Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

We have 324 measures on today's agenda, a little bit light, two of which are eligible for a do pass motion. So the remaining items will are suspense file candidates. And we have one suspense file bill that will have a presentation, but the authors for the remaining suspense file bills have waived presentation.

It means that the authors will not be here. However, we will still take testimony from the public on each and every item, even if the author has waived presentation.

AB 2498 by Assemblymember Zbur, AB 2893 by Assemblymember Ward, AB 2903 by Assemblymember Hoover, and AB 3061 by Assemblymember Haney are all still listed on the daily file, but these measures will be rescheduled to our next hearing.

In addition, AB 20618 by Assemblymember Shen will be reported directly to the floor pursuant to rule 28.8. So we will not have testimony on that bill today. So if you're here for that bill, it will not be called and there won't be testimony as usual.

We're going to extend a courtesy to any member that show up, any assembly member that shows up in person and allow them to present their bills out of agenda order as they show up.

So if you're here on an assembly member bill and it's taken out of order, pay attention, because we could end up moving on if we don't see anybody getting up to testify. I'm going to ask you to.

Well, I want to remind you that the witnesses are limited in their testimony to the fiscal aspects of the bill and we've asked the assembly members to do the same thing. Please refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments.

Before we begin today's hearing on the bills before us, we need to establish a quorum. So, madam assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Now we can move on to the business of the day. So I want to thank all the committee members for being here on a timely basis. And we'll start off with the first bill on, on today's agenda, which will be AB 82 by Assemblymember Weber. Assemblymember Weber has waived presentation.

So we're going to start with opening this up by seeing if there's anyone who would like to provide testimony in support of AB 82. Is there anybody here seeing no one approached the mic. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance.

Excuse me. Yes. Good morning. Michele Perrault, on behalf of the Department of Finance. Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it would result in General Fund costs, excuse me. Not included in the administration's spending plan.

And we also do believe the bill may conflict with federal law and the Federal Food and Drug Administration's authority to regulate the safety and efficacy of these drugs.

Very good. Are there any questions or concerns from the committee? Saying none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 82 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 1841 by Assemblymember Weber. Assemblymember Weber has waived presentation. Is there anybody here who would like to testify in support of her Bill?

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

Yes, the Department of Finance is currently opposed to 1841. The University of California reports ongoing costs of at least 1.6 million to comply with the bill. Both the CSU and the community colleges report minor associated costs, but we are, we are opposed because it does create ongoing General Fund costs as well as a potential reimbursable state mandate.

With one time and ongoing Proposition 91 General Fund costs probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the community colleges, we're good.

Any comments or questions by the committee saying none. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1841 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 1895 by Assemblymember Weber, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Chloe Fermin with cleanearth4kids.org supports AB 1995 Weber.

Thank you very much.

Again, Anna Mathews, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in strong support of this bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about anybody in opposition? Department of Finance?

Yes, Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1895. Preliminary estimates are potentially ongoing. Annual fund, excuse me, General Fund costs in the Low hundreds of thousands of dollars to, excuse me, to the Department of Health Care and access and information and minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Health Care Services.

So we are opposed as a result of ongoing General Fund costs not accounted for in the state's fiscal plan.

Committee comments or questions? Saying none. This Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, 1895 will move to suspense. AB 1919 by Assemblymember Weber, who has waived presentation. Anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition?

Department of Finance yes, Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1919. We do believe that the Bill could create a state reimbursable mandate with ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. The costs would, of course, depend on the best practices that a local education agency implements.

Questions or comments from the committee saying none? This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1919 will move to suspense, maybe 1984 by Assemblymember Weber, who has waived presentation. Anyone here would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Yes, Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1984. We do believe it could potentially create a state reimbursable mandate, and we estimate ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs of up to about $4.7 million for local education agencies should it be considered a mandatory. So we are opposed to it.

Given that and the ongoing General Fund costs that are not costs not in the administration's spending plan, we would also note that it requires a reporting of duplicate, duplicative reporting of already existing reports. Got it.

Comments or questions from the committee saying none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1984 will move to suspense. AB 2072, again by Assemblymember Weber, who has waived presentation. Anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Department of Finance doesn't currently have a formal position on the bill.

However, we would note that the Department of Managed Health Care estimates the fiscal impact of the Bill to be $500,000 25-26 for consulting fees and an updated fiscal impact from the California Department of Insurance wasn't available at the time of our analysis, but we believe based on in the prior version of the Bill, estimated cost of $29,000 to the insurance Fund could occur in 2031 to 32.

However, we believe the current amendments could accelerate that timeframe and that the cost could be higher than originally estimated.

Questions or comments from the committee seeing. None, this nill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2072 will move to suspense. AB 3059 by Assemblymember Weber, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? The Department of Finance.

Department of Finance doesn't have an official position on the bill. However, we would note that the Department of Managed Health care estimates fiscal impact to be 64,2526133,2627 and annually thereafter. The California Public Employees Retirement System estimates a fiscal impact of about 332,000 annually from the public Employees Healthcare Fund questions.

Or comments from the committee saying none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 3059 will move to suspense AB 3139 by Assemblymember Weber who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about testify in opposition? Department of Finance? Committee? Seeing no questions or comments.

This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 3139 will move to suspense AB 236 by Assemblymember. Holden Assemblymember Holden has waived present. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance.

Yes, the Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 236. We would note the Department of Managed Healthcare estimates fiscal impact to be 1.97 million in seven positions in 24-25, 3.5 million and 14 positions in 25-26, 3.4 million, 14 positions in 26-27, 3.49 million and 14 positions in 27-28 and annually thereafter.

That would be supported by the managed care fund. We would also the Department of Healthcare also estimates fiscal impact of approximately $24 million in 25-26 and ongoing from potential Proposition 30 impacts.

So we are opposed to the bill as a result in significant ongoing General Fund and managed care fund costs that are not included included in the current state spending plan.

Thank you. Comments from committee concerns this bill is. A suspense file candidate so without objection. AB 236 will move to suspense AB 1826 by Assemblymember Holden. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1826. The California Public Utilities Commission estimates ongoing cost of $3 million from the Public Utilities Commission reimbursement account to Fund 13 positions to hold public hearings, conduct investigations, et cetera.

We would note that the Public Utilities Commission reimbursement account is generated from surcharge on utility bills, so the measure could result in increased costs for ratepayers.

Comments or questions from committee, seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1826, we'll move to suspense. Moving on to AB 1851 by Assemblymember Holden, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about testify in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1851. California Department of Education indicates the bill requires $304,000.01 time General Fund for three new positions, operating expenses, and equipment.

Finance also assumes federal resources will not be available for this purpose and therefore estimates General Fund costs in the millions to Low tens of millions of dollars to provide the grants to the participating local education agencies. Therefore, were opposed given the significant General Fund costs and cost pressures not included in the states spending plan.

Comments or questions from the committee? Seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1851 will move to suspense AB 2193 by Assemblymember Holden who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of the California Community College is in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chloe Fermin Clean Earth 4 Kids Supports AB 2193 along with following organizations Facts North County Equity and Justice, Ecosustainability Peeps, NCCA Grandparents Taking Action thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? About anyone in opposition Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2193. The University of California indicates one time costs of $275,000 from the General Fund to develop the comprehensive hazing, prevention and outreach program. They also anticipate ongoing General Fund costs in the tens of thousands of dollars to update rules and regulations.

Finance assumes that California State University would incur one time General Fund costs of approximately $575,000 for the program and also assumes the CSU would incur ongoing General Fund costs of about $920,000 to update the rules and regulations.

We would also note the bill could create a state reimbursable mandate with one time Proposition 98 General Fund costs ranging from 6.5 to $9.0 million for the California Community colleges to create the comprehensive program.

Comments or questions from the Committee? Seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2193 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 2330 by Assembly Member Holden, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about testify in opposition? The Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2330. We would indicate that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates costs of $1.26 million from the General Fund in 24-25 and $1.2 million General Fund for 25-26 and ongoing for the need for six permanent positions.

We would also note the provisions of the bill may have additional negative fiscal impacts to CDFW if the mitigation measures required by the bill result in a decrease in the number of Incidental Take Permits. So we are opposed because the additional General Fund costs and cost pressure is not included in the current fiscal plan.

Questions, comments, or concerns from Committee? Seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2330 will move to suspense. AB 270 by Assembly Member Lee, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? The Department of Finance?

No file.

Questions, comments, or concerns from Committee?

Seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 270 will move to suspense. AB 2346 by Assemblymember Lee, who has waived presentation; is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about testify in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Comments, questions, concerns from the committee? Seeing none.

This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2346 will move to suspense AB 252454 by Assemblymember Lee, who has waived presentation. Is there anybody here who would like to testify in support of the bill?

Chloe Fermin, Clean Earth for Kids supports 2454 Lee along with the following organizations, Facts, North County Equity Injustice Ecosustainability Peeps, NCCA, Grandparents Taking Action. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Department of Finance I was trying to get to you too fast.

No worries. Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2454. The State Water Resources Control Board estimates the bill requires ongoing cost of 450,000 in two positions and one time contracting cost of $500,000 from the General Fund to enhance and maintain the database.

We would also just note that the Water Board has committed approximately $34 million from the safe and affordable Drinking Water Fund to implement a comprehensive solution based approach that addresses water quality with approximately $6 million budgeted for domestic well sampling.

So at this time, we're opposed because it results in significant costs and cost pressures in the General Fund not included in the current budget.

Are there any questions, comments or concerns from the committee? Seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2454 will move to suspense. AB 3031 by Assemblymember Lee, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Maria Harold Sullivan, representing the National Women's Political Caucus. We are in support.

Is there anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance? Questions, comments, concerns from the committee saying none of AB 3031 is a suspense file candidate. So AB 3031 will move to the suspense file.

Okay, right now we're going to jump because we have an assembly member here present and we want to give him his time back. So we're going to take up AB 2107 by Assemblymember Chen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 2107. I first want to thank your Committee for working with my staff on this bill. The use of digital data results and images are becoming more common in the field of pathology. For example, the United States, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, approved whole slide images systems for primary clinical diagnosis on April 12, 2017.

WSI technology permits digitization of entire class slides, thereby eliminating the need for pathology practice to be locally tethered to a conventional microscope. Due to Covid-19 public health emergency, the Federal Department Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced a policy authorizing pathologists review pathology slides and digital data results and images remotely.

Upon conclusion, CMS removed the authorization for the remote review of physical slides but continue to permit remote review of digital data results in images, including that of slides. However, the California law doesn't allow the remote review of digital slides, despite CMS's authorization. Without this authorization, pathologists will be limited to viewing digital data results and images inside a laboratory, even though no actual laboratory equipment is utilized or needed.

The goal of AB 2107 will bring California into conformity with federal law by allowing pathologists reviewing digital clinical laboratory data, digital clinical results, and digital images at a remote location under a primary location's clinical laboratory improvement amendment certificate, as long as CLIA requirements under the Code of Federal Regulations are met. Here to testify with me, we have Ryan Spencer representing the California Society of Pathologists.

Maybe we can check outside and see if there's, if your witness is here.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there a Ryan Spencer outside?

Calling out.

No worries.

Very good.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Want to check and see if there are members of the public that would like to testify in support of this bill? How about members that would like to testify or audience members that would like to testify in opposition? Seeing none. Questions, comments by the Committee? Seeing none, you may conclude. Oh, Finance. I'm sorry.

No file.

I read her mind. So we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

This is a do pass recommendation. There is a motion. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

You have a majority. We'll put it on call for the absent Members.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Appreciate you being here. We're going to go back to the agenda, and we're going to take AB 3291, which is from the Human Services Committee, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 3291. The Department of Developmental Services anticipates costs associated with updating the individual program plan to include caregiver succession planning as minor and absorbable.

However, there are also potential significant ongoing General Fund impacts, likely in the millions of dollars for Regional Centers to cover, excuse me, to cover rent, lease and mortgage payments for consumers who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

So therefore, we are opposed to the bill because it is likely to result in ongoing General Fund cost pressures not included in the administration's spending plan.

Member questions or comments saying none this is a suspense file candidate without objection, AB 3291 will move to suspense AB 347 by Assemblymember Ting, who has waived presentation. Any comments in support? Comments in opposition Department of Finance. Committee comments concerns seeing none this. Is a suspense file candidate without objection.

AB 347 will move to suspense. AB 691 by Assemblymember Ting, who has waived presentation. Anyone who would like to testify in support? Testify in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 691 because it results in costs not considered in the 2024 Budget Act. California Energy Commission estimates one time contract support cost of $750,000 from the Energy Resources Program account to develop the required report.

Finance would note that CEC's main operating account, the Energy Resources excuse me, Programs account, is in a structural deficit and additional expenditures will accelerate the accounts insolvency. We believe any resources associated with this measure needs to be evaluated as part of the annual budget development process.

Any questions? Comments by committee members seeing none this. Is a suspense file candidate, so without. Objection, AB 691 will move to suspense AB 1780 by Assemblymember Ting, who has waived presentation anyone here who would like to testify in.

1780 along with the following organizations Facts, North County Equity and Justice, Ecosustainability Peeps, NCCA, Grandparents Taking Action. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Valerie Johnson with the Campaign for College Opportunity. in support. Thank you.

Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently neutral on AB 1780 because it does support efforts to ensure transparency and post secondary institution admissions and fair and appropriate admission practices, but does note that this bill could create ongoing General Fund costs of 235,000 for the Department of Justice to hire two additional positions to review, investigate, and enforce potential violations by independent educational institutions.

Comments questions by committee saying none this. Is a suspense file candidate so without. Objection, AB 1780 will move to suspense AB 1814 by Assemblymember Ting who has waived presentation anyone here in support? Anyone in opposition.

Welcome.

Thank you. Becca Cramer Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action, in opposition. AB 1814 creates harms that do not exist in current law and cost money without providing any real benefit to Californians. AB 1814 costs money in several ways. First, police will need to be trained.

They will need to know answers to questions such as does a witness ID that uses facial recognition? Possible matches count as a subsequent investigatory technique to clear AB 1814's sole basis provision. AB 1814 will also have litigation and damages costs associated with wrongful arrests. But AB 1814 costs money, costs California in other ways.

It opens up state databases to perpetual virtual lineups like the one that caused Mr. Williams to be wrongfully arrested after his old driver's license photo was falsely matched to facial recognition.

It may also make it harder for people wrongfully arrested to have access to justice, as attorneys from more than half of the known people wrongfully arrested due to facial recognition argue in their opposition letter. AB 1814 will also make project 25 easier to achieve.

It implies that legislators only worry with facial recognition is if it's used as a sole basis for probable cause. Blessing all other uses of facial recognition as quote unquote safe, including using facial recognition to identify people going into abortion and gender affirming care clinics throughout LGBTQ people to determine someone's political leanings and more.

Junk science as some of those may.

Sound, this is really the financial part of it.

Facial recognition does claim to be able to make all of those possible. For these and other reasons, ACLU joins more than 70 reproductive justice, LGBTQI, immigrants rights and racial justice organizations in asking you to hold AB 1814 on suspense. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Danielle Kando Kaiser on behalf of a number of the opposition groups, with the chair's permission, may I read names? Sure.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Madera Coalition for Community Justice, Access Reproductive Justice, Gender Justice LA, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Asian Law Alliance, Immigration Defense Advocates, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Encode Justice, Black Lives Matter California ,iI Win How, Council on American Islamic Relations, California National Immigration Law Center, Youth Justice Coalition, Tech Equity Action Orange County Equality Coalition, Free Speech Coalition, Training for Early Abortion and Comprehensive Healthcare, Secure Justice, Consumer Federation of California, Silicon Valley De-Bug, Santa Monica Democratic Club, Indivisible California, Team Justice San Diego, Universidad Popular, Council Cancel the Contract the Sidewalk Project, All Family Legal Defensa, Fight for the Future, Food Empowerment Project, American Atheists, San Diego Faculty Association, University of Irvine Faculty Association, San Francisco Black and Jewish Unity Coalition, Alliance San Diego, Indivisible Yolo, EPIC, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Organization for Identity and Cultural Development, Advocacy for Principled Action, Students Deserve Indivisible East Bay Parivar Bay Area, Positive Women's Network, USA Healthcare for US and Community Coalition.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Morning, Madam Chair Members. Alegria De La Cruz, on behalf of the Dolores Huerta Foundation, in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance. Committee seeing no comments or concerns. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1814 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 2244 by assemblymember Ting who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Chloe Fermin, with Clean Earth for Kids, supports 22 for 22, excuse me, 2244 along with the following organizations: FACTS, North County Equity and Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps, NCCA, and Grandparents Taking Action. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? How about anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 2244 will move to the suspense file. Trying to find your file. We have 354. Did I miss it? Thank you. Thank you. There it is.

Assembly Member Low, welcome. You jump to the front of the line. We're going to take up AB 3100. This enjoys a do pass recommendation.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues. Good to see you again. Assembly of 3100. That helps to alleviate the burden with respect to divorces. The fiscal impact is minimal and respectfully asked for our vote at the appropriate time.

Very good. Is there anyone in the room that would like to testify in support of AB 3100? How about in opposition? The Department of Finance. No file questions. Comments from the Committee? I'll entertain a motion. There is a motion. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call] Five.

Five to zero. We'll put that on call for the absent member. Thank you very much. Moving back to our regular agenda, we're gonna take up AB 459 by Assembly Member Kalra who has waived presentation. Anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 459. The California Highway Patrol estimates costs related to data storage and making data available to the public will be $3.4 million 24-25 and

$3.2 million and 25-26 and ongoing finance would note any request for additional resources is subject to the annual budget process and to the extent that the California Highway Patrol does incur additional costs as a result of the bill, CHP may require funding from the motor Vehicle Account and the State Transportation Fund, and we would note that the MVA is currently operating with a structural deficit.

We would also just note that the bill may impose a state reimbursable mandate as determined by the commission on state mandates, as it does require a new program or higher level of services to be provided by local agencies.

Questions comments from the committee saying none this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 459 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 1581 by assemblymember Kalra who has waived presentation anyone here in support?

How about in opposition? Department of Finance, no file Committee this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, Abdeh 1581 will move to suspense. AB 1993 by Assembly Member Kalra who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support?

How about in opposition Department of Finance no file committee comments concerns this is a suspense file candidate, assembly member Kalra who has waived presentation anyone here in support? How about in opposition Department of Finance?

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2509. The Department of Food and Agriculture anticipates the bowl result in costs ranging from 300,000 to 400,000 General Fund to establish monitoring guidelines on a case by case basis whenever established guidelines for monitoring of a pest do not exist.

Finance does estimate the total impact of the cost of establishing guidelines might be closer to the Low millions of dollars and so we are opposed because it results in unknown, potentially significant General Fund costs not included in 2024 Budget act and may hinder CDFA's ability to effectively respond to invasive species.

Committee comments concerns saying none this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2509 will move to suspense AB 2602 by Assemblymember Cholera who has waived presentation anyone here in support? How about in opposition Department of Finance?

No file Committee comments concerns seeing none AB 2602 is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2602 will move to suspense AB 2640 by Assemblymember cholera who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support? How about in opposition Department of Finance?

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2640.

We are opposed because we do believe it will create a reimbursable state mandate with significant ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund cost pressures of between $850,000 and $4.3 million and creates ongoing General Fund costs of up to $50,000. And 1 time General Fund cost, excuse me, of up to $20,000 to fulfill the requirements of the bill.

Committee comments or questions seeing none this is a suspense file candidate so AB 2640 without objection, will move to suspense AB 2926 by Assembly Member Kalra who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support of the bill? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition of the bill?

Department of Finance

No file

Committee comments, concerns? Seeing none, this Bill is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2926 will move to suspense. AB 3280 this is a Bill from the Judiciary Committee who has waived presentation anyone here in support? Anyone here in opposition? Department of Finance?

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 3280. At the time of the analysis, the Judicial Council had not provided a fiscal estimate of the implementation costs.

However, based on the bill's provision, the Bill would have unknown but likely significant General Fund costs in the tens of millions of dollars to provide lactation rooms for court users in court facilities that are without a staff lactation room.

The Judicial Council did previously indicate there are approximately 215 court facilities that are without lactation rooms and for reference, Department of Finance does note that the 2022 Budget act provided 15 million dollars one time General Fund to expand public access to lactation facilities and courthouses for court users.

Comments, concerns from committee? Seeing none; this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 3280 we'll move to suspense. AB 460 by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Comments, questions from committee? Seeing none; this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 460 will move to suspense. AB 1836 by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Department of Finance?

No file.

Committee comments, concerns? Seeing none; AB 1836 is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 1836 will move to suspense. AB 1846 by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1846. Judicial Council estimates this bill results in cost of $730,000 general fund and 24-25 and 695,000 in 25-26 and ongoing for additional staffing to create and deliver the required training annually.

Therefore, Finance as opposed to the bill because it results in general fund costs not included in the 2024 Budget Act.

Comments questions from the Committee seeing none this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 1846 will move to suspense AB 2054 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan who has waived presentation anyone here in support of the bill?

Chloe Vermin with cleanearth4kids.org supports 2054 along with following organizations Facts North County equity and justice equal sustainability peeps NCCA grandparents taking action thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about anyone in opposition? Department of Finance no file comments questions from Committee saying none. This bill is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2054 will move to suspense AB 2085, by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support?

Maria Harold Sullivan with the National Women's Political Caucus is in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? How about anyone in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file

Questions comments from Committee seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 2085 will move to suspense. AB 2099, by Assemblymember Bauer Kahan, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support?

Rhea Harrow Selvin with the National Political Caucus. National Women's Political Caucus is in support.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in support? I see you were running, so I'm going to wait.

I'm Roxanne Gold with the American Nurses Association, California, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? How about anyone in opposition? Department of Finance no file any comments? Concerns seeing none.

This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 2099 will move to suspense. AB 2169 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2169. The Department of Managed Health Care estimates the bill requires 1.48 million and four positions in 25-26, 2.08 million and four positions in 26-27, 2.85 million and four positions in 27-28, and 2.1 million and four positions in 28-29 and annually from the fee supported from the managed care facility.

Department of Insurance also estimates the fiscal impact of this bill to be $80,000 in 25-26 from the Insurance Fund to create regulations. Finance as opposed to the bill as it creates costs to the managed care fund not accounted for in the state fiscal plan. Additionally, the bill will likely result in increased utilization of services and create additional cost pressures for health plans and insurers that could be passed on to consumers through higher premiums.

Comments, questions from the committee. Seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 2169 will move to suspense AB 2236 by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support?

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members: Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Monterey Bay Aquarium, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana and also ask to provide the support for Surfrider, Physicians for Social Responsibility Bay Area, Environment California, and CALPIRG. I just want to note two items.

First, this bill was strongly endorsed today by the LA Times and as amended on July 3. We believe this bill currently has no costs whatsoever to the state. We strongly urge your support. Thank you. Thank you.

Tomas Valadez with Azul and support.

Thank you.

Sharon Gonzalez, on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, in support.

Chloe Fermin with Clean Earth for Kids supports 2236 along with the following organizations: FACTS, North County Equity and Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps, NCCA, and Grandparents Taking Action.

Thank you.

Good morning. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity and support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen on behalf of the California Grocers Association and support

Thank you.

Good morning. Gavin Mchugh, on behalf of International Paper, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? About anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Comments, questions from the committee? Seeing none; this is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 2236 will move to suspense. AB 2467 by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support?

Maria Harold Sullivan on behalf of the National Women's Political Caucus is in support.

Thank you, anyone else in support? How about anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2467 as it results in costs not included in the state's fiscal plan and may potentially result in General Fund costs. Specifically, we would note that this Bill will result in General Fund costs for the MediCal program, likely in the millions to tens of millions of dollars.

General Fund to then Medi Cal managed health plans to cover services pursuant to the Bill. Additionally, this Bill may add pressures to departments as they are currently evaluating and implementing efficiencies resulting from the statewide ongoing reduction to departmental operational budgets adopted in the 2024 budget.

Comments concerns from the Committee, seeing none. This Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2467 will move to suspense. AB 2527 by Assemblymember Bauer Kahan, who has waived presentation is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Maria Haro-Sullivan with the National Women's Political Caucus in support.

Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to the bill as we note that it could create a reimbursable state mandate as determined by the Commission on State Mandates by expanding the required items of access for incarcerated pregnant persons. The magnitude of the potential mandate cost is unknown but could be significant given the requirement of additional food and water to incarcerated pregnant people.

Although Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations does indicate minor and absorbable costs associated with providing the water and nutritional meals, it notes concerns with prohibiting the placement of incarcerated pregnant and postpartum persons in restricted housing.

Comments questions from Committee saying none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 2527 will move to suspense AB 2877 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support

Crystal Strait on behalf of Common Sense Media, proud to sponsor this bill.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone in opposition Department of Finance, no file comments questions from Committee seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 2877 will move to suspense AB 2930 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support? How about in opposition? It's a race to the mic.

I'll do quickly this time. Danny Kando-Kaiser, on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mike Robson, on behalf of the American Staffing Association, the California Staffing Professionals. Opposed based on the policy grounds.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance

no file

Comments, questions from Committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2930 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 551 by Assemblymember Bennett, who has waived presentation. Anybody here would like to testify and support?

How about an opposition Department of Finance? Comments? Questions saying none? This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 551 will move to suspense AB 637 by Assembly Member Jackson, who has waived presentation. Anyone here who would like to testify and support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 637. Excuse me.

The state Air Resources Board estimates the fiscal impact of the bill's requirements to be $1.8 million from the Air Pollution Control Fund in eight permanent positions in 2425, $2.4 million from the Fund in two permanent positions, one limited term position in 2526 and $2.3 million in 2627 and ongoing finance opposes the bill as it creates additional cost pressures on the Air Pollution Control Fund, which is currently operating in a structural deficit, and this bill will just exacerbate the Fund structural imbalance.

Comments questions from Committee seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 637 will move to suspense AB 1801 by Assembly Member Jackson, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support?

In opposition? Department of Finance.

No file

Committee this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 1801 will move to suspense. AB 1818 by Assembly Member Jackson, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? The Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1818. The California Community College Chancellor's office does indicate moderate one-time state operations General Fund costs between 91,000 and 112,000 to issue guidance. However, they do anticipate significant one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs for districts to acquire security equipment and provide associated infrastructure on each campus.

An ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs of approximately $10.7 million to 13.5 million. The California State University chancellor's office estimates one time General Fund costs of $500,000 and ongoing General Fund costs of 2.25 million or 2.25 million.

Therefore, we are opposed to the bill because it imposes significant General Fund and Proposition 98 General Fund costs and subjects college and University campuses to potentially significant liability if an incident were to occur on the campus during the pilot.

Comments concerns from the committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 1818 will move to suspense AB 2042 by Assemblymember Jackson, who has waived presentation. Anyone in the room in support of the bill?

Good morning, Allegria De LA Cruz on behalf of the Dolores Huerta Foundation in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2042, the peace officer standards and training, or the Commission?

Excuse me, the Commission on Peace Officer standards and training does anticipate costs ranging from $250,000 to $400,000. 1 time General Fund and we would note that to develop the guidelines, which by the way is double jointed with AB 3241. However, finance does note we do believe these costs could be absorbable for post.

However, the California Highway Patrol also indicates the bill may result in additional unknown costs for the CHP contingent upon details of the guidelines that post creates. And these costs would be required to come from the funding of the motor vehicle account, which is in the state transportation Fund.

And just a reminder, the NVA is currently operating with structural deficit.

Comments, concerns from the Committee seeing none.

This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2042 will move to suspense. AB 2448 by Assemblymember Jackson, who has waived presentation anyone here in support of 2448? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2448. The labor and Workforce Development Agency, excuse me, estimates one time General Fund costs of 5.7 million and 25-26 an ongoing General Fund and ongoing General Fund costs of 1.2 million beginning in 26-27 to collaborate with the County of Riverside to develop the program.

In addition, the County of Riverside could potentially incur millions of dollars in reimbursable state mandate administrative costs. Therefore, we are opposed to the Bill because it results in General Fund costs not included in the 2024 budget and local requirements that are likely to create a reimbursable state mandate.

Comments, concerns? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 2448 will move to suspense. AB 2936 by Assembly Member Jackson, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? In opposition? Department of Finance.

Yes, Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2936. So sorry. Sorry. We believe the bill will create one time Proposition 98 General Fund and non-Proposition General 98 Fund costs that are not currently part of the state's current fiscal plan.

Specifically, the CSU indicates the bill will lead to one time General Fund costs in the mid-hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the work group. The California Community Colleges indicates the bill will result in additional one time costs in the same range. Therefore, we are opposed to the bill, as it's not included in the current state fiscal plan.

Comments, concerns from Committee? Seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 2936 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 810 by Assembly Member Friedman, who has waived presentation.

Anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Anna Matthews of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 810. The University of California indicates costs of $9 million ongoing General Fund and $1,000,000 one time General Fund. The CSU estimates there will be additional unknown administrative General Fund costs, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to adjust their hiring process.

We also believe the Bill could create a reimbursable state mandate with ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs of 2.5 million to update campus hiring policies and provide one day training to existing staff at campuses.

Therefore, we are opposed to the bill because it creates General Fund costs in the millions of dollars and could create a reimbursable state mandate with Proposition 98 General Fund costs in the low millions of dollars.

Committee comments concerns seeing none this bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 810, we'll move to suspense. AB 930 by Assemblymember Friedman, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support? Anyone in opposition?

Department of Finance

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 930.

Finance would concur with the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank's estimate that there could be a General Fund cost pressure for the state to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into the rise revolving loan fund that the bill establishes upon appropriation to finance RISE district startup costs.

The estimate assumes RISE district project is likely to require at least 100 million in startup financing and the Ibank estimates it will incur unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the low millions of dollars annually to administer the fund.

The Office of Planning and Research also estimates costs of 672,000 General Fund in 25-26 and 224,000 General Fund in 26-27 and ongoing to support three staff positions.

Comments concerns from committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 930 will move to suspense AB 1889 by Assemblymember Friedman, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support?

Yes. Good morning again, Madam Chair. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and the San Diego Humane Society in support.

Chloe Fermin with Clean Earth 4 Kids, supports 1889, along with the following organizations, FACTS, North County Equity and Justice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, NCCCA, Grandparents Taking Action. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Committee comments, concerns? Seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 1889 will move to suspense. AB 1963 by Assembly Member Friedman, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Chloe Fermin with Clean Earth 4 Kids supports AB 1963 along with the following organizations. Facts, North County Equity and Justice, Ecosustainability Peeps, NCCA, Center for Environmental Health, Moms Advocating Sustainability, YardsmartMarin, Grandparents Taking Action, Sonoma Sass, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and Beyond Pesticides. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Christina Scrounge with the Center for Biological Diversity in Support

Thank you.

Good morning. Allegria De LA Cruz, Delores Huerta Foundation and support

Thank you.

Anyone else in support? How about in opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of a variety of agricultural trade associations, in opposition thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance no file comments questions from the Committee saying none. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1963 will move to Suspense AB 2263 by Assembly Member Friedman, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Maria Haro-Sullivan, on behalf of the National Women's Political Caucus, is in support.

Thank you.

Cliff Berg, on behalf of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee, in support.

Very good. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2263. The Department of Social Services estimates costs will include one time General Fund of 999,000 in the first year and 986,000 annually, ongoing for future years for state operations support.

Therefore, we are opposed because it results in ongoing General Fund impacts not included in the 2024 Budget Act.

Comments concerns by the committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2263 will move to suspense. AB 2925 by Assemblymember Friedman, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Madam Chair, Cliff Berg, on behalf of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee representing over 40 statewide Jewish organizations and regional organizations in California, is pleased to be a sponsor of this bill. It is an important measure to address anti-Semitism and other hate targeted at both the Jewish community and other ethnic communities in California on our college campuses.

Unfortunately, we have seen a surge of anti-Semitic and other hate directed activity on college campuses in California. Urge your support.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Jonathan Mintzer, Jewish Community Relations Council, the largest collective voice of Bay Area Jews representing 65 synagogues and organizations. Urge your strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Mariela Sokolowski. I'm the CEO for the Jewish Federation of the Sacramento region, and I support the bill.

Thank you very much.

Marion Leff, co President of the Jewish Federation of the Sacramento region, in support.

Thank you.

Hello. Stanley Leff, President of the Einstein Jewish Community Services, in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

And Brett Kotler, member and concerned citizen of Zioness Sacramento chapter. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Sandi Nieves. I'm the chapter lead of Zioness here with JPAC in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Alan Fisher. I'm from Atherton, California, I, physicist at Stanford. At the accelerator, I, past President of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City and represent Beth Jacob at the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Bay Area. I strongly support this bill and thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Ren Fiss, and I'm a Professor of cultural and visual studies at the California College of the Arts in San Francisco, and I know how important this bill is from my experiences and my students experiences, so I strongly, strongly support it. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, I'm Sandy Fawn. I am a concerned and afraid parent of an incoming freshman at UCLA and a recent graduate of UC Berkeley, and I urge your support for this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jonathan Warmond, Loveness of University of California, Berkeley, strongly in support, and I'm also a volunteer with the Jewish Family children's Services. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lois Kellerman, and I'm with Hadassah Jewish women's Zionist Organization, and I strongly support this and urge you to support it because anti-Semitism is. Jews are the second most targeted group in California for hate crimes. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Good morning. I'm Teresa Drenick. I'm the Deputy Regional Director at the Anti-Defamation League in the Central Pacific region and strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, I'm Nancy Goldberg, past chair of JPAC, and I'm with the Jewish Family and Children's Services, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Allison Barnes. I am the Assistant Director of education with JCRC, Bay Area. I'm also a former public school teacher in Mendocino County, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Skylar Cohen, Executive board Member and West District chair of the Union for Reformed Judaism, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Naomi Goldman. I'm an Executive board Member of Democrats for Israel California, and a descendant of survivors, and I very strongly support this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, there. My name is Miranda Lichtman. I'm the associate regional Director for the Anti-Defamation League in the Los Angeles region, and I am in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Daniel Klein, and I'm the CEO of Jewish Silicon Valley. Our community is very interested to see an increase of education and anti-Semitism and how that leads to Jew hatred. So we strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Raz Lev. I'm a Member of the Jewish community and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, Rachel Wallace from Jewish Federation Los Angeles. We strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members. Bruce Palmer, Jewish Community Relations Council, the Greater Sacramento region, in support of AB 2925. Thank you.

Hello, Susan George from San Francisco representing the Raul Wallenberg Jewish Democratic Club, and I strongly support this bill.

Hi, my name is Wendy Levy Batterson. I am a founder of San Diego Indivisible, advocating for progressive causes, and I am affiliated with the Jewish Federation, the American Jewish Committee, JPAC, and I am a member of Democrats for Israel. I came from San Diego to strongly support this bill for the safety of our community. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Matthew Finkelstein. I am the President of the Jewish Democratic Club of Solano county, and I have come here to support AB 2925. Thank you.

Morning. I'm Robin Layton. I also came from San Diego. I'm a product of the East Los Angeles public schools. I'm a retired educator. I'm on the board of AJC in San Diego, and I'm 100% in support of this bill. Thank you so much.

Good morning. My name is Sophia Mirof. I grew up in San Diego, California. I'm a recent graduate of the University of Maryland, and I'm the coordinator at AJC San Diego, and I approve this bill.

Good morning. My name is Rebecca Pearl. I'm an intern at American Jewish Committee San Diego and a rising senior at UC Davis who no longer feels safe on campus wearing my Jewish star necklace. And I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Netanya Cranford. I'm a product of San Diego Public schools and a board Member of my congregation. I'm also affiliated with the Jewish Federation of San Diego and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Matthew Block. I'm the Assistant Director at American Jewish Committee, San Diego, and I'm fully in support of this bill. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Karen Stiller. I am a parent of a community college student in California and also the senior Director of Jewish affairs at the Jewish Community Relations Council, and I know from experience how critical this bill is, and I stand here in support. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jessica Trubowitch. I'm the Director of community partnerships at the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Bay Area, and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Doreen Castleman. I'm the President of the Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area, representing four counties, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Alameda counties, and we're in total support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Rebecca Goodman. I attended UC Santa Barbara and UC Davis, and I am also in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jessica Blitchock. I'm a Director of community partnerships with JCRC Bay Area. I'm a product of California public schools, as are my two children, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Larry Wanatic, a member of the American Jewish Committee. I totally support this bill.

Thank you, sir.

My name is Ellen Diamond. I've been a California resident for over 50 years. I'm a graduate of UC Berkeley, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lynn Lazarus, and I'm a resident of Oakland, California, and I. I'm a member of Kehilla Community Synagogue and National Council of Jewish Women. And I'm also a retired school teacher. I taught school for 30 years.

And I just want to add that bullying is always a concern and an issue in public schools, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you very much.

My name is Lita Krowech, and I'm from Oakland, California. I'm also a member of Kehilla Community Synagogue, and I'm a retired lawyer and administrative law judge, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you very much.

My name is Scott Wiederman. I live in Orange County. I'm a veteran and served as an officer in the army. I'm here as a parent of two children, one of whom has special needs. Both have been victimized by anti-Semitism, facilitated by bias, indoctrination, part of an academic curriculum. I urgently support passage of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Eric Kingsley. I'm a Vice Chair of International Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League nationally, and I strongly support the bill.

Thank you.

My name is Peter Levi. I'm a native Californian. I am a member of the Board of Rabbis of Orange County. I'm the regional Director for the ADL in Long Beach, Orange County, the proud father of four. And I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is David Gabriel. I'm President of the Marin County Jewish Democratic Club. I'm also a proud graduate of the San Francisco Unified Schools district. And I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Cherie Dimmerling. I'm a fair housing Executive. I'm from here in Sacramento. I'm also with the NCJW, and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Amy Spade. I'm a senior Director of community impact at the Bay Area Jewish Federation, and we support this bill.

Thank you.

I'm Seth Brysk. I'm the son of a Holocaust refugee. I'm also the regional Director of the American Jewish Committee in San Francisco. We also have offices in Los Angeles and San Diego. And I support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Susan Kitchell. I'm a child of Holocaust survivors. I am a graduate of UCSF and a retiree from the San Francisco Unified School District. I strongly support this bill.

My name is Ben Levi. I'm the President of the Palo Alto BBYO, which is a Jewish youth organization, and I'm a student in the California public high school. And I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you for coming today.

My name is Michael Harris. I live in Sonoma county. I'm a lay leader for StandWithUs, an organization based in Los Angeles that combats anti-Semitism. And I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Doug Jaffe. I'm a graduate of the Palo Alto Unified School District, the University of California, and the University of California at Davis. I strongly support this bill and also urge you to support the campus safety bill. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is James Kastelman. I'm on the board of the Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Barbara Nemko, Napa County Superintendent of Schools for the last 27 years, member of the Advisory Committee for the San Diego County Office of Education Ethnic Studies Project, and I very strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

I'm Janna Waldinger, also having served 27 years on the Napa County Board of Education, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, I'm Helena Weiss-Duman, daughter of a Holocaust refugee, product of California public schools, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Beth Forsman from Mill Valley, and I'm with alums for campus. I am the UC Davis chapter lead. I strongly support this Assembly Bill, and I am the granddaughter of a branch of my entire family lost in the Holocaust.

Thank you for being here.

Hello. My name is Linda Plack. I'm a retired teacher from San Francisco. I was a dean of students in one of the high schools there. And I know what bullying is. And I strongly support this bill. Presently, even though I'm retired, I do work as a substitute teacher in the high schools.

And I think this is a very important effort. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Pat Crawford. I'm a member of the Executive board of the United Educators of San Francisco retired division. And I'm speaking as an individual in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

I'm Beth Rutchik. I live in Mill Valley, California. I'm in support of bill 2925.

Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support? Very good. Anyone who would like to testify in opposition outside?

Good morning, Committee Members. Thank you for listening to all this testimony. My name is David Mandel. I'm an active member of Sacramento chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, which represents 100,000 members and supporters around California. We are, of course, very concerned by the rise of anti-Semitism that we see coming from the white supremacist right.

In all sorts of ways over the last few years. But we also know that none of us are safe unless all of us are safe. And this bill, unfortunately, the authors did not accept amendments that were proposed by a group that we work with, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

That would cancel the very arbitrary designation that the education about discrimination would be only regarding, stemming from law enforcement data on which groups are subject to hate, hate crimes and other discrimination. We all know that there are certain things, certain hate crimes and discrimination that are not. That are very much underreported.

One of the most well known, of course, is sexual assault, but also Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab hate crimes and harassment and discrimination are very much underreported. And that's in danger of being left out by the provisions of this bill.

And so we would oppose it unless it is amended to make sure that those and any other things that are often underreported are included in the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Again, this is on the fiscal aspects of the bill, and the recommendation is to move it to suspense.

Hello. My name is Maya Steinhart. I'm a Jewish educator and recent SAC State graduate who spent time at the SAC State encampment for Palestine. I am opposed unless amended to include the top three religions most discriminated against to address the rise in Islamophobia.

Just as there has been a rise in anti-Semitism, there has been a rise in Islamophobia. And this bill actively enacts an instance of Islamophobia by keeping this out of anti-bias training. Privileging education for one group about how to combat that bias versus education on how to combat biases for another group recreates harm.

There is no reason not to include anti-Islamophobia education within this bill. It is simple common sense. I have a couple of other organizations that I'm speaking for, including Jewish Voice for Peace California, Council on American-Islamic Relations California, Arab Resource and Organizing Center, as well as Workers Circle/Arbeter Ring of Northern California.

They are all opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Maggie Coulter. I hold degrees from UC Santa Barbara, UC Santa Cruz, sorry, UC Davis and UC Berkeley. I'm speaking on behalf of the Sacramento Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights. I wish to echo the comments of the previous speakers. We are opposed to the Bill unless amended as indicated. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition?

Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2925. The University of California indicates this bill will result in unknown significant one time General Fund costs between $275,000 and a million to update the various training courses.

Both the California State University and the California Community College chancellor's office does indicate that bill will result in minor and absorbable General Fund costs.

However, the bill could create a state reimbursable state mandate with Prop 98 General Fund costs in the ranges of by requiring the community colleges to update their existing training to address discrimination against the five most targeted groups in the state.

Comments, questions, concerns from the Committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate. First, let me did you want to make a comment or express a concern?

I'll just say that I appreciate all the people coming to testify and I do believe this is a very important piece of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Took the words right out of my mind, out of my mouth. This is a suspense file candidate, but I want, before I get there, I want to say thank you to everybody that arrived today.

It's important that we hear from the community and it's important that we have an opportunity as we consider the fiscal impacts of things to understand the real life impacts that we have in the community. So I want to thank you all for being here and for those of you that have spent your life teaching.

Thank you so much for your commitment to young people, because you do really, really important work. And I thought I was going to be a teacher. And then I got in a classroom and realized I just didn't have the patience for it. So I really respect teachers because I had some great ones.

In any case, this is a suspense file candidate.

Yes.

I apologize for being late, and I don't know if you explained this already to the folks that traveled here, because I know many of them travel a long ways.

Madam Chair.

Can I jump in?

Yes.

Did we explain what suspense means for the folks that are here today so they know what's?

Well, they've been here for a while and sitting outside, for which I really, really thank them. But if you want to go ahead and do a training.

Well, I'm sure you did. But again, I apologize for being late.

I just wanted to explain to everybody that's here, both in support and opposition, that when a bill goes on suspense, what that means under further review, it will come up for a vote later in the month. And so this is neither the beginning nor the end of the bill. And we'll.

So your advocacy is still warranted and encouraged as the bill moves forward.

And appreciate it.

And appreciate it.

Yep. Thank you so much for that. I do appreciate that. We jumped right into the, into the hearing. So this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2925 will move to the suspense file. These are all the bills that cost money.

And ultimately, we'll go through those bills and figure out what we can afford and, you know, what policy priorities we set for the state. So thank you very much for being here today. Really appreciate it. We're going to move on to AB 3088 by Assemblymember Friedman.

So I'm going to see if there's anyone who would like to testify in support. How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

You all don't have to stay here if you don't want to. You won't hurt our feelings if you get up and walk out after your testimony. Are there any comments or. Well, yeah.

Comments or concerns on this from the committee? Seeing none. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So, without any objection, AB 3088 will move to suspense. We're going to move on to AB 815 by Assemblymember Wood, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone, anyone here who would like to testify in support?

How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 815. Finance estimates the cost of this bill to be in the low millions of dollars from the fees supported by the managed care fund.

We are opposed to the bills that result in costs not included in the state's fiscal plan and may be duplicative of current efforts to collect standardized provider information.

The bill may also add pressures to the department or to DMHC as it's evaluating and implementing efficiencies resulting from the statewide ongoing reductions to the department operational budgets adopted in 2024 Budget Act. And we would just lastly note that these costs would likely be passed on to consumers through higher premiums.

Comments or questions by the committee? Seeing none; this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 815 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 869 Assemblymember Wood, who has waived presentation is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition?

Department of Finance

Department of Finance is currently opposed to the bill. At the time of the analysis, an updated fiscal impact was not available from the Department of Healthcare Access and Information.

However, based on previous versions of the bill from 2023, HCAI estimated the fiscal impacts to be 155,000 small and rural hospital relief fund in 24-25 and ongoing to expand the program. If additional funds are appropriated, HCAI does estimate 902,000 in 24-25 and 763 annually for the five years.

Department of Finance is opposed to the bill because it would likely result in General Fund costs and ongoing General Fund cost pressures not included in the state spending plan. Additionally, the bill does propose expansion of eligibility. The proposed expansion of eligibility may also create pressures on available funding from the small rural hospital relief program.

Comments or questions by the committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 869 will move to suspense. AB 2643 by assemblymember Wood who has waived presentation. That means he won't be here today. Is there anybody who would like to testify in support? Anybody in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Any comments or concerns by the committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2643 will move to suspense. AB 3129 by Assemblymember Wood who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Testify in opposition? They were left open.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee, Marc Aprea. I'm here on behalf of the American Investment Council. Our opposition on the fiscal grounds is consistent with that in the committee analysis. This measure will cost millions of dollars. It is duplicative of the review function that's currently being done by the Office of Health Care Affordability.

Further, this measure also fails to consider the litigation costs that will be associated with this measure that will be in the millions of dollars.

It will not only impact the applicants, it will also require the Department of Justice to assign lawyers and time to this. It will also cost the State of California money, consistent with the opposition letter by the University of California. And so we therefore urge the committee to hold the bill.

Thank you very much,

Madam Chair Members, my name is Fred Noteware, representing the Association of Dental Support Organizations. We're opposed to the bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance doesn't currently have a position on the bill. However, we would note at the time of our analysis, Department of Justice had not provided a fiscal estimate of implementation costs.

However, based on the bill's provision, the bill would likely generate costs in low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for the Department of Justice to review transactions. The Office of Administrative Hearings within the Department of General Services estimates cost of 216,000 General Fund annually to hear up to three cases.

DGS notes that this is an estimate based on one case lasting 28 days with six and a half hours of an administrative law judge's time per day, which equates to $72,000 per case at the current administrative law judge rate of $395 an hour.

Are there any comments or questions from the committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 3129 will move to suspense.

We're going to open up the roll call on a couple of the bills that we did as do pass motions to allow Senator Jones to join if he'd like. First up will be, and then we'll open them one more time for the remaining Member that is not present. We're going to go to AB 3100 by Assembly Member Low. The motion was do pass. Please call the roll for the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

That bill has six votes, six to zero. And we'll put it back on call for the absent Member. And then we're going to move to AB 2107 by Assembly Member Chen. The motion is do pass. Please call the roll for the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Bradford

Okay, that's six to zero as well. And so we'll put that back on call for the last remaining Member to be able to add on. Okay, so we'll go back to our agenda, which is the next step up is AB 3218 by Assembly Member Wood, who waived presentation.

We're going to see if there's anyone that would like to testify in support. Whoops, sorry about that. We'll start that over again. Got the mic up.

Chloe Fermin with Clean Earth 4 Kids, supports 2827 along with the following organizations. Facts, North County Equity and Justice, Ecosustainability Peeps, NCCA and Grandparents Taking Action. Thank you.

Did she do the right? Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Yes, Department of Finance doesn't currently have a position on the bill.

However, we would note that Department of Justice estimates cost of $318,000 from the Public Rights Law Enforcement Special Fund in three positions on 2425 and 603,000. 2526 finance does note that while revenues from the application and renewal fees for the new California and flavored Tobacco list Fund, which could be as high as $1,000 paid to DOJ by manufacturers and importers, are unknown at this time.

So these revenues could offset at least a portion of DOJ's cost to implement the bill. In addition to that, CDTFA does estimate costs of up to 50,000 General Fund in 2425 and ongoing for the workload.

They also note that they may incur substantial, meaning about 250,000 to $1.0 million to major or greater than $1.0 million additional ongoing cost for the destruction, depending on the amount and type of tax paid flavored cigarettes and tobacco products that are seized.

Thank you very much. There are no longer Committee Members here, so there won't be any questions or concerns. So this is a suspense file. Candidate without objection, AB 3218 will move to suspense AB 846 by Assembly Member Bonta, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition?

The Department of Finance

No file.

That makes it easy. Quick. This is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 846 will move to suspense. AB 1186 by Assemblymember Bonta, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance

The restitution fund currently operates in a structural deficit, and the fines eliminated in debts vacated by this bill will further reduce fund revenues. So, unfortunately, notwithstanding the merits of the bill, the Department of Finance is opposed because it results in potentially significant General Fund costs to backfill the restitution fund for the anticipated reduction in revenues.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1186. The California Victims Compensation Board was unable to provide a fiscal estimate. However, finance notes that compensation for victims are generally funded by penalty assessments and restitution, fines and orders paid into the restitution fund.

This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 1186 will move to suspense. AB 2239 is a Assemblymember Bonta Bell, who has - and she's waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support.

Good morning. Allegria De La Cruz, on behalf of the Dolores Huerta Foundation and strong support.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Carly Stelzer, on behalf of Common Sense Media in support

Thank you. Anyone else? How about anyone in opposition?

Good morning. Amanda Gualderama with CalBroadband, also testifying for US Telecom, in opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 2239 will move to suspense. AB 2381 by Assemblymember Bonta, who waived presentation, is next. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2381. We would note that the bill may result in General Fund impacts to the extent that this results in an erosion of potential for future savings.

In addition, provisions of this bill may be duplicative of recent ongoing efforts to reform reimbursement rate policies among California, California's early care and education programs, including the programs administered by the Department of Social Services.

This bill is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 2381 will move to suspense. AB 2476 by Assembly Member Bonta, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Yes, the Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2476. The bill will result in unknown but significant ongoing General Fund costs and the hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum to the Department of Social Services to one, increase reimbursement rates above the level enacted in statute, remove the June 30, 2025 sunset date to reimburse child care providers based on maximum authorized hours of care, update payment processing program systems, and address increased administrative cost to contractors.

In addition, this bill does conflict with the state's current statutory commitment to reimbursement rate reform. So unfortunately, Finance is opposed to the bill because it results in General Fund costs not included in the 2024 budget.

Comments questions from the committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2476 will move to suspense. AB 2709 by assemblymember Bonta, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone who would like to testify is support?.

Alegría De La Cruz Dolores Huerta Foundation in support.

Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Committee members, seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2709 will move to suspense. AB 2851 by assemblymember Bonta. Is there anyone that would like to, she has waived presentation. Is there anyone that would like to testify in support?

Chloe Fermin with Clean Earth for Kids supports 2851 along with the following organizations Facts, North County Equity and Justice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, NCCCA and Grandparents Taking Action thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2851. The Department of Toxic Substance Control reports the bill cost $700,000 from the hazardous waste control account in 25-26, 1.2 million in 26-27, and 1 million in 27-28 and ongoing for three permanent positions.

The bill does authorize DTSC to assess fees on metal shredding facilities support costs of implementing the bill. In addition, at the time of our analysis, finance was not able to obtain a fiscal estimate from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Therefore, we are opposed to the bill because it results in costs and pressures to the hazardous waste control account that are not included in the current fiscal plan.

Comments questions seeing none this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2851 will move to suspense. AB 3161 by Assembly Member Bonta, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition?

Department of Finance Department of Finance doesn't. Currently have a position on the bill. However, we would note that while a fiscal estimate was not available from the California Department of Public Health.

At the time of our analysis, that preliminary estimates cost between a million and 2 million in the first two years of implementation, an ongoing cost, and hundreds of thousands to Low millions of dollars annually thereafter from the licensing and certification Fund.

Based on previous estimates, the Civil Rights Department also estimates ongoing costs on the hide hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from the General Fund, assuming an estimated increase in 50 to 100 additional complaints per year.

Questions comments from the Committee seeing none this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 3161 will move to suspense. We're moving on now to AB 884 by Assembly Member Lowe. Assembly Member Lowe has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Alegria De La Cruz Dolores Huerta foundation in support thank you.

Anyone else in support? How about in opposition Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 884. Secretary of State estimates cost of $22.4 million in General Fund and 24-25, 16.4 million ongoing and 25 positions to support the additional workload required to implement the bill.

California Department of Motor Vehicles estimates the cost of $890,000 General Fund in 24-25 and 1.3 million ongoing to implement the bill. Therefore, we are opposed because the costs are not currently part of the state's funding plan.

Comments. Questions? Seeing none this is a suspense file candidate without objection, AB 884 will move to suspense. AB 996 by Assemblymember Low, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Testify in opposition Department of Finance no file Committee seeing none we're going to this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, SB 996 will move to suspense AB 1577 by Assembly Member Lowe. Assembly Member Lowe has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify and support?

How about in opposition Department of Finance no file seeing no comments questions from the Committee this is a suspense file candidate so AB 1577 will move to suspense AB 2132 by Assemblymember Lowe, who has waived presentation. Anyone here who would like to test fine support? About in opposition Department of Finance Department.

Of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2132. The California Department of Healthcare I'm sorry the California Department of Public Health estimates $96,000 in 2425 and $166,000 ongoing going from the licensing and certification Fund to assess enforced compliance of 1550 facilities, including relicensure surveys and complaint investigations.

At the time of our analysis, a fiscal estimate was not available for the Department of Healthcare Services, but finance would note that this bill may result in ongoing General Fund costs for Medi Cal to the extent it results in additional workload and higher costs to reimburse Medi Cal managed care plans for this bill's requirements.

Therefore, we're opposed to the Bill because it results in ongoing General Fund that are not a part of the administration's fiscal plan.

Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate, so AB 2132 will move to suspense AB 2148 by Assembly Member Lowe, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Chair and Members, Jerry Desmond with the Professional Fiduciary Association of. California. We're optimistic that conversations will enable the anticipated cost to be minimized so that the existing loophole in current law can be closed to protect consumers as the bill moves forward.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance no file. I'm seeing no questions, comments concerns this bill is a suspense file candidate, so AB 2148 will move to suspense AB 2421 by Assembly Member Lowe, who has waived presentation.

Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the California State Association of Counties, the Rural County Representatives of California, the California Special Districts Association, and the Association of California School Administrators in opposition to 2421.

Thank you very much.

Hi, good morning. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 2421. While we do anticipate the bill may result in minor and absorbable costs of the state, we are opposed to the bill because it expands the scope of existing union employee confidentiality outside of the collective bargaining process, negatively impacts the state's ability to identify and investigate issues of workplace safety and harassment without initiating a disciplinary or criminal investigation.

Seeing no comments questions from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection 2421 we'll move to suspense 2883 by Assembly Member Lowe, who has waived presentation. Is there anybody here who would like to testify in support of this bill? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Department of Finance is currently opposed to 2883. The California State University estimates that an additional holiday could represent a cost to the CSU of approximately $21.2 million in lost productivity, as well as potentially additional administrative costs associated with adjusting the academic calendar.

Finance assumes the costs associated with this loss of productivity would result in corresponding General Fund cost pressures. The University of California reports no mandatory costs associated with the bill because it's merely a request and does not require them to take action.

Finance is opposed to the bill because it creates significant ongoing General Fund cost pressures during a fiscal year in which both the CSU and UC systems will be preparing to implement ongoing state appropriation reductions.

Comments or questions from the Committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2883 will move to suspense. AB 2892 by Assembly Member Low, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance no file seeing no.

Comments or questions from the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2892 will move to suspense. AB 3034 by Assemblymember Low, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 3034. The California State University reports the cost of a new tuition and fee waiver will vary year to year and could increase over time depending on how many California conservation court members enroll at a CSU campus, the system could face between 907,000 and 9.7 million in forgone revenue.

The University of California reports it will experience a loss in tuition and fee revenue, an unknown amount, but potentially in the millions of dollars, as they do not currently track how many students currently participate in the CCC and they're unable to predict how many would participate if the bill was enacted. So therefore, the.

Excuse me, the Department of Finance is opposed to the bill because it creates revenue losses of unknown but potentially significant General Fund cost pressures.

Also, we would just note that while the bill aims to benefit if it participates in a program that offers young people skills and experiences that could lead to meaningful careers, it would limit revenue sources for the UC and CSU systems during a fiscal year in which both systems are preparing to implement ongoing state appropriation reductions.

Comments or questions from the committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate. So AB 3034 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 886 by Assemblymember Wicks, who has waived presentation. Is there anybody that would like to testify in support?

Carly Stelzer, on behalf of Music Artists Coalition in support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition?

Hello, Danny Cando-Kaiser on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Respectful opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance no file seeing no. Comment or questions from the Committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 886 will move to suspense AB 922 by Assembly Member Wicks, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 922. The annual cost of the program for local assistance depends on how many counties elect to administer the program, which could be in the magnitudes of tens of millions of dollars due to the General Fund.

The bill would also result in unknown but potentially significant ongoing state operation costs for the Department. We would also note the bill could create a state-reimbursable mandate currently of an indeterminable cost because it requires the County of Alameda to participate in the pilot program and submit performance data reports to the Department.

Therefore, we are opposed to the bill because it results in significant and ongoing General Fund cost pressures not included in the 2024 Budget Act and could result in the state-reimbursable mandate.

Seeing no comments, questions, concerns from the committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 922 will move to suspense. AB 1252 by Assemblymember Wicks who has waived presentation. Is there anybody here who would like to testify and support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance

Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1252. The Department of Justice estimates cost of $656,000 in General Fund in 24-25 and 1.2 million in 25-26 and ongoing for six positions to establish the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and support the commission.

Department of Justice notes it is unable to absorb the cost to comply with or implement this bill within their existing resources. Therefore, finance is opposed to the bill because it generates additional General Fund costs not included in the 2024 Budget Act.

Seeing no comments or questions from the committee. This is a suspense file candidate so AB 1252 will move to suspense. AB 1949 by Assembly Member Wicks who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Chloe Fermin with cleaneath4kids.org supports this bill along with the following organizations Facts, North County Equity and Justice, Ecosustainability peeps, NCCA, Grandparents Taking Action, Activists San Diego and Standing Up for Social Justice. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello, Carly Stelzer on behalf of Common Sense Media, in support thank you very much.

Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance no file seeing no. Comments or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 1949 will move to suspense AB 1961 by Assembly Member Wicks who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Hello. Sharon Gonsalves with the City of Merced in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Jennifer Fearing for Community Alliance with Family Farmers in support.

Thank you.

Maria Haro-Sullivan with the National Women's Political Caucus in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance is currently opposed to AB 1961. The Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation estimates costs of 3.7 million in 24-25 and 2.2 million in 25-26. These costs account for stakeholder engagement and task force facilitation, travel, staff engagement, subcommittee meetings, food access analysis, and administrative and technical support for program staff. Finance is opposed to the bill because it results in significant General Fund costs not included in 2024 budget.

Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 1961 will move to suspense.

If you just give us a minute, we have a couple of Assembly Members that arrived and we want to make sure we find the bill. So we're going to move on in the agenda. We're going to move forward in the agenda and take up AB 2918 by Assembly Member Zbur, who is here.

And I understand it is a suspense candidate, so this is a suspense candidate, but you can go ahead and. Okay. Very good. All righty. Well, good morning. Good morning. Good morning.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, along with joint author Assembly Members of Zbur and our sponsor, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, I'm proud to present AB 2918 a bill that strengthens ethnic studies.

AB 2019 is a Jewish caucus priority, and as a classroom teacher for over 20 years who served both students with special needs and emergent bilingual students, I have always worked to create a safe, inclusive, and affirming educational environment for students for diverse student groups.

Best practice tells us that to create such environments, we must provide mirrors where students learn their own history and see themselves accurately reflected in the curriculum and windows, where students learn accurate information and stories about diverse people, essentially a window into the lives of others.

Best practice also uses culturally competent curriculum and instruction that promotes inclusivity and equity by acknowledging and valuing different cultures. Ethnic studies is an incredibly important part of providing windows and mirrors for California students.

Unfortunately, we are witnessing harmful situations where, intentionally or nothing, some ethnic studies curriculum and instruction is creating classrooms that Jewish students are not experiencing as safe, inclusive, or affirming.

AB 20918 helps rectify this situation by requiring that ethnic studies adheres to cultural competency practices emphasizing the importance of multiculturalism in teaching ethnic studies and activating the existing AB 101 guardrails sooner rather than later.

AB 20918 affirms the importance of ethnic studies in California's education, complements the model curriculum, and ensures that all students are provided accurate and affirming mirrors and windows. What AB 20918 does not do is it does not erase or eliminate teaching of the stories of California's diverse student body.

It does not create barriers to ethnic studies programs as envisioned in the model curriculum, and it does not contradict AB 101 or make ethnic studies more expensive. This is especially true with the transparency provisions removed as Assembly Members of Burr will talk about in more detail.

At its core, ethnic studies is a step toward rectifying omission of the experiences and cultures of communities within California. But as we write these wrongs of the past.

We must do so in a present that is wholly focused on creating safe, inclusive, and affirming environments for California's multicultural student body so that every student sees themselves reflected in their curriculum and feels empowered, understood and represented.

AB 2918 is a simple bill with little to no cost that will substantially move us forward, and with that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Assembly Member Zbur.

Madam Chair Members, I am proud to present AB 2918 which, as Assembly Member Addis has indicated, is a key priority bill for the legislative Jewish caucus in California. We celebrate our diversity, recognizing it as a cornerstone of our values and strength as a community.

As such, it's crucial that what is taught in our schools reflects this diversity, fostering understanding, respect, and appreciation for the multitude of cultural perspectives and experiences that enrich our society.

Ethnic studies offers an opportunity for students to both learn about communities other than their own and to see themselves reflected in the stories they hear at school, the windows, and the mirrors that Assembly Member Addis just talked about.

Unfortunately, the original draft of the ethnic studies model curriculum that was released in 2019 was widely criticized not only by the Governor and other state leaders, but also by many of the communities. It was aimed to uplift due to misleading, false, and sometimes biased content in the draft.

After subsequent lengthy, transparent and public process, the Instructional Quality Commission replaced the first draft in 2021 within ethnic studies model curriculum that was supported by the Governor, the state Superintendent, and California's diverse communities.

Districts retained the flexibility to implement this model curriculum or to adopt locally developed curricula, for example, to tailor their classes to their local heritages and communities.

In 2021, Assembly Member Medina advanced AB 101, which contained important guardrails to ensure that curriculums being adopted at the local level would still align with state goals and not promotes bias, bigotry, or discrimination to any community.

Since the model curriculum serves as a guide rather than providing comprehensive, state approved instructional materials, there are no procedural safeguards at either the state or local level to protect against bias or discrimination if districts deviate or deviate from the model curriculum.

Promoters of the rejected 2019 model have exploited this gap, attempting to discreetly insert biased content into local courses and urging districts to adopt materials that deviate from state approved guidelines, undermining the extensive public education process that occurred.

As a result, some schools have adopted and begun utilizing curriculum and instructional materials that are inaccurate and biased and promote the targeting of Jewish students and families, and many times families have found out about it only after the objectional material was already being taught in classrooms.

We are here today because we have a problem that we need to address. When a marginalized or minority community tells us that they recognize and see bias and discrimination, it's our duty to listen to that community, because marginalized communities recognize the patterns of discrimination.

They recognize the tropes, and they recognize what they know to be harmful based on their own lived experience. And what is happening today across California is that educational content that the Jewish community recognizes as biased and anti semitic is sometimes being proposed and used in our schools.

So we need to take steps to make sure that that's course corrected. So AB 2918 contains two major components. First, it has transparency provisions that make sure that parents have noticed that an ethics studies curriculum is being adopted in their school district, can review it, and can provide input to the district before it's adopted.

We have had discussions with the relevant stakeholders, and we recognize that the education unions and other important partners whose partnership we value continue to have concerns with the transparency provisions.

That is why, in order to have time to continue to work with these stakeholders, we are amending the bill through this Committee to remove the transparency procedures at this time. This amendment will also eliminate substantially all the costs related to the bill.

We intend to propose a new bill next year in order to refine these transparency procedures or explore alternative solutions that the education unions and other stakeholders may propose as alternatives. So what remains of 2918 are important enhancements to the guardrails established under AB 101 that protect all.

And I want to say this, it's not just the Jewish community, it's all marginalized communities. One thing the bill does is to make the guardrails effective in January 2025. The guardrails today are not effective, and it's crucial that these are in place as school districts continue to develop curriculum and instructional materials in anticipating the graduation requirements.

Second, the bill strengthens the guardrails by adding the requirement that determinations about ethics studies curriculum incorporate principles of cultural competency. This means that when a school district is determining whether educational content is biased or appropriate for use in our schools, the district must consider the views of the communities that the curriculum is about and affects.

AB 2918 also assures that ethnic studies courses promote multicultural respect and acceptance while focusing on the histories, cultures, struggles, and contributions of historically marginalized communities in the United States.

These guardrails protect all communities and reflect the core principle that marginalized and minority communities, including the Jewish community, should shape the educational content about their own experiences, challenges, and history and that they should have a voice in decisions that impact them.

For example, without this bill, we risk districts including biased and false content about other ethnic communities as well, similar to what we saw in Florida, where outrageous educational content was proposed teaching that elements of slavery were beneficial. So, regarding the costs, we understand that the Committee staff has concluded that the costs of AB 2918 are unknown.

However, with the amendment to remove the transparency provisions which we have submitted, there are no substantial additional costs associated with the bill. With the amendments, the bill merely modifies the AB 101 guardrails.

The bill requires modest but important changes to the legal standards that leas must consider that should not result in any additional costs for leas, as the adoption of an ethics studies curriculum is currently voluntary and contingent upon the appropriation of funds, the bill does not require or impede a district from adopting an ethnic studies course, and the costs of the adoption are not affected at all by this change in the legal standard.

In closing, in my previous career, when I was at Equality California, we partnered with the diversity caucuses, and I personally not only supported, but I myself lobbied for the adoption of ethnic studies. And I point out that every Member of the Jewish caucus voted for ethnic studies.

I know, and the caucus knows how important this curriculum is to uplifting and providing both mirrors and windows as a subject matter has discussed to the experiences and lives of our ethnic communities. But as we proceed with this important curriculum, it's also important that we get it right for all students.

We can have robust ethnic studies courses that lift up all communities, all ethnic communities that are appropriate for and lift up all students. And that's what AB 2918 is intended to do.

With me today to provide testimony are Doctor Mike Torres, Director of the curriculum frameworks and Instructional Resources division at the California Department of Education, and David Bokarsley from JPAC.

So, Assembly Members, I gave you great discretion to tell me the whole policy reason why this is important. And I that's all good, but this is the Committee on Appropriations, and so our real review, at least today, is the way the bill is in writing this minute, and it's the fiscal impact.

And so it will go to suspense. I understand you are going to be proposing some amendments that may change that at a later date. And so that's the reason I allowed so much testimony. Thank you. But if I could, we have a lot of people here who are going to testify.

I want to make sure we get through them. And I have 354 bills today to get through, and I think we've probably got through about 70. So I just want to make sure we're really efficient with our time. You've done a great job of explaining not only the fiscal impact, which I appreciate, but also the context.