Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Ready?

Yeah. Yeah. Ready.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for being here, this afternoon, on 03/25/2026 at Room 447. We're going to start the committee hearing. We may have to pause until we get authors to come in. But first, I want you to let you know that testimony for this hearing will be in person.

We also accept written testimony to the position of the portal on the committee's website. As we proceed with witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that insights or threatens violence.

The rules for today's hearings include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject of bills or information being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may be subject may be subject to removal or other enforcement actions.

And we want to welcome to local government committee's hearing. We have eight bills on our agenda today, including two on consent, AB 1622 by Assemblymember Rubio and AB 1834 by Assemblymember Patel. But I wanna first welcome Assemblymember Johnson to Local Government Committee. We look forward to have you on this committee. Welcome.

I also wanna thank Kat from the Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee for file—filling up today up, here for someone that is no longer eligible. We call we used to have Marissa here all the time, which has recently retired. Thank you for being here and helping us. We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for the remaining of the bills. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony.

All subsequent witnesses should state their names, their organization, and their position on the bill. We don't have a quorum yet, so we will operate as a subcommittee until we're able to establish a quorum. And since we don't oh, we have an author now. Yes. The field the first bill up today is AB 1625. Assembly member Nguyen, please proceed when you are ready. Yes.

Abby presents a b sixteen twenty five. This is a very simple bill we have in our district, Sacramento Regional Transit District Act, also known as SACRT. Currently, the law allows the board of directors for Sacramento Regional Transit District, also known as SACRT, to meet up four times a month and establish a $100 stipend per meeting. Typically, the board is to conduct business business for the month in one meeting.

This bill makes a minor change to act by reducing the number of times the board of directors are allowed to meet from four to three.

The bill also makes a modest increase to the stipend amount from 100 to $200 per meeting. Doing so will preserve SACR T's efficiency while ensuring that Sacramento maintains reliable access to public transportation. And here to answer any technical question is Greg Fishman, senior community relation officer for SACR T.

That's quick statement. Thank you, mister chair, members. As Assemblymember Wynne noted, this bill does two things. It reduces the number of meetings, the maximum number of meetings our Board Members can be compensated for and increases their compensation. It's worth noting our board recently reduced the number of meetings scheduled per year from 20 last year to 12 scheduled for this year.

It's also worth noting that our board compensation has not been changed since 2006 when then assembly member Roger Nilo carried legislation and governor Schwarzenegger signed it into law, increasing it to its current level of $100. Our board is made up of 11 members in total. We do not expect this increase in board compensation to create any fiscal difficulties. It's simply a matter of updating compensation that hasn't been changed in twenty years, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much for resending the bill. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? We have none? And do we have any any question from committee member? Alright. So thank you so much. We don't have a call room right now. So Yep.

When you have a Let's

take a vote. Yep. We will have a call room. Yep.

When the time is appropriate, I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you, mister chair and members.

Alright. So we have another bill, AB 1621, Assemblymember, oh, Wilson.

Okay. Yes.

Thank you, Vice Chair Ta, member—I guess I say members. Yeah. There is more than one of us. So, members of the committee.

I'm pleased to represent AB 1621. This aims to strengthen the integrity and efficiency of California's housing approval process. Currently, delays in post entitlement permits both slow down housing production and drive up cost, making homes less affordable for Californians. Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California's highs in crisis—housing crisis, excuse me.

As highlighted by the assembly select committee on permitting reform, these delays continue to slow production, increase costs, and make housing less affordable. This is why I've chosen to reintroduce this legislation as AB 1621, building on AB 660, which I'm thankful all of you supported in committee last year. AB 1621 builds on existing law by establishing clear timelines and real accountability for local agencies to process post entitlement permits, ensuring that improved housing projects can actually move forward.

It also provides applicants with a clear path when agencies fail to meet their obligations. This legislation aims to streamline the housing approval process, targeting areas where housing developers have experienced significant issues.

This bill would prohibit local agency inspectors from requiring a project to make changes in field that would deviate from plans a local agency has already approved. It stops local agencies from delaying the process by sending applications to outside reviewers and limiting how many times they can ask applicants to revise and resubmit their plans.

Now, while we've heard some concerns about AB 1621, it is important to note that local agencies can go beyond the two-plan check limit if there's strong evidence that more review is needed to address a serious health or safety issue. AB 1621 simply closes gaps and improves existing laws regarding the timeline for local agencies to act on post entitlement permits.

With me today to testify on the importance of this legislation are Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of California Building Industry Association, and Debra Carlton on behalf of the California Apartment Association.

Thank you. Good afternoon, vice chair, members of the committee. Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, along with Nick Cammarata, our general counsel here, if there's any technical questions. And we're here in strong support of AB 1621. This is critical legislation needed to improve the efficiency, fairness, and accountability of the post entitlement permitting process for housing development projects.

California is in the midst of an unprecedented housing supply and affordability crisis. And despite legislative progress in recent years, particularly with the enactment of AB 2234 rebus, which established important procedural timelines for local agencies when processing post entitlement permits, serious barriers remain that continue to delay much needed housing across the state.

AB 1621 addresses those barriers and strengthens the existing framework with a narrowly tailored approach by prohibiting last minute field checks that contradict previously approved plans, limiting excessive plan check resubmittals, and closing loopholes that currently allow indefinite extensions of the shot clock. The need for these reforms is clearly documented.

As highlighted in the final report from the assembly select committee on permitting reform last year, failures in the permitting process have an outsized role in the oversized—or in the overall housing crisis with delays direct—directly—contributing to increased costs and uncertainty for developers.

This not only affects the viability of projects, but also impacts affordability for future homeowners and renters. AB 1621 offers a balanced and common-sense solution that does not override local control or compromise safety. Instead, it creates a clear, consistent, and accountable framework that ensures timely permit processing, fair treatment of applicants, and ultimately, the ability to deliver housing our state so desperately needs. For these reasons, we support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Yes.

Yes. Good afternoon. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. Of course, our housing shortage is, is not just about approvals, but what happens after the approvals. The apartment industry faces a considerable amount of delay with these replans and rechecks.

Sometimes it can take us up to five to eight years to get a project—at least a shovel in the ground. This builds on prior reforms and would create predictability and accountability and I think what this also does is strikes a balance. It maintains local authority as you've heard earlier and safety standards while promoting a more transparent and efficient process. At a time when every delay means money and fewer units that are delivered, improving the process with AB 1621 is incredibly important.

And we thank the author for presenting this bill, and we request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you so much for that. And do we have any witnesses in opposition?

We're in support.

Do you have the me toos? The add ons?

Oh, do we have any other witnesses in In support?

Support. Yes. Oracio Gonzalez, on behalf of California's Business Roundtable and the California Business Properties Association, in strong support.

...with Housing California in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Land House Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR, San Diego Housing Commission, Habitat for Humanity California, Fieldset, and California Union, strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nicole Quinonez on behalf of Cal Chamber in support.

Alright. Thank you so much. Do we have any any witnesses in opposition, please?

Good afternoon. Mark Newberger of the California State Association of Counties, also making comments on behalf of the League of California Cities and the Rural County Representatives of California. Wanna thank the author and the sponsor for listening to our concerns, as well as the committee for the analysis outlining what the bill seeks to do and as well as how the interacts our concerns. Unfortunately, though, I'm here today to register our oppose unless amended. Our letter outlays our concerns and details, so I'll just reiterate the major points.

The bill would eliminate local government's ability to enforce non-health and safety regulations and local and state and local building codes, such as air quality regulations pertaining that interact with building codes, as well as solar energy requirements and other green codes. We're also concerned with the reasonable person standard the bill creates as it is concerning, you know, utilizing the standards given the safety and risk issues that are addressed in current building codes that trained professionals spend years working with to understand and appreciate.

There's a reason why state requires licensors and standards of practice for engineers, architects, and building inspectors that work in the building code area and don't just entrust their critical work to whomever is interested and thinks they're a reasonable person. I think the final thing I wanna reiterate is the bill needs to be amended to address the incomplete non compliant applications. The language is kind of a little bit tricky around how we would deal with those.

This is really important that given that bill is kind of folded into the Housing Accountability Act, a denial of a noncompliant application has significant ramifications and I think for the most part, building officials have been said, we wanna get the applications that are noncompliant and missing up to where they need to be in the post entitlement phase process. We do look forward to working with the offices and sponsors on the bill to address our concerns and wanna thank you all for your time today.

Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who opposed the bill? Please come up. Alright. I see none.

Any question from committee members? I see none. And any closing statement from Assemblymember Wilson, please.

Thank you, Vice Chair. And I would like to note, you know, I, I enjoy great relationships with CSAC and League of California's or Cal Cities, and we'll continue to work with them to ensure we can address some of the needs that they have. I will note when it comes to the additional plan checks that may be caused by air quality districts or others, those can happen in the first two.

And so, you know, those are ones that should happen in the first two and not in the field. And what we're trying to eliminate is those filled ones.

And so, what we feel like this bill does is it streamlines the housing approval process by closing those loopholes and local permitting timelines, holding agents—agencies—accountable when they are the cause of the delay, not when the developer is the cause because of incomplete applications. And so, helping ensure Californians can build housing faster and more efficiently, we wanna cut red tape, and this bill supports timely housing development to better meet our state's growing needs.

And with that, at the appropriate time where we have a quorum, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. We will cast a vote when we have the quorum. Thank you. Alright. So, next bill, AB 1722, Assemblymember Pacheco.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I am here today to present Assembly Bill 1712. A district specific bill to aid one of the cities I represent, Santa Fe Springs. Santa Fe Springs owns a water system that faces groundwater contamination issues and requires urgent infrastructure upgrades. However, due to the system's small size, the city cannot afford a finance to finance these upgrades without at least a 300% increase to to customers' rates.

In contrast, if the city sells its system to a larger water provider, that provider will have the capacity to spread the cost across a much broader customer base, allowing rates to remain steady. However, under current law, a public entity must hold a municipal election before selling its water system to a PUC regulated provider, adding cost and delay for the city and its residents. Instead, a b seventeen twelve allows the city to proceed through a protest process facilitating a smoother, more affordable sale.

After the sale, the water system will be regulated by the PUC, which will help to ensure reasonable and stable rates for residents. A similar approach was successful in a nearby city, which is the city of Montebello under a b eight fifty in 2021, where rates remain stable after the sale.

With me today to speak in support of the bill and answer any technical questions is chairman James Enriquez from the city from the City of Santa Fe Springs Public Works. He's a public works director. Thank you, and I will hand it over to my witness.

Good good afternoon, vice chair and members of the committee. I am the public works director for the city of Santa Fe Springs. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am here asking for the committee's support to move this bill forward. This bill is critical to the city of Santa Fe Springs. As stated, the the city has been operating its wet water enterprise for several years with a structural deficit. That is for a number of reasons, and and it will continue to operate in a structural deficit for the foreseeable future. The, although the city did raise rates by 30%, several years ago, that simply has not been enough to keep up with inflation from decades of of the city not keeping up with inflation in terms of rates. It's left the city in a situation where, there's decades of deferred deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects that we now know can no longer afford. Since we're in a structural deficit, we've got literally no capital funding available for these upgrades or repairs. The city currently has about a $150,000,000 of deferred maintenance. That's a combination of very old age distribution piping that needs to start to get replaced real soon. But more importantly, two wells our our two wells are inoperable because of contamination. We're estimating right now that each well will take at least 8 to $10,000,000 to bring back online. And in the meantime, the city, you know, for the last several years and again, foreseeable future, are are dependent 100% on imported water, which is significantly more more expensive than the water that we would be able to produce. So I I asked the committee's support in moving this bill forward and helping the city consolidate sooner than later with a larger water purveyor that would have the resources to make these improvements and ensure that the the citizens of Santa Fe Springs had a reliable water source and some sort of rate stabilization. Our our current studies indicating that we will have to triple rates at the at the very least to start a a capital improvement program.

Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who support the bill? Please come forward.

Gabriel Menards on behalf of San Gabriel Valley Water Company in support.

Good afternoon, chair members. Caitlin Johnson with political solutions on behalf of California Water Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in our position? See none. Anyone else who oppose the bill? See none.

Any question from the meeting members? Alright. So any closing statement from the other?

Thank you, mister chair and members. At the end, thank you for allowing me to present this very important bill. On behalf of the residents of Santa Fe Springs, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. We will cast a vote when we do have a quorum. Alright. So we have a next bill, ab 2080 from Assembly Assembly member Johnson.

Ready?

Yes.

Okay. Great.

Thank you. Well, welcome to the committee, and welcome to my first available presentation in Lococa. It's a big day. Good afternoon, mister chair and committee members. I'm here to present ab 2080 a very straightforward measure intended to improve local government efficiency and remove unnecessary administrative burdens.

Under current law, county boards of supervisor county board of supervisors must go through a formal renewal process every single year to delegate investment authority to their county treasurer. This creates a reoccurring administrative hurdle that serves no practical oversight purpose but carries significant technical risks. In many cases, simple scheduling delays or agenda backlogs can cause this one year period to lapse, putting the county in technical noncompliance with the law.

This uncertainty can impact not just the county government, but also the school districts and special districts that rely on the county's investment pools. AB twenty eighty fixes this by shifting from an annual renewal model to an ongoing delegation that remains in effect until the board chooses to revoke it.

To be clear, a county board of supervisors retains full control and can affirmatively revoke this authority at any time. The bill also ensures transparency by requiring the board to establish specific monthly or quarterly reporting requirements for the treasurer within the county's investment policy. This bill is sponsored by the California Association of County Treasures and Tax Collectors and has no opposition on file. It is a common sense fix that provides stability to local investment operations while maintaining strict board oversight.

With me to testify this afternoon is Chuck Lomeli, the Solano County Treasurer tax collector and vice chair for the California Association of County Treasures and Tax Collectors.

Good afternoon, mister chairman, committee members. I'm Chuck Lomeli as the assembly member just indicated. I wanna thank the assembly member Johnson for sponsoring ab 28 on behalf of the California Treasurers Association. Current law allows the board of supervisors to delegate investment authority to the treasurer. The delegation can only be granted to the treasurer and must be delegated annually. This bill will remove the burden of annual delegation and allow delegation to be effective until we vote by the board of supervisors. The bill protects the public process. This change promotes efficiency for the treasurer, the county administrator, and the board of supervisors removing unnecessary administrative burden. It also reduces the risk of unintentional lapse due to administrative delays, and it helps avoid compliance risks. Additionally, it provides clarity and stability for participants in the investment pool, including school districts and special districts. I would encourage a an aye vote. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who who support the bill? Do we have any witnesses in our position? Do we have anyone to oppose the bill? I see none.

Any any comment from committee members? I see none. Oh, is there any

You'll see why I'm making a comment. Thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. Of course, we wanna ensure that the least amount of bureaucracy that we can have, the least amount of time wasted on paper, possible. And so thank you for bringing that forward.

And I would just like to this happens to be my, elected official in my county, so I wanna say thank you for coming and testifying on this bill and having leadership position, within the association as well as this is your last year of service, is it?

It is. That's correct.

And so wanted to make sure in public we say thank you for your service on behalf of Solano County.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you so much. And any any closing statement?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We'll cast a vote when we have a quorum. Oh, we do have quorum right now? Okay.

We have to take attendance.

So, please.

Carrillo, Ta?

Ta here. Johnson?

Here.

I'm here.

Johnson here. Pacheco?

Here.

Pacheco here. Ramos? Ransom? Rubio? Stefani?

Yeah.

Stefani here. Ward? Ward here.

Wilson?

Here.

Wilson here.

So who were to entertain a motion? Okay. So we have a motion and a second for AB.

2080.

2080. Yep.

That's item number 6AB2080. Motion is do pass. Carrillo. Ta?

Johnson, aye. Pacheco?

Ta, aye. Johnson?

Aye.

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Ramos, Ransom? Rubio? Stefani?

Aye.

Aye.

Ward, aye.

Stefani, aye. Ward?

Aye.

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

Wilson?

Thank you so much. And we have a next bill, ab 2180.

Oh, yes, please. So

Walk.

can I have a motion and a Second on consent item? Okay. We have a motion and Sec and the Second on the consent item. Yeah. Consent item go first. Yes. Okay.

Items on the consent calendar, item number two, ab 1622. Motion is do passed. Item number five, ab 1834. Motion is do passed as amended. Carrillo? Ta?

Aye.

Ta, aye. Johnson?

Aye.

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Ramos, Ransom, Rubio, Stefani.

Johnson, aye. Pacheco?

Stefani, aye. Ward?

Aye.

Ward, aye. Wilson?

aye.

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

Alright. So I Samuel. War?

Well, thank you, mister chair members. Pleased to present here today a b twenty one eighty, a measure which would update the prop two eighteen omnibus implementation act to provide clarity, consistency, and a practical framework consistent with industry best practices for water agencies setting proportional rates which are in compliance with the constitutional requirements of prop two eighteen. Now in 1996, California voters adopted prop two eighteen, which requires water rates to be, quote, proportional to the cost of service attributed to the parcel.

To meet the strict proportionality requirements of prop two eighteen, public water suppliers routinely hire experts to develop proportional rates backed by rigorous cost of service data and analysis. And despite this diligence, high water users have regularly challenged these rates in courts alleging any constitutional violations.

So recent appellate courts have reached conflicting decisions regarding the constitutionality of some methodologies used by water providers when setting water rates, specifically tiered water rates. And this has created significant uncertainty for water agencies attempting to comply with Prop two eighteen's proportionality requirements, including one of those court cases from my home city, the city of San Diego. AB twenty one eighty would address this issue by codifying the framework established in the 2025, December Dreher decision. It was Durer v, the City of Los Angeles. And that found that water agencies may base tiered rates on source of supply costs even when supplies are commingled.

Secondly, that tier, breakpoints do not require cost based justification. And thirdly, the agencies may rely on peak pumping and storage costs to support higher rates in those upper tiers. A b 20 January would follow the precedent set in Dreher and used by water agencies for decades across the state, preserving the core constitutional requirement that rates not exceed the proportional cost of service while giving agencies the flexibility to use reasonable industry standard methodologies.

By establishing clear legal standards based on the Dreher framework framework, the bill protects both water agencies and rate payers by reducing costly litigation and ensuring that low use customers are not subsidizing infrastructure costs, which are driven by high use customers. For witnesses in support, I have Soren Nelson, senior senior policy advocate at the Association of California Water Agencies, and Ludwig Karouf, the partner in the special districts and public finance practice groups of Best Best and Krieger.

Thank you, mister chair. Member Soren Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies, proud to sponsor AB twenty one 80 and appreciate Assembly member Ward's leadership on this issue. Prop two eighteen is the foundation upon which most of the spending in on water in California is built. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that 85% of all spending on water infrastructure in the state happens at the local level, and that's funded primarily by water rates. As financial support from the state and federal government becomes less reliable, that number is only expected to climb. Public water agencies are held to a higher transparency and public engagement standard than any other utility when setting rates. Public water agencies are accountable to their communities for the money they spend and are constantly striving to balance the cost of providing safe and reliable water with the need to keep water affordable for Californians. Unfortunately, despite the high standards to which water agencies are already held, opportunistic lawsuits have become more frequent and created what is quickly becoming an impossible legal landscape for our local governments to navigate. As climate change accelerates and our infrastructure continues to age, the ability to set water rates that accurately reflect the impact of high volume water users on our water systems is critical. Because the courts are reaching conflicting conclusions about how water providers should comply with Prop two eighteen, it is now both appropriate and necessary for the legislature to weigh in. AB 2180 will give public water agencies the clarity they need to set rates without diluting the consumer protections built into Prop 218. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Lufi Karouf. I'm the chair of the legal affairs committee for the Association of California Water Agencies. I'm also a partner at Best Best and Krieger where I head the taxes, fees, and assessments practice group. Agencies across California share a simple goal. It's to set constitutional water rates that proportionally recover the cost of safe and reliable service. The fundamental problem and the issue that count all Californians should be concerned about is the legal uncertainty over how those costs are allocated. Proposition 218 was adopted thirty years ago. We're still litigating the most basic terms in the constitution. And just to be clear, the portions of prop 218 that deal with proportionality are less than half of a page of the constitution. So there is a lot of room for clarification. The uncertainty is spawned in industry of unnecessary litigation that delays critical infrastructure, undermine state policy objectives, and ultimately makes water more expensive for the average user. This uncertainty is is reflected in conflicting appellate decisions. Capistrano Taxpayers Association versus the city of San Juan Capistrano directed agencies to set water rates in a manner that ensures that average and below average users don't subsidize the cost of water, don't pay for infrastructure that their level of usage is not required. However, recent cases like Patz versus City of San Diego and Koziar versus Yotai Water District provide no realistic path to achieving this goal. These two cases impose unclear and candidly unworkable evidentiary requirements that do not actually exist in the constitution without direction on how water agencies can actually achieve them. Dreher versus LADWP can confronts these issues head on. It takes a direct and practical approach that aligns proposition two eighteen and that agencies can follow in a confident confidently set constitutional water rates. But Dreyer stands on equal footing with prior published decisions, which means the law remains in conflict. The legislature can act within its authority to provide the much needed clarity. I recognize that the Supreme Court has granted review and. That makes legislative action more, not less important. The California Supreme Court has already looked at looked to the legislature to interpret ambigu ambiguous terms within proposition 218 for example, in the context of voter secrecy by looking at the prop 218 omnibus implementation act. And the real the real situation here is that agencies are struggling today to figure out how to set constitutional water rates. Finally, the Supreme Court's review is narrow. It will not resolve the full range of practical questions agencies face when setting water rates, including how to allocate capital costs. Ab 2180 provides a practical path forward. It reconciles these conflicting decisions and establishes a clear workable framework. In some, I respect respectfully request to receive.

Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who want to speak in support of the bill? Please come forward.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, Andrea Abruzzo with the California Municipal Utilities Association. Strong support.

Good afternoon. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Caitlin Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties in support, also on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jamie Minor on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, Pleased to support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Danny Merkley with the Guaco Group on behalf of, Kings River Interest and, Stockton East in support.

Good afternoon. Baltazar Carnejo with Brownstein on behalf of Otay Water District in support.

Good afternoon. Lily McKay on behalf of West Valley Water District in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kyle Jones on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program and Community Alliance with Family Farmers in support. Thank you.

Jack Werson on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Aleveenhayn Municipal Water District, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, and the City of Ventura in support.

Good afternoon. Adam Quinones, California advocates on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency in support.

Brian Paulson with El Dorado Irrigation District in support.

Good afternoon. Ryan Ojakian with the Regional Water Authority in support.

Good afternoon. Cyrus Stiefers with the Coachella Valley Water District and Las Virgis Municipal Water District in support.

Good afternoon. Brenda Bass with KP Public Affairs on behalf of Western Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Marty Farrell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance in support.

Good afternoon. Kendra Begley on behalf of City of Roseville in support.

David Quintana on behalf of San Diego County Water Authority, Irvine Ranch Water District, and East Valley Water District in support.

Thanks, everybody. Thank you, mister Chow, for sharing the committee in my absence. I believe that we now have a quorum. Can you we already have that? We already done that. Okay. I believe those were, in support witnesses, any primary witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon, chair and committee, and to the author, and and proponents. My name is Scott Coper. I'm with the Howard Drivers Taxpayers Association. I actually agree with the proponents that there is that there needs to be clarity in the water water rules is currently, you know, that Dreher was mentioned. Dreher directly conflicts with the Pat's decision and the, Koisier decision. And so I think clarity is needed, but that clarity is going to come from the Supreme Court, which has taken up the Dreher decision. And this bill has as the author acknowledged, its foundation is based on Dreher, and Dreher is unsettled law. So we believe that the that the bill as currently written is premature. It's not necessary if, the Supreme Court upholds Dreher, and this bill is not necessary because Dreier's law. If the Supreme Court decides to split the baby and take some uphold some aspects of Dreier and reject others, then we'll be back here next year clarifying the clarification. And if the Supreme Court ultimately rejects rejects Dreier, then much of what is in this bill we feel is unconstitutional, and we frankly feel it's unconstitutional as currently written in proposition 218. So that we we ask that you vote no, because we think this is premature, and it would be best to wait and see what the Supreme Court decides. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Thank you for that. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in opposition, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors, also in respectful opposition to the bill.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, I take it to committee members, Assembly member Lori Wilson.

Just a follow-up question on the what was proposed by the opposition in terms of the court case. And could you explain from your point of view how that relates to this work and the timing of when you would expect to have some type of ruling handed down?

Appreciate that. And I think limited to that issue, I think it was kinda mentioned by one of my witnesses. But as you know well and we all know well, the legislature has the opportunity to improve upon the statute for which the judiciary would then interpret what the legislative intent was.

And so because the ambiguity is currently existing that is underwriting either the past decision or the Dreher decision, we can provide that clarity right now and get ahead of this to make sure that we are more effectively allowing water agencies using formula they've used for decades, in a way that is consistent with supporting our policies, that low in low use users should not be subsidizing high use users.

So I hear that the timing is important to now so that there is clarity for the water agencies, but also to potentially guide further judicial review Correct. With the legislative intent the legislative intent being clarified as well.

And hopefully provide, you know, some, more immediate relief to water agencies that today are frozen. They don't know what to do. They've already adopted these regulations or maybe they wanna change the rates that are coming up, at their next rate changing, rate setting, cost of service study. I think the faster that we can provide that clarity for them, the better off everybody will be.

Any other committee member with questions or comments? Seeing none. Would you like to close assembly member board?

I think I just respectfully request your aye vote. I think it's important that we marry up our policies on making sure that more Californians, especially as we're moving to a more water efficient future for a lot of our residential homes, that we are supporting that with policies, rate structures that are actually also supporting them as well. I respectfully request your aye vote.

We had a move. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second, by miss Pacheco. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Item number seven, ab 2180. Motion is do passed. Carrillo?

Aye, but I didn't miss to say thank you, Assembly member Thank you, mister chair. For presenting today. I will support your bill today. The motion is do passed. Okay. Thank you. aye.

Okay. Carrillo, aye. Ta?

No.

Johnson, no. Pacheco?

No.

Ta, no. Johnson?

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ransom? Rubio?

Aye.

Aye.

Stefani, aye. Ward?

Rubio, aye. Stefani?

Ward, aye. Wilson?

Aye.

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

The vote is six to two. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you, mister chair. And we're gonna move on to agenda item number eight, ab 2640 by Assembly member Hadwick. Whenever you're ready, Assembly member.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this issue. When a law executive order or state agency directive imposes a state mandate, a local government must be reimbursed for implementing that new mandate. These mandates are usually in the form of a new program or a higher level of service for an existing program. State mandated programs carried out by local governments are critical to California's health, safety, and quality of life.

The process to get a mandate approved for payment often takes several years, all while local governments are forced to comply with state mandates using their own money. Unfortunately, California owes cities, counties, special districts, schools, and community colleges over $1,800,000,000 of unpaid state mandates. Even after reimbursement is paid out, an audit may force the local government to pay that state back pay the state back.

This happened to Shasta County in my district who was forced to pay back over $1,000,000 for money that was spent on a child abduction and recovery program. This program was approved for reimbursement in 1979, almost fifty years ago.

Unfortunately, this repayment must occur even if the state owes the local government money for other unpaid mandates. For small rural counties that are already on tight budgets, repaying even a fraction of what little reimbursement they are owed can cripple their financial health. AB twenty six forty creates a mechanism that allows a local government to offset any reduced reimbursement from the other unpaid reimbursement claims. This bill brings financial relief to cash strapped local governments by helping them hold on to critical funding for their under resourced communities.

AB twenty six forty is a modest and sensible solution to provide desperately needed flexible fiscal fiscal flexibility for my communities.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I am joined today by Shasta County Auditor Controller, Nolda Short.

Thank you, chair Carrillo and members of the committee. My name is Nilda Short. I'm the auditor controller for Shasta County. Thank you for allowing me time to share our story today and express support of ab 2640. So we recently had a four year audit of our largest claim, and it was from 2017 to 2021. It's important to note that the county did provide the services as mandated, but nearly a 100% was disallowed due to some discrepancies on documentation. This audit is currently being tested by other counties, but that's not the conversation that we're here for today. So let's assume we owe the state the 1,190,000.00 that was disallowed. Shasta was ordered to repay using one of two methods. We could either, write a check back to the state controller or the s the state controller would seize all future payments from other mandates until the monies were paid off. And for us, that would take about twenty years to pay that off seizing for small claims every year for the next twenty twenty years. And so at the same time, we started this journey, as of fourth or thirty twenty five. As assembly member Hadwick mentioned, the state, still owes local governments quite a bit, of which 993,000,000 is due to local governments and 2,200,000.0 is due to Shasta County. And so, when those claims were filed that that we have outstanding money, it's from 2,000 to 2,014. So I would say that the state has been good about paying the claims from 2015 on, but there's this pot of money out there that we're still waiting to receive reimbursement for. You can find those amounts on the state controller delinquency report on their website. They have to do a report every year on those past due amounts that are still due to counties. So when our audit came up, my first thought was to request the state controller use the monies that were owed to the county to pay off this amount. And, of course, they opined that if the amounts were not budgeted from the Department of Finance, that they could not use those monies. They couldn't tap into them. And, so our issue is that going forward, we're still gonna have to, do these mandates for the next twenty years. We'll be performing those services with no reimbursement, currently. And so that that does create a difficulty for us. The other thing is is that I do feel like this should be viewed as a win win because it also allows the state to remove some of these past due amount off their books. It's gonna reduce their staff time for us. They're gonna have to produce, you know, four offsets every year for the next twenty years, or they can in one fell swoop seize those back monies and pay that amount off. So it's gonna reduce a lot of staff time for them as well. And then I I believe that it also reduces that narrative that the state owes money to local governments that it hasn't paid yet. And so I do view it as a win win, and I appreciate, any support we can get on this bill.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on any support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon, mister chair members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair members. Emma Jungwirth on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and the rural county representatives of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California as well as the League of California Cities in support.

Any primary witnesses in opposition? See no one. No. No one's coming as primary opposition. Anybody else in the room, Jess, as in opposition as a me too?

See nobody. Committee members? We have a motion. There's a second. Thank you for presenting your bill. Would you like to close?

I just wanna thank you for taking the time to hear this bill. It was it did pass through committee last year and was stuck in approach. We are working with the state controller's office for their concern and have their amendments coming, should it move forward.

Well, thank you again for presenting your bill today. We'll be supporting your bill. We do have a motion and a second, and that is a do pass to the education committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number eight, ab 2640. Carrillo.

Aye.

Carrillo, aye. Ta.

Aye.

Johnson, aye. Pacheco.

Ta, aye. Johnson.

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ransom?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Rubio, aye. Stefani?

Ransom, aye. Rubio?

Stefani, aye. Ward?

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

Ward, aye. Wilson?

Aye.

Aye.

That's nine to zero. The bill is set, and we'll leave the roll open for this. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I believe that all we have left on the agenda are bills by committee members, and we're gonna go by order. Assembly member Wilson. Yeah. Who is it already? Remember.

We did it.

All the other three of them? Alright. What that's what happens when you step out to present all their bills outside of committee. Thank you for doing that. Thank you for such an efficient meeting. Let's share. Wow. How we doing?

No. I just They're better on the Put the roll in. Yeah.

Yeah. So we're gonna leave the roll open for those that are not here yet. Is there any other votes that we need to my post, I guess?

Can I start with the consent calendar?

We're gonna start with consent calendar.

Okay. Carrillo?

Aye.

Aye.

Carrillo, aye. Ramos? Ransom?

Ransom, aye.

Aye.

Rubio, aye. 70. 9.

Rubio?

90. The bill is set, and we'll leave the roll open for a couple of minutes for others to add on. For ab 1621 we need a motion.

On the bill.

First and a second. Please call the wrong.

Item number one, ab 1621. The motion is do passed to housing and community development. Carrillo.

Carrillo, aye. Ta.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Ta, aye. Johnson. Johnson, aye. Pacheco.

Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ransom.

aye.

Ransom, aye. Rubio.

aye.

Rubio, aye. Stefani.

aye.

Ward, aye. Wilson.

Stephanie, aye. Ward.

aye.

aye

Wilson, aye.

Nine 20. The bill is south, and, we're gonna go on to the next, item. Motion for ab 1625. There's a person a second. Okay. So motion by Natasha Johnson. Thank you. And the second by, Simone Miller Wilson. Please call the roll.

So item number three, a B1625. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Carrillo.

Aye.

Carrillo, aye. Ta.

Aye.

Johnson, aye. Pacheco.

Ta, aye. Johnson.

Aye.

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Ramos, Ransom?

What was that?

Sorry. Ramos, aye. Ransom?

Aye.

Ransom, aye. Rubio?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Stefani?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Stephanie, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye.

Aye.

Wilson?

Wilson, aye.

100, the bill is out. The next item, we need a motion for ab 1712.

The motion is second. Please call the roll.

So moved. Second.

Aye.

Item number four, a B1712. Motion is do passed to water parks and wildlife. Carrillo.

Carrillo, aye.

Ta.

Ta, aye. Johnson.

Aye.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Pacheco, aye. Ramos.

Aye.

Johnson,

aye.

Aye.

Ramos, aye. Ransom?

aye.

Ransom, aye. Rubio?

Rubio, aye. Stefani?

aye.

aye.

Ward, aye.

aye.

Stefani, aye. Ward?

Wilson, aye.

Wilson?

aye.

And here the bill is south. We do have a couple more.

That's good. We can just open the one.

Add ons for ab 2080.

So item number six, ab 2080. The motion was do passed. Carrillo?

Carrillo, aye. Ramos?

Aye.

Item six?

Aye.

Ramos, aye. Ransom?

Aye.

Yes.

Rubio, aye.

Ransom, aye. Rubio?

Aye.

Tenth is here. The bill is out, and we have another one.

Item number seven

We need add ons for ab 20 That's

item number 72180. Motion is do pass. Ramos?

No.

Ramos not voting. Ransom?

Aye.

Ransom, aye.

That, bill is south 72. And we need to also open the roll for ab 2640.

Aye.

So that's item number eight, ab 2640. Motion was do passed to education. Ramos?

Ramos, aye.

Thus tend to zero. The bill is out.

Six? Yes.

And we have a couple of items for mister Ramos.

Okay. So on the consent calendar, Ramos.

Ramos, aye.

aye.

Consent calendar, south, 10 to zero.

Aye.

K. And item number one, ab 1621 Ramos.

Ramos, aye.

That's 100MotionSouth. Billy south. Thank you.

Got in there.

just double check that we're good.

Let me

We're good on everything. Yep. That's it.

And with that, we'll adjourn this meeting. Thank you.