Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning, everybody. The meeting of the Senate Committee on Appropriations will now come to order. We're meeting today in Room 2200, of the O Street building. This is being televised, so we got to do certain things. The we're ready to take the roll call to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum, so buckle up, everyone. We have 285 measures on today's agenda. Three bills are eligible for a do pass motion, and the remaining bills will meet the criteria for referral to the suspense file. The authors, for all of the suspense measures on today's agenda, have waived presentation.

It means that they won't be here to present as usual. However, we will be taking testimony from the public on every single item. We are expecting significant power public testimony on AB 495. So we've scheduled that Bill as a special order of business at the top of the file.

So let me tell you what the Appropriations Committee is about. The bills go through policy committees in both the Assembly and the Senate.

And in those hearings, the policy is discussed, meaning what does the Bill do, how is it going to impact the community, and what the Committee Members think in terms of requiring the author either to make amendments or to do something in order to get the Bill out, by the time it goes through all the policy committees.

The Final Committee is the Appropriations Committee, which is this Committee here. This Committee does not look at policy issues. We look at fiscal issues. And what that means is we look at what is it going to cost the state to implement.

As you all know, we have a budget right now that is balanced, but that anticipates in future years that some cuts may need to be made. So any bills that are going to cost the state in the future are going to be looked at very, very critically.

So today, what we're going to be talking about are the fiscal aspects of the Bill. What is it going to cost the state. And so for those of you that want to talk policy some more, I'm probably going to interrupt you and I apologize, but this really is the fiscal Committee at this point.

If something doesn't cost the state very much money, it's a do pass recommendation, and it goes straight to the floor. And then we'll be debating the bills on the floor. All the rest, as I said, most of these bills are going to go to suspense.

What that means is it will be reviewed and decisions will be made within the next two weeks about whether they're going to move out at all. They may stay on suspense, which means then they don't go any further or they may move out.

And so the discussion today is should the Bill in the future move out based on fiscal issues. So that's what we're going to talk about. So before we begin, I want to remind any witnesses to limit their testimony, as I said, to the fiscal aspect. What does it cost.

And refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony of somebody else or in your testimony. So we've established a quorum. So we're now going to move on to the regular business of the day and we're going to take up File item number 1, AB 495 by Celeste Rodriguez.

And we're going to start off with this special order of business. The Assemblymember this Bill is a suspense file candidate and the Assembly Member has waived presentation. So we're going to move right into public testimony.

What we're going to do is give two minutes to lead witnesses to talk about the fiscal aspects of the Bill and then afterwards it's me too. And what that means is you're welcome to come to the mic.

State your name if you're affiliated with any organization, say the organization or what community you're from and say I support or I don't support the Bill. So are there any witnesses here who would like to testify in support of AB 495. Want to welcome you to come to the mic if you if you want to speak in support.

Anyone in support. Okay. Is there anyone here who wants to join add on as a me too in support. Seeing none. We'll go on to in opposition to AB 495. Anyone that would like to testify in opposition, the lead witness that would talk about the fiscal aspects of the Bill want to welcome you, please.

So my name is Greg Burt with Vice President of the California Family Council. And what I'm going to talk about today is regarding cost is the legal implications of this Bill and how the defend the lawsuits are going to come as a result. So I'm going to talk about some of the constitutionality, why it's unconstitutional. Right.

So the real concerns regarding parental rights revolves around something called the Caregiver Authorization Affidavit, which is being changed in AB 495. It clearly states three times that a parent's signature or a court seal is not required. That's not a side note, that's a signal. This form is designated to operate without parental consent.

Assemblywoman Rodriguez has said this Bill empowers parents. But the text of the affidavit tells a different story. What's more alarming is what the California School Board Association has already said in its legal guidance. A school is supposed to release a student to anyone who presents this affidavit, even if that person isn't on the child's emergency contact list.

That's not speculation. That's policy. So let that sink in. AB 495 would allow any unrelated adult who claims a mentoring relationship to pick up your child from school and make medical decisions without parental knowledge or consent. Now, from a constitutional standpoint, this Bill is on very shaky ground.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that parents have a fundamental right to the direct care, custody and education of their children. Legal experts, including attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom and several other lawsuits, have already warned that AB 495 will not survive legal scrutiny. This means that the Bill passes. It won't be just challenged, it will be defeat.

And when that happens, school districts and the state will be forced to face costly lawsuits funded by the taxpayers. So AB 495 is legally indefensible, practically dangerous and completely unnecessary. It dismantles parental rights and erodes the trust between schools and families. And for the sake of parents and children, we urge you, no vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you Sticking to the fiscal. Is there anyone else that would like to add on or anyone else that would like to testify. Another two minutes and then we'll move on to the, Me too. Thank you. And if you'll just leave it, it is hot.

Well, hello everybody. My name is Mrs. Aguilar. I am a legal natural US citizen. As an immigrant, a mother, a professional business owner, I am extremely concerned about this Bill.

Not only what has been mentioned previously, the two person office for $60 million that would be needed to uphold this, but also the guardrails that are not there, non-existent, invisible. How will we know these children really come from immigrant parents who are supposed to be protected by this intention.

How do we know where they're going. How are we going to verify, because it's not explained that the people that are going to get these children are not going to abuse them in any way. How do we know.

So you're going to stick to the fiscal, right. Gentlemen did a really good job of focusing on the fiscal, the policy issues.

Unconstitutional like he mentioned. I don't want to repeat word by word that he said what I want to say is we really need to put a human body going through this Bill that would be protected. I am all about protecting people.

If I had gone through through that situation myself as an immigrant child and my parents would have been taken before we were naturalized. I would not be standing in front of you. I would have made very wrong decisions and be okay with going with different families that would be offering safety.

We need to create guardrails to where it's detailed and specific that this is only protecting immigrant children that no longer have parents in this country and the people need to be vetted. There are things that we cannot accomplish even within adopting children that would be allowed with these children that would be taken.

We might be lucky that someone is going to take the child and be a good family for them, but we are not vetting that. It is extremely dangerous and extremely expensive in a crucial financial bankruptcy that we have in this state.

It is beyond my mind as an immigrant that the country that does protect, does help, does give you as much as you want to work hard for, is going to allow something that is so against everything this country stands for.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your comments here today.

You're very welcome.

Thank you. So if I could we started with the support but people were not ready to come in. So we'll take this is a little - we're going to zigzag between the two but testimony and support and you may have missed but we're focusing on the fiscal aspects of it.

Good morning. Kristin Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights and our co-sponsor, Public Counsel. And I just wanted to also share the support for All of Us or None, all voting members of North Hollywood Neighborhood Council, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, California Alliance of Caregivers, California Alliance of Child and Family Services, California Community Foundation, California Court Appointed Special Advocates Association.

California Faculty Association, California Legislative Women's Caucus, California State PTA, California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition, California WIC Association, California Women Lawyers, Californians Together, Catalyst California, Children's Law Center of California, County of Santa Clara, Dependency Advocacy Center, Dependency Legal Services, Early Edge California, Every Child California, First 5 California, Fresno Unified School District.

John Burton Advocates for Youth, Legal Aid of Sonoma County, Legal Assistance for Seniors, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice, Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Seneca Family of Agencies, Survivor Justice Center, and Sycamores. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for the time.

Katie Jennings on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Just the mic, please. Otherwise it goes up and down and it ends up breaking. Thank you.

Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Chair Law and strong support. Proud co-sponsor. I am a little worried about the opposition filming us and posting us on social media. So can we please ensure that our safety is also protected. Thank you.

We are going to have to be quiet, please.

I'm going to have order. People are free to come and say what they believe and if you don't like it, it's okay, you can leave. But we're going to treat everybody with respect here. Yes, sir.

Good morning. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association. On behalf of our 29,000 Members who work in the CSU, we stand in strong. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. We strongly support the Bill, as a result of cost savings due to clarity, of the provisions provided in the Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Lang Le, on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing justice Southern California and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support. Okay, we'll go back to opposition and want to encourage you.

Let's try to go with the front row first so that we kind of go row by row. That'll make sure everybody doesn't stand up at once. So if you guys want to come up.

Leslie Sawyer, Legislative Chair, California Moms for Liberty. Also representing Shasta County Moms for Liberty, Shasta County Board of Supervisors, Shasta County Office of Education, with multiple of their board members in strong opposition and definitely in support of any lawsuit that comes from this passage.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

Mrs. Aguilar, business owner, mother, strongly opposing this Bill. Thank you.

Hi, Denise Aguilar, co-founder of Freedom Angels. In opposition.

Thank you very much.

Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels. In opposition.

Meg Madden, on behalf of Women are real, Californians united for sex based evidence in policy, and law and our duty and parents and children who understand that there are bad actors and we have to protect children from them. In opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Nick Bussey, proud combat veteran and proud father of five children. And I absolutely oppose this Bill.

Jessica Enos with AV Parents for Education, and we strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Valerie Muzio, mother, grandmother, totally opposed this Bill.

Thank you.

Courtney Graves, and I am a mother, and advocate on 714. Strongly opposing this Bill. Please.

Hi, my name is Sabrina Williams. I strongly oppose. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Pamela Jump, I'm with Greater Works Christian Church Lancaster, and we strongly oppose.

Lydia Kanno, President of California Federation Republican women. Myself and 7,000 voter Members say no to this Bill.

Thank you.

Jess Sanders, Air Force, six kids, six grandkids. Representing the current Citizens for Freedom of 500 people, plus the Tea Party and the CRA absolutely oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Linda Willis, President of Bakersfield Republican Women federated and its 376 Members who are mothers, grandmothers and between us all, have thousands of children. We oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Jeannette Beeson, Revere Resource Group, Canyon Hills Assemblies Church, Discovery Church. We oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Greg Perrone. I'm the treasurer of the California Republican Assembly. And on behalf of our 3,777 Members. We strongly encourage you to oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Ken Muso, I have three children and five grandchildren and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Nathan Paul from Bakersfield. As a father of 3, 1 adopted and former foster parent, I strongly oppose this Bill. And I think your financial savings that you're potentially looking at are at the cost of the detriment of child's lives and upbring. Thank you.

Laura Paul from San Joaquin Valley. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Suzanne Perez from Santa Clarita, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Amber Arya, Stand Up Ministry leader, Calvary Chapel, Solano, in strong opposition of this demonic Bill.

Thank you very much.

My name is Clara Kelly. I'm a retired social worker. Worked for the counties for 25 years. I have read what this means and physically, if children are taken and the cost of placement out of home placement is costly for the state parents to.

parents to maintain their rights, the writing on this Bill can be a detriment for children, if the people are not vetted and don't have the background and license. That this can happen, that children can be taken will be costly. But thank you. Thank you very much. And I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sherri Pardo from Fairfield representing Calvary Chapel Solano, Stand Up Ministry. A mother of three and a grandmother of five. Strongly opposed, and as far as fiscal impact my question would be what price can we put on our children's lives. Thank you. Strongly opposed.

I'm Pamela McCready from Fairfield, California. I attend Calvary Chapel, Solano and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Ken Nelson from Fairfield, California, Liberty Church, and Calvary Chapel Church. They all disagree with this Bill because. It's going to be too costly. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Ashley Walter. I'm a mother of two and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Geralyn Fisher and I'm a credentialed teacher and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Audra Byers from Roseville, California. I oppose this Bill due to the fiscal impact of the state.

Thank you.

Sean McKeown, constituent, father of two, and I strongly oppose.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Megan McCune. I'm a mother and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi, my name is Luciano Lemons. I'm here from Sacramento, California, and I strongly oppose this bill as a child victim of a pedophile for years.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Margaret Holt. I strongly oppose this Bill and I strongly stand with families of California as a lifelong resident. So I thank you for hearing us today.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Virginia Barbro and I thank each and every representative here that stands up for children and parent rights. That is our constitutional right, is to help our children. And this Bill is absolutely not necessary because it's actually accommodating illegal kids and it's not by taxpayer dollars. And there will be a lot of lawsuits.

Appreciate your comments.

And worst of all, it's damaging children for life. Thank you.

Good morning, chair, Members of the community. my name is Joe McTarsney and I Pastor Calvary Montclair, and I'm a law enforcement chaplain. I stand before you today to urge you to oppose AB 495, because of the financial burden it will place on our state. This Bill require new programs, more staff, more oversight, and most likely invite legal challenges.

All these costs will be by California taxpayers who are already struggling under some of the highest taxes and cost of living in the nation. Every dollar directed to AB 495 is a dollar taken away from the real needs, like strengthening education, supporting law enforcement.

I hate to interrupt pastors. I'm sorry. This is the me too's. So it's just basically your name, identification and that you oppose the Bill.

All right, oppose the bill.

Thank you so much. I appreciate.

Diane McTarsney from Chino, California, Southern California. Flew up here this morning to tell you all, thank you for hearing our testimony. And we strongly oppose AB 495 due to its fiscal impact and the danger it puts our children in. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Jimmy Crowell. I also came up from Southern California just to speak up before you today. I'm a veteran, a grandfather A father and I strongly oppose. And physically, I'm tired of being a tax, a retired taxpayer, that this is just costing me money.

And you have a majority here that is showing you how much against it we are. But yet somehow this stuff always seems to do what it says. But as a taxpayer, I think it's going to just do nothing but cost us money. Thank you very much. I strongly oppose.

Bernadette Lumley, and I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Michaela Swaney. I’m the Founder of Catalyst Legacy and also the Legislative Analyst for CFRW, as well as a mother. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jamie Fowler. I'm here from Petaluma. I'm a school board trustee and mother of two, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Peggy Delgado Fava. I'm Executive Director for Bridge Network. We support many undocumented families, and I'm also a board trustee in Grass Valley. Pleasant Ridge Union School District. Strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Hello. My name is Elissa Loiza from Stockton, California. Mother of three. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Morning. My name is Mark Reed. I'm the Chairman of the Solano County GOP and a Member of the Solano County CRA and we oppose this Bill in any Bill that takes rights from parents.

Thank you very much.

My name is Dr. Karen Darnell. I have worked with many human trafficking victims. I'm also a registered nurse, and I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Sandra Crowd. I flew up from Ontario, California. To come and strongly oppose this Bill. I'm a grandmother and a mother.

Thank you very much.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Alyssa White. I'm from San Joaquin County. I am a single mother of a child on the spectrum, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Sophia Carstens, Los Angeles County. Strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Nathan Pierce, private and home educators of California, in opposition.

Thank you.

Emily Jones, founder and CEO of Home Tribe, in opposition of AB 495.

Adam Wilson. I'm a parent of two boys. Strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Dana Nakano from Folsom, and I oppose Bill AB 495.

My name is Mary Irvin. I'm with the California Federation of Republican Women from Sierra City, California, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Copy you want to get the last call.

Good morning. My name is Jennifer Lee, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Ma'am, it appears that's all we have in the hallway.

Okay, let me ask one more time. Is there anyone else who would like to testify either in opposition or in support. Want to encourage you to come in. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Chelsea Kolarik. I'm a homeschool mom, and I'm here to strongly oppose AB 495.

Great, thank you so much. Anyone else.

Hi. I'm representing David Bolog, who is on his way from the airport. He strongly opposes this bill; Serving Family Values Alliance of Los Angeles County Chapter of Moms for Liberty, in opposition.

Thank you so much. Appreciate that testimony. Anyone else that would like to testify in support or in opposition of this bill? Please come forward. We're finishing up the public testimony.

Hi. My name is Elizabeth Cord. I'm a California resident and homeschool my children. I oppose AB 495. Thank you.

Thank you very much. It seems like every time I say it, there's someone else that missed an opportunity, so I want to make sure that if you're out in the hallway or if you're here in the room and somehow missed the call, you're either in support or in opposition of AB 496. Please come forward. 495, I'm sorry.

I have a long day and I'm barely--so seeing no one else, we're going to thank the witnesses all for being here today and thank you for your testimony. As I said, this is a suspense candidate, but we're going to go to the Department of Finance and ask if the Department of Finance has a file on this matter.

We do, and good morning, Madam Chair and members. Christian Beltran with the Department of Finance. Notwithstanding the merits of the bill, the Department of Finance is opposed because it likely results in significant General Fund costs not included in the 2025 Budget Act.

This bill is estimated to result in General Fund state operation costs of $5.4 million ongoing to the Department of Social Services for 29 positions to provide technical assistance to child daycare providers, monitor license daycare facilities for compliance, and process reports from facilities reporting requests for access to immigration information.

This bill would unknown and potentially significant General Fund state operation costs to the Department of Education to provide guidance and technical assistance to local education agencies and child daycare facilities participating in the California State Preschool Program.

Lastly, to the extent that this bill adds to trial court's caseload, court backlogs may increase and could create pressures on the General Fund to handle the increased caseload. However, we note that the courts do not typically receive funding on a workload basis. Therefore, unless this particular caseload becomes significant and can be documented, it is likely to be absorbed.

Okay, thank you very much for that information. Bringing it back to the committee for questions or comments at this point. Yes, Senator Wahab. I'm the chair, so I--you--I saw you; you're it.

I first just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I hear the concerns of the parents and I also just want to share a little bit about this. I personally am the daughter of refugees, I ended up in the foster care system, and I will say that there is a lot more complications when it comes to children, their rights, their families, and much more.

I will also say that I think it was the best choice in the world for the American courts to ensure that both my sister and I stay in the United States in an area that has a lot of opportunity, a lot of safety, a lot of potential, and for two individuals that are currently both with graduate degrees plus--and serving their communities both locally as well as statewide, and we are just giving parents an opportunity to make a choice that is right for them, not every single parent will engage in this, and again, I will move this bill. Thank you.

It is a suspense document so it's not going anywhere. Yes, Senator.

Thank you. So I just want to make my position on this crystal clear. Today, what our choices are are that this we do pass, which means it goes straight to the floor or we put it in suspense where it gets some more thoughtful consideration and potentially never comes out of suspense. That's the best place for it. So I will be voting to put it on suspense. However--

Come on, please.

No outburst, please.

No, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this isn't a sporting event, so I just got to keep some order, and we've got, as I said, 285 bills that we're going to be looking at today so I want to--so I do apologize, but that's the way it is. Go ahead, Senator.

My concerns with the bill are not only cost-related, but this has some serious public safety issues that never went through Public Safety Committee. I'm on that committee and we never heard this bill. And those public safety issues can cost millions and millions of dollars in investigations, in addressing complaints, in addressing abuse of the system.

So I'm not sure how this escaped going to Public Safety other than doing the education route was the easiest route. So, you know--and then we've already talked about the other fiscal implications of this: social services, the administration of this program, whatever it is.

So, you know, that's, that's why the best place for this is to put it on suspense and that's why you see everybody voting yes today to put it on suspense. We don't want this going directly to the floor. Okay? That's all I just want to make clear. Thank you.

Very good. Any other comments or questions? Yes, Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to commend all of you for your organizing and coming out and sharing your perspective. It really does make a difference when we hear from the public.

I'm not on any of the committees that happen to have heard this bill, so this is actually my first time learning a little bit about it. So as my colleague, Mr. Seyarto just mentioned, the bill will be going into suspense, which gives everyone a more opportunity to study up on it.

I would also encourage you to continue the legislative process and make sure that the governor is also aware of your concerns because regardless, once what happens here in Appropriations then goes on the floor, even if it gets to that point, the governor still has the opportunity to say yay or nay by a veto vote.

So I just--anytime I see a large amount of people who've taken the time to come from Southern California, which is where I'm from, to voice your concerns, we certainly do appreciate it. So thank you for being here.

Thank you very much. Seeing no further comments or questions, this is a suspense file candidate, so without objection, AB 495 will move to suspense. Thank you very much for being here today. I really appreciate it. We're going to go on. That was on a special order of business.

We're just going to go through the bills in the order that we have them on our agenda. So we'll start with AB1 by Assemblymember Connolly. Assemblymember Connally has waived presentation. Is there anybody that would like to speak in support of the bill? Anybody that wishes to in support of the bill?

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks.

Hold on. We'll get you hot. There you go.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in support.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in support of AB1? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it results in additional costs for the insurance fund not included in the 2025 Budget Act.

CDI estimates this bill will result in cost of 131,000 in insurance fund in 26-27, 279,000 in 27-28, 52,000 in 28-29, and 523 in 29-30. Every year thereafter to review if regulations need to be updated with additional building hardening measures for property-level mitigation efforts and community wildfire mitigation programs.

Finance notes that the insurance fund balance has declined in recent years, and additional cost pressures could increase the risk of insolvency.

Very good. Any comments or questions from the committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate without objection; AB1 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB419 by Assemblymember Connolly, who has waived presentation. Anyone here in support? How about in opposition? Support or opposition? Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance is neutral on this bill as it requires schools to post information related to immigration enforcement without creating new cost to the state.

Thank you so much. Questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 419 will move to suspense. AB 806 by Assembly Member Connolly, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Committee, questions or comments? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 806 will move to suspense. AB 1096 by Assembly Member Connolly, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Committee, questions or comments? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1096 will move to suspense. AB 1140 by Assembly Member Connolly, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition?

The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it could result in general fund costs not included in the state's current fiscal plan and is redundant of efforts by the administration.

Department of Finance.

CDCR estimates this bill could result in significant but unquantified fiscal impact due to the short-term increase in workload for the Classification Services Unit to review cases files to determine eligibility for participation in the pilot.

The department may also experience downstream consequences which could result in a fiscal impact including increased costs for inter institution transfers to support the pilot program, processing a higher volume of grievances and appeals from incarcerated individuals not included in the pilot program, and greater demands for the staff training and data management to meet the tracking reporting requirements contemplated under this pilot program.

Okay, thank you very much. Questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1140 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 7 by Assembly Member Bryan, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Testify in opposition? Yes.

Thank you. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support of AB 7.

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

No file.

Committee, questions or comments? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 7 will move to suspense. AB 247 by Assembly Member Bryan, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition?

Once again, Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support of AB247.

Thank you so much. Testimony in support or in opposition. Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance has no official position on the bill. However, it notes that the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CAL FIRE, estimates that the bill will result in approximately eight to 19 million general fund annually.

Actual costs are related to the increase, will be paid from the annual emergency fund appropriation within CAL FIRE's budget and will vary from year to year depending on the level of fire activity. And as well as the California Department of Corrections estimates that this bill will result in an additional one million dollars general fund annually for support staff and system updates.

Questions from the committee or the questions or comments? Seeing none. This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 247 will move to suspense. AB 651 by Assembly Member Bryan, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Comments or questions from the committee? Seeing none, this is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 651 will move to suspense. AB 1456 by Assembly Member Bryan, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support? Testimony in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Comments or questions from the committee? This is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1456 will move to suspense. Okay, I'm looking for the--this is what people are waiting for, right?

Umm, these guys that are here. They're here.

Yeah, that's what--that one. Okay. Okay. Why don't you give me that little sticky because I'll just jump to them. So I, I understand that there may be like two or three bills left that a majority of the people here want to listen to, so if it's okay with the committee, I'll go ahead and call those bills out of order so that you don't have to listen to the entire agenda of the Appropriations Committee. So what--we have taken up 495, so why don't we move on to AB 84, which is Assembly Member Muratsuchi's bills--bill--and we'll take that up. Again.

Again, this is a suspense file candidate, and I'll call AB84 by Assemblymember Muratsuchi, who has waived presentation and want to ask anyone who would like to testify in support of the bill again, fiscal, to please come forward and state your name for the record. Start with those in support of the bill.

How about those in opposition to the bill? Yes. We'll give you two minutes at the beginning. Yeah, I've kind of not been worried too much about it because people have been pretty brief. But if you want, I can do the timer, and then when it goes off, you'll be really unhappy. So I know how this works.

Yes, please hold on. Let's get the mic turned on. There we go.

Hi, I'm Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels. We have been running political, legislative strategy, and community organizing opposing AB84, for this bill most absolutely is a fiscal battle. It shouldn't be. It should be about kids and their educations.

And if you know anything about charters, homeschools, and the small business service vendor that support them, then you should know that this is an ecosystem. And this bill, AB84, has been crafted by the competition to that ecosystem. They have quite a few labor and financial gains that they will get from if this bill were to pass.

There's been a lot of work on this bill to try to get it to a place to be what it's supposedly about, oversight. Everybody wants fiscal oversight. Nobody, everyone wants it in charter schools; everyone wants it in public schools.

But this bill was crafted by opposition, who don't understand the complexities of the ecosystem and who frankly don't have the same financial or educational motivators for the kids. And that's evident in the parts of AB84 that are an attack. They are not the oversight, very much of this. You can look at Section 43.

That's in part what that will do is require these small business vendors to be an employee of the charter. This is going to wipe out a large number of small business vendors.

What this does alone is it not only will it affect people who are in PSAs and homeschool PSAs, it will affect people in brick and mortar charters. It will infect the entire ecosystem. It will also, when you look at the authorization pieces of AB84, that I was very pleased to hear Senator Cabaldon's policy statements in committee.

He clearly understands this ecosystem. It's very complex. I've tried to do a charter 10 years ago between two counties. Everyone's forced to go to look for small authorizers because there is a fiscal game being played at the local level around authorizations. And it's not to the advantage of all the kids that need to be served.

Whether you're talking incarcerated youth, special needs youth, you're talking families that travel from military, pregnant teens. Fiscal. Well, the fiscal impact on all these, like for example, let's just target special needs. The cost for their services to go back into, they're not going to, their needs aren't being met.

They're using non-classroom-based because their needs aren't being met in the school systems. What we need above all is this robust ecosystem, and this bill will not do it. Yes, there's a 60 million dollar cost for the oversight.

This is an unfunded mandate that is going to be far more than just those numbers of 60 million or whatever it costs every year to keep an oversight budget. This bill isn't going to get at the issues that we all want to see addressed, and it's going to damage the ecosystem. What about what are.

Is that the two minutes?

Thank you very much.

Yeah, you're pretty close.

Okay, well, you get, it's going.

Thank you.

I was waiting for the word fiscal. And so you know what? We're at two minutes. So, thank you.

Very much.

Hi, my name is Jessica Enos. I'm the leader of AB Parents for Education and a charter school mom, here to represent the hundreds of thousands of parents whose children attend charter school across the state. AB84 may appear intent on increasing oversight and accountability in charter schools. However, the proposal poses significant threats to educational flexibility and equity.

By slashing funding for non-classroom-based charter schools, potentially up to 30% and imposing new administrative costs, the bill disproportionate, disproportionately undermines programs that cater to vulnerable students, including low-income families, students with disabilities, and those needing alternative learning models like independent study or homeschooling.

Fiscally, this bill will bring a loss to federal and local matching funds, increased oversight bureaucracy, which will add millions in recurring administrative costs. Instead of directing dollars to our classroom, this will divert those needed funds to bureaucracy and enforcement.

This bill will also strain Prop 98 education guarantee, as this bill will force more students to return to traditional schools. This bill will also cost my family thousands of dollars a year. My children attend charter schools in the area and utilize all their resources.

Without these resources, my children will lose out on vendor services such as tutoring, the arts, and sports. These vendors, who are majority small business owners and family-owned businesses, will in turn go out of business.

Take the thousands of dollars that my family will lose, and now multiply that again and again and again and again to the hundreds of thousands of families that utilize these resources. It's a ripple that will affect thousands of not just students and parents, but others in our communities.

Thank you very much. Now we're on to the me toos'.

Okay. I'm Jeanette Beeson from Rivera Resource Group in Kern County, also represent the Canyon Hills Assemblies Church and also represent Discovery Church. And we are in opposition to the bill due to the administrative costs that are going to be entailed. So we are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Jess Sanders, father of six homeschooled people, one of them who was the youngest of the culinary arts in Kern County. I think this bill is not only going to hold back those that need the help to achieve, but it's also going to help hold back the achievers because they're trapped in there.

So representing homeschoolers and charter schoolers in Kern County and KRC of Kern County, who has a school there, they absolutely oppose this bill.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Hello, my name's Elizabeth Cord, and I'm a parent and educator of young students here in California. I oppose AB84, and you all should too. AB84 offers no solutions for the problems existing in typical brick and mortar schools that are the reasons parents and students seek out school choice options. But.

Thank you, ma'am.

It adds a hefty price tag, adding unnecessary.

Ma'am, we've already taken the two witnesses that testified for two minutes each. So now this is just the me too's.

That was unclear, that was unclear to me. I prepared this statement over weeks, and just now. So me to, I oppose. But that is unfair to like a huge audience. I didn't, I was not aware of that. I've never been here before.

And so I would like to, to read my statement. It would take under 30 seconds.

Understood.

I already have.

Then send it to us today. This is just going to suspense. Your testimony will be included in the, in the hearing notes that we have, and you can.

If you'd like, you can take that statement, type it up, send it in an email.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Maybe next, let's make it a little more clear. I did not understand the other, the bill that came beforehand had a lot of, had a lot of people.

No, there were only two people who gave testimony. People went beyond, and if, please.

And now, now everybody else got to go beyond. But I don't get to go beyond? Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Meg Madden, charter school mom for 20 years, both homeschooling and brick and mortar. And on behalf of longtime homeschooling charter moms Heather McClure, Audra Starrett, Amy Rush, Nicole Young, Charlene Wilson, homeschool charter teachers Wendy Brandt, Stephanie Gutierrez, also Amy and Ben Anderson, parents of a disabled child who is thriving in his charter homeschool.

And on behalf of their organization, California Disabled Students for Equitable Education Options, and for Californians for real representation, making California less appealing to families and small business educators is a fiscal disaster. In strong and informed opposition to AB84. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sofia Karstens, Decentralized America. Strong opposition.

Thank you.

My name is Kainoa Pa. And I go to Heartland Charter School, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

My name is Makayo Pa, and I am a charter school student, and I oppose.

Thank you for being here today. It's great to see you.

My name is Nathan Pa from Bakersfield Heartland Charter School parent, and I oppose this bill not only for the financial impact of the charter school, but also for the financial impact of the public school system as well.

Thank you very much. Are this, are the boys yours? Yeah. Thank you for bringing them. I really appreciate it.

Linda Willis, Bakersfield Republican Women Federated, and a credentialed teacher. I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Greg Perrone with the California Republican Assembly, and as a husband of a teacher, we are strongly opposing this bill. Thank you.

Hello. Michaela Swaney, founder of Catalyst Legacy and also Legislative Analyst for CFRW, and on behalf of both, I strongly, we strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, Chelsea Kolarik, homeschool mom. It's the first day of school. There's nowhere else we'd rather be today. We oppose AB84.

Thank you.

My name is Ollie Kolarik, and I strongly oppose this bill. It helps, my charter school helps me pay for my martial arts.

Thank you for being here today.

Hello, I'm Andrew Byers, and I'm a homeschool student from Roseville. I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you so much for being here today.

My name is Ethan Byers. I'm a homeschool student. I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you.

My name is Abigail Byers. I am a homeschool student from Roseville, California and I strongly oppose.

Thank you for being here.

My name is Audra Byers. I'm a homeschool parent from Roseville, California and I oppose AB84 for fiscal reasons.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing your kids.

I'm Ellie Fisher. I'm a student at Feather River Charter School, and I respectfully oppose this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Aliya Fisher, and I respectfully oppose AB84.

Good job. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Geralyn Fisher. I am a credentialed teacher with Feather River Charter School, and I oppose. I respectfully oppose this bill for fiscal reasons.

Thank you.

Placer County, Roseville. Thank you for your service. As you tell I'm not a student, but I am a father of five, two of which who are on the spectrum, who have thrived on our non-classroom home-based programs. So on the behalf of my family and for the sake of parent choice, I absolutely oppose this bill. Thanks.

Thank you so much. We like you here, even if you're not a kid.

My name is Benjamin Trilley and I oppose AB84.

Bernadette Lumley, and I oppose AB84.

Good job.

Thank you very much.

Leslie Sawyer, Moms for Liberty California, California Legislative Committee, and all of the California chapters. We are in strong opposition of this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Rhiannon, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you for being here.

My name is Avin Walter, and I'm with CORE Charter School, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ashley Walter. I'm a homeschooling mother of two through CORE Charter School, and we strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Peggy Delgado-Fava, Board trustee for Pleasant Ridge Union School District. We are expanding our charter schools, and we need to have alternative education for those with special needs and limited, and trauma-based, all of that. We just need to have one more point. 30% estimated. Okay. All right. The fiscal.

We're looking to lose possibly 30% funding in our charter school, so that's, that's fiscally impacting.

Greg Burt with the California Family Council, Vice President. Three of my kids were in charter schools. One still left, so. Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ken Nelson from Fairfield, California, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Laura Pa, and I oppose this bill.

My name is Kalea Pa, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Jamie Fowler. I'm a school board trustee in Petaluma at Liberty School. We also do oversight for Hartwood Charter, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Sean McKeon, constituent and strong opposition.

Thank you.

My name is Megan McCune. I'm a homeschool mother, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Luciana Lemons, Sacramento, California, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Margaret Holt, Santa Cruz County. I oppose AB84.

Thank you.

Amber Arias, Stand Up Ministry, Calvary Chapel Solano. I'm also a homeschool mom of seven children and eight grandchildren in strong opposition.

Hi, I'm Suzanne Perez. I'm a homeschooling grandmother and I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I am Virginia Barbro from Solano County, and I oppose this bill. My grandchildren moved out of the state because they didn't have the resources, so I believe we need to support them.

So that they'll stay.

Thank you.

My name is Claire Kelly. This time, I'm appearing as a grandma, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sherry Pardo, Fairfield, Calvary Chapel Solano, and strong opposition of this bill. Thank you.

Pamela. Pamela McAledy from Fairfield, California, mom and grandma, and I oppose this bill, AB84.

Thank you.

Sabrina Williams, I'm a mother of seven, I am a grandmother to four. I'm also a homeschooling mom, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Courtney Graves, mother of three and also part of the Feather River Sequoia Grove Charter School with my daughter and we are strongly opposing this bill.

My name is Pamela Jump with Greater Works Christian Church Lancaster, and we oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Denise Aguilar, co-founder of Freedom Angels. We represent over 10,000 families in California. We are very pleased at the strong bipartisan opposition to this bill, and we oppose.

Thank you.

Lance Christensen, California Policy Center, along with dozens of other of a broad coalition of opposition to AB84. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Cynthia Rachel, with the Alliance of Parents for Personalized Learning Education, and we oppose this bill.

Thank you.

I'm Tiffany Millen. I'm the Director of the Natomas Homeschool Alliance. We have about 50, a little over 50, employees who will be out of work if this bill passes. So, on their behalf, I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you.

Kristin Welch, I'm a teacher at home school, Natomas Homeschool Alliance, and I second everything my boss just said. Thank you.

Thank you. I guess you kind of have to, right?

Good morning again. My name is Jennifer Covatier Lee, and I'm the founder of a nationwide homeschooling resource center by the name of homeschoolingthehood.org. AB84 adds costs without funding, oversight without accountability, and dismantles programs that work. At a time when California ranks near the bottom of the national report card, I urge you to please reject this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jaden Lee. I'm a nine-year-old homeschooler representing I lead homeschooling the hood, and I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you for being here.

Hello, my name is Phoenix Lee. I'm a 13-year-old college student from Los Angeles. I am representing, I lead the charter school, I lead the homeschooling community, homeschoolingthehood.org, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

My name is Luke Jensen. I'm from Sacramento County, I'm a charter school student, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

My name's Isaac Jensen. I go to the South Sutter Charter School, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you so much for being here.

My name is Hilary Jensen. I'm a homeschooling mom of seven children. We use charter schools. We are spending our first day of school here because we strongly oppose this bill and the impact that it will have in all the small businesses that we work with.

Thank you. Thank you so much for being here.

Hi. Tara Thornton, homeschooling mom, also co-founder of Freedom Angels. We represent all 58 counties, and we're really impressed and grateful for the robust and strong bipartisan opposition.

Thank you so much.

My name is Mark Reed. I'm the Chairman of the Solano County GOP as well as a father of six, including one in charter school in Vacaville, Californi,a and one in a private school in Vacaville, California.

I oppose this bill not only because how it's going to affect my children, but also because how it's going to affect marginalized and low-income children in Vallejo, California, through a program where Solano Community College is working with the charter schools and dual enrollment to help these children enter college. As an employer, we need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

Jessica with AB Parents for Education. And we strongly oppose this bill.

These are the me too's, please.

Hi, my name is Tim Lazorco, a father of three homeschoolers. My wife Dana. We strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you very much. I think your son wants to say something.

My name is Ava Lazorco, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you so much.

My name is Wesley Lazorco, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good job. Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

My name is Nicole Urbanoski. I'm a homeschool parent with Heritage Peak Charter, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

My name is Desmond Urbanoski and I go to Heritage Peak Charter and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you very much. Good job.

Hi, my name is Mary Frederick. I'm a credentialed California teacher and the administrator at Foothill Learning Academy, and I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Allison Kunze. I'm a parent with Sequoia Grove Charter, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kelly Ayers. I'm a parent with Cottonwood Charter, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you very much.

Hi, Rachel Murphy with Public Advocates. We were at the end of the line, but we are in support of this bill.

Very good. Thank you so much.

I'm Geeta Sharma with Public Advocates, and we support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Isabella Kunze. I'm a charter school graduate and an honor student at Sacramento State, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

I'm Logan Ayers of Cottonwood Charter School and I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you very much for being here.

I'm Oliver Kunze, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Melissa Grace. I'm the founder of San Diego Rise Up here, representing 20,000 people across San Diego County. I'm also the mom of a 16-year-old non-classroom-based charter school student who is excelling in the programs. I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you very much.

My name is Ruby Kunze. I'm a charter school student, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Zia McCrory. I'm a charter school student, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Emily Jones. I'm the founder and CEO of Home Tribe. We're an international platform that represents education and family-friendly experience. We have over 2,500 California businesses and vendors that will be affected by this bill. So I oppose AB84.

My name is Abigail Bodiford, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you very much for being here.

I'm Samantha Bodiford. I'm a homeschool parent and a family physician, and I strongly oppose this bill. I'm concerned how it will impact community vendors.

Thank you very much.

I'm Elizabeth Copper. We are with Natomas Charter School Pact, and we strongly oppose AB84. You want to say it? Say your name.

I am Emma.

I oppose this bill.

And I oppose this bill.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for being here, Emma.

Hello. My name is Linda McCrory. I'm a charter school parent, and I oppose AB84.

Thank you.

My name is River McCrory. I am a charter school student and I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you so much for being here.

My name is Jeffrey Copper and I'm a charter school student and I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Crystal Barton, and I'm a charter school parent, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you so much for being here.

I'm Barton, and I strongly oppose AB84.

Good job. Thank you for being here.

Thank you so much.

Hello. My name is Carol Barfuss. I'm a traditional school parent as well as a charter school parent, and I oppose AB84.

Hi. Dr. Karyn Darnell, doctor of counseling and registered nurse. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

When I was a baby, I was in brick and mortar school, until it gave me anxiety. But when I switched to home school made me feel way better. Please don't type away my freedom. Vote no on AB84.

Thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate your testimony.

My name is Christina Vavak, and I am a charter school mother of three, and that was my oldest boy. And I strongly oppose AB84.

Thank you so much. You did a great job. Thank you for being here.

Thank you very much for being here.

I'm Ethan Vavak. I'm a Sacramento County resident, and we rely on the programs that charter schools provide for us, and this bill would negatively impact a lot of those programs that we rely on. So for that reason, I strongly oppose this bill.

Alyssa Wyatt, San Joaquin County, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Kristen Holmquist, I'm a mother of two. I have a neurodivergent son and neurotypical daughter, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you so much.

My name is Ivy Vavak.

And we strongly oppose this bill.

Mine's Gracie Holmquist.

Great job.

My name is Jacob Holmquist. I'm a formerly homeschooled kid and now homeschooling one of those little girls and my son. And we all strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Appreciate it very much.

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference in opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Anyone else want to testify either in opposition or in support?

Mrs. Aguilar, homeschooling parent of three, strongly opposing this bill.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair. Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil, representing Senate District Four, Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo, El Dorado, Madera, Mono, Mariposa. Madera. I said Madera, Nevada, Placerville, Tuolumne, Stanislaus. Standing here with the hundreds and hundreds of parents, homeschool parents, in opposition to this bill. Thank you for allowing for public comment today. And I strongly urge your opposition.

Thank you so much. Appreciate you being here as well.

Good morning, Madam Chair. David Bolog, on behalf of Serving Family Value Alliance. And I know also already that Liberty LA County chapter has been mentioned, but we do have many homeschool parents in that district. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify either in support or in opposition to AB84? Going once, going twice, seeing no further testimony. Department of Finance.

No file.

There is no file. So we're going to check with the committee.

Yes, Senator Seyarto.

Yeah, I want to make a couple of clarifying remarks. Again, this is a big deal. It is one of the big deals in my district.

And I want to make sure people know we're crystal clear on what this process is and what we're doing today and where the next point of interest should be for everybody. Even though the testimony part of this bill is over, it goes through the process still. On the 29th is when we do what's called the appropriations drop.

And that's where everything on suspense. The things that are on suspense are the things that cost too much money. So those things are all in suspense, and that's when we'll the committee determines, not this committee, the committee determines what comes out of suspense. That's when it goes to the floor.

The last two weeks of this session, we will be in session from like 10 o'clock in the morning till sometimes midnight, going through every single one of these bills.

And I can assure you at that point, hopefully, your legislators have all heard you loud and clear, and they will convey your message on their comments on the floor. So thank you guys, everybody, for coming and throughout the whole process this year of trying to combat this bill.

But we will be, you know, the process will go forward, and now it's kind of up to the legislature to try and do the right thing on this. Thank you.

Seeing no further comments or questions from the committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So, without objection, AB84 will move to suspense. Again, thank you very much for your testimony here today. It's important. Okay. We're going to move on to one other.

Well, I'm going to take out of order again a bill that has a do pass recommendation. If the Assembly Members show up on their do pass recommendations, we take them out of order, so we're going to take up AB 1339 by Assembly Member Gonzalez. It has a do pass recommendation. You may proceed, Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members. All right. Pleased to present AB 1339, which requires the Department of Insurance upon appropriation to study the availability and affordability of property, liability, and builder's risk insurance for affordable housing entities.

The Department of Finance estimates costs of $89,000 in 2025 through 2026 and $125,000 in 2026 to 2027 from the Insurance Fund to complete this study. The study must be completed within one year of that appropriation, ensuring accountability and a clear return on the investment.

Why this is fiscally important: rising insurance costs are straining affordable housing providers because rents are capped by law. These providers cannot offset premium hikes the way market-rate housing does and developers can.

Without affordable insurance options, providers are pooling from reserves, cutting services, or deferring maintenance, all of which increasing long-term costs to the state by undermining housing stability and triggering greater reliance on public safety nets. This targeted one-time study is a modest expenditure compared to the potential fiscal risk of affordable housing projects failing, stalling, or collapsing due to unmanageable insurance costs.

This comprehensive study--again, I just want to reemphasize that unlike market-rate housing, where the cost can be offset through the rent increases or profit margins, affordable housing providers operate under strict regulation on rents as well as significant financial constraints as mission driven-organizations.

So, many times--again, these affordable housing projects can take up to ten years, and when they do take up to ten years to get built, then it often takes even longer and insurance premiums continue to go up and you cannot pass that along to the affordable housing renter, especially if they're on a fixed income, and so this study will provide that second chance and give it a lifeline.

Do you have any witnesses in support here today?

Not today, but I can do a quick closing.

Let me check and see if there's anybody who wants to testify in support or in opposition and then we'll allow--and then the Department of Finance and we'll allow you to close. So is there anybody here that would like to testify in support of AB 1339? Anyone here in support? Seeing none, anyone here in opposition? Department of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Nothing to add outside of what the author had just mentioned. Thank you.

Very good. Any comments or questions from the committee? Seeing none, you may conclude.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members. AB 1339 represents a small, one-time limited state investment to protect billions of dollars in public and private affordable housing development already in progress. It gives us the fiscal tools to prevent greater costs down the line. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1339.

Thank you very much. This is--this does entertain a do pass recommendation. Is there a motion? Motion by Senator Seyarto. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Current vote is four to zero; we'll put that on call for the absent members.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. For those of you in the audience, that means it just goes to the floor and then we'll argue it out on the floor, but thank you very much, Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Okay, now we're going to move on to AB 727, which is the González bill. And he's waived presentation on this bill. We'll start off with testimony in support. Testimony in support. And we're on AB 727. How about testimony in opposition?

And again, we're going to do what we did the last time, the last two times, which is there will be two main witnesses with two minutes each, and then we'll go to the me toos. So if anybody is hurt because they don't get to be a principal witness, I'm sorry. So I'll say that in advance. So please go ahead.

Okay. My name is Denise Aguilar. I'm co-founder of Freedom Angels. The Legislature is creating a disservice in conflating mental health services and the Trevor Project. The fiscal impact cannot be measured by the analysis because the lawsuits will bankrupt school districts. My 14 year old son came out at the same age I did at 12. So I very much understand what the LGBT children are going through.

And I'm thankful we're in a time where it's different than the 90s. But the job of myself and my ex wife is to support and protect our children by all means. But when the state begins to mandate websites like the Trevor Project that have chat rooms for children and adults. Because remember this is for ages 13 to 24 with no age verification.

With rooms labeled age regression and gay men in it, it binds our hands in that protection. Any member in those chat rooms can privately message any other member and direct them to spaces like Snapchat. Beyond the tens of thousands this will cost schools with lawsuits it will be in the millions.

For example, Michigan 10 year old girl, parents filed a federal lawsuit claiming their daughter was groomed on Roblox, engaged in explicit content exchanges and pressured with sexual images and involvement through Discord and Snapchat. Alabama a lawsuit alleges a 13 year old girl was manipulated through Roblox Robux and approach for assault.

Iowa 13 year old, this case involves abduction and rape by a 37 year old man who allegedly met the victim via Roblox. Claimants argue Roblox created a hunting ground for child sex predators. Georgia, 9 year old, mother filed a lawsuit launching a state court alleging failure of safety features allowed predators posing as children to groom her.

In a school district like mine where our city is in a deficit, schools are already suffering. Passing this will put only put our schools in even more behind when we should be focused on education and truly supporting mental health services. Because parents like me, if my children engage in the Trevor space and get groomed on that social media site, I will absolutely launch a lawsuit against the school district and the state. We should all be supporting mental health services.

We should be supporting our children on one common ground, not based on who they sleep with or who they're attracted to. The Trevor Project is a dangerous website that the New York Times calls a grooming paradise. The fiscal impact to California will be in the tens of millions and will bankrupt schools like mine. So in that, I ask for you to vote no on this bill.

Thank you very much.

My name is Melissa Grace, Southern California certificated paralegal and parent of a 16 year old daughter. You know, I want to keep this focus on the fiscal impacts as it relates to this committee, and I want to acknowledge Member Seyarto's comments in regard to AB 495 regarding the cost of investigations and, you know, necessary lawsuits on the back end.

So there's two issues I think fiscally we need to look at here in regards to the fiscal impact is the front end. And we know the front end is, you know, going to fall on the one time payments that the school districts will have to make and that may be it, right, on the front end. However, what we're not looking at is the, as my colleague mentioned, is the impacts, the risk assessment that this opens up.

And I think that in order for something like this, and as a gay woman with a wife and a 16 year old daughter who also went through adolescence and struggled with my identity and some of the things that I had to deal with, there is an absolute need for mental health support for LGBT youth. There's no doubt about that.

However, this is a school sanctioned program that puts kids, at risk kids, in the hands of potentially further predatory behaviors and other things that are at risk. And so what I think that is most important to take a look at is the implications of what it means to have a school district mandating this. Right.

It's going to be on every student's ID card and what liability that opens up the school districts and the State of California. Because I too, first of all, my daughter doesn't even have a cell phone because of the potential risks that we're seeing in the situation with Roblox and other things where adults can get their hands on kids virtually and sometimes in person. So I try to protect her as much as possible.

I would absolutely not allow her to participate in this program. Instead, I would be seeking out other options, which there are other options that are already in place that have no fiscal impact to the State of California, and I would encourage her to utilize those services.

So I think that this is a bit redundant and I also think that the risk that it poses both for the student's well being as well as the State of California makes it pretty obvious that this is not a good decision. And I urge you guys to oppose that and put it in the suspense file, and we'll do the back leg work to make sure that the legislators as well as the Governor knows where we stand on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Now we're on to the me toos in opposition. Anyone who would like to testify in opposition?

Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels, protector of children, in opposition.

Thank you very much.

Hi. Meg Madden on behalf of Women Are Real, Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law, and Our Duty. Also on behalf of Nicolle Young of Moms for Liberty Placer County, and on behalf of all child and teen victims of grooming and adult survivors of grooming like me, in opposition to AB 84. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Greg Burt, California Family Council, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Sofia Karstens, Decentralized America, in strong opposition.

Suzanne Perez in strong opposition.

Amber Arias, Calvary Chapel Solano Stand Up Ministry. Also mother, grandmother, and I'm also a survivor of childhood sexual abuse from a pedophile in strong opposition.

Claire Kelly, retired CPS worker, strongly opposed the to this bill. Thank you.

Jessica Enos with AV Parents for Education, and we strongly oppose this bill.

Courtney with Natoma 714, strongly oppose this bill.

Sherry Pardo, Stand Up Ministry, Calvary Chapel Solano, strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Sean McKeown, constituent, father of two, strongly oppose this bill.

Megan McKeown, I'm a mother and I strongly oppose this bill.

Luciana Lemons, Sacramento, California, and I strongly oppose this bill as a survivor.

Emily Jones, founder and CEO of Home Tribe. I'm also a mother, and we preserve parental rights on Home Tribe platform. I am in opposition of AB 727.

Leslie Sawyer, Legislative Chair, Moms for Liberty California, every Moms for Liberty chapter in California. And also here representing multiple trustees from Shasta County Office of Education's Board, where we notified them we will be filing suit if this passes.

Dr. Karen Darnell. I oppose this bill.

Margaret Holt in strong opposition of this bill.

Peggy Delgado Fava. Pictures of the chat room that the Trevor Project has on their website in the guise of connectiveness. I'm a survivor of being molested in school. Strong opposition to this bill.

Thank you for being here.