put that on call for absent Members. We'll move next to file item number two. This was pulled off of consent. This is Assembly Bill 1973. Looking for a motion. All right. Moved by Senator Dahle. Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]. 4-0

Leave that on call for absent Members. Moving to file item number three. This is Assembly Bill 2061 by Assemblymember Wilson move it. Move Senator Dodd moved the bill. This is do pass to appropriations. Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. Four to zero.

Leave that on call for absent members. We'll move next to file item number four. This is Assembly Bill 3259 by Assemblymember Wilson. Looking for a motion. Senator Bradford moves the Bill. This is a do pass to the Senate Floor. Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. Three to one.

We'll leave that on call for absent Members. Moving to next file item number five. This is Assembly Bill 2238 by Assembly Member Low. Senator Bradford moves the bill. This is do pass to appropriations.

[Roll Call]. Two to zero.

Leave that on call for absent Members. Moving next to file item six. Assembly Bill 2353 by Assemblymember Ward looking for a motion. Senator Dahle moved the bill. He accepted the his representative accepted the amendments that were in the Committee analysis. Due pass is amended to appropriations secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. Four to zero.

Leave that on call for absent members. Moving next to file item number seven. Assembly Bill 2443 by Assemblymember Carrillo. This would be a do pass to local government. Is there a motion? Moved by Senator Bradford. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. Three to one.

We'll leave that on call for absent members. File item number eight is next up. It's Assembly Bill 2555 by Assembly Member Quirk Silva. Move move the bill by Senator Dahle. This would be do passed to appropriations secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. Four to zero.

Leave that on call for absent members. We'll move next to file item number 10. This is Assembly Bill 2854 by Assemblymember Erwin. It's a do pass to appropriations. Is there a motion? Senator Bradford moves the bill. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. 4-0.

Leave that on call for absent members. Finally, we'll go to file item number 12. This is Assembly Bill 3134 by Assemblymember Chen. Motion by Senator Dahle. This is do pass to appropriations secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. Four to zero.

Okay, we'll leave that on call for absent Members. That leaves us with one bill remaining. We'll wait for the author to arrive. I know he's representative, a very important bill. And so we'll go on recess for just a moment. Again, Senate Committee on Rev and Tax will come back to order.

I'm going to turn the gavel over to the Vice Chair.

On behalf of Senator Gabriel, Senator Glazer is going to present AB 3160.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Is this microphone working? No, it's not working. All right. On behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel, this bill supports one of the most critical state funding sources for affordable housing. The state Low Income Housing Tax Credit.

By planning for the long term certainty of the credit we can ensure developers can depend on this critical funding source when planning for future housing construction.

The state's low-income housing tax credit will allow for the construction of over 6000 units of affordable housing each year and generate additional federal, local and private funding at ratios as great as five to one. Making this change an extremely prudent and effective use of the state's financial resources.

With me to testify on behalf of the bill is the esteemed Danny Curtin from the carpenters. And. I'm sorry, I don't know your name. Right, you testified earlier. That's very well. All right. With that respect, on behalf of Assembly Member Gabriel respectfully asked for an aye vote.

You have two minutes. Curtain.

I'm gonna follow.

I'm glad you're deferring to him.

Somebody who knows what they're talking about. Okay.

But again, Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. The state has funded these credits for the last four years. It's also being funded in this budget that will be voted on tonight. In those four years, these credits have funded over 25,000 new affordable homes for families of very low and extremely low incomes.

It's leveraged $5.3 billion in additional federal resources that we otherwise would have left on the table. And so we do think this is a very smart investment that will also create certainty for, for the development community going forward.

The five years is similar to what the legislature has done for the film tax credit and other types of tax credits. And then lastly, a report came out recently that we have 46,000 affordable homes that are permitted by local governments. They are ready to go to construction. They just need that last state financing piece.

This state tax credit will be that funding source for a lot of those developments. So thank you very much and turn it over to Mister Curtin.

So, not to belabor it too much, but the housing crisis is the most destabilizing crisis in California, or economic, socially and politically. As we get deeper and deeper into this, the permanency of this for the five or six years, I believe it's six years, is absolutely critical.

And all I can say is we need to do this more than almost anything else we can do and appreciate your votes.

All right, well, thank you. Anyone else here in the hearing room who wants to testify and support, please come up to the microphone.

Grace Koplan, on behalf of Housing California, in support.

Thank you.

Marina Espinoza, on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in support. Also registering support for the California Community Foundation.

Terrific. Anybody else in the hearing room? Okay, we'll go to opposition. Anyone here in opposition to this bill, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Questions or comments? Seeing none. So, Member Gabriel, we welcome you to the committee.

I know you've got a lot of things going on here in the building, but thank you. And we want to give you the opportunity to add anything you wish.

Thank you very much, Mister chair, and my very, very sincere apologies. I know how busy everybody is this time of year, and I'm so sorry about the delay. I think the witnesses said it great. This is a really important issue, a great way for us to leverage a lot of other funding to address this issue.

And so with that, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Terrific. All right, Senator Dahle has made the motion. This is do pass to appropriations secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Terrific. Thank you to the members. We'll hold on. Call for absent members. Thank you very much. I want to thank my colleagues who have already voted. We're going to open up the roll for those who were not able to vote earlier.

We want to invite the absent members of our committee to come to the hearing room so that we can finish our business. We're going to take just another pause as we wait for absent members.

All right, the committee on rev and tax will be back to order. We're going to go ahead and open the roll for absent members. We're going to begin with the consent calendar. This is file item one. File item nine. And file item 11. File item two was pulled off of consent. So on the consent calendar. Secretary, please call absent members.

Current vote is four to zero, with the chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 6-0.

Put that on call for absent members. Moving next to file item two, AB 1973. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is to pass to the committee on appropriations with the chair and Vice Chair voting aye, current vote is four to zero. [Roll Call] Five to zero.

Put that on call for absent members. Next up, file item three, AB 2061 please open the roll.

Motion is to pass to the committee on appropriations. Current vote is four to zero, with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 6-0.

Then on call for absent members. File item four, AB 3259. Please open the roll.

Motion is to pass to the Senate Floor with chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting no. Current vote is three to one. [Roll Call] five to one.

Hold that on. Put that on call for absent members. File item five, AB 2238. Please open the roll.

Motion is to pass to the committee on appropriations. Current vote is two to zero, chair and Vice Chair not voting.

Senator, hold on 1 second. Two to zero? Yes. We didn't call that one earlier.

All right, we're back at file item five. We're going to open the roll. AB 2238 please call absent members.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on Appropriations current vote is two to zero, chair and Vice Chair not voting. [Roll Call] Three to zero.

We'll put that on call for absent members. We'll move next to file item six. This is Assembly Bill 2253. Please open the roll.

Motion is to pass a semantic to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 4-0, with chair and vice chair voting aye. [Roll Call]] 6-0

Put that on call for absent members. File item 7, 2443 by Assembly Member Carrillo. Please open the roll.

Motion is to pass to the local government committee. Senate Current vote is three to one with chair voting aye, vice chair voting no. [Roll Call] Five to one.

We'll put that on. Call for absent members file item eight, AB 2555 Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, please open the roll.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 4-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 6-0.

Put that on call for absent members. File item 10, AB 2854 by Assembly Member Irwin. Please open the roll.

Motion is do pass, committee on appropriations. Current vote is for 4-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 6-0

Put that on call for absent members. File item 12, AB 3134 by Assembly Member Chen. Please open the roll.

Motion is to pass through the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 4-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

This is Assembly Bill 3160 by Assembly Member Gabriel. Please open the roll.

Motion is to pass through the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 5-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 6-0.

All right, we'll take another recess. Assembly Committee on rev. and taxes will come back to order. Thanks, everyone, for their patience today. We got this special gavel that I'm going to hand over to our esteemed Member, Senator Skinner, to kind of close us out today. So this is the formal passing. All right, thank you, Senator Skinner.

So Senate Committee on rev and tax will go back into recess. We're waiting for one author.

When that author arrives will come out of recess. The Senate Committee on rev. nd tax will come to order and we will reopen the roll on the bills for our absent members. And our first item will be the consent calendar which contains items one, items nine, and items 11. So call the absent members on consent calendar.

Motion is adopt the consent calendar. [Roll Call] 7-0.

All right, we will next go to item two, which was pulled from consent. That is AB 1973. Call the absence Members.

Motion is to pass out a Committee on appropriations current vote is 5-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 6-0.

Great. Then we will go to item three, AB 2061. Call the absent numbers. I'm sorry. Did I say that the consent calendar was out? Okay, good. So item AB 1973 is out. The vote was 6-0. Apologies. Vote was 6-0. Now we will go to AB 2061. Would you call the absent members?

Motion is do pass, committee on appropriations, current vote is 6-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] Seven to zero.

All right, AB 2061 is out. Vote is seven to zero. We'll go to item four, AB 3259.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. Current vote is five to one, with chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting a no.

I'm sorry. What number was it?

3259. Wilson.

[Roll Call]

AB 3259 is out, six to one. Now we'll go to item five, AB 2238. The absent members.

Motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. No vote was recorded for the chair or Vice Chair. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll Call] Four to zero.

AB 2238 is out. Four to zero. Now we'll go to AB 2353. Assemblymember Ward, call the absent members.

Motion is do pass this amendment to the committee on appropriations. Current vote is 6-0, with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

AB 2353 is out. Vote is seven to zero. We'll go now to item seven, AB 2443. Assemblymember Carrillo call the absent members motion.

Is to pass to the committee on local government. Current vote is five to one with chair voting aye, vice Vice Chair, voting no. [Roll Call]

AB 2443 is out, six to one. We'll now go to item eight, AB 2555 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Call the absent members.

Do pass to the Committee on appropriations. Current vote is 6-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

AB 2555 is out. Seven to zero. Will now go to item 10, AB 2854.

Motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 6-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

AB 2854 is out. That vote is seven to zero. We'll now move to AB or, sorry, to item 12, AB 3134.

Assemblymember 10 motion is to pass to. The Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 6-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

AB 3134 is out. Vote is seven to zero. We'll now go to the last item, item 13, AB 3160 by Assemblymember Gabriel.

Motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 6-0 with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. The vote is seven to zero. And with that, the business of the Senate Committee on rev and tax is concluded.