Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

The Senate Committee on Appropriations will now come to order. Good morning, everybody. We are meeting today in Room 2200 of the O Street Building. We have 61 measures on today's agenda. Two bills are eligible for a do pass motion, and the remaining bills meet the criteria for referral to the suspense file.

We also have two bills still listed in the daily file that have been pulled from the agenda and will be rescheduled for our next meeting, and those two bills are AB 906, by Mark Gonzalez, and AB 1142, by Assemblymember Hoover. Assemblymember Gonzalez and Assemblymember Hoover.

The authors for all but one of the suspense measures on today's agenda have waived presentation. As usual, however, we're going to be taking testimony from the public on every item. Before we begin, I want to remind all the witnesses to limit the testimony to the fiscal aspects of the Bill.

Please refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments. So, before we begin our testimony on the measures before us today, we need to establish a quorum. Madam Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. So, now, we're going to move on to the regular agenda items. And I'm looking—we're going to go right down the list, and then, if the Assembly Members that wish to present show up, we can take them out of order, just so you can follow along.

We're going to start with AB 5, which is a bill by Assemblymember Berman. Assemblymember Berman has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance. Welcome. Thank you. Glad to have you here today.

Appreciate it. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. The Department of Finance is opposed to this Bill because it would incur General Fund costs not included in the 2025 Budget and would likely create a potentially significant state reimbursable mandate. The Secretary of State estimates unknown potentially significant fiscal cost to develop regulations, work, work, work with 58 county election officials to establish standards and guidelines, determine and maintain procedures for granting extensions, and provide notice of effective voters.

Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from the Committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 5 will move to suspense. Move on to AB 827 by Assemblymember Berman, who has waived presentation on this Bill. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance has no position on this Bill, but notes it may create a significant state reimbursable mandate and unintentionally burden counties with limited staffing and resources.

The Secretary of State notes that this Bill requires all 58 counties with different vote-by-mail tracking systems to provide a link to signature care form to voters and signature issues who have opted to receive notification by text or email.

Counties may need to upgrade their VBM tracking systems to comply with this requirement, potentially creating an additional fiscal pressure for the counties.

Very good. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 827 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 1251 by Assemblymember Berman. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Questions or comments? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 1251 will move to suspense. AB 6 by Assemblymember Ward, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Testify in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Committee questions? Seeing none.

This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 6 will move to suspense. AB 33 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Questions from the Committee? Seeing none.

This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 33 will move to suspense. AB 70 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Questions from the Committee?

This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 70 will move to suspense. AB 250 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Committee? Seeing no questions.

This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 250 will move to suspense. AB 325 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition?

Madam Chair, Chris McKayley, here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, in respectful opposition on policy grounds. We think we'll continue to make progress as we work with the author and her staff on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Questions from the Committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 325 will move to suspense. AB 675 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, who has waived presentation. Anyone in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

I didn't ask you on the last.

It's okay. No file.

Questions from the Committee? This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 675 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 42 by Assemblymember Bryan. Okay, good call. So, let me move on, on the agenda, and take up AB 238 by Assemblymember Harabedian. Welcome to our Committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. And I'd just like to thank you and your Committee for all your work on this critical Bill, AB 238, and good morning, Senators, sorry. AB 238 provides a crucial safety net for LA County wildfire survivors. Under this Bill, borrowers can request forbearance on their mortgage payments for up to one year.

The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation anticipates an increase in complaints related to wildfire disaster mortgage forbearance relief, but expects to absorb the workload within existing resources. The Department of Real Estate may incur, however, costs of up to 150,000, depending on complaint volume and complexity. But the overall fiscal impact is unknown and expected to be limited.

Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and present this critical Bill.

Thank you very much. And thank you for focusing on the fiscal aspect of the Bill. Appreciate it. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Welcome.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Cleo Bluthenthal with the California Community Foundation, and I'm here in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you very much. Others in support? How about in opposition?

Madam Chair and Members. Vanessa Lugo, on behalf of the California Bankers Association. Sorry. We'd like to thank the author. We're not opposed, but we'd like to thank the author for addressing our concerns and just appreciate all the fine work we've been doing and urge a support for this Bill.

Very nice. Anyone else in support or in opposition? The Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance does not have a position on this Bill, but notes that the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation estimate that this Bill result in minor and observable costs associated with increased compliant volume and—I'm sorry, complaint volume—and updating training and exam processes.

The Bill does not create a state reimbursable mandate because it does not require a new program or higher level of service to be provided by local agencies.

Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Yes.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to say first of all, thank you, but also thank you, the author, for working so diligently with industry, but also making sure you have the right language to not overtax DFPI. And with that, I just really commend you for your good work and thank you.

Very good. Anyone else? Seeing no further question. This does—I need a motion on this. Okay, there is a motion. Assemblymember, you may conclude.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate the comments. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. We have a motion. Motion is do pass. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That current vote is 6 to 0. We'll put that on call for the absent members.

Thank you very much.

We have an absent Member. Richardson. Okay, we're going to go back to eight.

Also have Assemblymember Jackson. Okay. We only have a couple bills.

Assemblymember Jackson, the floor is yours. We're going to take up AB 449. This Bill is a suspense file candidate, and the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Felt that this is important enough to present on this Bill. Over the last five years, California has seen a rise in hate crimes and in many cases, it's due to the intensified rhetoric that we see in the public space. And because of that, we understand that narratives matter, words matter.

And many cases, we have seen that, particularly, whenever a group that's part of a protected class enters the public domain, then we see a correlation the next year in terms of the rise of hate crimes. As a matter of fact, in the just most recent Attorney General report, hate crimes have increased by 8.9% from 2023 to 2024.

So, AB 449 would empower the California Civil Rights Department to create and carry out statewide media campaigns to discourage discrimination, to uplift the humanity of various individuals who are being targeted due to hate throughout the State of California. And upon appropriation, this Bill would also convene a working group to continue to develop plans to implement those campaigns.

Just like narratives can create dangerous situations for Californians, narratives can also create positive environments for those based upon protected classes. And this—so this simply just says that we need to create an infrastructure within the state, upon appropriation, that will be a part of the regular infrastructure to protect people, regardless of the situations that we find ourselves in.

And so, with that, Madam Chair, I ask that as we go into the suspense process, that you would give this Bill its day on the floor so that we can really have some good debates and begin to make sure that we move forward in this process to protect our most vulnerable people in California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone that would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Despite the merits of the Bill, Finance is opposed to this Bill because it creates significant ongoing General Fund cost pressures. Additionally, this Bill may duplicate existing state programs including the Department of Social Services Stop the Hate Program and the CRD California vs. Hate Initiative.

The Department of Civil Rights estimate costs ranging between 2 and a half to 25 million General Fund annually for the public education campaigns depending on the type, frequency, and the size of the campaigns.

Additionally, CRD estimates cost of 171,000 General Fund for the first year and 168,000 General Fund ongoing for one position to manage the working group and facilitate the creation and running of the required campaigns.

Very good. Are there questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. I do appreciate you coming and presenting it here today and I do appreciate the narrative that can drive how people think.

Anecdotally, the commercials that I really like, because I still watch TV, are the commercials that talk about people doing good things in the community and it makes me feel better about what's going on. So, I do appreciate it. This is a suspense item. So, seeing no questions or comments from the Committee.

This is a suspense candidate, and we'll move it to suspense. We're going to be moving AB 449 to suspense. So, I'll allow you to conclude.

I would just say that we developed this Bill idea with the Civil Rights Department. This Bill actually does not duplicate services. The State of California right now does not do public information campaigns to be able to make sure that we are enhancing the humanity of individuals.

And so, this is in addition to the Stop the Hate Campaign, which is totally different, which uses community-based organizations to help to educate people.

But we know where most people get their information out from and whether it's TV or social media or still traditional news sources, this is a gap that we have in our fight against hate.

And so, again, I think that this is an addition too—well I know this is an addition too—because I've talked with the Department and again, we, at some point, we have to say, are we doing everything that we can to protect our people? And with this, this helps us to get just that much closer.

So, I appreciate your time.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here today. AB 449 is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, we will move it to suspense. Thank you for being here. We're going to move back to AB 42, which is Assemblymember Bryan—bill by Assemblymember Bryan, who has waived presentation.

Is there any anyone who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 42 will move to suspense. AB 1099 by Assemblymember Bryan, who has waived presentation.

Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Testify in opposition? If you're in support, come forward. If I move too fast, how about in opposition? I'm looking and there's bodies moving, but I'm not sure where they're going. Opposition.

Good morning. My name is Roxy Ortiz and I'm representing the Association of Regional Center Agencies who represent the 21 Regional Centers in the State of California providing services and supports for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

We have no position in this bill, but I just want to highlight the cost associated with the additional workload that it will cost our Regional Center staff. In addition, the timelines was shortened in 2004 to be able to start looking at my notes here.

The timeline for processing the intake assessments increased from 60 to 120 days in 2004 for all populations in response to the budgetary reductions. Reductions are still in place today. We welcome the opportunity to continue discussions with the author to reach a consensus that will benefit our individuals with developmental disabilities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance. No file questions or comments from the Committee. Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1099 will move to suspense. We'll take one more bill and then we'll move on to a another do pass.

And that's AB 2220 by Assemblymember Jackson who has waived presentation on this one. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance. No problem seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a a suspense file candidate. So without objection, we will move AB 2200 to suspense.

Okay, we're going to move forward in the agenda to AB 960 by Assembly Member Garcia. Welcome. This bill has a do pass recommendation.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. Today I'm proud to present AB960 patient visitation rights, which has received bipartisan support and no opposition. Needing care at a hospital is stressful for everyone, but especially so for people living with dementia and other disabilities who have longer hospital stays and higher chances of readmission.

Individual hospital set caregiver visitation rules, leaving caregivers with frustratingly inconsistent standards across the state. AB960 ensures that patients with a physical, intellectual or developmental disability, cognitive impairment or demonstrated dementia needs can stay with their loved ones beyond standard hospital hours. Visiting hours. The California Department of Health Public Health estimates Minor costs to ensure compliance of this Bill.

And here with me to testify in support is Ms. Monica Miller, on behalf of our sponsors, Alzheimer's, L.A. Orange County and San Diego chapters.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Monica Miller, representing Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Alzheimer's San Diego and Alzheimer's Orange County, both. The sponsor, obviously, as well, in support of the legislation and here to answer any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Very good. Bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Seeing there is a motion due pass, you may conclude.

Well, thank you so much, everyone. Granting family, friends, caregiver, caregivers the right to stay and advocate for their loved ones greatly improves their quality of life. And so I thank you and I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Very good. Madam Assistant, please call the roll.

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

7 to 0. That bill is out. Thank you, ma'. Am. Thank you for being here today. Okay, we're going to go back to AB238 by Assembly Member Harabedian. Please call the roll for the absent Members.

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

That Bill is out. 7 to 0. Moving on, on the agenda, we're going to take up AB 255 by Assemblymember Haney, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dylan Elliott, behalf of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, proud sponsor, in strong support.

Thank you very much.

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

No file.

Committee Members? Seeing no questions. This is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 255 will move to suspense. AB 283 by Assemblymember Haney. Testimony in support? And he's waived presentation on this item as well. Testimony in support?

Good morning. My name is Mary Schluter. I come here from Fresno County. I am an IHSS provider. I am here in support of AB 283. Strong support. I've been a provider for 11 years, and I'm also a member of SEIU Local 2015, representing hundreds of thousands of individuals in California who want a statewide bargaining system for IHSS providers that offers more equitable wages and benefits across the state.

Fiscal benefits can be improved worker retention and reduce turnover, as well as potentially improving IHSS client outcomes, reduced administrative complexity and costs, streamline the bargaining process and reduce the administrative overhead in the individual county level negotiations.

Fairer allocation of resources while addressing disparities and promoting better access to care in areas with lower wages. Increase tax revenue at local, state, and federal levels. Reduced reliance on other social net programs by providers and families.

Improved quality of life for both providers and recipients. Mainly recipients, I want to showcase because they are the ones this program was made for and they are the ones that will directly benefit from a workforce that is steady and available, a workforce that doesn't have to leave for better wages.

Also, improved health outcomes for recipients due to consistent IHSS provider availability. Thank you. Going forward, as I know this is going to go to suspense, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of an IHSS provider role in a family. Many are family members, many are not.

It's a vital component of maintaining the family, which helps to maintain the community. And we all know that a state is made up of communities that need to remain strong. So, there's going to be transition pains if this passes.

But in the long run, the money that is spent towards IHSS provider wages is spent back into the system. So, the revenue, I believe, will be there, definitely, to help support and in other ways that we can't even anticipate right now, it's going to have positive benefits. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again, Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors. As outlined in our letter to the Committee, just have some structural and fiscal concerns about what this process could look like, but more detail in the letter and appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance is opposed to this Bill because it will fundamentally change the collective bargaining structure for IHSS providers and result in substantial new General Fund costs, potentially in the billions of dollars annually, which will exacerbate program costs. This Bill will result in substantial new General Fund costs potentially up in the billions, as mentioned, on top of the already rapidly increasing costs of the existing IHSS program by shifting IHSS labor relations to statewide collective bargaining.

For context, Finance notes that IHSS program costs have grown substantially and are projected to continue to grow.

Specifically, in 2014-'15 to 2019-2020, the IHSS program General Fund costs increased from $2.2 billion to $4.3 billion, a 95% increase. More recently, program costs are projected to increase from $4.3 billion to an estimated $11.1 billion in '25-'26, a 158% increase. Additionally, this Bill results in additional state operations costs.

The CalHR, if selected as the bargaining representative for the state, would incur ongoing General Fund costs of 3.3 million in the first year and 3.1 million annually thereafter. This includes funding for 15 new positions.

Finance notes that the 2025 Budget Act includes 3.2 million one-time General Fund and 15 positions for CalHR with statutory language specifying this funding is contingent on either subsequent statutory changes or AB 283 being chaptered with instructions on how the funding should be spent.

Very good. Thank you very much. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 283 will move to suspense. I want to thank you for being up here today. It's a long way and I appreciate your testimony. Makes a difference. Yep, absolutely. And thank you for your service.

It's a tough job. I do appreciate it. Moving on to AB 320, Assemblymember Bennett, who has waived presentation Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support? In opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Committee? Seeing no questions. This is a suspense file candidate.

So without objection AB320 will move to suspense. AB443 by Assemblymember Bennett who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Mount Renda Finance.

Finance is opposed.

To this measure because this bill will do the following. It will result in additional costs that were not included in the 25 Budget act, exacerbate the Energy Resources Program account's structural imbalance and potentially impose an unachievable deadline on the CEC.

The CEC estimates one time contracting costs of $250,000 IRPA in both 25-26 and 26-27 to include an analysis of the potential for curtailed solar and wind generation to produce hydrogen in the 2027 Integrated Energy Policy Report.

Questions or comments from the Committee saying none. This is suspense file candidate without objection AB 443 will move to suspense AB 346 by assemblymember Nguyen testimony in support.

Good morning. Roxy Ortiz, with the Association of Regional Center Agencies in support.

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

The Department of Finance does not have an official position on the bill. However, it notes that the Department of Social Services indicates that this bill has no fiscal impact to the Department as it only adds a definition and clarifies existing definitions for two different certifications for IHSS.

We note that the type of health care Professionals who can sign each form are different and this is reflected in the bill given. This bill does not expand who can sign each form. No fiscal impact is anticipated for the state or for the counties.

Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 346 will move to suspense. AB 347 by Assemblymember Kalra, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 347 will move to suspense. AB 1071 by Assemblymember Kalra, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition?

Good. Morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Andrea Tavenier on behalf of CDAA and the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office in respectful opposition to this bill, AB 1071 will cause significant and. Unnecessary financial burdens to this county and the state. I manage and practice in this area, so I'm here primarily if the Committee has any questions.

Very good. Thank you very much for being here.

Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance?

Not withstanding the merits of the bill, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it would result in General Fund costs not included in the state's current fiscal plan. The Judicial Council indicates the courts are currently implementing the Racial justice act and anticipate higher findings related to the expansion on January 1, 2026 under the current statute.

The Judicial Council indicates that this Bill will further expand the RJA and create additional workload, possible hearings and costs for the courts.

The Judicial Council is unable to determine a range of costs, but anticipates more cases to be remanded back to the trial courts to allow additional information to be added to the court record for the appellate court to take into consideration and allow for multiple petitions to be filed.

This bill could also increase workload for public defenders and District Attorney offices.

Thank you very much. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 1071 will move to suspense. AB 1109 by Assemblymember Kalra, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support?

Madam Chair, actually on behalf of a colleague whose client supports at the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians in support. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition?

Madam Chair and Members, Koby Pizzati, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and the City of Redwood City, in opposition. Thank you.

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

The Department of Finance is opposed to this Bill because it can result in General Fund impacts not included in the state spending plan and negatively impacts the state's ability to identify and investigate issues of workplace policy violations.

CalHR estimates unknown but potentially significant unbudgeted costs to the state related to dispute resolutions, arbitration fees, attorney fees, awarded damages, and other costs arising from the interpretation and application of this Bill.

Thank you very much. Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 1109 will move to suspense. AB 1528—I'm sorry, 1524—by the Judiciary, which would be Assemblymember Kalra. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

No questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 1524 will move to suspense. AB 349 by Assemblymember Dixon, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Oh, I'm sorry. Testimony in support? Move too fast.

Thank you. I was a little too slow there. Roxy Ortiz, with the Association of Regional Center Agencies in support of AB349. Thank you.

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

No problem.

Seeing no questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 349 will move to suspense. AB 1239 by Assemblymember Dixon, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

Notwithstanding the merits of this Bill, the Department of Finance opposes this Bill because it may create costs not included in the state budget, including costs associated with the potential creation of a state reimbursable mandate by requiring the DOJ to request new information for local agencies.

Finance anticipates unknown but potentially significant costs for the DOJ associated with updating Open Justice and its internal databases that include discreet arrests for human trafficking and statistics on victims of human trafficking.

Thank you very much. Seeing no questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 1239 will move to suspense. AB 1356 by Assemblymember Dixon, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB 1356 will move to suspense. AB 400 by Assemblymember Pacheco, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support?

Madam Chair and Senators. Kobe Pizzati, on behalf of the City of Bakersfield in support.

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

No problem.

Seeing no questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate, so, without objection, AB 400 will move to suspense. AB 424 by Assemblymember Davies, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support?

Madam Chair and Members, Kobe Pizzati, on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks and the cities of Carlsbad, in strong support.

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

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate, so, without objection, AB 424 will move to suspense. AB 440 by Assemblymember Ramos who has waived presentation. You're getting your steps in today.

I am.

Testimony in support?

Yeah. Madam Chair and Committee Members. Koby Pizote, on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in strong support. Support.

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

No file.

Is a suspense file. Candidate saying no questions or comments from the Committee. AB440 without objection will move to suspense AB477 by Assembly Member Maruci who who has waived presentation. Testimony in support. Testimony in opposition Department of Finance. No file Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file.

Candidate without objection AB477 will move to suspense AB499 by Assembly Member Ortega who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

This is a suspense file. Candidate saying no questions from the Committee. Without objection AB499 will move to suspense AB536 by Assemblymember Patterson who has waived presentation. Testimony in support Testimony in opposition Department of Finance. No file Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file. Candidate.

So, without objection, SB 536 will move to suspense. AB 537 by Assemblymember Ahrens—I'm having trouble reading today—who has waived presentation. Testimony in support?

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

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

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 537 will move to suspense. AB 542 by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez. Testimony in support? In opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file. Candidate without objection A.B. 542 will move to suspense A.B. 1357 by assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez who has Waived presentation, testimony in support, testimony in opposition. Department of Finance no file, no questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file. Candidate without objection.

AB 1357 will move to suspense spence AB 650 by Assembly Member Papia, who has waived presentation testimony in support.

Chair Members, I'm Kobe Pizzai, behalf of the cities of Bakersfield, Belmont, Carlsbad, Corona, Eastvale, El Cerrito, Foster City, Merced, San Mateo, Thousand Oaks and the Town of Hillsborough all in strong support.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kirk Blackburn, here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Government. SANDAG in support.

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

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 650 will move to suspense. AB 653 by Assemblymember Lackey, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

No questions from the Committee.

This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 653 will move to suspense. AB 670 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition. Department of Finance?

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 670 will move to suspense.

AB 689 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 689 will move to suspense. AB1007 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, who has wave presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Seeing no questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1007 will move to suspense. AB 690 by Assemblymember Schultz, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Seeing no questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate.

AB690 will move to suspense AB694 by Assemblymember Mckinnor, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it creates costs not included in the 2025 budget. It's determin duplicative of other existing reporting requirements related to DIR staffing and will result in additional workload for DIR that will redirect staff and efforts from other existing priority workload.

The Department of Industrial Relations estimates administrative cost of $571,000 in 25-26 and 1.1 million ongoing from the Occupational Health and Safety Fund to meet the coordination provisions of this bill.

Thank you very much. Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection. AB694 will move to suspense. AB 772 by Assemblymember Lowenthal, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate without objection.

AB 772 will move to suspense. AB 775 by Assemblymember Fong, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

The Department of Finance is opposed to this Bill because it results in General Fund costs not included in the 2025 budget.

The Fair Practices Political Commission estimates costs of 177,000 General Fund in the first year and 170,000 ongoing, which would fund one information technology position and associated software to expand and maintain the electronic behested payment filing system.

Thank you very much. Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection. AB775 will move to suspense AB798 by Assembly Member Calderon, who has waived presentation testimony in support testimony in opposition. Department of Finance no file. See no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate.

So without objection, AB798 will move to suspense AB846 by Assembly Member Connelly who has waved presentation testimony in support.

Ma'. Am. Chair Members Coby Pizzoti on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support in opposition Department of Finance no file, no questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file. Candidate without objection AB 846 will move to suspense AB 947 by Assemblymember Connolly, who has waived presentation testimony in support testimony in opposition. Department of Finance no file no questions from the Committee.

This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 947 will move to suspense. AB 1440 by Assemblymember Connolly, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

Finance does not have a position on this Bill. Both the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimate the cost to be absorbable.

Thank you very much. This is a suspense file candidate. Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. Without objection, AB 1440 will move to suspense. We're...next up, AB 1011 by Assemblymember Hoover, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

The Department of Finance does not have a position on the Bill, but notes concern it may result in General Fund costs to keep individuals in prison longer due to reduced credit earning opportunities for a subset of the population.

No questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 1011 will move to suspense. AB 1046 by Assemblymember Bains, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file...

Suspense file candidate without objection, AB 1046 will move to suspense. 1094 by Assemblymember Baines, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support. Testimony in opposition. Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance has no position on this Bill, but notes any increase to the prison population or sentencing links for incarcerated individuals would result in additional General Fund cost pressures.

Seeing no questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate without objection, AB 1094 will move to suspense. AB 1072 by Assemblymember Pellerin, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support. Testimony in opposition.

Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance does not have a position on the Bill but notes it could result in General Fund expenditures not included in 2025 budget and may create a state reimbursable mandate while unintentionally burdening counties with limited staffing and resources.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1072 will move to suspense. AB 1267 by Assemblymember Pellerin, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Seeing no questions from the Committee, this is the suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1267 will move to suspense. AB 1120 by Assembly—by Assemblymember—Elhawary, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? In opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate.

So, without objection, AB 1120 will move to suspense. AB 1131 by Assemblymember Ta, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate.

...candidate. Without objection, AB 1131 will move to suspense. AB 1208 by Assemblymember Addis, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opp-. Testimony in support. Welcome.

Hi. As a mom with a dis-...with a child, with a disability, a developmental disability, I'm in strong support of this.

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

Good morning. Roxy Ortiz with the Association of Regional Center Agencies. We have no position on this Bill, but just want to note that there is a cost associated to Regional Centers and we hope to continue to work with the authors and the sponsors to better estimate the Regional Center fiscal impact of this legislation as currently written. Thank you.

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

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1208 will move to suspense. AB 1288 by Assemblymember Addis, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support?

Ma'. Am. Chair Members Kobe Pizarro with the City of Vernon in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

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

No file.

No questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1288 will move to suspense. And finally, AB 1476 by Assemblymember Wallace, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support.

Good to see you all again. Koby Pizzati, on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in strong support.

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

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1476 will move to suspense. I want to thank you all for being here today. Your testimony is important to us.

For those of you that are still working on the fiscal, if you can get that into us, that would be really helpful. And that concludes a Senate Committee on appropriations. We are adjourned.