Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding this committee hearing in room 2100 of the O Street building. I ask that all members of the committee be present room 2100, so we can establish a quorum, particularly those who are currently in the Democratic caucus.

They come straight from caucus to the committee hearing rooms so we can establish a quorum. Let me note the bills that are on consent today. We have seven bills on the consent calendar. They are as follows. File item number one, AB 370 by Assemblymember Carrillo. File item number three, AB 565, by Assemblymember Dixon.

File item number five, AB 771, by Assemblymember Macedo. File number six, AB 223, by Assemblymember Pacheco. File item number seven, AB 369, by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. File number eight, AB 391, with amendments also by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. And file item number 11, AB 1297, by Assemblymember Stefani.

Alright, we'll have a motion on the consent calendar as soon as we establish a quorum. Now, I want to note the ground rules, which are the same today as they have been for the last six years or so. So for each bill, we'll have two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition.

Each primary witness will have two minutes to speak. After the primary support witnesses speak, I'll invite other supporters to state their name, their affiliation, and their position. I'll do the exact same thing for the opposition. And after we hear from support and opposition, we'll turn to comments from committee members.

If you wish to further provide information on your position on a bill or on any bill, you can submit a letter to the committee using one of the methods described in the Judiciary Committee's website. So, first we have Chair Kalra, who has been patiently waiting, and I believe that's File item number four. Is that correct?

I think I have two as well. AB 251.

Yeah, I have AB 251 as well as AB 1523. Whichever ones you'd like me to go with.

Which one would you like to start with?

You can start with 1523.

1523. All right. File Number 2, AB 1523. We're going to begin as a Subcommittee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm presenting AB 1523, on behalf of my colleagues on the Assembly Judiciary Committee. AB 1523 is a Judiciary Committee Bill that reflects a compromise between numerous stakeholders that will increase the amount and contrasty cap for referring civil cases to mandatory mediation from $50,000 to $75,000.

This Bill also reflects stakeholder input based on 30 years of experience with the existing law to add safeguards to the existing law, to ensure that only cases with the high likelihood of amicable resolution are sent to mediation.

This compromise bill strikes the balance between stakeholders to increase the use of mediation as a tool for resolving disputes before trial, while ensuring that all Californians get their day in court. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Witness in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1523, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching. All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Senator Niello, questions?

Just a quick comment. This is similar to a bill that I had last year, I believe, but the range was higher, which I would actually prefer. I think it makes a lot more sense. It had that the issue, the amount had not been updated for quite a while. It, of course, died in your Committee last year.

But I'm certainly willing to support this Bill and maybe in the future, we could agree to a somewhat higher limit. I think it would make a lot of sense.

Thank you for those comments, Mr. Senator.

Thank you. Seeing no further comments. Just a quick comment.

I'm supportive of the Bill and the proof will be in the pudding as to whether the judges actually use this Bill to expedite, versus counsel who wish to just delay. Any intermediate steps prior to a resolution on the dispute on the facts on the merits can sometimes work as counterproductive to getting things resolved.

So, I'm hopeful that this will not be such and I'll be supporting. So, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I think this is a moderate step that allows us the opportunity to do just that, see how it's actually going to be used in practice and whether it meets the intentions that we have as a legislative body. So, with that, I would simply ask for an "Aye" vote at the appropriate time.

All righty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, let's now turn to your next Bill, which is File Number 4, AB 251.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. AB 251 gives a judge discretion to apply the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard as the Burden of Proof if the court finds intentional destruction of evidence by a defendant, skilled nursing facility, or residential care facility for the elderly, also known as RCFE, in relation to a civil case under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.

This narrow but important Bill will allow access to justice for victims of elder abuse and will deter against spoliation of evidence. The Bill also addresses the governor's veto by allowing judges to apply the lower standard, or not, after determination that spoliation of material evidence occurred.

Additionally, amendments taken in the Assembly regarding a facility's record retention policy resulted in the California Association of Health Facilities to take a neutral position on the Bill. We are also working with the Department of Social Services to ensure similarly situated residents and adult licensed facilities enjoy equivalent legal protections.

Often, elder abuse victims are unable to provide testimony due to sickness or death, and the unusually high burden of proof in the act can make it nearly impossible to justify a claim. This difficulty is compounded when there is intentional and willful destruction evidence relevant to the case.

With me to provide supporting testimony is Tony Chicotel, Staff Attorney with California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, and Jackie Serna, Deputy Legislative Director with Consumer Attorneys of California.

Thank you. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members and staff. For nearly 40 years, California Advocates for Nursing Reform has operated a statewide legal referral service to assist victims of elder abuse and neglect in long-term care facilities. And we hear stories of abuse and neglect in facilities pretty much every day.

But we only refer a very small percentage of the cases we hear about to attorneys because proving them is so difficult. As the Assemblymember mentioned, a victim has to prove the facility is liable by clear and convincing evidence the facility's conduct was reckless or worse, and that the conduct was ratified by a managing agent.

This is a really tough burden to prove, really tough to get justice, and much more than what we require in most civil cases, which is just the preponderance of the evidence standard.

In elder abuse cases against long-term care facilities, when victims are often dead or have cognitive impairments and witnesses are few and far between, medical records and other documents are particularly critical. We suspect that the prevalence of spoliation is on the rise due to the ease with which electronic records, health records, can be manipulated.

Better deterrence is needed, and AB 251 provides it. There are sanctions for spoliation, but none of them is tailored specifically for elder abuse cases. Where the scales of justice have been tipped by falsified evidence, AB 251 allows a court to tip them back by lowering the evidentiary threshold. It's a good Bill.

It's been amended to address the Governor's concerns, and we ask that you please vote "Yes" today. Thanks.

Thank you. Ms. Serna.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Jackie Serna, on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California, a proud co-sponsor of AB 251.

When an elderly resident is abused or neglected in a nursing home, their family faces an almost impossible task of having to prove their case, even when the facility has intentionally destroyed the legal evidence needed to do so. Many elder abuse victims cannot speak for themselves due to illness, dementia, or even death.

For every elder abuse case reported, many go unreported, and families are left without a path to justice, which current law gives facilities little reason to preserve evidence and tell the truth. AB 251 provides a simple but important fix.

It allows the courts to lower the burden of proof if a nursing home is found to have intentionally destroyed legal evidence. It will deter misconduct, protect our seniors, and help families hold wrongdoers accountable. We urge your support.

Thank you. Others who wish to testify in support of AB 251?

Becca Kramer Mater with Kaiser Advocacy, on behalf of National Consumer Law Center, and California Low-Income Consumer Coalition, in support.

Thank you.

Members and Chair, this is Peter Anderson with the Commission on Aging, in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Others in support? Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 251, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and apologies in advance, dealing with a terrible inner ear infection. Chris McKayley, here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, in respectful opposition, as Mr. Kalra knows, due to our appearance before him and his Committee, primarily for three reasons.

The first is we think that there are adequate remedies at law, including monetary penalties and sanctions under the California Civil Code—sorry, the Code of Civil Procedure—as well as allowing juries to consider that sort of conduct in their decision making. Secondly, that judges already have appropriate discretion here.

They can do everything from a motion for spoilation for monetary fines. They can issue a preclusion, terminating sanctions, and even a directed verdict. And lastly, we believe that there isn't any evidence demonstrating that substantially lowering this burden is necessary in order to allow these individuals to be, be able to bring their claims to court. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Others in opposition?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Danielle Parsons with the California Assisted Living Association, joining CJAC in opposition today. Cal Members take the safety of our residents extremely seriously, and as an organization, we work to ensure that RCFE laws and regulations are all resident focused.

Unfortunately, we believe that this Bill will simply increase litigation costs, which will further drive up the cost for residents to live in assisted living communities. Judges already have sufficient avenues of sanctions for spoliation, as CJAC just mentioned.

And while we appreciate the Author's addition of the judicial discretion in the Bill, we must respectfully oppose the unfounded targeting of our CFEs in this Bill, and we believe they will simply result in higher settlement costs and seemingly automatic accusations of spoliation. Thank you.

All righty. Thank you very much. Others in opposition? Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Let's turn to the Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm certainly in favor of fair hearing on both sides. Changing the standard of evidence, though, does sort of tilt the scales a bit on the plaintiff's side.

And given that, it would seem to me that passing this Bill would potentially invite accusations of spoliation of evidence, because I'm not sure how you would prove that that didn't happen. If it doesn't exist, how do you prove a negative?

Well, Senator, it would be a judge making that determination.

I understand that, but how would you prove it? Is there any way to prove that something didn't happen?

Well, the burden would be to prove that it did happen. And so, in order to actually have a judge even consider lowering the standard, the judge would have to determine that it did happen. So, if there's a lack of any evidence brought forward, my presumption would be a judge would not find that spoliation occurred.

I just, I find that a problematic exercise proving a negative.

Other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments, Assemblymember Kalra, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

All righty. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. Any other authors? Let me go down the list here. Oh, okay. Perfect. All right. We're in good shape. All right. Assemblymember Rubio, followed by Assemblymember Schultz, followed by Assemblymember Wallace. Assemblymember Rubio, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members, and the Senate of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank you for allowing me to present AB373.

This bill is based on the understanding that non-minor dependents, individuals aged 18 to 21 in California who receive services from the foster care system, are legal adults in aspects of the law and should be granted the same rights in court.

Currently, when counsel is appointed to represent a minor in dependency proceedings, they are expected to advocate for the minor's best interest. Although this law is reasonable for youth under the age of 18, current law applies to legal adults 18 years or older and ignores the independence and legal adult privileges.

Non-minor dependents do have greater autonomy and the ability to express their wishes about court proceedings, but counsel is still able to substitute their own judgment and act according to what it is perceived to be the non-minor dependent's best interest.

AB373 seeks to give discretion to the non-minor dependents by ensuring the legal rights of non-minor dependents are fully respected, by clarifying the responsibility of appointed counsel to represent the expressed wishes of the non-minor. Ultimately, this bill aims to empower individuals who have often, often been spoken for or disregarded.

Finally, this bill will provide a sense of autonomy, independence, and adulthood to non-minor dependents, setting them up for success as they transition to full adulthood. With me today in support of this bill is Lara Kurtz, attorney for Children's Law Center of California, and Mercedes Parker from California Youth Connection. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. All right, Ms. Kurtz, please approach microphone.

Hello. My name is Laura Kurtz, and I am a staff attorney with Children's Law Center of California. We are the attorneys for the youth in the dependency systems in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Placer Counties. When a child comes into foster care, they are surrounded by adults who begin to make decisions for and about them.

And often this is after having spent very little or no time with that child, so the decisions that those adults are making often center on what the adult believes is best for the child and not necessarily what a particular child needs. As a child's attorney, I am one of those adults. My role is to tell people what my client wants.

But additionally, if I don't agree with what they want, I get to substitute my judgment and argue what I think is best for my client. As an attorney, that's a great privilege, but the client, but for the client, that can be extremely frustrating. They can often feel like their voices aren't heard, especially when this is done by the person who's been appointed to represent and speak for them.

Extended foster care is a specialized program. It's specifically for young adults who have turned 18 while still in foster care. It is a voluntary program, and the focus is to provide support and services to 18, 19, and 20 year olds as they take on additional responsibilities and independence and successfully transition to adulthood.

This law clarifies that participants in this program or Welfare and Institutions Code 303D clarifies that the participants in this program do retain all of their legal decision making authority. This bill is very simple. It requires me as their attorney to respect their wishes and not substitute my judgment for theirs. They have a social worker that would still be able to express their opinion, and the court is the ultimate decision maker in these cases. But AB 373 would require me, as their attorney, just like every other attorney who represents adult...

Could you wrap it up, please?

Yes. To advocate for my client's position. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please, in support of AB 373.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Mercedes Parker. I'm speaking today on behalf of California Youth Connection, a youth led organization made up of young people across the state who have lived experience within the foster care system, also known as a child welfare system. So I'm here uplifting the voices of those young people today.

I'm here in strong support of AB 373 because, as a former foster youth myself, I know how crucial it is for young people in the foster care system to have a voice. If you've never been in foster care, it can be difficult to imagine what it's like to be disempowered at every turn.

Imagine being a foster youth, a non-minor dependent, someone who recently turned 18 is expected to take on the responsibilities of adulthood after having spent their entire lives in foster care. And all the adults in your life are tasked with protecting you and making decisions that serve your best interests.

Yet no consideration is made to what your best interests are. The adults around you are not required to listen to you. You aren't trusted to make decisions about your own life even as you transition into becoming an adult. This experience can reinforce unhealthy patterns of dependency and codependency.

The very cycles young people are trying to break free from. It represents a systemic pattern of young people not being trusted to manage the resources to govern their own lives. They need support in being their own advocates and making and learning from their mistakes and how to take control of their healing.

AB 373 shifts the focus from protection to empowerment. It acknowledges that non-minor dependents should have a say in their legal representation. Protection without empowerment can be harmful. It limits growth, the ability to take risks, and ultimately confidence. Empowerment, on the other hand, encourages trial and error.

It helps build self sufficiency and accountability for one's own success. AB 373 is about giving young people the respect they deserve as emerging adults. So please support AB 373. These young people need partners in their journey, not gatekeepers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 373, please approach the microphone.

Nicole Moroles on behalf of Children Now in strong support.

Good afternoon. Dixie Samaniego with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 373, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. But ding, ding, ding. We have a quorum, I think. So one second, let me establish a quorum. Oh, we were, we had it for a second. 1, 2, 3. Okay, we're... I'm sorry, false alarm. We're still short.

We were hoping, we were hoping.

We need, we need one more Member. All right. Okay. Bring it back to Committee. Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm surprised there's no opposition to this. This is a very significant issue. Now the law may assign adulthood to an 18 year old, but nature doesn't. The human brain, particularly the part of the human brain that reasons and plans and makes decisions of various options, really doesn't fully develop until mid 20s.

And I have five kids, they're all grown. I have seen them through adolescence, which is a total pain in the neck, and I've seen them into adulthood. And they are not, none of my kids at the age of 18 were ready to make totally their own decisions. And I heard statements made about foster kids have adults always telling them what to do and making decisions for them. Well, non-foster kids have the same thing.

I remember I had a discussion with my youngest son who was 16 at the time and about a particular he said, you don't trust me. And I said, I absolutely do trust you. I trust you to make the very best decision that a 16 year old is capable of making. And so I would trust a non-minor dependent of age 18 through 21 to be able to make the very best decision that a person of that age could make.

But see they don't have the domestic support system that my kids did. And so I found a study published in Children and Youth Services Review, and it started out by saying youth aging out of foster care may lack the requisite decision making competences for coping with the challenges of life direction determining decisions.

Now that's not to degrade them, it's to acknowledge the reality that an 18, 19, 20 year old does not have a fully developed frontal lobal brain which makes those decisions. Their decisions might be right, but they might be more based on emotion than logic. And that's where adult help comes in, and that's why the current system is the way that it is.

This study suggested that youth aging out of the foster care system may need support with the aspects of decision making relating to the generation of alternatives and inferential reasoning about decision consequences as one way to augment and improve the transitional service designed to prepare foster youth for independent life. I think it would be...

Now it doesn't mean that the judge can't rule that the wish of the non-dependent, the aging out youth is more appropriate than that which is being suggested by counsel. But I would suggest that, even though that can happen, it probably would rarely happen. And I think it would be a mistake and a disservice to aging out foster youth to not continue what the status quo is.

Before you respond to that, Assembly Member Rubio. We have that very ephemeral moment where we have a quorum. So if I could ask Committee Assistant to please call the roll for purpose of establishing a quorum.

[Roll Call] You have a quorum.

Thank you very much. All right.

Thank you for that comment, Senator Niello. Completely agree. The whole point to this is that someone that's aging out. I have an 18 year old that has been very challenging the last couple days, but my advice to him has been since he was born. You're right. The consistency, he knows what the expectations were.

I set them on early. Whether he follows them or not is based on the immaturity. Children in the foster care system often go from home to home to home, from advocate to advocate to advocate, social worker to social worker. And sometimes the caseload of those folks is such that it's like, okay, everybody gets this because it's easier to just say this is what the non-dependent minor needs or the foster care child needs as opposed to actually having the time to talk to them about, hey, what do you think.

So the reason for the bill for me is, you are correct. They don't go from 17 and 364 days to now they're adults because now they're 18. The point to the bill is that the conversations have to happen, and if there is disagreement, you have the social worker that can also intervene and say, okay, the child or the non-dependent minor at this point is correct.

For example, if they want to move to, you know, to another city and the attorney doesn't agree, that's the whole point of the team. Instead of saying, nope, you will stay here because I say so. And that is not in the law. Right now, if the attorney says this is what you have to do, then that's what they have to do. Still, to your point, the judge says, well, maybe or maybe not.

But that's the whole point is that the adult or the attorney in this case is the one that has the voice, not the minor or the non-dependent minor. And so this will clarify that. They have to take into consideration what that child does. My son spends all night playing his video game, and he has a driving written test today. I can guarantee you he did not study all night. Right, but the expectation was such that he had to do it. If he doesn't do it, then we have a conversation afterwards.

It doesn't happen in court or it doesn't happen with the attorney. The attorney finally says, you will do this and then they go on about their business and the foster child goes about their business. There is really no follow up. There may or may not be. That's the point. Right?

And so at home, I'm going to go home and scold my son for not doing what he was supposed to last night or congratulate him on passing his test. That does not happen when you're a foster kid. That, you know, you're done with court, onto the next one. We've all been to in court. I'm not an attorney and do not play one on TV either. But the attorneys, the case is done and then you move on to the next case. And it doesn't happen at home, or at least in most homes, that if the child wants this, there is no discussion.

And this provides the attorney and the child to be able to communicate that. And still the social worker has to say so and so does the judge. Right now, the kid is basically left to whatever the attorney says. And so this is just clarifying. We still have some support systems in place, we still have some guardrails, if you will, to make sure that the safety of the child, which is the most important, the safety is intact, but it's on decisions that we as adult may disagree with that child.

I'm not an attorney either, but I play one every Judiciary Committee meeting. The judge still has the right of the final decision and take both into account. This is probably a situation where both the status quo has its faults and your bill has its faults. As I articulated, I just kind of lean toward the status quo and understand and respecting everything.

Absolutely, and I completely respect that. But, you know, at 18, you're allowed to vote, you're allowed to join the military. You know, all of these things that, you know, to your point, if the frontal lobe is not, you know, developed yet, then how do we expect them to vote? How do we expect them to go into the military and, you know, provide all the services that we do? There's always that sticking point. And I, as a mother of a boy and a girl, my girl is very different than my son. And the boy for boys.

And, you know, no disrespect to our boys, but boys are very different. And so this will, I believe, will give them an equal playing field because they, again, when you're 18, you can vote. When you're 18, you can sign for stuff. You can be prosecuted as an, you know, obviously as an adult.

And so we expect them to be adults in that respect, but in making decisions for themselves, we have a kind of a double standard. So I agree that it all has its faults, but in my opinion, this gives the emerging adult the opportunity to make those mistakes and learn from them with the support system of the attorney, the judge, if you will, and the social worker.

Thank you. All right, Dr. Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Chair. Want to thank Assembly Member Rubio for bringing this bill forward and allowing for us to have this conversation. As you, you know, rightfully pointed out, at 18, regardless of whether you were raised in a foster care or not, you do have the ability to vote. You have the ability to do a variety of other things.

And I think one of the things that struck out to me with the previous questions was that there was a lot of assumptions being made. There was an assumption that families or children who are raised by their biological families have a certain level of support that they may or may not have. Which you're a teacher, you know, you've seen lots of kids come through. Some have very supportive families that are there and some do not.

And there's also assumptions in that statement that those who were raised by foster families were not raised in environments that were supportive and could give them the correct kind of advice. And so I think that, you know, treating individuals differently based on assumptions is always challenging and something that we should steer clear of.

I know many children who were raised in foster families whose foster families did much better than what their biological families would have done. I think many of us up here are, you know, do our best with our children and are probably a lot more involved than other families in our respective areas, friends, whatever. And so to utilize what we do with our children is not necessarily the best light to use when trying to determine what other people do with their children. And I think that there's also a difference between parental advice.

You know, when my children turn 18, I've told them what I want them to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to do that. Versus being 18 and having an attorney listen to what you want, but then go before and say, no, you can't do that. You have to do something else. So I support this and, you know, move the bill at the appropriate time. Thank you for bringing it forward.

All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member Rubio, would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right, there's been a motion by Dr. Weber Pierson. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number 9, AB 373. The motion is do pass to Senate Human Services. [Roll Call] Six to one.

We'll put that on call. Thank you very much. All right, let's do the consent calendar. All right. Committee supporter, please call the roll on the consent calendar. Is there a motion? Senator Laird has moved the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]. Eight to zero.

Eight to zero. Put that on call. All right, next. I see Assemblymember Schultz is here, so file item number 10, AB1150, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the Judiciary Committee. I'm pleased to present AB1150 today. AB1150, if approved, would increase the daily maximum user fee that airports may collect from airport rental car customers to 12 dollars per day starting on January one, 2026. A little bit of history might be helpful here.

The current fee, which was enacted in 2010 by Senate Bill 1192, has remained stagnant for the last 15 years, not accounting for inflation or increasing facility maintenance needs.

We all know, because most of us have flown to be here this week, that our airports are grappling with aging infrastructure, including outdated elevators, escalators, moving walkways, HVAC systems, and insufficient charging stations for our electric vehicle infrastructure.

Additionally, and most importantly, California is preparing to host major international events that will bring millions of visitor, including, which will place an unprecedented demand on our airport facilities.

To meet this growing need, AB1150 gives airports the authority to increase the daily maximum customer facility charge from nine dollards, which is the current rate, to 12 dollars, thereby ensuring that our car rental facilities are equipped to handle the challenges ahead.

Importantly, this bill upholds existing safeguards that require airports to conduct thorough financial audits and hold public hearings before implementing any fee increase. These audits will determine the necessary revenue levels, thereby ensuring there is transparency and accountability throughout the process.

In conclusion, AB1150 aims to address our airport's financial needs to enhance traveler experiences and maintain and modernize our existing car rental facilities. Joining me today is Lauren Wesche on behalf of the California Airports Council, sponsor of the bill, who will provide additional testimony and support. Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. All those in support of AB1150, please line up. The floor is yours.

Hi, everyone. Chair Umberg, Vice Chair Niello.

Pull the microphone up just a little bit. Thank you.

I'm on the tall side. I'm Lauren Wesche, Deputy Director of the California Airports Council, sponsor of AB1150. For the past 15 years, the customer facility charge, or CFC, has remained capped at nine dollars per rental car day for a maximum of five days total. During this time, costs have risen more than 50 percent.

Yet airports still use the same fee to pay down bonds and keep rental car facilities safe and functional. AB1150 makes one modest change. It lifts the cap from nine dollars to 12, nothing more. First, this is a true user fee.

The CFC is charged only to travelers who choose to rent a car at an airport, typically for three days. So, day to day Californians are not affected. Second, it directly supports facility safety and maintenance.

Revenues can only be used for construction, major repairs, or operating dedicated shuttles or trams that move customers between terminals and consolidated rental car facility centers. No other uses are permitted. And third, this bill preserves every consumer protection safeguard already in statute. Public notice hearings, independent audits, online transparency reports, and board approvals, all remain intact.

The fee cannot be increased without documented need and public scrutiny. Finally, the small adjustment prepares our airports for the upcoming events that Assemblymember Schultz just mentioned. The World Cup, the 2028 LA Olympics, and many Super Bowls. AB1150 is narrowly tailored, fiscally responsible, and consistent with the Committee's emphasis on transparency, consumer protection.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in support of AB1150, please approach microphone.

Thank you very much. Others in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB \1150, please approach the microphone.

John McHale, on behalf of Enterprise Mobility in support, thank you.

My name is David Bollog. My opinions are my own. While this bill may seem like an innocuous fee increase, it will add on to the cost of those visiting our state. It may appear as something that won't affect tourism to our state. The results may not have a noticeable or negligible effect. Everything has its capacity.

An elevator or structure can only handle so much weight. A person or material can only be able to handle so much stress before they break. The cost of doing something also has its capacity of affordability for a person's willingness to pay for a good service or experience.

If you have paid attention to our neighboring state east of us, that makes the majority of its income from tourism, you will realize that they are pricing themselves out of customers.

Las Vegas has raised the fees and prices of so many of their experiences that what used to be an easy getaway for many has turned into just something that's not worth the price for the masses. As a result, their tourism is suffering.

What will be the cost point of visiting our states to where it will not become worth it? I'm not saying that this three dollar increase will be the straw that breaks the camel back. I'm saying that it will add to that maximum capacity. I don't think any of us can deduce what that break point will be.

But I want to insert the ideal into your minds that the more we increase taxes or fees, the closer we will come to that breaking point.

I know this bill will pass through this Committee, that it will be, if chaptered into law, it will bring in a measurable increase revenue that will be a benefit to the projects that it will fund. It will be a measurable feather in your cap, Assemblymember Schultz, for what your legislation will do.

It won't stop those that come for the Olympics, World Cups or those coming here potentially to make money on business. But what about after that? What about other fees and costs? That has nothing to do with this legislative body. The fee increase most likely won't be that breaking point, but it will bring us closer.

I encourage the legislators to really consider this when voting to raise fees and taxes today and in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition to AB1150, please approach. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back to the Committee. Senator Allen.

Just a question following up on the comments. Is this, is there a COLA that you build in, or is just a straight nine to 12?

It's a straight 9 to 12, Senator. The cap is currently nine dollars. The point is well taken from the opposition witness. But I would say, though, that the cap has remained steady for 15 years. And costs, as we all know, are driving up for everybody.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, this seems like a really modest increase in the fact that you're not even providing for a, an escalator into the future further underscores how overly reasonable this is for us. Perhaps, you know, I can only imagine that, you know, at some point someone will be coming back and asking for an increase later, so.

Point well taken. But I certainly this seems, you know, I'm someone who rents cars from airports and I know so many of us do. This seems very evidently reasonable. I'll move the bill on appropriate.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator Allen has moved the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Committee supporter, please call the roll.

This is file item number 10, AB1150. The motion is due. Pass. Umberg.

[Roll Call] Eight to zero.

Aye.

We're going to put that on call. Thank you, Assemblymember Schultz.

Thank you.

Next is Assemblymember Wallis. File Item Number 12, our very final bill. That is AB 1004. And for staff and Committee Members, we're going to hear this Bill and then we're going to take up the bills that are on call.

All right. Assemblymember Wallis, the floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I have before you today AB 1004, a Bill that protects the financial information of Indian tribes from public disclosure when they agree to financial assistance from a state or local government.

As sovereign nations, California Indian tribes operate as distinct political entities, similar to State and Federal Governments, with their own regulations, policies, and financial management systems. AB 1004 explicitly exempts tribal financial information from public records requirements. Existing public records laws could allow this sensitive information to be disclosed, potentially compromising tribal sovereignty, economic interests, and confidentiality.

The lack of explicit protection creates uncertainty and could discourage tribes from seeking financial partnerships with the state and local governments. This Bill ensures that tribes can participate in various programs without compromising their proprietary financial data. It also ensures that state or local governments can have the necessary information to evaluate qualifications for different programs.

This confidentiality fosters stronger government-to-government relationships by demonstrating respect for tribal decision-making processes and reinforcing the principle that tribes are autonomous entities managing their own economic interests. This Bill is supported by a number of tribal governments and tribal associations, and it's sponsored by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.

And their advocate, Chad Mayes, is with me to testify on behalf of the Tribe. Alrighty. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayes. Floor is yours.

This is your predecessor.

It is.

All right. I love it. Cooperation.

Good afternoon, Chair Umberg, Vice Chair Niello, and Members of the Committee. I'm Chad Mayes with Capital Advocacy, speaking on behalf of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, in strong support of AB 1004.

When tribes apply for state or local grants, loans, or other assistance, they often are required to submit detailed financial records. Outside the narrow arena of tribal state gaming compacts, the California Public Records Act lacks clear guidance on how those records should be treated.

Agencies are left to make ad hoc decisions, producing a patchwork that breeds uncertainty, discourages tribes from seeking vital programs, and erodes the government-to-government trust needed to deliver infrastructure, health, and economic development projects across our state. AB 1004 fixes that problem.

It clarifies that any record containing tribal financial information provided solely to secure public financial assistance is confidential and not subject to disclosure. Agencies still review, audit, and safeguard public funds. The Bill simply prevents a sovereign government's proprietary data from becoming a public download once it crosses the counter.

In doing so, AB 1004 aligns California with the long-standing principles of tribal self-governance and the federal trust responsibility, ensuring tribes never have to choose between pursuing public benefits and protecting their sovereignty. This measure adds no cost, no new bureaucracy, and has bipartisan support because at its core, it's about fairness and respect.

On behalf of Soboba and tribes throughout California, I respectfully urge your "Aye" vote. And Mr. Chair, I'm happy to answer any question.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayes. Others in support of AB 1004, please approach.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Paula Treat, on behalf of Pechanga and the Calusa Tribes. My only disappointment is this wasn't done consent. It has no "No" votes and no opposition. Please vote yes.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Nick Brokaw, here on behalf of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, in support.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Scott Governor, on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the California Nation's Indian Gaming Association, in support.

Thank you. Others in support?

Yes. David Bollog, on behalf of the California Republican Assembly Districts 40, 44, and 43, we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, others in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1004, please approach. All right, turns out Ms. Treat was correct, so let's bring it back to the Committee. Okay. Dr. Weber Pierson has moved the Bill. Would you like to close, Assemblymember Wallis?

I respectfully request an "Aye" vote.

All right, thank you very much. It's been moved by Dr. Weber Pierson. Committee Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

8 to 0. We'll put that on call for a little while. Thank you very much. All right, we've concluded all—hearing all the bills. I don't know why people complain the Judiciary goes so long, so.

It's outstandingly run.

Well, that's, that's, that's absolutely true. So, all right, so let's do this. We'll call the roll one more time for those who have just appeared. And then, we will wait until 2:30 and then, we'll call it one more time and then, close down. So, let's do it one more time.

Committee Assistant, if you would begin at the top and let's go through the roll.

[Roll Call]

9-0. We'll put that back on call. Senator Ashby is not available today. So, we're missing one. No, I'm sorry, strike that. We're missing more than one. All right.

File Item Number 4, AB 251. This needs a motion.

Move the Bill.

Dr. Weber Pierson moves the Bill.

[Roll Call]

7-0. All right, we're going to put that back on call. Next, please.

Did we do number two?

File Item Number 2, AB 1523. This needs a motion.

Moved by Senator Laird.

[Roll Call]

7-0. Put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

8-1. We'll put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

10-0. We're going to put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

10-0. We're gonna put that back on call. So, we've gone through the roll a few times now. We're missing Senator Stern and Senator Wiener. If we could find out whether or not they're going to present themselves, that would be useful.

Those Committee Members that have left the Committee, I assume that they no longer wish to vote on any of the remaining bills. So, that would mean Senator Wiener and Senator Stern, I don't think, have voted on any bills.

No, and can you go through for the bills that send...

Committee Assistant, just call the roll on the bills in which Senator Wahab has not had an opportunity to vote.

[Roll Call]

10-0. Put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll put that back on call. 7-0. Put that back on call.

Okay.

[Roll Call]

8-0. Put that back on call. I think that concludes Item Number 6. I think you vote on consent, but on Item Number 6 is Senator Wahab, vote on Item Number 6.

That's on consent.

I'm sorry?

That's on consent.

It's on consent. Yeah.

Six on consent.

Okay, so I have consent items. I just want to make sure I'm—565, 771.

Let me just—I'll just ask. Okay. Committee Assistant, will you just look through the roll and see if there's any bills in which Senator Wahab has not voted?

And if so, please call that item number.

Okay, I.

We're going to—Senate Committee on Judiciary will recess. I understand that Senator Wiener is on his way. Until Senator Wiener appears, then we will reconvene.

All righty. Thank you.

Assistant, please open the roll

[Roll Call]

11-0. We'll put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

8-0. Put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

9-0. Put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

9-1. We'll put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

11-0. Put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

11-0. We're going to put that back on call. All right. Thank you. I think, Senator Wiener, you voted on all the bills that are eligible to vote upon.

Thank you.

We do business efficiently here. Yes. All right, so Senator Stern, not coming. Oh, okay.

Well, one second.

All right, so let's do this. We're about to take our final roll call, so Committee Assistant, if you would call the roll on the bills that remain on call.

[Roll Call]

12-0. The consent calendar is adopted.

[Roll Call]

9-0. Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

10-0. The Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

10-1. Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

11-0. Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

12-0. Bill is out. And that concludes today's hearing.

We are adjourned.