Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

Thank you very much. I want to say good afternoon to each and every one of you. The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation Committee is called to order. We will be operating under and as a Subcommitee until such time. We have an established quorum. A few housekeeping chores I want to make mention.

Just want to remind everyone that those of you who wants to present a position letter please do so at least one week through the Assembly revenue taxations porthole so that it could be accurately reflected in the Bill anatom analysis at the appropriate time.

I also want to remind everyone that pursuant to our Committee rules adopted on our first hearing that we have reinstituted the suspense files. So any item $150,000 more, plus or minus will. Will not be eligible for an immediate vote after the presentation of the author. It will go directly into the suspense file at that time.

This Bill will. This will enable the Committee to holistically consider proposals before us and to better prioritize policy changes. Another few housekeeping rules is that we will be allowing both sides the support and opposition will be allowed two primary witnesses on each Bill. Each primary witness will be allowed two minutes to provide testimony.

All subsequent witnesses should state their name, the organization and the position either support or oppose at that particular time. We're not taking any more testimonies at the microphone. Just your name, your position and organization will be allowed. We do this to be and create fairness to everyone in the room.

Also, we're not will not permit conduct that disrupt or disturbs or otherwise impede the order of the conduct of the legislative proceedings. Anyone that will be causing disruption, behavior that will incite threaten or violence our officers. Will one ask you to be removed, ask you to leave and or take other actions deemed appropriate.

Additionally, we will note for a few housekeeping items that there are two items on our agenda that have been pulled from the hearing. One file, item number four AB317 by Dr. Jackson have been pulled by the author. The second IS file item 12, AB 480, Assemblywoman Short Sharon Quirk-Silva have been pulled by the Committee. Additionally.

Additionally, the Committee bills on file, item 13, 14, 15 and 16 will be on consent for the body to consider at the appropriate time. Every other Bill on today's agenda will be referred to the suspense file except as item number one, AB761 by Assemblywoman Addis. That Bill will be actually taken up for vote today. The chair.

Until we get a quorum, the chair recognize that we have an author. We'll ask Ms. Calderon to please come and present your Bill. We will begin acting as a Subcommitee until such time and we will have you present on File item number two AB232. And you can.

Your witnesses may come and have a seat at the table and you may present when you are ready. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 232 allows California homeowners to establish a Catastrophe Savings Account to help improve natural disaster resiliency. Many of us were directly impacted or know someone who was impacted by the Los Angeles fires in January. The threat of wildfires continues to increase as our climate continues to change.

Unfortunately, a wildfire is not the only natural disaster that threatens our state. California is extremely prone to earthquakes and flooding. A Catastrophe Savings Account would empower a homeowner to prepare for these disasters by allowing them to contribute pre tax dollars at their local bank or credit union. Furthermore, interest accrued on these accounts would be tax exempt.

Qualified expenses from these accounts include home hardening, insurance deductibles and other recovery costs following a wildfire, flood or earthquake declared a State of an emergency. This bill seeks to provide Californians a new tool to protect their homes and accelerate their recovery.

Here with me in support is Josephine Figueroa from the California Department of Insurance and Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes. You may begin when ready. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Gibson and Members of the Committee. My name is Josephine Figueroa. I'm Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. As the proud sponsors of Assembly Bill 232, Insurance Commissioner Arlotta would like to thank Assemblyman Calderon and Mr.

Gibson for their leadership in authoring this important measure that will allow individuals to set aside state income tax free money to pay for qualified catastrophe expenses. These expenses can include insurance deductibles and other related damages or uninsured risks not covered by existing policies.

As climate impacts accelerate, historically vulnerable communities that have been uninsured or underinsured will face devastating challenges from the effects of climate change as well as a lack of timely resources to rebound after a catastrophe. AB232 provides California with an essential financial tool to prepare for climate driven disasters including wildfires, floods and earthquakes.

With the increasing frequency and severity of these events, we must take proactive steps to strengthen financial resiliency and protect consumers. California has faced an unprecedented risk rise in the risk of catastrophic natural disasters. Over the last decade, the state 9's largest wildfires have occurred within the Same time frame including the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires.

Additionally, California holds two thirds of the nation's earthquake risk. And flooding remains California's greatest risk disaster threatening more than 7 million residents in a flood zone. AB232 provides a straightforward mechanism for supporting proactive wildfire mitigation efforts by including mitigation measures in the Department Safer for wildfire regulations as a qualifying expense.

These regulations, developed in partnership with CAL FIRE and the Governor's Office of Emergency Services establishes a three layered structure of home hardening and vegetation management standards that significantly reduce risk. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Carlo Lara, I ask for your aye vote.

With me today is Esteban Mendez from the California and Sustainable branch from the Department is here today to answer any type of questions you may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I will ask Mr. Mendez if you can just hold off just one moment. We want to establish a quorum. Would ask Mrs. Hyland. Would you please. Our Committee secretary call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. A quorum has been established. Please proceed. Great.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. Our Members have significant experience with health savings accounts which work very similarly. One way for homeowners to deal with rising insurance costs is to harden their home. And the recent amendments would make that an eligible use of these funds.

Another way to deal with that is to increase your deductible and match that with a catastrophe savings account. So even when a catastrophe occurs, you have that cash in the bank to meet your higher deductible.

The tax incentive here is modest, but it gives us a hook to market to people to say, hey, you should establish a catastrophe savings account for whatever catastrophe might be coming down the road. We encourage your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak and support you, please line up. And if you could, please provide us with your name, your organization and this is support.

Good afternoon. Amy Garrett on behalf of California Association of Realtors in strong support of this measure.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of AB232 hearing and seeing none. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? You have the same rights. Please come forward if you have. You want to speak in opposition? Hearing and seeing none. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support.

Just need your name, your organization and your opposition. Sorry. The opposition. Yeah.

Hearing and seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee hearing. Any questions, Ms. Quirk-Silva?

No questions. Just want to appreciate the author for a timely and sensible Bill. As we know, this isn't going to make the difference for the people who have already endured fires, but in the future, it could be very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing hearing and seeing none of the Committee. Ms. Calderon, you may close.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank your staff for working with my staff on this bill. We really appreciate all the time that was involved.

Thank you very much. This bill is a suspense candidate, and so we will be not voting, taking action today, but we will at a later day. So thank you very much. This bill will go to the suspense. Refer to the suspense file. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

I think Ms. Castillo is here.

With the Members here. We want to.

Castillo. She's here.

I know. I want to do suspense.

Suspense file or the consent calendar.

Okay.

Let us take up the proposed consent calendar. Ms. Highlander, would you please read the bills on the consent calendar and the corresponding action is being taken.

The items on the proposed consent calendar are. File item number 13, AB 1516. The motion is due. Pass to Appropriations. File number 14. AB 1517, the motion is due. Pass to appropriations. File item number 15. AB 1518, the motion is due. Pass to appropriations. And file number 16, AB 1519. The motion is to pass to the floor.

I need a motion and a second. It's been properly moved. And second. Madam Secretary should please call the row.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar passes four to zero. Thank you very much. zero, great. Ms. Castillo, would you please come forward and present File item number 3 AB 1443. And your witnesses can please take a seat at the table. And you may start when ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Thank you so much. I am proud to present AB1443, a straightforward bill to stop taxing tips earned by California service workers. Across our state, millions of hardworking people rely on tips to make ends meet. Servers, bartenders, barbers, hotel staff, ride share and taxi drivers, and many others.

These are the people who put in long hours, provide excellent service, and earn their income not from wages alone, but through the generosity of their customers. And yet, every time they get a tip, the state takes a cut. That's fundamentally unfair. These tips are not paid by employers.

They are voluntary, earned through personal service and often make up a large share of someone's take home income. In a state with one of the highest costs of living in the country, taxing tips is just another way we're making life harder for working people. AB1443 would exclude tips from state income taxes for the next five years.

It's a targeted, temporary and responsible approach that will provide real relief to workers right now when they need it most. The bill would also reduce unnecessary unemployment insurance costs tied to tips, easing burdens on both employees and small business owners trying to stay afloat and retain staff. Let's not forget the scale of who this bill affects.

There are over 300,000 rideshare drivers operating across the state, many of whom depend on tips. Add to that our restaurant hospitality and beauty industry workers and you're talking about hundreds of thousands of Californians who are taxed for simply being good at their jobs.

Meanwhile, the state continues to collect record tax revenues while small businesses and independent workers struggle to stay above water. We have a responsibility to foster an economic environment where people don't just survive, but can actually thrive. That starts with letting them keep the money they earn. This bill is about fairness. It's about respect for working people.

The government doesn't deserve a piece of their tip jar. They earned it and they should keep it. With me today to provide testimony is Matt Sutton, Senior Vice President of Government affairs at the California Restaurant Association.

Great, thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. We are in support of this. We find this to be one of many efforts in the building, in particular to address affordability crisis related issues. We are appreciative of the caucus calling out that issue.

It's an issue we've been experiencing in the restaurant climate for quite some time. We're made up of. Certainly we have some of the larger restaurant chains, but we are made up of the independent restaurants as our base. The post Covid landscape has been pretty difficult for us.

You've heard from us before, so I won't get too deep into that.

But the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and publications up and down the state continue to document the precarious nature of the restaurant community coming out of COVID coming out of a 40 year high of inflation, inflation rates and facing escalating rents, labor costs, credit card swipe fees, the list goes on and on.

New security fees that we never had to deal with in terms of protecting our restaurants and communities up and down the state. So the affordability crisis is real for restaurants. And we are supportive of efforts that attempt to address this and we think this bill does that on on the front of not taxing tips for employees.

All of this was true prior to the Los Angeles Wildfire disaster. What we found since then is that restaurant foot traffic and restaurant hours and employment are down since that if you were not directly impacted, you were indirectly impacted in most cases. And that too impacts the restaurant community.

And so we are concerned with foot traffic being down as a result of the fires. LAX is seeing a drop in travel and we are seeing tourism rates having concerning trends. All of this is to say that we will support anything that helps on this affordability addressing the situation.

We think this bill is a step in the right direction that goes towards that. I suspect it will go to suspense and we would love to continue this conversation so that this remains part of the larger conversation on affordability. So with that we thank you for your time and interest. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support, would you please come forward? Your name, your organization and this is support only.

Hello, I'm actually here to testify for something else, but as a restaurant owner, my name is Tina Nguyen, sorry, a restaurant owner. I highly support this Bill. My staff would appreciate it very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the room wishing to speak and support Hearing and seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill, would you please come forward? Hearing and seeing none. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition, your name, organization and your position of opposition, please come forward. Hearing and seeing none.

Bring it back to the Committee. Anyone? Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I do support this bill, although we won't be making a vote. And I appreciate the discussion on affordability and I agree with the author that these individuals who are doing jobs that generate tips are certainly something that they have earned and we shouldn't tax those.

However, the conversation on affordability is a little tricky, especially in today's world where we are finding that there are many issues that are in essence attacking our affordability.

So I'm sure that our witness here working in the restaurant industry can attest that things that are happening at the Federal Government from this discussion on tariffs is certainly going to have an issue on affordability, not only for the consumer, but of course for the restaurants themselves and all the other products and goods that come into not just restaurants, but hotels.

Tourism and we are already seeing a reduced number of tourism. As I'm on the arts and entertainment Committee, we're already seeing people choose to take their vacations elsewhere. So, again, I appreciate the bill and we'll support it when it comes to us.

But when we talk about affordability, let's be clear, we are directly responsible for some of the affordability. And as we celebrated Easter yesterday, I'm just going to say, did those egg prices come down?

Thank you very much. Anyone else on the the dais wants to speak hearing? None. Member Castillo, you may close. Thank you very much.

Yeah, I just want to thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. This Bill, AB1443, is a suspense candidate and will be referred to the suspense file. Thank you very much. We see in the audience. Ms. Nguyen, would you please come forward? Sure. So we have file item number 6, AB1435. And your witness can. Can come to and join you at the table?

And your witnesses have two minutes each, and you may commence when ready.

Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I want to thank the Committee Staff for the thorough and thoughtfulness—analysis—and working with my office. Really appreciate the feedback and suggestions in strengthening this Bill.

And we look forward to continuing to work with the Committee Staff to ensure that this is a fair, focused, and responsible policy that supports small businesses and property owners. AB 1435 is about helping small businesses and property owners, who are stuck paying for cleanup after unauthorized encampments and illegal dumping.

Here to testify in support of the Bill is Tina Nguyen, Owner of Phas Ella and Lap Liu, Owner of AA Supermarket.

Thank you very much and welcome. You have two minutes.

Thank you. I just want to start off by saying hello to everybody and taking the time to listen to what I have to say.

And I really like to promote this Bill because it's going to help a lot of business owners, like myself, recoup some of the costs that we've incurred during this time, from the unhoused population and the encampments and unauthorized dumping, that have come onto my property in the years.

I actually had a homeless encampment next to my business, about 300 ft away, for three years. So, the people in that encampment had come over to my property and dumped their waste, including syringes, needles, bio waste, fecal matter. All of those things. And so, it costs money to clean that up.

Cost—takes resources and time, but also, we're trying to make it a better place for the community. We have to keep it safe and clean, so that our patrons can come and return with their families and enjoy a nice meal at our restaurant. So, I just want to say that I'm in full support of this Bill.

And I hope that this will help all business owners get some relief across the state.

Thank you very much. Next witness, two minutes please.

Hello, good afternoon, Members. My name is Lap Liu. I'm a small business...

Can you bring the microphone a little bit closer to you? Yeah. Thank you.

I'm a small business owner—business and property owner—in South Sacramento, where I grew up, since 1980, in the heart of Little Saigon. If you drive by my property right now, you'll see encampments set up directly next to it. I want to be clear, I support getting unhoused individuals help they need.

I'm not here to blame anyone. But while the state is figuring out long-term solutions, business owners like me are left to deal with the day-to-day impact, on our own. I've spent thousands out of my pocket just to keep my business going. I've hired my own private security to protect the property, my employees, my customers.

I've had to bring in contractors to rebuild my fence and gate, multiple times, after they were torn down or vandalized. And I've spent countless hours cleaning up trash, graffiti, even hazardous waste. These incidents happen again and again. As soon as I fix something, it gets damaged over again. I'm a property owner.

I know it's my job to maintain my property, but this has gone far beyond normal maintenance. I can't keep up and I can't ask my workers to clean up their mess. It's not safe. It's not their responsibility, you know. I built a fence that cost me $70,000. The next day it was vandalized.

You know, that's what we're dealing with. And on top of that, because of the conditions surrounding the property, people don't feel safe coming to shop. I've lost customers. My business has suffered. This is what—what's happening to business owners all over South Sacramento and other parts of the state.

We're doing our best, but we can't keep carrying this alone. We're not asking for a handout. We're not asking for help with the cost we've already paid—just to protect and maintain our own properties. This is why I'm asking for your support on AB 1435. It would make a real difference for small business owners like me.

Let me say thank you very much for both your testimonies and sharing with us a glimpse of what you're going through. And so, thank you very much once again. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in support, please state your name, organization, and this is for support. Please come to the microphone.

Matt Roman, Niemela Pappas & Associates, here for Union Pacific Railroad in support.

Thank you.

Matthew Hargrove. We represent commercial real estate, including groups Naop, Boma, CA, and Irem. We hope you'll look at this Bill favorably, coming off suspense. Thank you and thank you to Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nick Chappie, here on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sarah Noceto, on behalf of the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange, the California Builders Alliance, and the United Chamber Advocacy Network, in support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Armando Garcia. I'm with Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty, in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello. Andy Hoff, Plan Appeals. I do restaurant computers. Also, own Otoro, Juhachi, Taiko Sushi, and strongly support this, fully.

Thank you.

Hello. Jacob Brent, with the California Retailers Association, in support.

Thank you.

Hello and good afternoon. My name is Wayne Yu, property owner, business owner, from downtown Harris and Natomas, Carmichael, and Folsom...in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Daniel Romero with Legacy Financial and Director of Marketing for APAPA. In full support.

Thank you very much. Primary witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 1435, would you please come and take a seat at the table? Hearing and seeing none. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this measure, please come. Hearing and seeing none.

Let me bring it to the Committee. Any Committee Members wishing to speak, ask questions? Hearing and seeing none. Ms. Nguyen, thank you so very much for coming. We appreciate this Bill bringing us—before us. You may close if you wish.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, AB 1435—let's keep our small businesses alive.

Thank you very much. This item is a suspense. Candidate will be referred to the suspense file. So, thank you very much. Thank you for coming.

I could get Ms. Bains on the consent calendar.

Yes, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll on missed items for Members.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Great. Thank you very much. We would ask the sergeants to please contact the absent Members so they can come and present their bills to report to this room. Revenue and Taxation Committee, room 126.

For our audience, we're just waiting for Members who are in other committees presenting, and we've made phone calls, so hopefully they'll be with us very shortly. So we beg your indulgence and patience. Look at here, we have an author. Please, please join us at the table. Mr. Muratsuchi.

We have item number five, AB 1428. His witnesses also can come and take a seat at the table.

Yes.

Good afternoon, Members of the.

Just one moment, please, ma'am. Just one moment. Again, this is File item number five, AB 1428. Mr. Muratsuchi, your witnesses are present. They have two minutes each. Mr. Member, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1428 to the. To establish the California Affordable Child Care Fund to ensure a dedicated and sustainable funding stream to improve child care affordability and access in the State of California.

We know that we have over 2.4 million California parents that are unable to afford child care and hundreds of thousands of children without access to care. AB 1428 would offer a sustainable solution to strengthen our California child care system by proposing a modest 0.5% tax on income above $10 million annually.

Revenue generated will be deposited into a dedicated Fund to support licensed child care providers to lower cost for families, expand access by increasing staff and improving program quality. I'm here with the sponsor of this measure, SEIU California, represented by Terry Brennand, who will introduce our child care providers.

Mr. Brennan, you have two minutes, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Terry Brennand with SEIU California. I'd just like to introduce some people who actually do real child care, unlike myself, and to comment on the crisis in the child care world. Veronica Arellano and Danielle. I'm sorry. Diane Goldwasser. Thank you very much.

You have two minutes and welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Veronica Relano and I'm here today on my personal capacity. I am an early childhood education professional from San Jose. I am a mother, a former teen parent. I am a lifelong advocate for our most vulnerable families. Accessing to child care for all has helped me thrive, not just as a parent.

I became a mother at 17. My oldest daughter, now 25, has opportunity, had the opportunity to receive nurturing, high quality education from a dedicated child care provider that I support. That support gave me the chance to complete my education and inspired me to give back.

For the past 19 years, I have proudly served Early Learning Services, Head Start Program in Santa Clara County. The program that is now facing a devastating Layoff.

Because of the cuts at the federal workforce, I and 200 of my Head Start co workers receive layoff notices on March 15 while we wait to hear more news from the people in D.C. we will continue to serve families in preschool, daycare and many more services that we provide at Head Start.

We provide lifelong for families who experience homelessness, domestic violence, unemployment and unique needs of the families. For many, many, English is not their first language and going through the system that is supposed to help them can be overwhelming. That's where I come in. Let's be clear.

Getting rid of Head Start or affordable child care is not just a budget cut. It is about the very foundation that supports families. These are not abstract policy decisions. These affect real people, parents like me who are forced to choose between earning a paycheck or keeping their child in a safe, nurturing environment.

Early education is not a privilege, it's a human right. And the first five years of a child's life are the most critical. Shaping their brain development, emotional well being as long term success. For we fail to invest in early years, we are not only failing our children, we are also failing entire families and communities.

Do not turn your backs on families who need these programs the most. While decisions in Washington D.C. may fact check, chose to take money from early care and education and give it to billionaires here in California, we can choose to protect and strengthen early learning in this very unsuitable reality.

So I ask you today, please invest in our children. Not just because the right thing to do, but because it's just smart. It's the most strategic investment we can make in the future of our state and country. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Two minutes please. Thank you.

Excuse me for having not operated under protocol.

That's quite all right.

But good afternoon to you Committee Members. I'm here representing myself and many members of the child care community. I've worked over time as a child care center teacher, a teen parent educator and advocate for children.

For 20 years now I have been working for the Early Head Start Program focused on women in pregnancy and families with children ages newborn to three years old.

The center based programs provide desperately needed high quality child care and the home based program provides families with access to child development information, parenting skills and connections to community resources that can increase the quality of life. Head Start child care centers and family day care providers have been proven by several reliable studies to be beneficial to employers.

Helping the bottom line as employees with quality child care miss many fewer days of work and are more productive when they are able to focus at work. They are not distracted by worrying about whether their children are safe and well cared for.

Also, I want to speak to the common misconception that child care and education is not skilled professional work, that it's not babysitting. Child care providers are knowledgeable about early brain development, child development, curriculum development, basic nutrition, basic health concerns that commonly affect children, communication and problem solving skills for working with co workers and parents.

You're also trained in first aid and CPR as well as in emergency response skills. All of these dedicated people deserve recognition for their skills and deserve real living wages. Recently, Santa Cruz County published a study examining the causes for our local staffing crisis.

One of the determinations that they made was that if all things considered, compensation for teacher level positions in child care should be at the level of $128,000 a year. This is the level of compensation that most child care workers have not ever even contemplated.

Thank you for listening and I encourage you to become as well informed as you can as you make the decision to support children, families and the people who are educating them and caring for them.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of the this measure, please come forward. State your name, organization and your position. This is for support on 1428.

My name is Mercedes Hill. I live in Sunnyvale. I work at the Santa Clara County Office of Education. I am here to support and show my letter of Layoff so that I. And 200 people got thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to add their name and support for this measure? Yes, Chair.

Members, Kathy Mossberg with Grace and Child Poverty in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone wishing to speak as a primary in opposition to this measure, would you please come and have a seat at the table. Please. You have two minutes to present your opposition.

Well, good afternoon Chair and Members. Tobias Wolken of the California Taxpayers Association in respectful opposition. AB 1428 is a proposal that will severely impact California's business competitiveness. California already has the highest corporate tax rate in the west, far exceeding the. Rates of neighboring states.

In addition to increasing California's personal income tax rate, which already is the highest in the United States, AB 1428 would. Increase the state's corporate tax rate by an additional 0.5%, giving California one of. The top corporate tax rates in the nation. California is competing globally to attract and retain investments and employers.

Increasing the corporate tax rate when many other states are reducing rates is counterproductive and fails to recognize this trend in taxation. Putting California out of step with the. Economies that are looking to lure California investors and jobs. AB 1428 would also have a negative impact on the affordability of the state.

Any increase in the corporate tax rate will be passed on to consumers through higher prices, will result in fewer employment opportunities for Californians, and will reduce the income of businesses headquartered in the state.

At a time when California is facing significant budget uncertainty, now is not the time to put the tax base in jeopardy by enacting major tax increases that will chase individuals and businesses out of the state. For these reasons, we oppose AB 1428.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishes to speak in opposition, if you could please come forward. State your name. Organization. And this is opposition.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, respectfully opposed.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jasmine Valle, on behalf of the 21st Century alliance, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing in the room, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Ms. McKinnor, please.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the author for bringing this bill. And as I talk to both labor and to business, we've hit rock bottom. I was wondering, when are we going to hit rock bottom? When we have kids that don't have a place to go while their parents work, that's hitting rock bottom.

So I suggest that everybody get in the room and talk to each other and try to figure out how we could solve some of these problems, because if not, we're just going to implode in the state. You guys, we're already imploding in this country and we have. I was thinking, when are we going to hit it?

This is it. And so we have to have solutions. We can't just say no to everything. We're going to have to figure it out because we cannot have children on the street where their parents can't work. What are we going to do?

And so I suggest that we start talking to one another and try to figure some of this stuff out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other Members wishing to speak? First of all, Let me say, Mr. Marsucci, I know that you've spoken to me on this Bill, and I certainly believe I know where your heart is at. And I want to align my comments with Member McKenna.

We certainly encourage people to get in a room and have conversations on trying to find a middle ground as it relates to this piece of legislation. But also children. And those providers are needed because Ms. McKenna raised an interesting point. If we don't have Adequate supervision for those children.

It certainly limits the parents ability to actually go to work. And we don't want to leave kids at home. In my day, it was called latchkey kids. We don't want to do that. And so we want to thank the author for bringing this Bill before for us 1428, and give him opportunity to close.

But thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I just want to thank our colleague from Englewood. You know, she had to step out, but I mean, she knows the reality that faces so many working families and this measurement.

You know, normally I am very sensitive to the issues of increasing taxes and its impact on our state's competitiveness. But I think in this case, especially. With child care, we know that working. Parents need affordable child care. They need access to affordable child care, and that providing child care can be. Can provide a competitive advantage for employers.

I want to emphasize, as the Committee analysis accurately points out, that not only is this measure limited to corporations that earn over $10 million in revenues, so we're not going after our mom and pop businesses, but this measure specifically exempts employers that already do the right thing and providing childcare for their employees during working hours or fully reimburse employees for necessary childcare services.

So this is really tailored toward meeting the compelling need that so many working families face to provide. We know as the childcare providers are negotiating with the state for livable reimbursement rates, we need to have the sustained funding source to address this very important need.

And for that, I respectfully ask this Committee for your support for this measure.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony and the presentation of Assembly Bill 1428. This Bill will be referred to the suspense file as we discussed previous. And thank you very much your witnesses for coming to testify. Veronica, you did an amazing job. Thank you very much. Your daughter's looking up to you when you were testifying.

I'm sure she's going to look up to you in life as well. So thank you very much for being here. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

. We have an author. Mr. Wallis, please come forward. You have three bills. You have three bills before us, and we'll just take them in order. File item number seven. It's AB 691. Your witnesses can come join you, and you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon to the Chair and Committee Members. I have before you today AB691, which establishes a personal income tax credit for individuals who adopt pets from qualified animal rescue organizations and provide essential veterinary care.

California's Shelters are overcrowded with over six and a half million animals entering annually, yet adoptions lag, leading to over 100,000 euthanizations yearly. Adoption fees and initial veterinary costs deter potential adopters, prolonging shelter stays and straining resources.

AB691 offers a credit of up to $250 for adoption fees and $500 for veterinary expenses within the first year, capped at $750 per individual. The credit aims to boost adoptions, reduce shelter overcrowding and ensure pets receive timely care, saving lives and easing the $400 million public shelters.

It's limited to one adoption and one pet's medical expenses per individual's lifetime, with documentation required by the Franchise Tax Board. I appreciate the Committee's thoughtful analysis and recommendations, including income thresholds, and I'm committed to working through these concerns. The Bill has strong support from the San Diego Humane Society, veterinary groups and Social Compassion in legislation.

While opponents like the California Tax Reform Association argue adoption decisions are personal and the credit adds complexity, I believe this targeted $750 credit is a modest impactful investment saving shelter costs and lives. Joining me is Nicholas Sackett from Social Compassion and Legislation.

Thank you very much for joining us and you have two moments, two minutes.

Thank you. Chair Good afternoon. Chair and Members. Incentivizing Californians to adopt our official state pet, which is the shelter pet via tax credits for adoption and medical expenses, is one key way we can help reduce our shelter populations and save an animals lives.

During the COVID 19 pandemic, many Californians adopted animals from adopted animals from shelters, but unfortunately many more decided to buy from breeders. In response to this short term uptick in demand for dogs.

Breeders pushed their animals to produce more litters while we were also seeing a surge in backyard breeders looking to make a quick dollar by breeding their family animals. Additionally, animal shelters around the state face service disruptions and resource constraints which continue to affect how they are able to serve their communities.

At the same time, access to affordable and timely veterinary care has dropped. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the price of veterinary services rose by 8% just in 2023 and over 60% in the last decade.

A 2024 survey showed 91% of pet owners have endured some level of financial stress because of pet care and 42 said that they would go into debt if their Bill was as high as little as $1,000.

If Californians are not able to spay neuter their animals, our shelters and rescue Committee will continue to struggle to keep up with the number of pets being born by Allowing California's a modest tax credit when they choose to adopt from our animal shelters rather than buy from a breeder.

And for the veterinary medical costs associated with that adoption, we are supporting our state's animal shelters and pet owners to give their beloved pets the attention they deserve. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of Assembly Bill 691, please state your name, organization and your position. This is support.

Thank you. I'm Juliana Chetlo on behalf of San Diego Humane Society, the contracted animal care and control agency for 13 municipalities in San Diego, county, in strong support.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition of 691, would you please come and have a seat at the table. And you have two minutes to present. You may commence when ready. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Danielle Kando-Kaiser.

On behalf of the California Tax Reform Association, representing over a dozen labor, public health, education and public interest groups, we must respectfully oppose the bill under the goals of our Member organizations which seek progressive reform in California's tax system that will improve equity while providing a stable and fair tax base for state and local government.

As reflected in the analysis we are opposing, we do not believe this is a good use of money for the State of California, which already is struggling with losses to education and the general fund. In addition, we.

We maintain that the measure adds substantial complexity and its need for enforcement and verification to a tax code which is already overly complex to administer. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition. You, please come forward. Hearing and seeing none, I want to bring it back to the Committee. I would ask the author one question. Are you a cat lover or a dog lover? Just curious.

I love all of our furry friends, but my wife and I own. We own two dogs.

Okay, great. Seeing none. You may close.

Just respectfully request an Aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. This Bill is a suspense candidate, so we'll be referred to our suspense file. So thank you very much for coming to your witnesses. Thank you. Next, you have file item 8, AB 1219. And your witnesses come can come and take a seat at the table.

I think it's just me.

Just you. Okay, sounds good. You may commence when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have before you AB 1219, which provides for a personal income tax cut for middle and low income taxpayers.

The last significant personal income tax cut for hardworking middle class taxpayers was in the late 1990s. Since then, California has continued to operate as though the revenue provided by California taxpayers is a government entitlement and state spending should be based on those revenues, without question.

High taxes are driving people out of the state and at the same time reducing state revenue. The Legislative Analyst notes that the state's annual net out migration to other states nearly doubled from about 170,000 people, taxpayers and their dependents in 2019 to closer to 300,000 people in 2022.

A middle class tax cut can serve the state in multiple ways. It will provide economic relief. Middle class taxpayers in California face a high cost of living, including housing, health care and education expenses. A personal income tax cut would provide immediate financial relief, allowing families to allocate more of their income towards these essential needs.

It'll boost consumer spending. Increased disposable income from tax cuts can stimulate consumer spending, which is a key driver of economic growth. It addresses inequality. Middle class taxpayers often bear a disproportionate tax burden compared to higher income earners. By reducing personal income tax rates for the middle class, California can promote a more equitable tax system.

It will encourage workforce participation. Lowering taxes for middle class families can improve workforce participation by reducing the financial strain on working individuals. This can lead to higher productivity and economic output and it will help small business. Many middle class taxpayers are small business owners who file taxes as individuals.

A pit cut can provide them with additional capital to invest in their businesses leading to job creation and economic growth. We all recognize that California is having an affordability crisis and we have before us many proposals hoping to address the issue.

The burden taxes are putting on our low to middle income earners needs to be part of the discussion. We ignore a critical look at our revenue sources and whether they're the right blend for our taxpayers.

We have entrenched interests on all sides unwilling to have the hard conversations necessary to see if we have it right or if we could do better. AB 1219 is my effort to have those conversations. I want to stand up for our taxpayers and try to make California more affordable.

I want to thank the Committee staff for their thorough analysis. While the Bill is on suspense, I'll work on some of the suggested technical considerations and a Section 41amendment. This is a foundational issue for me and I plan to continue this conversation throughout my legislative service. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your for presenting your Bill of 1219. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support you, please come forward. Hearing and seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition. Would you please come join us at the Table and state your name and commence with your presentation. You have two moments, two minutes.

Hello again, Danielle Kando Kaiser again on behalf of the California Tax Reform Association, of which the California Federation of Teachers and California Teachers Association are also Members.

The reduction proposed in AB 1219 will levy a significant impact on state revenues while providing few benefits to low and middle income families who already have dependent credits which remove them from the tax rolls because marginal income is taxed at lower rates.

Wealthier taxpayers will benefit from the proposed reductions while little if any reduction will be seen by working class taxpayers. We respectfully oppose AB 1219 and ask for your no vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition of 1219, would you please come forward? Hearing and seeing none. I want to bring it back to the Committee. Hearing and seeing none. Thank you very much, Mr. Wallis, for bringing 1219 before us. You may close if you wish.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, just respectfully request an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. This item is a suspense candidate, so this bill will refer to the suspense file. Thank you very much. Now item number nine. AB12. Excuse me. AB 1354. You may commence when ready and your witness has two minutes. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My next bill is AB 1354, which creates a tax credit to help California taxpayers cover the cost of increased insurance premiums. As we all know, California's homeowners insurance market is in a crisis. Several factors contribute to this crisis. One, the state is not adequately prepared for the increased wildfire risk.

We've continued poor forest management practices which has contributed to recent wildfires that are more severe and destructive than any in recorded California history. Two, insurers cancel existing policies, refuse to write new policies or leave the state altogether. Three, California's regulatory environment, including Proposition 103, requires insurers to obtain approval for rate increases.

While this aims to protect consumers, it can also limit insurers ability to adjust rates in response to rising risks. These factors have led to a sharp increase in insurance premiums.

Whether we like it or not, the way we will return to a stable insurance market is to allow premiums to rise in the short term while continuing to improve the state's resilience to wildfires and other catastrophic events. In the meantime, we also have an affordability crisis. AB 1354 addresses both of these crises.

It will provide a tax credit to cover increased insurance premiums while we address the insurance market. It allows qualified California taxpayers to claim a credit for the amount paid for residential property insurance premiums. Minus the amount paid in premiums in 2023, the base year premium on residential property valued up to $3.3 million.

The credit covers individually owned residential structures, condominium units and mobile homes used exclusively for residential purchases purchased before January 1, 2023. To qualify for the credit, taxpayers must satisfy either of the following for joint filers, heads of households or surviving spouses with adjusted gross income not exceeding $300,000 for other individuals with adjusted gross income not exceeding $150,000.

I want to thank the Committee staff for their analysis and while the bill is on suspense, we will work on both the implementation and policy concerns addressed in the analysis.

We brought this bill forward because we believe that by providing homeowners relief on their increased premium rates, the state can address the insurance crisis through a combination of building more disaster resilience and allowing the insurance market to correct. I have with me today Amy Garrett from the California Association of Realtors.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Two minutes.

Good afternoon. Amy Garrett with the California Association of Realtors in strong support of this proposed tax credit for residential insurance premium increases beyond the 2023 levels. As we know, housing affordability is increasingly outside the reach of most Californians. The current median price of home is $884,000, requiring $220,000 of household income to meet a $5,500 mortgage payment.

Only 15% of California households can currently afford this. When we discuss housing affordability, we're often thinking about it in terms of homebuyers ability to initially purchase the home, assessing fixed and predictable costs such as mortgage rates, the home price, property taxes, things of that nature.

But even once a buyer is identified in a property and purchases the home, costs continue to rise. For the unforeseeable things like insurance premiums, these increases threaten continuing affordability and can jeopardize homeowners ability to stay in their homes altogether.

Residential insurance costs have risen sharply in response to recent wildfires, with premiums commonly doubling, tripling and even quadrupling as hazard zones are expanded to include newly identified properties to remain insured and to defray costs of increased premiums. Homeowners are shouldering higher deductibles and insuring for minimum amounts, potentially reducing their resiliency if and when a disaster does occur.

This proposed tax credit would mitigate the impact for those on the edge of homeownership affordability, helping them to preserve the cornerstone of their wealth. And for those who are secure in their affordability, this tax credit offers an opportunity to invest voluntary funds in home hardening Measures which benefits their own home and the properties surrounding them.

So on behalf of 200,000 Members, the California Association of Realtors received respects, fully urges your support when the vote is appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishes to speak in support of 1354, would you please come to the microphone? Hearing and seeing none. Primary witness against 1354, would you please come forward? Hearing and seeing none. I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Anyone have any questions? Hearing none. Seeing none. Mr.

Wallace, you may close.

Just respectfully request an aye vote at the appropriate time. Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Assembly Bill 1354, this bill will be referred to our suspense file. And thank you very much for coming. Yeah, thank you. And presenting. That concludes all of his bills. So, Mr. Demaio, welcome back. So, Mr. Demaio, you have file item number 10, AB19. You have any witnesses with you?

Nope.

Okay. You may proceed when ready. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 19, the Education Choice and Parental Empowerment act of 2025. We know that education, a quality education, is the foundation for a successful life. If we don't provide quality schools to our children, they cannot dream and they cannot achieve.

We have failed our children by not providing them with schools that meet academic standards. We've also approached this challenge as a one size fits all.

When we sit down with our best practices with best in class educators, they will say that we need to customize, we need to innovate, we need to have flexibility, we need to have competition and choice. We talk about these concepts in every walk of life. Sadly, in public education, we don't have adequate choice.

If you come from a family of means, you can buy choice. You have money. But not all families in California have the financial means to provide their children with choice. But they do pay taxes. They pay a lot of taxes. And we actually spend a lot of money on behalf of all students.

An estimated $18,500 if you divvy up our appropriations per pupil. I'm not here today to say that one school is bad and another school is good. Frankly, that's not my call. That's the decision of a parent. But unfortunately, parents do not have the ability to exercise that decision.

They can have opinions, they can have complaints, but they may not have actual power. And that's why this bill is so necessary. It is my hope that all schools will flourish under this sort of system. The way to flourish is to provide a quality opportunity for a child to earn the funds.

I know that this is going to be opposed by a lot of folks who have an interest, a vested interest in the broken system that we currently have to them. I ask you, how much longer do we have to try it your way before we try a model that has worked in so many other walks of life?

The golden rule. Those that have the gold can make the rule. We talk a lot about parental empowerment. It's a controversial topic. Parents are very passionate about their children and we've seen a lot of school Board Meetings actually devolve into shouting matches on a variety of topics.

But what if we gave parents true empowerment by saying if you don't like a certain school or certain way a school district operates, you have the financial means to make alternative arrangements? That's what this bill is all about. Again, I think we should trust parents. I think we should have an accountability system.

And the best way to do that is are through education savings accounts. We call them school vouchers. What this bill would do is establish an education savings account program in the State of California, starting first with low income families. We'd want to make sure that they are given these funds first.

It also provides us with an opportunity to scale the program and also to study it and then if successful to continue to expand to all families in the State of California. I urge this Committee to support this bill.

I know that there's again going to be a lot of different views on it, but it's an idea whose time has come. It is wildly and widely supported by California voters.

They agree that parents should be given the financial means, if a school is not performing to their satisfaction, to move their child to a school of their choice. Public school, charter school, private school, home school, all would be permitted under this Bill.

With that, I ask for your support. Thank you very much. Any witnesses in support of Assembly Bill 19? Would you please come forward? Hearing and seeing none. Primary witness in opposition to this bill. Would you please come forward? Hearing and seeing none.

Bring it back to the Committee or anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition with your name, your organization and your position. Opposition. You have the same right. Hearing and seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. I have one question for you.

The analysis points out that whether or not a child qualifies for the ESA account depends on their parents or guardians gross income. But the deduction is not limited based on anyone's income. Why is that?

We wanted to start out by focusing on lower income families. Again to scale the program to also make sure that we give them priority. We're open to amendments to clarify and to harmonize those two provisions.

But this is based upon the notion that we would scale it at the beginning of the program and then of course offer it to everyone.

Eventually got it made us want to just clarify that with an amendment. So thank you very much, Mr. Demaio. Appreciate you bringing and presenting on AB19. You may close if you wish at the appropriate time.

I hope that we will give this idea an opportunity. I think ultimately this is where we're going to end up. We've spent a lot of years urging school districts to step up to achieve academic standards. I think that at this point we have to look at the number one motivator, which is the dollars.

You have to tie the dollars to the parent. And if a parent doesn't feel satisfied with the education that their child is receiving from one school, give them the means to move their child to another school along with the dollars.

Thank you very much. This item will be referred to our suspense file. Again, thank you very much for presenting. You have another bill with us and that is File item number 11 AB567. Any witnesses? Okay. You by yourself again. Great. Thank you. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm here to present Assembly Bill 567, which is designed to address the insurance crisis that the State of California continues to see. We've called it the Cap and Cut the Cost of Insurance Through Reform Act. We are hearing from our constituents on this important issue and it's only going to get worse.

We've seen double digit annual increases in insurance premiums—if you're lucky to keep commercial insurance. If you are unlucky, and have your commercial insurance dropped, you're in the Fair Plan, which can be as much as 300% an increase. And it also requires that you provide—that you seek out additional supplemental insurance.

Homeowners cannot sustain these cost increases with our cost of living crisis. I also believe it's not fair to ask homeowners to pay the price for the failure of government policy. We know that there are two primary drivers to the insurance crisis that we face. Number one, a failure of government insurance management.

We have not been allowing our insurance companies the ability to bring market-based solutions to California. We have a lot of regulations.

Some of those regulations may be well intended, but I don't think that we were fully anticipating, in the last 25 years, the amount of costs that would go along with a lot of the regulations that have been imposed. I think that we need to immediately streamline and reform our insurance market.

But even if we did that today, even if we waved a magic wand and immediately implemented those reforms, it would probably take three to five years for the savings to start to set in. Homeowners don't have that time to wait. We also know a second failure of government has been our failure—federal, state, and local.

I'm not going to let the Federal Government off the hook on this. To manage wildland fire risk—and I don't want to go into the various challenges and failures there—but we know that government has not been a good firewise neighbor. They're the bad neighbor down the street with the worst property, with all the stuff overgrown.

And no matter how many times you call code compliance and complain, nothing happens. We need to get federal, state, and local land holdings to be properly managed from fire hazards, which means, which means reducing the vegetation. We also need to allow private property owners the ability to clear defensive space. We need to have controlled burns.

The California Air Resources Board has been very difficult to approve controlled burns. We need to start looking at fire hardening homes and other structures. That will take time and investment. So, our ability to implement fire risk reduction will probably take three to five years.

Again, homeowners don't have time to wait for those savings to build up over a period of time. That is why I urge us to enact this commonsense Bill, which would force the changes on insurance reform and fire risk reduction, while providing a stabilizing—almost like shock absorbers—to homeowners. This is going to come at a cost.

That's why it's going to be going to the suspense file. There's a cost associated with this Bill. The first cost would be that at any time we approve insurance—Commissioner approves—insurance rates higher than the national inflation for insurance rates that year, we would first start out by suspending the state's insurance tax on all premiums.

Why should the state government profit from a 40% increase in a premium? Because when a 40% increase in the premium goes up, our insurance tax goes up by 40%, as well. We get a 2.3% rake on every policy—we should suspend that—at least during this time of massive inflation insurance rates.

But more importantly, because a lot of this is government policy failure, I do believe we should look to some of our special funds, particularly our climate funds, to provide insurance rate stabilization rebates to homeowners. I'm open to looking at perhaps a sliding scale. We can even look at means testing.

But this is a Bill that contains a framework that will shield many of our homeowners from catastrophic rate increase, and I think that that should be part of the conversation this year, as we enact comprehensive insurance reform. I urge support for Assembly Bill 567.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of AB 567, please come forward. Hearing and seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to 567, please come forward. Hearing and seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee Members? I just have one question, if you just indulge me.

And I notice in your Bill, it doesn't speak to anything around climate change. One, do you think that's, one, real and do you think that it was not put into your Bill as a factor? Can you just elaborate on that for me?

Look, the climate's been changing since the beginning of time. And my view on climate change is that we have to take it from a realistic standpoint. And if we're going to be protecting our communities and protecting our residents, we have to look at all innovative solutions for how we adapt—climate adaptability.

But we do know that the bigger risk has been that our ecosystem has changed, through mismanagement. Back in the 1990s and the 80s and the 70s, whenever there was a wildland fire, we went with our gut instinct and that was to put it out.

And in the 1990s, early 2000s, the Federal Government and land managers across the globe recognized that we needed to change that approach, that fire is a natural part of our ecosystem.

But because we did not allow fire, we didn't do controlled burns, we did not do thinning, because we did not manage our ecosystem properly, we now have catastrophic fires. The brush has built up to such a great degree that it's almost impossible to put out these fires.

And so, I think with the first environmental issue that we have to tackle is the environmental damage that government policies have created over the past 50 to 60 to 70 years. That's going to take time to address.

In the State of California, we can be one of the leaders in catching up on forest management and wildland fire risk reduction, but it's going to take years. And that's why, again, we have to put in place some rate stabilization, while government does its job. The homeowners did not cause this problem.

Whether ill intent or not, Federal, state, and local government policymakers made mistakes on how they're managing, and how they have managed, the public spaces, and they need to be held accountable for improving how they manage the brush on public lands.

Great. Thank you very much. You may close at this time on 567.

The insurance crisis wasn't created overnight. It's not going to be fixed overnight. But one thing is for sure, if we do not provide some sort of rate stabilization, as legislators, I believe your state government will be forced to provide rate stabilization, at the ballot box.

This would allow us to start the process of putting in place a program for rate stabilization. We would be part of the conversation. But I liken the insurance crisis to what happened in the 1970s with Prop 13.

People living on fixed income, on limited income, were literally priced out of their homes in the 1970s, because of the massive increase in property tax assessments. The same is going to happen with insurance rates if we don't act.

I've heard from my constituents who live on fixed income, who say, I don't have a mortgage, but I need insurance, and I can't afford my insurance, going from $2,000 a month, under commercial insurance, to 9—$2,000 a year—to $9,000 a year, or $10,000, under the Fair Plan.

And so, we have got to act, because people will start losing their homes. People are going to get rate cancellations. They're going to get those rate increases and they're going to ask, why did the state government not provide at least some sort of stabilization and remedy? Again, this is the start of a conversation.

I think it's one of the innovative bills on this discussion. All of the solutions on insurance will take years to implement. We've got to do something up front to provide some stabilization on rates to homeowners. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Demaio. Thank you for presenting on 567. We're going to refer this Item to the suspense file. And thank you very much for your testimony and your Bill presentation. Yes. So, we're going to going to ask our Secretary to please call the roll on absent Members on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

So we're going to ask we have one more item before this Committee is, which is item number one, AB761 by Addis. We will ask all Members that's assigned this is a item that we're going to be voting on and we would ask the author to please come.

And also we would ask Members, we would need Members to take a vote on item number one, AB761. So please report back to room 126. So I've just been informed by the author of Assembly Bill 761-addis. We're going to have this item pulled and rescheduled for the next hearing when a little quick sidebar.

So we'll be holding this Item, item number one, AB 761 Addis over to our next scheduled hearing which is next week. So that item will be held and we will keep the roll open for absent Members to come and add on.

We'll ask them to hold the roll for about 10 minutes and then we will close this this hearing. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for the absent Members on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Great. Now that consent calendar is out. Thank you very much. Maybe I'll add on the one vote. She's not here. Building Committee present? Yes. Started there and we're rolling that. We're rolling that Bill over. The Revenue and Taxation Committee stands adjourned.