Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

I want to say good afternoon and welcome to the hearing of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. We will be starting as a Subcommitee, so I'm going to go through a few formalities prior to.

Just for everyone's edification advocates, please remember to submit your position letter through the porthole at least one week prior to the hearing in order for your organization position to be reflected in the Bill analysis.

Pursuant to our Committee rules, bills with, and this is important, bills with a fiscal impact of greater than $150,000, whether that is in revenue gain or loss, will not be eligible for a vote immediately after the presentations.

Bills on suspense that are not tax levies or urgency measures will be taken up today, including bills that are heard and moved into the suspense file during the first portion of today's hearing. Tax levy bills will be taken up at the next hearing of May 5, which is a week from today.

We will start today's hearing and taking up the. Taking up regular order of the business as printed on the agenda. We will start as a Subcommitee first. With that in mind, the following bills on today's agenda will be eligible for a vote during the regular order of business. File item number one, AB761 Addis.

And file item number four, AB 829 Sharp Collins. We will take one Bill out of order and that Bill will be. Let's see. Yes, we have an author just walked in the room. Ms. Addis, you're up first and we welcome you to. Yeah, great. We're going to establish a forum before Ms. Addis gets started.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. A quorum has been established. Member Addis, please proceed when you're ready and your witnesses have two minutes. You have one witness? Yes, they have two minutes and you may proceed when ready.

Well, thank you, Chair and staff and advocates. I do accept the Committee's amendments and today I'm here to present AB 761, which will give the Monterey Salinas Transit District or MST, the opportunity to Fund and continue vital programs and operations that serve vulnerable populations across Monterey County.

In 2014, the MST district proposed Measure Q, a county wide one eight cent sales tax ballot measure to support public transit. Since its passing, Measure Q has generated approximately 8.5 million annually which has funded transportation services and equipment for veterans, senior citizens and people with disabilities.

However, Measure Q is set to expire in 2030 unless it is renewed by voters or a new measure comes forward to replace the lost revenue. Under current law, MST may only propose ballot measures if a majority of the 12 represented jurisdictions approve via their city councils or governing bodies.

So requiring MST to secure support from each city is burdensome and unnecessary, especially given that the board is already composed of representatives from these jurisdictions.

In addition, if the MST Board were to propose a higher sales tax to expand its programs, it could push some cities in Monterey County close to or over the state imposed 2% cap on combined local sales taxes within a county.

AB 761 would authorize the MST board to propose a sales tax ballot measure to voters upon approval of 2/3 of its Board of Directors without needing approval from its Member jurisdiction. The Bill would not give MST the power to impose a tax itself.

It would simply allow the agency to propose a ballot measure giving voters the opportunity to decide whether to continue or expand the existing sales tax. And the Bill specifies that an increase in sales tax would not count toward the 2% combined rate limit for local taxes.

Joining me today to testify in support is Matt Robinson on behalf of MST.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Matt Robinson with the Monterey Salinas transit district. As Ms. Addis said, we are the sponsors of this legislation. I just like to thank our author and to your staff for working with us to understand the situation in Monterey County. As Ms. Addis said, this Bill really does three key things.

One, it updates our path to the ballot. Locally we we had our very first sales tax and we had to go through a process of going to all the cities. Now that they're all represented on our Board of Directors, we will seek a 2/3 approval of that board before we move to the ballot.

It allows us the extension of that existing one eight cent sales tax which which as she noted, serves the high population of veterans in our county, our elderly folks and our disabled folks.

And it gives us the chance, if the willingness is there from the voters, to go out for an additional one eight cent to provide additional operations support for Monterey Salinas Transit. As you all know, transit is in a bit of a tricky financial situation right now statewide.

And this provides another tool in the toolbox for continuing to maintain, if not expand our services in Monterey County. And finally, just to put a point on it, we still have to go to the voters and secure 2/3 of those voters in order for this tax to be implemented locally.

We were very successful our first time around with over 70% of our voters supporting the initial measure Q. And we are optimistic that those voters will again support the extension, if not the increase in that sales tax. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of seven six ones, you please line up. We ask that you give your name, your organization and your position. This is support.

Hi. Kasha Hunt here with Nossaman LLP on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing wishing to speak in support. Hearing and seeing none. Any opposition to AB761, would you please come up? Primary witness and opposition, Hearing and seeing none. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition of Assembly Bill 761? Hearing and seeing none. Want to bring it back to the Committee? Mr.Demaio

What will your ballot title be? The Transportation Improvement Initiative. The climate Change initiative? Are we going to say the words in the title? Tax increase?

I'm not quite prepared to address that. I think that would be. It's a long road until we have that ballot title and summary.

I know, but you're coming here asking for permission to raise taxes and say, well, but the voters get to decide. And what we've seen in the past are ballot measures with false and misleading titles. It doesn't really indicate that it's a tax increase. Says a bunch of great good stuff.

But we're at a point where we have a cost of living crisis. And I understand that everyone can say, but this revenue's for a good purpose. It all adds up. I remember a time when I was growing up when the sales tax rate was 6% and sales taxes are very regressive. They hit the working poor the hardest.

People who are affluent, they don't get hurt as much. They don't notice it as much. But someone who's at the lower end of the spectrum, they're going to get the disproportionate hit to this. And as you mentioned that there are some jurisdictions that are approaching the cap.

So I just, I think that it's not the time to be raising taxes or be making it easier for local government to raise taxes. I think we should be actually going in the opposite direction.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to add on, just for the author, do you accept the technical amendments as laid out in the Committee analysis?

I do.

Thank you very much. Any additional questions from the Committee hearing and seeing none? Ms. Addis, you may close.

I want to appreciate the discussion and appreciate the the importance of democracy, the importance of voters having their say and appreciate the Committee for their input on the technical amendments and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll be voting on this item today. I ask for a motion. It's been properly moved in second. This motion is a do pass as amended to the technical and clarifying changes to the on the Assembly floor. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on item number one.

AB 761. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly floor. Gibson.

Aye.

Gibson. Aye. Ta Ta Ta. No. Baines. Demio. Dimaio. No. Garcia. McKinner. Aye. McKinner, aye. Quirk Silva. Quirk. Silva. Aye. It's on call. That's three to two.

That Bill is on call. Thank you very much. Next up—next up, we'll hear out of order, Assembly Bill 1253, Schultz. Where did he go? I just saw him. Oh, there he is. Mr. Schultz, you may take a seat with your witnesses, and you may present when ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I am pleased to present our Assembly Bill today. In the aftermath of the unprecedented Los Angeles wildfires that ravaged our state and certainly Los Angeles County, state and local governments have taken commendable steps to support disaster recovery.

Many city, county, and state planning agencies have authorized expedited reconstruction permits, allowing property owners to rebuild up to 110% of their prior structure. These efforts are aimed at accelerating recovery and providing flexibility to homeowners in crisis.

However, while these policies are well intentioned, they are not aligned with existing property tax assessment policies, as established by the California Constitution and the Revenue and Taxation Code. Under current law, for property tax purposes, any reconstruction that exceeds substantial equivalence to the original structure is considered new construction and is subject for reassessment.

Unfortunately, many local agencies and officials often unknowingly have misinformed homeowners, suggesting that rebuilding up to 110%, or more, would not affect their property tax base. As a result, numerous homeowners, acting in good faith, may rebuild beyond allowable limits and face unexpected reassessments and supplemental tax bills.

These financial shocks add to the emotional and economic hardship already experienced by those recovering from this disaster. Assembly Bill 1253 addresses this gap by clarifying the distinction between local planning approvals and property tax assessment rules.

It seeks to ensure consistent communication to property owners and prevent the unintended consequences of reassessment, for those who are simply trying to rebuild their homes and their lives. By aligning recovery policy with Assessment Law, AB 1253 protects homeowners from further financial harm during one of the most vulnerable times in their lives.

Testifying in support of AB 1253 today is Assessor Jeffrey Prang, with the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Assembly Members. My name is Jeff Prang. I'm the Los Angeles County Assessor and I'm the President of the California Assessors Association. I'm here today on behalf of the Association to express our support for AB 1253.

This Bill is necessary and a timely response to the devastating 2025 wildfires that swept through Los Angeles and Ventura County. These disasters were not just larger in scale, they were uniquely complex, pushing our systems of relief, planning, and recovery to their limits.

Amongst this chaos, local and state agencies understandably moved quickly to allow families to rebuild their homes, issuing emergency permits to reconstruct up to 110% of the original structure size. However, this well-intended flexibility has unintentionally created a serious problem. Under current property tax law, any reconstruction that goes beyond substantial equivalence is considered new construction, and triggers reassessment.

So, even if the homeowner is just rebuilding their home, as directed by local officials, they may face a sharp increase in property taxes that they did not expect, nor can they afford. This is where AB 1253 steps in.

This Bill provides clear, temporary, and limited fix, allowing assessors to recognize rebuilding up to 110% of the home's original size, without triggering reassessment. But only under the—only when done under government issued emergency permits. This is not about changing Proposition 13 or weakening Uniform Assessment Law.

On the contrary, this Bill protects statewide uniformity by preventing a patchwork of inconsistent local decisions and ensuring that every impacted homeowner is treated fairly and equitably, no matter what county they live in.

Some may argue the assessors already have such discretion, but both statute and the Board of Equalization guidance emphasize the need for legislative clarity in cases like this. Without AB 25, we risk placing additional burdens on disaster survivors and creating legal uncertainty for local officials and assessors alike.

AB 1253 will align local building codes and assessment standards clearly, fairly, and provide additional compassion and support for those who have already lost so much. It respects our Constitution, upholds uniformity, and provides much needed relief, and we respectfully urge your "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of this Bill, would you please come to the microphone and line up. Need your name, organization, and support. Hearing and seeing none. Anyone primary—anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Primary witnesses in opposition? Hearing and seeing none.

Anyone in the room wishing to oppose this Bill? Hearing and seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee Members? Hearing and seeing none. Mr. Schultz, you may close.

Thank you very much for your time today, Mr. Chair. We respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. This Bill will be referred to our suspense file. So, thank you very much for coming and your witness, thank you very much for appearing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Aguiar-Curry, would you please join us?

File Item Number 2, AB 8, by Aguiar-Curry. You may begin when ready, and your witnesses both have two minutes each.

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you to you and yourself for working on this complicated issue. Should this Bill make it off to Suspense, I would be happy to accept the Committee's amendments. I started working on the hemp issues because the 2018 Farm Bill left a pretty unregulated industry.

My previous legislation, AB 45, was the most strict hemp law in the country, when it was enacted in 2021. It was an effort to legalize non intoxicating hemp products, like CBD. So, today I'm here to make sure the law can be properly enforced and interpreted.

As the hemp market grows, we're seeing more intoxicating hemp products sold outside of dispensaries, without age limits, which should be illegal. This Bill is another big undertaking, and it focuses on three issues. First, it'll expand enforcement to crack down on illegal hemp products.

This will give state agencies and local governments the tools they need to protect our kids from synthetic products. Second, it will close loopholes that allow intoxicating hemp products and make it clear that all synthetic THC is banned. Third, it integrates hemp into the cannabis supply chain.

This will make sure all products, with any level of THC, are treated like cannabis, meaning full registration, regulation, and taxation. This will bring new products under the Cannabis Excise Tax and will likely expand tax revenue. I will continue to work with stakeholders, state agencies, and committees, as we address concerns about the best ways to implement these changes.

With that, I have with me today Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association, and Kristin Heidelbach, Legislative Director from the UFCW Western States Council. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association. We represent 200 license holders across the state. We are proud to sponsor AB 8 and thank the author for her tremendous leadership on this issue, which has spanned several years now.

Earlier this year, my other client, March and Ash, released a groundbreaking report, the Great Hemp Hoax, which reviewed over 100 hemp derived THC products illegally sold in California. The findings were staggering.

89% exceeded the legal THC limit, under California law, 66% were marketed to children, 52% had no testing or potency verification, 35% were manufactured out of state, bypassing all California oversight, and none were taxed under our current construct. AB 8 draws a clear line.

If a product is intoxicating, it belongs under the regulatory authority of the Department of Cannabis Control. The need for tax reform for the cannabis industry is urgent. In March, Whitney Economics, one of the country's leading cannabis market analysts, reduced its US cannabis retail forecast by more than 21 billion, over the next five years. Why?

Because Californians and other states are losing market share due to high taxes, poor enforcement, and a flood of intoxicating hemp products. And the ERA Economics Report commissioned by the DCC, which is also referenced in your analysis, backs this up.

While the report shows growth in retail volume, it clearly finds that California's licensed cannabis operators face far higher regulatory costs than any other industries and cannabis markets. California's excise taxes and licensing fees are 124% and 162% higher, respectively, than Michigan's.

In California, taxes and fees equal roughly 77.5% of wholesale value, compared to 8.4% for alcohol and 29.5% for tobacco. This is not a demand problem, it's a cost burden problem. AB 8 provides a clear, enforceable structure for regulating intoxicating cannabinoid products, while also delivering a responsible tax framework that protects the integrity and sustainability of California's legal market.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next witness, two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. Kristen Heidelbach, here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council. We proudly represent about 5,000 cannabis workers in the State of California.

First of all, I want to thank Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry for authoring this important legislation that have passed—will protect not only California consumers, but the workers and employers that UFCW represents in the cannabis industry. High taxes and a booming illicit market create almost untenable challenges for a highly regulated industry.

Add to that an unchecked hemp-derived THC alternative that is virtually unregulated, and you have an industry that is on the brink of collapse. The cannabis industry has such high guardrails in place that manage how they conduct their businesses, who they can sell their products to, how product is moved, and how they can advertise.

The proliferation of hemp-based intoxicating product solicitations, that are sold easily online or offered to unknown audiences on social media platforms, is a threat to consumer safety. Neither the voters, nor the state Legislature, intended for the hemp market to evolve into a shadow market where intoxicating cannabinoids are cheap, potent, untested, and untaxed.

Rather, the hemp market was intended to be a wellness market, based on non-intoxicating therapeutic cannabinoids derived naturally from low THC plants. AB 8 would align the currently bifurcated hemp and cannabis markets and most importantly, create tax and testing parity between the two markets and give officials a better chance at fighting bad actors.

Simply put, if it is an intoxicating product, it belongs in the regulated cannabis supply chain. You respectfully urge your "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of AB 8, would you please line up? I need your name, your organization and support only. Thank you very much.

Tim Schmilzer with Wine Institute in support. Thank you very much.

Tim Schmelzer, with Wine Institute, in support.

Thank you very much.

Zach Cefalu, with the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sara Arsenault, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Colin Stadmler, with Brownstein, on behalf of Kiva Confections Incorporated, a California cannabis manufacturing company, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Sam Rodriguez, on behalf of Good Farmers, Great Neighbors, based in Santa Barbara County, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Stacy Heaton, Rural County Representatives of California. Also speaking for the California State Association of County, CSAC, and sport—in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition of AB 8, would you please come? Primary witness, please come to the table and take a seat and you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Ross Gordon. I'm a Policy Analyst with Origins Council, representing 400 small businesses, most of whom are small cultivators from rural parts of the state.

I want to focus a statement that you heard by a few of the proponents just now that, "If a product is intoxicating, it belongs under the regulatory authority of the Department of Cannabis Control."

While we support many of the goals of AB 8, on this point, we have significant concerns from both a tax perspective and a market perspective. A core aspect of Proposition 64 has always been that legal cannabis products must be sourced seed to sale from a closed loop supply chain.

What AB 8 currently proposes, however, is to allow intoxicating cannabinoids to be sourced from an unlicensed source, a hemp cultivator located anywhere in the country. Importantly, while licensed cannabis cultivation is extremely highly regulated in California, hemp cultivation is regulated basically like any other agricultural activity. Think cabbage, not cannabis.

For licensed cannabis farmers, this is a major issue from a fair competition perspective. For the state, we believe it's a major issue from a tax perspective. Effectively, by allowing hemp-derived cannabinoids to enter the legal cannabis market, AB 8 would result in a flood of increased supply, from 28,000 acres of nationwide lightly regulated hemp cultivation.

The logical economic consequence is that prices, and therefore tax receipts, which are based on prices, will fall. This is not speculation. In fact, it's an acceleration of what is currently happening. A market report published by DCC in March states that, "Despite increases in cultivation volumes and consumption, retail sales of licensed cannabis have been decreasing since 2022."

The downward trend in retail sales is driven entirely by prices. Importantly, while significantly increasing supply, intoxicating hemp integration would not increase demand. The types of high THC products produced from hemp look the same as cannabis products. They're just cheaper. And it's this dynamic that precisely is what is fueling the existing drop in cannabis tax revenue.

To be clear, our concerns about hemp integration are entirely separate from valid concerns which we share about the sale of intoxicating hemp products at gas stations, liquor stores, etc. Fortunately, recent regulations from DPH have now prohibited these sales. We fully favor strengthening these rules but feel this is very different from the question of integration.

Our letter offers a mock up of amendments to address our concerns. We remain eager to work with the author to find solutions. However, until that time, we remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Chairman Gipson, Members, Dr. Lynn Silver, Pediatrician and Director of Getting It Right from the Start at the Public Health Institute. AB 8 is complex. Why? It has many positive elements. Section 340-112, the tax adjustment repeal, impermissibly and unconstitutionally breaks with the clear intent of Prop 64 and promises made to voters.

Ours and 97 other organizations are here to say no to that element. We ask that that section be stricken. Voters were promised clear and specific commitments of resources for our children and youth, substance abuse—abuse prevention, environmental remediation, and law enforcement. AB 8 breaks with the 2022 agreement, which repealed the cultivation tax, while restoring revenue neutrality this year in exchange.

Our organization stood down in 2022 in exchange for that agreement. This would represent a hard future reduction in tax revenue that will hurt children and youth, for decades to come. At a time of slash—of slashed federal funding—the cannabis industry, as noted, is not collapsing, as documented in the DCC report, which found major growths in production as well as in the volume of legal sales.

We estimate that between $140 and $180 million annually would be lost to Tier 3.

It will deny childcare for thousands of our most vulnerable children, including foster kids in emergency care, reducing funding by over $60 million a year after 2028. And it will cut future funding for elevate youth with 275 amazing youth programs in all of your districts, serving all of your districts by about $25 million annually.

And these programs lack alternative sources. Our cannabis taxes are not and would not be too high. A number of states have higher taxes at, or above, the 19% post adjustments, such as Washington with 37%. Repeal will not solve the illicit market any more than the 22—2022—cuts did. It will not be sufficiently replaced by higher sales, as noted in revenue estimates on the required adjustment by LAO and others.

The proposed hemp tax wipe positive will likely replace cannabis products as noted, rather than augment the tax base, and may even reduce it.

So, in summary, we ask for an amendment to reduce this tax change and that the welfare of cannabis businesses be balanced with the broader public wealth. Thank you.

Thank you very much for testimony. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition? This is opposing AB 8.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Corey Brown with Resources Legacy Fund. We're in opposition but would switch if with some amendments.

Thank—Thank you very much. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, bringing it back to the Committee. Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I want to thank the author and both sides. I've heard quite a lot about this, as being the Chair of Budget Sub 5. I know that we, in fact, had a hearing on—focusing on cannabis. This is actually the hemp part of it.

I think one of the areas that has been a sustained drum for me has been the enforcement of the illegal market. And so, as I look at this, I know that the revenues would be impacted.

So, my question would be, to whoever would like to answer, is with the revenue decline, how can we still assure that there will be enforcement out there in the field? I actually had an opportunity to go out on a cannabis enforcement in Fullerton, of all places, where I live.

And there's certainly not a lack of the black market. And when I went out, it was actually on Valentine's Day and there was a huge amount of product out there in three different stops that we made that particular morning. So, my concern is if we're going to lower this to 15%, I believe, is that what you said?

How are you going to count on the enforcement side?

Sure, I'd be happy to answer that question, Assemblywoman. First off, I want to clarify, as it relates to enforcement at the state level, enforcement is entirely funded by cannabis licensing fees and penalties. So, that is how the DCC funds enforcement efforts in California. Now, there are buckets in the Tier 3.

In the Tier 3 bucket, where 20% goes to local law enforcement, and that's administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections. So, they issue grants to various local governments, to deal with local enforcement, but statewide enforcement is funded by the legal cannabis industry, and that would not be impacted here.

I also want to note, as it relates to that 20% bucket—it's 20-20-60. That local enforcement grant—actually, early budget action last year siphoned off $100 million of that money. So, if we truly want to prioritize enforcement, then we should not be required—the license industry should not be required to bear the costs of statewide enforcement.

And there needs to be a lot more energy and effort focused on ensuring that that grant money actually goes out to address real enforcement efforts, and that wasn't happening.

One of the reasons the 100 million was taken from the budget, because that was under our Budget Committee, was because they actually were not getting the grants out. So, just to clarify on that. But I understand.

That's fair, and I didn't mean to make an assumption to the contrary. But, but you're right, the money was not going out. And the money that was going out, the lion's share, was not going to enforcement. It was going to other programs, like a skate park in Grass Valley, for instance.

So, if we truly want to focus on enforcement, there needs to be a real dedicated focus to that effect.

Thank you.

Any additional questions for Members? Hearing and seeing none. Ms. Aguiar-Curry, you may close.

I just want to thank you very much. You know, Members, I've been working on this issue for six years, and it's a constantly evolving marketplace, as you can imagine. And as the Bill that I present you today will make products and practices safer and make it harder for criminals to sell illegal products.

So, this Bill also expands the amount of products subject to the cannabis excise tax, so we expect to increase tax revenue in the long run. But that doesn't mean our work's done.

As you all know, I promise that I will continue to work with the stakeholders to support integration in that way that supports our legal hemp and cannabis industries, further empowers our regulators to attack illegal products, and protect the public health.

So, at the end of the day, we need to make sure that hemp products are well regulated and safe for all, all consumers. And I'm committed to updating all of you on the Committee, as we move forward. Respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much. This Bill will refer to our suspense file. Thank you witnesses for coming and testifying. Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Assembly Bill 1253, by—I'm sorry—we're going to move to File Item Number 7, AB 1138, Mr. Zbur. And thank Ms. Sharp-Collins for allowing him to present his Bill, prior to you. So, if your witnesses can please come and take a seat at the table.

Okay.

And you may proceed. Mr. Zabur, when ready, you may proceed.

Thank you. Members, we're going to start with a joint author Assembly Member Quirk-Silva.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee.

I'm proud to be a joint author today for Assembly Bill 1138, which would strengthen and modernize the California Film and Tax Television tax credit program, a proven tool that has supported tens of thousands of jobs, driven billions in economic activity, and helped define California as the global leader in entertainment.

And I'm going to go off script here a little bit and get us rolling. Get that, get us rolling a little bit in the sense of we've talked a lot about the investment of tax credits and what does this mean to California? Some would say this is just a focus on Los Angeles or Hollywood.

But we know from data that this iconic industry needs to stay, we need to retain it, and we need to keep these jobs here in California.

It's not just the jobs of our esteemed actors, but it's the jobs of our lighting technicians, our laborers, it's the jobs of our hairdressers, the jobs of our, even our caterers, all of these multipliers that support the California economy. California certainly wouldn't be California without the iconic Hollywood industry.

So what this Bill really is about is about jobs. It's about getting our industry of television back as the number one choice for our movie productions. We know that they've been lured to London, to Canada, and these actors and film industry personnel want to stay here.

They not only want to stay here and film in California, but they want to raise their families here. They want to invest in their communities. They want to go to the local restaurants with their families. They want to have their kids play soccer just like everybody else and keep those tax dollars here.

So I'll just end with some of the great lines that Hollywood has brought us. You don't have to answer because that's okay if you don't know. But we always have heard There's no place like Hollywood.

I know the answer.

La La Land 2016. This is Hollywood, Land of dreams. Some dreams come true, some don't. But keep on dreaming. This is Hollywood. Pretty Woman 1990. Dreams Are the foundation of Hollywood, and every dream deserves its chance. And you might remember that iconic scene dancing on the cars on the freeway in Los Angeles, La La Land.

And I'll just do one more for fun. Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you can music the movie all about fun and taking a Day off, everybody. Ferris Bueller's Day Off, 1986. There you go. Thank you.

So first of all, I want to thank my joint author, Assembly Member Quirk Silva for her decade of advocacy for this industry and her leadership. I also want to thank Assembly Member Brian and also the other joint authors, Senator Allen Menjivar Stern and Perez in the Senate side. You know,

California's iconic film and television production industry is in crisis. AB 1138 is a jobs Bill, pure and simple. The hard working men and women and the small businesses who have built an industry that is intrinsic to California's identity are experiencing depression era levels of unemployment and loss of business.

Workers and small businesses who support the film and television industry are suffering from a quadruple whammy. First, filming and television was brought to a near standstill because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Then came the entertainment industry strike. Then came the wildfires that devastated Los Angeles.

And finally and most importantly other states and countries who understand the value and importance of this industry, who understand that these are good jobs, good jobs that people want, who understand that these jobs not only uplift families, but uplift communities, have set their sights on luring these jobs out of California by adopting film tax credit programs and other incentives that make California's program not competitive, making many of the key productions no longer even apply for our program.

Between 2022 and 2024, contributions to the motion picture pension plan dropped by approximately 30%, demonstrating a sharp decline in production in California and a drastic decline in union jobs. And a report from Film LA released just about two weeks ago shows that the decline in production is continuing.

Highlighting shoot days dropped 22% in the from the first quarter of 2024 to the first quarter of 2025. AB 1138 is isn't about red carpets. It's about the writers and actors and accountants and grips and camera operators and set design crews.

I'm grateful to Governor Newsom who as you know, has proposed to increase the state's incentive program from the current allocation of 330 to 750 per year beginning July 1, 2025. And that part is not part of this Bill. That will be handled through the budget and Assembly member Quirk-Silva Committee will be dealing with that.

What this Bill does is it talks about the standards that apply to that increase in the, in the funding. Unfortunately, increasing the size of the program alone is not sufficient to stem the job losses, those jobs that we're losing to other states and country.

The goal of AB 1138 is to modernize the California program to ensure that California's program is competitive and helps retain and bring back high quality jobs.

It's the product of careful negotiation between the Entertainment Union Coalition, a multi union alliance representing more than 165,000 entertainment workers, the motion picture and television employers and other stakeholders to modernize the program. Every single change to the program that was negotiated and it's embodied in this Bill was guided by the goal of bringing back jobs to California.

The most jobs and the best jobs. Unlike other states credits programs, California's program is competitive based on jobs ratios and the tax credit is not extended until after the jobs are created and the spending has benefited our small businesses.

AB 1138 raises the tax rate to be roughly equivalent to Georgia's credit program and come closer to the programs in Canada and New York and other countries. The Bill also expands the kinds of productions that qualify, again focusing on those that create and retain jobs and those that we've been losing.

We also want to make sure that the entire state benefits from this program. That's why with the increase in the tax rate to 35, there's an additional 5% uplift for filming and production out of the Los Angeles zone, bringing that rate to 40%. That program results in an incentive package that exceeds what's provided in most other jurisdictions.

If the filming takes place in in California but outside Los Angeles. On top of that, we've increased the allocations for independent productions from 26 million to 75 million. That's a 188% increase. And those are available a lot more often to folks filming outside the Los Angeles core.

Finally, I just want to say a lot of folks think that this program cost the state money or too much money. The LA County Economic Development Corporation found that for every tax dollar resulted in an economic output of $24, $16 in Gross Domestic Product, $8.06 in wages and $1.07 in state and local tax revenue.

This investment has success. That means that more money comes in in taxes than what we pay out in the tax program. And that's just from the direct jobs that come through the program. There's a lot that actually this incentivizes that is not included in that. So with that, you know this.

This is about bringing jobs back to California. And by prioritizing and retaining the creation of jobs within California, this Bill endeavors to ensure that the Golden State remains a thriving hub for creativity and production, ultimately contributing to a vibrant and sustainable economy.

With me today to testify in support of the Bill and I think we're going to go in order because Mr. George has to catch a flight. So I'm going to let him go first, if you don't mind.

We have Jason George, actor, a SAG Aftra national board Member and co chair of the SAG AFTRA National Government Affairs Committee. Then followed by Rebecca Rhyme, the Associate National Executive Director for the Directors Guild of America and the President of the Entertainment Union Coalition. And then finally Alex Aguilar, business manager for LiUNA Local 724. So, Mr. George

Thank you very much for being here. If we could limit your testimony to about a minute and a half. If you can do that, that'll be great. If you can, because I know you have to take a flight and we are behind in our schedule.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. It's good to see you again. Chairperson Gipson, thank you and the whole Committee for having us here today and for your time today. I'm a California resident who's been blessed enough to have been employed on a long running series shot here in our state.

It's a show that's sustained tens of thousands of jobs throughout its 21 seasons. That means those of us employed on Grey's Anatomy have been here in California, paying rent, property taxes, supporting local restaurants, retail businesses, and funding our local infrastructure by contributing to state and local income tax revenue.

But before I was blessed with the dream scenario at Grey's Anatomy, I had to survive a nightmare scenario. A little over a decade ago, I was in a situation where every series for which I was in contention was shooting in another state or out of the country altogether, except one.

So I took the job that let me come home to my family every day. But two years in, even that series picked up and moved to Canada. For financial reasons, I was forced to choose between supporting my family or actually being with my family.

I took an incredible risk and asked to be let out of my contract so I could be with my family. I was lucky. It panned out for me. But I'm painfully aware that most actors aren't lucky and most people don't ever get a choice. The jobs are leaving. There's nothing we can do about it. But you can.

The scenario I described was over a decade ago and the situation has only gotten worse. More and more series are leaving the state for other production locations that are offering increasingly aggressive production incentives. That means California is not only losing thousands of jobs, but one of its signature industries, a major contributor to the economy of our communities.

In nature, once ecosystems break down they can't grow back. The Sahara desert was once fertile farmland. If we don't nurture the entertainment industry ecosystem, if we don't continue to incentivize TV and film production to flourish in California, we'll lose sustainable jobs revenue, our small businesses, tax revenue, tourism revenue, rental income, real estate values, the list goes on.

Other states and other counties are already building their production infrastructure. And the longer we work, we wait, the harder it will be to bring back that work. We need to be competitive with other countries and states to attract producers and their bottom lines. Listen, this is a jobs Bill meant to help workers. Let's be clear.

Actors are workers. Most actors, 86%, even in a good year, don't earn the $27,000 needed to qualify for the SAG AFTRA, health insurance. All this is to say people are struggling and we need your help to fight for our hardest people in California. If we lose film and television, we lose the tourism industry.

According to the travel company Setjetters, tourism typically increases 30 to 60% for film location areas. Major hit shows can create 200 to 300% increases. That's what film production adds. But think of what we'll lose if film production is lost.

I have friends working on a monster hit show set in the beautiful wilderness of Northern California, but the show actually shoots in the beautiful wilderness of British Columbia. They're getting the tourism benefits that should be California's. No one in this business is asking for handouts. We're asking for a hand getting back to work.

We're asking for lawmakers to support the industry that has helped California become one of the most powerful economies in the world. We're asking for you to support the workers. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Rebecca Rine from the Entertainment Union Coalition. Since the Governor announced the increase to 750 million, we have worked to make sure that investment is translated into value for our Members and value for our state.

The EUC endorses and is fighting for one core principle to preserve and restore the most jobs with industry standard wages, health benefits, pension plans and safe working conditions. We took that commitment into negotiations with the MPA, which ultimately resulted in the agreement before you.

Today, hundreds of our Members came to Sacramento to share their fear and their hope. And over 100,000 wrote to you because they know that we are running out of time and must do something now. We talk to numerous stakeholders and interest groups, including the Producers Guild, Stay in La, the flicks vendors, agents, showrunners, and numerous indie filmmakers.

Everyone compromised and everyone cares. We recognize we are asking you to allocate scarce resources. But this money will do more than preserve and restore our jobs. It will support ancillary businesses, the caterers, dry cleaners, florists, hotels, rental houses. It will support tourism driven by our industry that also drives visitors to many other parts of the state.

And it will support the stories told in and around California that have benefited from the incentive. Like a wrinkle in time in Humboldt, Top gun Maverick In San Diego, 13 reasons why in Napa, Captain Marvel in Fresno and King Richard in Ventura, to name just a few. This funding means thousands more crew Members qualify for health benefits.

Provides an average of 62,000 days of work on each recurring TV series. Puts 50,000 more background actors to work and tens of thousands more crew Members to work annually. This is a 400 to 500,000 more days of work in an industry that is fighting for our survival.

Our 165,000 Members in California ask you for your support of AB 1138 and thank you for choosing California's working families.

Thank you.

Guess I'm up. How you doing? Good afternoon, Chair Gibson and Committee Members. I'm Alex Aguilar, the business manager and secretary treasurer of LiUNA Local 724. I am here today on behalf of my Members and the 165,000 Californians represented by the Entertainment Union Coalition which is made up of the unions and guilds of the entertainment industry.

Production leaving California, lured away by expansive film tax incentives in other states and abroad has led to a major decline in jobs. Right now we are experiencing close to 50% unemployment in many parts of our industry here in California. But the numbers only tell part of the story.

Every day we hear the desperation from long term Members and new Members alike. Workers should see their future slowly slipping away. The production decline is even worse for our Members who live and work outside of Los Angeles area.

Since 2014, the funding and structure of the program haven't changed while other regions have expanded and adapted to attract these jobs while we have failed to compete. Just last week I read an article about how Hungary has become a major production center.

The story included quotes about not having unions replacing American workers with their own and building infrastructure to strengthen their own economy through the power of our industry. We know you face tough budget choices ahead, but if we let this industry slip away, we lose more than jobs.

We lose a vital part of what made California the fourth largest economy in the world. We lose health coverage, pension plans and the hopes of young people who have talents and skills. But many no longer see a future for themselves in our industry. This incentive isn't just about movies and television shows. It's about jobs.

It's about families and entire communities. It's about keeping the opportunity here at home, building careers and protecting the California dream for the next generation to come. Let's keep these jobs in California where they belong. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're going to ask Members of the audience if you wish to speak in support of 1138. Would you please line up? I need. It's a lot of you, so please, I need you to get. I need you to give me your name, your organization and support. That's all I need.

That's all I have time for. So name organization and you're supporting, please.

Thank you. Mr. Gibson. My name is Dijon Ellis Jr. I'm the business manager at IATSC Local 80. Grips Craft Service Medics stand in strong support. Gripping saved my life, saved my dad's life. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mr. Chairman and members, Alex Torres with Brownstein on behalf of Warner Brothers Discovery and strong support.

Thank you

Mr. Chairman and members, Shane Gussman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council and SAG AFTRA in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jack Yanoson behalf of Netflix and support. Thank you.

Hello, Leslie Simmons, field rep, political coordinator with the animation guild where IATSC local 839 in strong support.

Thank you.

Cheryl Eckert, hair and makeup 706 business representative and I am huge support.

Thank you.

Crystal Kan, Animation Guild IATSC Local 839, people of color committee co chair, in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Patrice Madrigal, Local 706, Makeup and Hair and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Molly Mallow with Edelstein, Gilbert Robeson and Smith. On behalf of the Walt Disney Company and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Kabir Akhtar. I'm a Director. I'm a Member of the Directors Guild of America. And I on behalf of many unemployed. Friends, I'm here in strong support. Thank you.

My name is Lacey Chappell. I'm a Member of the Animation Guild IATSC Local 839, working as a production assistant in strong support of my friends who are unemployed.

Thank you

Mr. Chair. Member Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Angela Moss, Local 706, Political Coordinator, Makeup and Hair. Over 2,400 Members strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alanis Balderma, Motion Picture Editors Guild, IATSC Local 700. And we are in strong support as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Doug Siebel, Sound Editor, Local 700. Living in the San Francisco Bay Area. In strong support. Thank you.

Hello. Actress Vanessa Bourne, SAG AFTRA union Member. Method Fest winner, Outfest winner, BAFTA nominated actress. Please keep shooting and rolling in California. Very much support.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jana Bach. I am with the animation guild local 839. I'm a visual development artist working for Marvel Animation and I am in support.

Thank you.

Sally Forcier, Forcier Casting and productions in Wild Philly Films. Independent filmmaker and strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Jennifer West, Sacramento film Commissioner and Member of the Flicks Leg Committee. In strong, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi. Dean Takuno, dean of Light Film Lighting Services. Strong support. Thank you.

Sam Conklin, IATSI Local 80 and co founder of the Mutual Aid Pantry at our local. In strong support.

Thank you. Hi. Aaron Leong, local cinematographer and Steadicam operator. On behalf of my friends and family across the state, strong support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Matt Dubin, COO of Formosa Group, Employer of 250 post production sound professional professionals. In Los Angeles and a Member of. The California Production Coalition. In support. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Beth Johnson. I'm a Member of Teamsters Local 399. I work in studio and transportation and I'm here in strong support of this Bill and I hope you all support it as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Chris McKayley, on behalf of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Melissa Patak, Motion Picture Association in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Tracy Brown, 399 Teamster strongest support. Thank you.

Cutter Ray PaLacios, rank and file Member of. IATSI Local 80, rank and file Member of SAG AFTRA. Also Treasurer for the Association of Mental Health Coordinators and in leadership for stay in La and unfortunately the new homeowner in Albuquerque, New Mexico. And I'm in strong support for this. Bill to keep working.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Chuck Parker, ART Directors Guild, IATSC Local 800 and very strong support. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ann Lee. I'm a second camera assistant with the. Cinematographer Skill and I work and live in Oakland in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you. Alex Thomason, I'm the national Executive Director. Of IATSC Local 600, the international cinematographers Guild. I'm Also on the San Francisco Labor Council. And I'm in strong support. Thank you.

Joanne. Excuse me. Joanne Desmond, IATSC Local 16, San Francisco Bay Area. In strong support.

Thank you.

Mickey Bersalian, Local 600, cinematographers and publicist. Strong support.

Thank you. Robert Dykes, Local 399, Hollywood Teamsters and. A vendor to the industry. Strong support of this. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. Terry Friedman, IATSC Local 80 Green Committee Chair and small business owner. In strong support, also from Concord.

Thank you. Renata Ray, IATI Local 44. I'm a business rep representing over 6,000 Members. Largest craft unit in Los Angeles. Strong support.

Thank you.

Hi. Taisha Tao with Hollywood Teamsters. Business agent and assistant political Director. And strong support. Representing over 6,500 Members.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Max Bloom. I'm with Make It Bay. I'm in strong Support with the AutoZone amendments. Thank you. Thank you.

Sam Bim Pong, also with Make It Bay. Strong support with AutoZone amendments to ensure geographic equity.

Thank you. Kathy Garmazy, Entertainment Union Coalition. In strong support. Thank you.

Jackie Khan, motion picture costumer705. On behalf of our 2,800 Members. In strong support. Thank you.

Rachel Harmon, Member of Motion Picture Costumers Local 705. In strong support.

Thank you.

Diana Wade, Member of American Federation of. Musicians Local 47 and board Member of Recording Musicians Association of Los Angeles. In strong support.

Joel Cohen, IATSC Local 800 in Studio. City, here in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Malachi Simmons, Vice President, ITSC Local 728. Representing 3,000 Members in the craft of lighting. And strong support. Thank you.

Jessica Abigail Adams, Member of IATSE Local 839, the Animation Guild. Standing in strong support.

Thank you. John Mattingly, I'm a first Assistant Director with the Directors Guild. And I'm here in strong support. Thank you.

Sheila Wagner. I am the political Director of the Writers Guild of America West. And we are in strong support.

Tom Davis, President of California ITC Council. And on behalf of our 55,000 Members. Strong support.

Good afternoon. Greg reeves, ITSC Local 728. And strong with support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ed Duffy, Teamsters Local 399. Political Director. In very strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brigitte Romanov, Executive Director of Local 892. Costume Designers Guild, IATSC strong support. Thank you.

Crystal Donyes with IATSC Local 44. I'm a business representative and a proud Member. In strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chairmembers. Tiffany Fan on behalf of Sony Pictures Entertainment in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sanjida Nahar here on behalf of the Association of Independent Commercial producers. We are in a support if amended position provided the Bill includes television commercials as a separate program similar to most other states programs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So that takes care of the support. Anyone in primary opposition to Assembly Bill 1138, would you please come forward? Hearing and seeing none. Anyone wishing to oppose in the room of 1138, would you please give me your name? Organization and opposition hearing and seeing none, we bring it back to the Committee. Okay, Mr. Mr. Demaio. And then Ms. McKennor.

Where to begin? When I look at this Bill, it's like going to a movie and halfway through realizing that the script is really trying to sell me a hero who turns out to be a villain.

No amount of bad acting, no amount of bad lighting or makeup is going to change the reality that this Bill is trying to pick winners and losers Rather than focus on the core root cause of why we're losing jobs in the State of California, not just in the motion picture industry or in the entertainment industry, but in every single sector of our economy, with the exception perhaps of the trading of illegal drugs.

We have a state government that has imposed years of regulatory burden on every single job creator in this state. The highest tax rates, intrusive regulations, they're always siding with a variety of rules to increase the cost of labor.

When you take a look at why film production has moved to Canada or other states, the tax credit's not the first thing that they talk about. They talk about the toxic environment in California for operating any business, whether that's a restaurant, a mom and pop restaurant, a dry cleaning shop, or yes, a film production.

It is so important that we stop on this Committee coming up with ideas for tax credits for the problems that this Legislature creates. The tax credit is designed to be the generous gift that the Legislature gives to people that we've harmed through bad policies. And I get why people are here supporting it.

You look at just your industry, and I understand that it's your job. It's an immediate impact. And you're saying, look, I turn on the TV, I see what he's talking about, but tomorrow I've got to get my job.

I understand the pressure to say, just get the tax credits and let's at least we got them for our industry. I'm asking you to demand a script rewrite, not just on this episode, but the entire damn network.

Every show, every episode ought to be Bending the cost curve in California, not saying, okay, we're letting the costs go up. And then if you suck up to the politicians and give us enough, you know, fluff, we may give you a couple tax credits. That's what's happening with this Bill here.

And make no mistake about it, the entertainment industry, the labor unions that are representing the industry, they've got a lot of political muscle up here. So you know what? They might get some relief. But what about the small business owner who doesn't have the money to hire a lobbyist or give a campaign contribution?

It's time that we stop picking winners and losers through these sorts of tax credits. $750 million, Mr. Zabur, is a cost to our budget. That's going to result in reductions in programs that citizens rely upon and no amount of saying, well, on the other side, it's good. You know what?

Let's give a tax credit to the working families of the state. Let's prioritize people based on need. Or let's decide that tomorrow we're going to get rid of Governor Gavin Newsom's payroll tax increase, which is $1.0 billion. This is a $750 million tax credit to a powerful industry.

When we're imposing $1.0 billion tax increase on every single job in the State of California, including those in the entertainment industry, again, we can have tunnel vision. We can look at a Bill and say, well, it's a tax credit. It lowers taxes. And as a Republican, you thought you had me at hello.

You know, it's a tax credit. It reduces tax burden. No, let's bend the cost curve for everyone and stop picking winners and losers. I have to oppose this Bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bill.

I kind of know where the vote's going to go when we do take this up on the suspense file, but we should have people demanding that we do better in this building for all job creators in our state.

Mr. Mckinnor. Yeah.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank the author for being in this field. I always talk about this. As you guys know, I'm a Hollywood kid. My parents were in movie and television.

My mother worked on shows like One Day at a Time and the Mike Douglas show, the Jeffersons, and, you know, even Soul Train, because I had a chance to be a Soul Train dancer. And so we want to keep this industry here.

As my colleague talked about small businesses, what's going to hurt small businesses the most this year are tariffs, tariffs, tariffs and more tariffs.

You know, that's what's going to help hurt our jobs in California is when our small businesses can't buy the products that they need from other countries and they're going to be charged so much to keep to stay in business. That's what's going to hurt us. Not at this tax credit.

You know, there's a lot of tax credits out there that might not be worth the voting on, but this one, this one is about putting workers to work. Straight up, putting workers to work. Like action. Let's get to work. And so I will be voting for this Bill. And this is also an investment, you guys.

This is an investment. This is not just giving someone some tax credits and then you don't get the investment back. It's all the sales tax. Look, my parents, I grew up on these sets. You had hairdressers, you had craft services, you have furniture companies.

You have all these businesses that they, that the Hollywood industry supports that sales tax that's coming right back to California. So this is not a giveaway. This is an investment in our community, investment in Hollywood because Hollywood belongs to California. I grew up in Hollywood. It belongs to us. And we want to keep it here.

And let's all remember that Hollywood is not destroying small businesses tax, these tax credits are not destroying small businesses. Tariffs are. And with that, I will be voting for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank, thank you very much, Mr. Garcia.

I just want to share that I'm speaking with my best friend who used to work in the industry. And I think all our conversations the last two months has been about this Bill. And he's basically shared how the industry is hurting. Jobs have dried up, people have been unemployed for months. It's been very difficult.

And so I appreciate the author answering my questions about this Bill in particular because we are in a tight budget year. And so my question I think for folks here is I read in the analysis that the share of domestic film industry employment has decreased 54% to 46%.

And that's in spite of the tax credits which began a year prior 2009. And so I know this is increasing from 3:30 at 750. So I guess my question is what kind of guarantees are there that this is actually going to reverse that, that this is going to increase the back the share of domestic.

So I know that that's what we're hoping for. But what mechanisms are there in this Bill that's actually going to guarantee that. You want to start?

Yeah, I think what first of all I'll say is that this Bill is designed to bring back jobs. And so every element in the Bill, every change that we make made was with the focus of how many jobs would this bring back, how many jobs would this retain? And it is primarily jobs, Bill.

And that is the difference between this program and the programs of every other state. So the first thing is the productions compete on job ratios. The ones that actually produce the most jobs are the ones that get award, that gets awarded the credit.

The other thing is that the credit is not extended until after the jobs are created and the people are paid and the small businesses are paid. And so that is another piece of it. You know, we have actually had a, A so that, you know, if you look at the, the LA Economic Development Corp.

The analysis that they've done, it showed that this has resulted in billions of dollars of, of economic production, bringing new jobs and preserving jobs in the state. And they've also looked at what happened when we didn't have enough of a, of a credit program and people were being denied the credit.

And that showed that about two thirds of. Of those jobs who would have stayed in California left to go someplace else. So, you know, I've always thought that the program was not sufficiently funded given the size of our state, given what the other states are doing.

Georgia has an uncapped program which has been extended credits of over $1 billion. I think it's close to $1.5 billion in recent years. And what this does is it basically allows us to retain enough jobs so that we can retain our leadership and have a core amount of jobs here so that we don't have jobs fleeing. I don't know if anyone else would like to answer.

I'll chime in that not only do the workers want it to be here, the people who run the shows and created the shows want the production to be here.

The postscript to the story that I told about the show that I was on, that after two seasons, picked up and moved to Canada in the fourth season because there were other cast Members that left the show because they only took the job to be in California.

There were savings, they did some reworking, they worked their budgetary magic the first chance they got. Fourth season, they brought the show back to California because the showrunner wants to be able to walk across the set to just have a quick conversation with the lead. They want to be able to.

The writers want to be able to all come in and see what's going on. It creates a better work environment and the product is better for it. Every showrunner knows it, every producer knows it. And if they could.

The first show I shot in Toronto, I was the lead of the show, and I was talking with the creator of the show who later went on to win an Oscar, and he said flat out, zero, I did everything in my power to shoot this in the country, but the money just wouldn't allow it.

So we just did some location shooting the thing, and he said, maybe if we get a second season, we didn't. Would have loved it. It would have been great. But if there was a second season, he was still figuring he was still working. How can we get this back? It makes a better product, and they know it.

Because as we've all done Zoom for the last however many years, it's not the most effective way to actually conduct business. You can get the one thing done, but all the ancillary things that happen, and it's a creative environment that's not happening. So on the shows that I shot, my friends, they don't know the writers at all.

It dissipates the creative product, and it's just worse. And every showrunner knows it, every producer knows it. So they do everything they can. They just need a little bit of help, and they'll bring it back here if they can.

Well, I appreciate that. I know, like I said, it's significant investment. 3.75 billion over the next five years. I just want to make sure that it's effective, has those intended outcomes. And so, and my second question, there was folks that mentioned zone amendments, if you can speak to those.

Some of those amendments that they're asking for are ones that would actually increase the incentives even higher than what they currently are in the program.

So, for example, one of the things they want is to take the out of zone amendment and increase it to 10%, which would mean that we would actually have a 45% credit, which is above what the other states are doing. That was part of the negotiations between the stakeholders and the unions.

And it was determined as part of those negotiations they were doing job assessments every time they made a change. And actually moving the rates that high would result in us producing less jobs in California because you'd end up sort of rewarding jobs that we can retain with a smaller reduction.

We have a capped program, so we've got to stretch it and make sure that it's most effective in bringing jobs in. I don't know if Ms. Ryan wants to.

That's correct. And I just want to say that they had that. There are many things that many people would like to see in this Bill and in A perfect world where we had unlimited funds and unlimited time that we would do all of those things.

But what we have is a certain amount of money and the need to bring as much work back to this industry as we possibly can. And so we used every dolLar carefully to ensure that the out of zone amount would be high enough to incentivize people shooting outside of La.

But if there is no industry in Los Angeles, there is no work outside of Los Angeles. That's the truth. That's the beating heart of this industry. And it has to be vibrant for the rest of the state to be vibrant. So we've done the best we could. Nobody is completely satisfied. That's usually the sign of an agreement that makes sense and that gets things done. Thank you.

You complete, Mr. Garcia? Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, witnesses for testifying. Mr. Zbur, you may close.

So first of all, I want to say that actually I've spent, and I know you have as well, and Assembly Member Quirk Silva and all the joint authors. We have spent the last, I think, six months talking to all the people that make the decisions in this industry.

And one of the first things they do, they ask about is the film credit. That is what the, the assertion that that is a secondary or tertiary issue is just not true. The, the film tax credit, when they are looking at where they're producing, they actually look at sort of the cost for each of the jurisdictions.

And the tax credit is probably the most important thing that's luring jobs out of the state. And then the second thing is I think the assertion that, you know, this isn't a jobs program, this is a tax credit for working people. That's exactly what this is.

So with that, I want to thank my co authors, I want to thank Assembly Member McKenna and frankly, I want to thank everyone who came here from all parts of the State of California to support this program and the Tenant Entertainment Union Coalition. I want to thank Mr. George for coming up as well, Mr. Aguilar. And with that, I ask for your support at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. This Bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you very much for coming and all that's in the audience. Thank you very much for your presence. Thank you.

And could I please also thank. Thank the Assembly Member. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, for being so patient and gracious.

Yeah, thank you very much. So File item number four, AB829. Sharp Collins. Again, thank you very much for your patience. And if everyone can exit quietly, that would be great. Thank you very much. Members, this is. This Bill will be voted on. This is the vote Bill. Just want to make sure everyone is aware. And Ms. Sharpe Collins, again, thank you very much. And you may proceed when ready.

Okay, thank you. All right. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. AB829 creates the California Parkinson's Disease Research Fund and Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund, establishing a grant program that allows companies, the nonprofits and individuals to support research institutions and medical centers in their work to find a cure for Parkinson's and improve the lives of individuals living with Parkinson's disease.

Over 120,000 Californians live with Parkinson's disease, which costs the state over 5 billion annually in direct and indirect cost. Even though Parkinson's disease is the second most common and fastest growing neurological disease, research for Parkinson's treatment and cures is underfunded compared to other diseases.

California has already demonstrated leadership in this field through the establishment of the California Parkinson's disease registry in 2018 and its expansion to California neurodegenerative disease registry in 2021. These initiatives have served as models for other states, positioning California at the forefront of the neurodegenerative disease research. Despite these advances, there remains a critical funding gap for Parkinson's research.

With other world class research institutions and thriving life sciences industry, we are uniquely positioned to make breakthrough discoveries and we just need the resources to unlock this actual potential. That's why I'm sitting here proud to champion AB829, which creates the California Parkinson's Disease Research Fund.

While others actually receive billions from the Federal Government each year, Parkinson's only receive a couple of 100.0 million. Since California has not dedicated funding for Parkinson's disease, it is critical that a system be established allowing donated revenue to be used to support research and services.

By creating a state Fund for Parkinson's research, California has a unique opportunity to drive the development of treatment and cures for Parkinson's disease through public private research partnerships. This legislation creates a grant program to Fund universities, research institutions and medical centers collective work to find a cure and bring hope to those living with Parkinson's disease.

With AB 829, we're not just supporting vital research and services. We are truly investing in hope and breakthrough treatment. And in the future, where Parkinson's disease is a thing of the past. Testifying in support today is Harry Starkey, President of the Parkinson's Association of Northern California, and Nate Solove, representing the Michael J. Fox foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Thanks so much.

Thank you so much. Chair and Members, Nate Sullivan, behalf of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research. Just want to thank the author and the Chair and Committee staff for the great work on this measure. Now more than ever, we need the ability for Californians, foundations and associations to be able to support Parkinson's research at.

A time when research funding is being. Pulled back from the Federal Government. This bill allows organizations to make donations and individuals on their tax contribution form to make donations as well to support Parkinson's research. So there's a huge state financial impact with Parkinson's, over 5 billion annually.

And this bill will create funding for research and service programs that will help offset those costs. So we greatly appreciate your support. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Harry Starkey, and I'm the President of the Parkinson's Association of Northern California. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of. Of AB829.

As a person with Parkinson's, I can tell you that this disease, while it starts off subtle, is persistent, progressive, and until we find a cure, it has a perfect record.

In the face of that reality, there is a growing community of people with this incurable disease that fight daily to manage symptoms and slow progression against this progressive and incurable neurological disease. AB 829 provides an important ray of hope for those that are struggling with this disease. Additional funding for Parkinson's research is needed.

This bill provides the prospect for important new funding so that we can improve outcomes for people with Parkinson's, their care partners, and one day find a cure. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this bill. Thank you so much for that.

Are there any additional people in the room wishing to speak in support? I see none. Any. Any witnesses in opposition? I see none. Any additional people in the room would like to speak in opposition? I see none. And any question or comment from Committee Members, please.

I'll move second the bill. I'll move for a second. Great bill. It's an important topic and yes, it is rapidly increasing. So we've got to educate and do more research in this area. So thank you for your leadership on it.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Anyone else? Any other comment from other Member? All right. See? None. So we have the motion and a second on the floor. Oh, I'm sorry.

I will keep it simple. I would like to thank the Chair. And the Committee staff for all of your hard work on this particular bill. And also I would like to thank my. To me, my colleagues for coming up to actually testify for this bill and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Really appreciate that. So we have the motion and the second floor. We have the motion by Assembly Member Silva and second by Assembly Assembly Member email. Yes. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriation Committee. Yes. Roll call vote please.

Motion by Quirk-Silva. Second by Demaio on item number four AB829. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.[Roll Call]. That bill has passed.

Thank you.

The bill is pass by 6-0.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Yeah. Next up, the File Item 6 AB 474 by Assembly Member Ward Assembly Member Ward please begin when you are ready.

Great. Thank you. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for their work on the bill and accept the Committee Members and appreciate the technical considerations.

This bill 8474 seeks to expand expand affordable housing opportunities by really simplifying and incentivizing a process of renting out some unused bedrooms through nonprofit home share programs.

AB474 will incentivize nonprofit home sharing by exempting rental income earned by low income homeowners from state income tax and by ensuring that additional income earned towards earned through home sharing does not disqualify low income homeowners from essential social welfare programs that they otherwise might already ex qualify for.

Furthermore, 8474 extends that an existing common sense exemption to state housing law in which a person renting a room in an owner occupied home can choose who they want to room with.

While everyone can participate in these programs, they are particularly well suited for older adults as many live alone in large single family homes, but struggle to pay their mortgage, property taxes and other basic living expenses. For witnesses and support, I have Dr.

Angie Perone, the Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and Luke Barnesmoore, the Director of Strategy for Home Match.

Thank you so much. And each of the witnesses will have two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Good afternoon Members of the Assembly Committee. I am Dr. Angela Perone, Director of the Center for the Advanced Study of Aging Services and Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Social Welfare. My comments are made in my personal capacity and do not represent the views of the University of California.

I'm here to provide expert testimony in AB474. Older adults comprise the fastest growing group of people experiencing homelessness in the United States, representing nearly half of people who are unhoused. Among unhoused adults 50 and older in California, about 41% experienced homelessness for the first time after the age of 50.

First time homelessness is not limited to older renters. Low income older adults who own their home may be one mortgage payment, one tax bill or one health care bill away from losing their homes. Nonprofit home share programs help to mitigate some of these challenges. I'm co leading a study on home sharing programs in California with Dr.

Molly Calhoun from Cal State Chico and Dr. Susanna Curry from Cal State Sacramento. Our research builds on prior studies highlighting potential benefits of home sharing for home providers and home seekers, including a stronger sense of safety and security, help with tasks to age in place, and reduced loneliness and social isolation.

For example, Mary, a 76 year old widowed home provider told us this I was lonely. It was eerie. I always liked the tenants for company. Carmen, a 68 year old home seeker, told us that her home provider struggles with her mortgage and Carmen's rent helps.

Tannet, an older divorced woman, told us that she was two steps away from sleeping in her car before the nonprofit home share program. In regions affected by wildfires, home share programs offered innovative solutions for older adults and others who had lost their homes.

Ultimately, nonprofit home share programs provide an important tool to help curb rising rates of homelessness, particularly among low income older adults. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Next witness. Two minutes please.

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Luke Barnesmoore. I'm the Director of Strategy with Front Porch Community Services.

Front porch is a 50 plus year nonprofit provide housing and services for older people, retirement communities, affordable housing communities and through our Community Services division and in the Home Match program we connect older people who have an extra room in their home or apartment or an additional unit on their property like an ADU with community Members seeking more affordable housing options.

Most of our home providers are older folks living at home alone. Most of our home seekers used to be just retired folks in that earlier part of the older adulthood. Now we serve a lot of teachers, first responders, folks that work in our local restaurants.

The housing crisis in the Bay Area where we run our programs is so severe that those bedrooms become the only option for those essential Members of our community. I just want to say quickly, Our program has 137 ongoing matches. @ the time we are the largest program in the state.

There are two or three other large programs, San Diego, San Mateo, Sonoma counties.

But I think at most, based on my conversations with our colleagues, there are probably a thousand ongoing matches in the state within a nonprofit shared housing program as defined by this Bill, with the average rent at somewhere like $1,100 a month, we're probably talking about $1.0 million a year total rent being paid from home seekers, our tenants, to home providers.

And so we're not quite sure how the estimated fiscal impact got up over $10 million here. But I think perhaps the methodology didn't account for how we've defined a nonprofit shared housing program, and there may be some discrepancy. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of this measure, please come forward. I need your name, your organization and support.

Hi, Megan Rose, with Leading Age California proud to sponsor this bill. I am also here on behalf of the California Collaborative for Long Term Services and Supports, which is a coalition of providers of services for older adults and people with disabilities. And support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, name, organization and support.

Colin Stadtmiller, with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition, would you please step forward and come take a seat at the table? Seeing and hearing none. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to AB474, you have the same right. Bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Demaio.

I'll move the bill. But on the issue of the cost, I mean, that was something that was confusing to me because I my question was was how many people are we talking about? Seems that this would be a very niche and narrow application.

Before this goes to the floor, can we get them to justify their number or correct it? Because it seems to be wildly off in terms of the fiscal impact and perhaps it's because they don't understand the bill and maybe that might prompt some clarifications in the legislation itself.

Was that for existing clients across the, across similar models like yours.

So I can tell you it's 137 total ongoing in my program right now across four Bay Area counties. We're by far the largest program. Right. There's only two or three other relatively large ones and then maybe five to 10 small ones.

So, yes, I would say probably the total number of landlords in the program with a very conservative estimate, is about 1,000.

Yeah, I mean, we're always, it's that balancing of you don't want people to game the system and continue to, to, to get benefits, but you also don't want to provide discouragement for financial stability. So I think it's a nice tailored way to do that.

Again, if we can try to clarify the fiscal impact before we go to the floor. That would be really helpful, I think, to the bill overall.

Absolutely. Senate Member yeah, we can definitely try to improve and fine tune our analysis on what we know based on today.

But what we don't know is how many more people might want to be able to seek a model like this because they're looking at some of the criteria right now and the barriers that we have in state law I'm trying to break. And so this might open up the.

Benefit of the bill though.

Absolutely. And so like, you know, this could incentivize thousands of more people to want to seek out this kind of a sharing model. We just don't know what they're going to have to put that out should this bill become law.

Okay. Good work.

Ms. Mckinnor. No. Any Member wishing to okay. Mr. Mr. Ward, you may close.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Members. You know, it's been noted obviously we have a housing crisis in our state and we really are trying to think about every solution that's going to be able to keep people housed. But it's also been noted that we actually have enough bedrooms in our state to give everybody a bedroom who needs one.

There's just so much unutilized stock right now and some of the barriers that we have are really self imposed. The idea that we are having this false choice between losing benefits that you otherwise qualify for and being able to rent out your room to somebody who absolutely needs it is just that it's a false choice.

And so we should think a little bit smarter about where this taxation barrier is affecting our ability to meet these, you know, also very important goals that we have as a state. And I would respectfully ask for your Ibot.

Thank you very much. Mr. Demaio. That bill is a candidate for the to be referred to suspense but we will be moving this bill out today when we get to suspense file. So thank you very much. Again this will be referred to our suspense file and we'll be dealing with that very shortly.

So thank you very much to witnesses for testifying and support this bill. Thank you very much. Next we will follow. Okay. Follow item number five, AB376. Mr. Tangipa, thank you very much for your patience. I know you left and came back and sent a note. You want to be last and really appreciate your patience in this regard.

So you may proceed when ready. Just to your witnesses. They have two minutes each for your presentation as well in support of AB 480 excuse me, AB 376.

All right. Well thank you Mr. Chair and colleagues. And I want to thank the Committee staff for your time and work on the analysis. For those of us who represent high fire risk areas, we know how fast things can go from calm to catastrophic.

We've all seen the headlines where entire neighborhoods were lost and families left with nothing. That's why I've introduced AB376. Settlements from a wildfire aren't profit or a bonus. They're meant to help people rebuild their homes, their businesses, and to get their life back on track.

Taxing that money just puts another roadblock in front of people who've already lost so much. This builds on the work that we've done for past fire survivors and ensures we're not treating recovery aid like taxable income. In a state where wildfires are becoming more frequent and more destructive, we need to empower, not penalize, those trying to rebuild.

Earlier this year, Governor Newsom recognized the importance of this kind of support and included a similar exemption in his budget proposal for future wildfires.

Even though I can't go back and help provide recovery relief for the victims of the Paradise, Creek, Rim, Dixie, Lightning or Oak fires, AB376 ensures that survivors of disasters between 2023 and 2028 receive the same respect as wildfires continue to become more frequent. California must lead by being proactive, not reactive.

And that's exactly what AB 376 helps us do. Today I have Stacy Heaton with RCRC to testify and support.

Well, thank you so much and you will have up to two minutes.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Stacey Heaton with the Rural County Representatives of California, RCRC. We represent 40 rural counties statewide. Most of our counties are forested counties and many of our counties have suffered devastating wildfires over the past decade.

Plus communities in our CRC Member counties have suffered devastating losses due to these high severity wildfires and many in which outside parties have been found negligent in causing those fires. In each case, hundreds of homes have been destroyed and in some lives were needlessly lost.

Like the Paradise Fire, many of these communities are still struggling to rebuild even 678 years later. With residents battling delays and insurance payouts and ever changing regulations driving up rebuilding costs. Some are choosing to leave California because they are underinsured and can't afford the rising costs of re establishing their lives in state.

In some cases, residents have foregone property insurance altogether due to the insanely high cost of coverage, which is something I know that everybody's struggling with in high fire hazard areas and a decision I think we'll continue to see homeowners make until the insurance crisis is resolved.

Here in California, those homeowners are depending on settlement dollars to make their lives whole after such a disaster. Most importantly, families who lost homes and loved ones will never fully recover from the emotional and mental toll these fires take on their lives.

While some of the past decades wildfires have resulted in settlements from utilities and others, victims of these preventable tragedies could be further assisted by making the income from those settlements exempt from state taxes. And this Bill would provide such an exemption. There is ample precedent for this policy and abundant demonstrated need for it.

RCRC supports AB376 and we appreciate the Assembly Member for bringing this policy forward today. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that. Are there any additional people in the room who to speak in support? I see none. Are there any witnesses in opposition? You see none. Now go back to the Committee. Committee Members.

Move the bill. Great bill and a little shocking that we have been taxed. Seen these victims, but good bill.

Yeah. Thank you. Really thank you for that. Unfortunately. Item. Yes, I'll take it.

Okay. Yeah.

All right. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. And we provide relief for those who have lost everything.

Thank you so much. We appreciate that. And thank you. Without any objection, this bill will be referred to our sixpence file. And now our last bill will be. Yes. From Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, AB480. Assembly Member Quirk-Silver, you may begin.

Thank you. Thanks. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I present AB 480 which increases the impact of low income housing tax credits by allowing developers to switch from allocated to certificated state credits after an award. AB480 simply ensures that developers can maximize the value of housing credits.

I'm going to say a lot more, but that's just the simplest form of it. So with that, I'm going to let my witnesses go ahead and do some testimony.

Yes.

Good afternoon. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. Right now, when the state is struggling because of the deficit in our general fund, we are trying to be creative and find as many solutions as we can when we're not relying on just additional dollars. Of course we would like that as well.

But we are trying to find solutions that are efficient and try to maximize the limited dollars that we have. And we thank the Assembly woman because this is one of those. This is not Asking for anything else. This is just simply allowing market solutions that would allow us to maximize the effectiveness of these tax credits.

And we urge your support for this important measure.

And I'm Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. The certificated credits sell for about 10 to 14 cents more than the traditional state tax credits. That means we get more private investment for each dollar that the state is giving up essentially in tax revenues. That's a pretty significant benefit.

And it allows us to either reduce the rents at development so we can serve lower income people, or it reduces the amount of other state subsidies the state has to contribute. And so we can stretch our dollars further. So we would like to do everything we can to increase the usage of these certificated credits.

And this is one. This bill identifies one barrier that is unnecessary and can easily be removed. We appreciate your support.

Thank you so much. Are there any additional people in the room wishing to speak in support?

Good morning, Chair, Members. Colin Stadmiller with Brownsley on behalf of Housing California in support.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any. Any primary witnesses in opposition? I see none. Are there any additional people in the room would like to speak in opposition? See none. Question or comment from Members of the Committee? See none. All right, so Senator Member Quirk-Silva, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for Aye vote.

Thank you so much. And without any. Without any objection, this bill will be referred to our six spend file.

I'd like to leave a call on item number one, AB761.

Call the absentees.

Call for the absentee, please.

[Roll Call]

That bill has passed with five vote.

Five to two.

Five to two. The bill is out.

Is Mr. Demaio. Yes. Okay.

Anything else?

Nope, that's all. Because the only thing I have left is for Mr. Gibson.

All right, so thank you so much. The meeting.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're waiting to take up the suspense file. We.

Okay. Sorry.

No, no, no, no. I didn't know.

Now we don't.

All right.

Wasn't your fault, right? Yeah. No, no, it's Mr. Gibson. He's obviously presenting a bill somewhere. Right? Yes. We're going to do suspense.

Next I would like to go to item 4, AB 829 to. For add ons. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Oh, we have everybody here. Yes, yes, we're moving to the suspense.

Having dealt with all the items under the regular order of business portion of the hearing. We will now take up bills on the suspense file and file item order. I will elaborate further on the suspense hearing.

However, it is important to note that the bills currently pending on suspense would reduce the state's revenue by tens of billions of dollars. Given the economic uncertainty and the tight budget conditions, it is our responsibility of this Committee to judiciously and carefully consider the proposals that are before us today.

So with that being said, I want to move to File item number two. AB8. Aguiar-Curry. We will start with again file item number two. The Chair is recommending an aye vote and motion to and do pass as amended. Apply a five year of sunset to the reduce to the.

To the reduced the rate and add Section 41 requirement. Do I have a motion on AB8? Okay. So properly moved is removed by Ms. McKinnor. Second by Mr. Garcia. This is a do pass to the appropriation Committee. Madam Secretary. Do pass as amended. I stand corrected to the approach appropriation Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB8. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you very much.

It passes 6 to 1.

That bill passes 6 to 1. We go now to file item number three above 1253. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote with amendments to the subject to subject to subject the bill to authorization to the value tested in existing law when the transfer.

When transferring the basic year value of the reconstruction property after damage or. Or destruction by the Governor through a proclamation of disasters. Do we have a motion and a second?

Properly moved in second. A motion by a motion by Demaio seconded by Mr. Ta. Thank you very much. This motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on appropriation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item 3. AB 1253. The motion is 2. Passes amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That passes 7-0.

That passes 7-0. Next file item number 5. AB 376, Tangipa. That item will be held in Committee. We will File item number 6. AB474. Ward. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote and the motion is do pass as amended. Adding definitions for qualified taxpayer modify Section 41 Language and make other technical and conforming changes.

Do we have a motion?

Second.

It's been moved by McKinnor and second by Quirk-Silva. This motion is do pass as amended to the appropriation Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On Item number 6 AB474. The motion is do pass as admitted to appropriations. [Roll Call] Oh, excuse me. It is 7-0.

That bill is out 7-0. Next file item number seven. AB 1138. Zbur. The chair is recommending I vote and the motion is do pass to appropriation. Can I hear a motion? It's been moved by McKinnor. Second by Ms. Bains. Dr. Bains. Motion. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on.

Item number seven, AB 1138. The motion is to pass to appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill passes 6 to 1.

That bill passes six to one.File item number eight, AB 480. Cork, Silva. The chair is recommending I vote and the motion is do pass to appropriations. Do I hear motion? It's been moved by Mr. Demaio. Second by Ms. McKinnor. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on.

Item number eight, AB 480. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill's out. 7-0.

That bill is out. 7-0. Next housekeeping. For everyone following we have now. Am I out of order here? Okay, for everyone who's following along, we have now completed action on bills that were referred to the suspense during this hearing. We will now move to the items that were referred to the suspense file prior to hearing again.

These measures are not tax levy or urgency measures. We will take up the remaining suspense items on or the remaining items that are tax levies at the next hearing on May 5th. So we'll move to file item number nine, AB19. DeMaio. This AB19 will be held in Committee. We'll move to File item number 10, AB245. Gibson.

The Chair is recommending an I recommendation. First, I would like to ask for a motion, a motion and second on the urgency clause that was approved by the Rules Committee. It's been moved by Ms. McKinnor. Can I get a second?

Second by Ta.

Second by Mr. Ta. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On Item number 10, AB245. The motion to approve the urgency. Gibson. [Roll Call]

Great.

Add the urgency. 7-0.

The urgency to add is 7-0. With that I would now ask for a motion and a motion and a second on the bill as amended. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriation. Do I hear a motion is removed by Mr. Garcia. It's 245. Same bill with us. Second by Ms. McKinnor. Thank you very much.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Assembly Bill 245.

Item number 10. AB 245. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriation. [Roll Call] It's past 7-0.

That measure passes 70. Item number 11 A.B. 258. Conley. The Chair is recommending Aye vote and the motion is do pass as amended to modify the percentage in the governor's proposed budget to a 2% of the gross receipts collected at fair. Do I have a motion? It's been moved by Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Do I have a second? It's been seconded by Ms. McKinnor. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on.

Item number 11 AB258. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill has passed 6 to 1.

That bill passed 6 to 1. Thank you very much. File item number 12 AB 330. Rogers. The chair is recommending an aye vote and the motion is do pass to appropriation. I hear a motion. Do I hear a motion?

So move.

It's been probably moved by Ms. McKinnor and seconded by Mr. Garcia.

Madam Secretary, please call the row on item number 12. AB330. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill has passed 5-2. 5 to 0.

That bill is out 5 to 0. File item number 13. A.B. 397. Mark Gonzalez. The chair is recommending and I. I vote the motions do pass to appropriation. Can I hear a motion on Mark Gonzalez? 397. It's removed by McKinnor and seconded by Mr. Garcia.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll on item number 13. AB3. 97. The motion is due. Pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill passes 5 to 1.

That bill is out 5 to 1. File item number 14 AB398. Errands. The chair is recommending. Aye. Vote and motion to deep. Pass to appropriation. Can I hear a motion? It's been moved by Quirk-Silva, second by Mr. Garcia.