Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

Wanna say, good afternoon and welcome, this hearing, to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. I want to remind everyone that the committee has a Suspense File, and the details of this is spelled out on the committee rules and posted on our website. In summary, the bills with a revenue impact of more than 150,000 will not be eligible for a vote immediately after the presentation. Instead, we will be referring those bills to our Suspense Files.

Accordingly, only one bill on today's agenda will be eligible for a vote during the regular Order of Business portion of today's hearing. That is File Item Number Nine: AB 2172. All other bills will be a candidate for our Suspense File. Today, we will be dispensing with bills on the Suspense Files that are not tax levies, including non-tax levy bills that are referred to as our Suspense during our first portion of today's hearing. All remaining items on the Suspense File will be dispensed with at our final hearing of-- the Assembly's next hearing will be on April 27th.

We don't have a quorum at this time, so we'll be acting as a subcommittee. The first bill we'll have will be Miss Ortega, and you may have a seat. So that bill will be File Item Number Seven: AB 2465. Miss Ortega, do you have any witnesses? They may have a seat at the table, and we will ask your witnesses. They have two minutes each.

We have-- we see our Superintendent of Public Instructions. Welcome, Mr. Tony Thurmond. Thank you very much for appearing in our Revenue and Taxation Committee. And, Miss Ortega, you may present. Again, we'll be acting as a subcommittee until we have a quorum. We may ask you to pause until-- once we have a quorum, but you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members for the opportunity to present AB 2465 today. DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE, are paying billions to private prisons and spy companies to help them in their campaign of terror in the State of California. Thousands of children are sitting in immigrant detention centers without medical care or even proper nutrition, and it's costing lives. Last year, the number of deaths in ICE custody tripled from 11 to 33.

Last month, the rate reached one death every four days. Meanwhile, two of the largest private prison contractors that work with ICE--GEO Group and CoreCivic--posted record revenue of nearly $5 billion last year. Let me say that one more time. These corporations who are creating a reign of terror in our communities are profiting, and last year alone, they made $5 billion. AB 2465 says, no more.

Enough is enough. We will not allow our taxpayer dollars to go towards this reign of terror. With me today is Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, and Shiu-Ming with the California Immigrant Policy Center.

Welcome. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, here to speak in support of AB 2465. I would like to thank the Assembly member for your leadership on this bill, and I'm honored to be a sponsor of this bill. As you heard, this bill says that California money should not go to those companies that profit off of ICE detention centers or ICE contracts.

As the Assembly member pointed out, these ICE detention centers have created all kinds of physical harm and ailments, and in some cases, even death. California has made a statement that we value the experience of our immigrant families. To put it in context of education, half of all California children live in immigrant families, and so why should any company that provides jeopardy or harm to them be able to experience financial benefit and receive money from the State of California? This bill says no. Not a loan, not a grant, not a tax credit. No investment of any kind.

We're grateful for the author for bringing forward this measure. When you put it in context, California companies have made nearly $3 billion in profit from ICE contracts, and so we know that it's time for action and it's time for urgency. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2465, and as I know you'll be hearing AB 1633, a similar bill with a similar message that I am also sponsoring, I also ask for your aye vote there. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Superintendent. Thank you for appearing before this committee. Next witness, two minutes, please.

Yes. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Shiu-Ming Cheer with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We're proud to co-sponsor AB 2465 because it ensures that our state's fiscal policies are consistent with other laws that protect California's resources from being used to support unlawful and immoral immigration enforcement and detention.

AB 2465 uses the state's decision-making power on grants, loans, and tax credits to hold businesses accountable for profiteering off mass detentions and deportations. As an Angeleno, I've seen firsthand the widespread damage from unchecked violent immigration enforcement.

Over one in four Californians are immigrants, totaling about 11 million people who are family members, neighbors, friends, and business owners. Mass raise in deportations have detrimental effects on families, communities, and the state's entire economy, including on key industries such as construction, agriculture, and caregiving.

Corporations are profiting en masse from the suffering of our communities, yet continue to receive state benefits. As shared, they're profiting in the billions, and just over last year, their profits increased by 2 billion because more people are being held in detention centers. These are detention centers that have been well-documented, including by the state Attorney General as having dangerous living conditions, lacking medical care, and having inadequate food and water.

We know that budgets are moral documents that reflect the government's values and choices. They go beyond words to show what our true priorities are. So similarly, preventing our taxpayer dollars from being used to support companies that profit from separating families and detaining Californians shows that California is defending immigrant communities and actions, not just words. I urge you to ensure that our state taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize business practices that conflict with California's values. I urge you to support AB 2465 with your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of 2465, would you please give me your name, your organization, and this is support only.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rene Bayardo, representing PICO California, also a proud co-sponsor.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Kam Desai with the California Immigrant Policy Center, proud co-sponsor of the bill, also registering support for California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, CURB, Secure Justice, A New PATH, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Kimberley Weir, a community organizer from Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network, in support of AB 2465, also registering support for South Bay People Power, Working Partnerships USA, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, and California Community Foundation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and also on behalf of END Child Poverty California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Christopher Sanchez with Inclusive Action for the City, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Gipson and members. My name is Duski Wanamaker. I am here today representing LA Voice, and I'm also Treasurer of Northridge Indivisible and lead organizer for Raising Canes movement to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And I'm in strong support of AB 2465. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Fernando Sandoval. I'm from LA Voice, and I'd like you to support 2465.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Noah Wright, and I am from Sacramento ACT, and I am in strong support of 2465.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Maribel Arizmendi, community organizer with Sacramento ACT, and I strongly support 2465.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Aurora Solis, and I'm here to represent PACT, People Acting in Community Together from Santa Clara County, and I am here to support AB 2465.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Loanne Dean of PACT, San Jose. I support families and children and also--excuse me--24 AB-- excuse me-- AB 2465.

Thank you.

Beatrice Sandovan, the LA Voice from Los Angeles County and from Baldwin Park in strong support SB-- no, AB--oh my god--2465. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Mercedes Lopez, and I'm represent LA Voice, and I'm strongly here to support AB 2465. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Teresa Silva, and I am from PACT in San Jose, and I support AB 2465. Thank you.

Thank you.

[Testimony in Spanish].

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Saul. I actually come from People Acting in Community Together. It's in Santa Clara County, and I'm in strong support of AB 2465. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Alicia Dienst. I'm here representing Sacramento Area Congregations Together, in strong support of AB 2465.

Thank you. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, any primary opposition, we invite you to come and take a seat at the table. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and members. Alexis Rodriguez with the Cal Chamber, here in regrettable opposition to AB 2465. First, we wanna be clear. We do not oppose this bill out of any support for ICE or any troubles that the federal enforcement has caused California's communities. Our opposition here is based on practical concerns with the breadth of the bill and its implications for businesses in California, particularly those with no involvement with detention centers.

The bill applies broadly and forbids any company from contracting with any agency engaging in immigrant enforcement, but the bill does not provide any clear off-limit agencies. For any companies who contract with this undefined list of agencies, the bill would then deny that company any state-provided benefit subsidy grant, or loan, or any tax credit from the State of California, but only if that service was provided for the purpose of aiding and furthering immigrant enforcement.

As noted in the prior committee analysis, the bill doesn't clearly define what contracts would make a business ineligible for state-provided benefits. Specifically, it isn't clear what contracts would be considered for the purposes of aiding or furthering immigrant enforcement. For example, if a company offers IT services to DHCS, as we read it, this would apply to the bill.

In short, we have member companies who provide services to federal government pursuant to long contracts and we are concerned about the ambiguity about the contracts that would apply to this bill. Without clarification, we believe the terms of this bill would punish each business, or even businesses with non problematic contracts, and would make it difficult for businesses to know if they are in violation or not. So we we are opposed to AB 2465 and we urge a no vote should this come off of the Suspense File. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to 2465, would you please line up? Give me your name, your organization, and this is in opposition to this measure.

Good afternoon. Matt Easley, on behalf of the California Chapters of the Associated General Contractors, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Delilah Clay, on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nick Chiappe, on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

David Bolog of the SFB Alliance, on behalf of the 6 million California voters who voted for in the aggressive immigration enforcement in the November 2024 election. Thank you.

Scott Govenar, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no one else wishing to express opposition on this measure, bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions of this author, wanna thank both of you for your leadership and your willingness to address some of the concerns, administrative issues that was raised in this bill. To the author, if you have any closing remarks, you may deliver them now.

I-- at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, this bill is-- will-- and will be referred to our Suspense File, and thank you and your witness for coming here. Thank you very much, Mr. Superintendent, for coming and speaking in support. And that's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So, we go we see it. You see Mister Lee here. So, mister Lee, we invite you to come. Item number file line number two, AB 1675. You have any witnesses, Mister Lee?

Sorry?

You have any witnesses?

No. Just me.

Just yourself?

Just myself.

Okay. You may proceed when ready.

Well, thank you, Mister chair and members. Today, I'm presenting AB 1675, which is very simple bill. Very much similar to the concept we talked about earlier today, which is if you are a corporation that does business with ICE, you will lose your California tax breaks. These companies can do the right thing and side with the American people, which most have already seen that the kidnapping and killing of American citizens and residents is more than heinous enough to say they should be abolished.

It's this very simple choice is that these companies can stop doing contracts and stop doing business with ICE, and then they can keep their California tax breaks, or they can continue to cherish these tax continue to cherish these contracts and lose those said tax breaks.

We've talked a bit about the private prison industry, which is expected to generate an additional $50,000,000 in revenue just from deportation flights alone. But a data firm like Palantir, for instance, has a $30,000,000 contract to develop software tracking for immigrants, and a California based company for a full body restraint that Bloomberg law has already identified has at least 41 incidents where a person has died in law enforcement incidences using these devices.

At a time when California is facing a structural deficit, these tax breaks are tax subsidizations by the average California taxpayer. We should not be subsidizing a single cent of any business that enables the paramilitary force that is ICE. That is Trump's personal army that is conducting these raids, deportations, and assaults and murders on Americans.

That is why this bill is so important and very clear. So it's very clear that if a company wants to continue to keep those tax breaks that are afforded by California taxpayers, they can simply cancel their ICE contracts and continue with their business with California. This bill also would redirect those excess funds towards immigrant legal aid, which we need more and more during this process. This is about aligning our tax code with our values. I'm respectfully asking for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mister Lee. Anyone in the in the room wishing to speak in support of AB 1675, would you please line up to the microphone. I see some movement. I don't know if they're moving towards the microphone. Okay.

We have one person.

Hi. Good afternoon. Shiu-Ming Cheer with the California Immigrant Policy Center in support of this bill.

Thank you very much. Primary opposition to assembly bill 1675. Would you please come and take a seat at the table? And you have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Alexis Rodriguez with the California Chamber of Commerce here in opposition to AB 1675. Again, we'd like to be clear. We do not oppose this out of any support for ICE or for the harm and disruption that the federal enforcement has caused California's communities. Our opposition is based on practical concerns with the breadth of the bill and its implications on businesses.

This bill, is not limited to companies that are directly related with ICE. Instead, the bill applies broadly and forbids any company with contracting with the US Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and the management directorate, but the bill does not provide clear list of unapplicable agencies. Based on our read of the bill, any company who contracts with ICE and any of its sub agencies, would be denied any tax expenditure as defined.

For context, it's worth noting that DHS performs many critical, noncontroversial duties in various contracts. Supporting these duties would be subject to the bill.

For example, DHS oversees the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and it's life saving life saving, direct response. A contract to provide blankets with FEMA would seem to qualify as the contract with ICE and therefore trigger a loss of any tax expenditure. In summary, because we believe the terms of this bill are overly broad and will make it difficult for businesses to know whether they are in violation or not, we are opposed to AB 1675 and or de novo at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to 1675, would you please line up and state your name, your organization, and this is in opposition to this measure.

Good afternoon. Matt Easley on behalf of the California chapters of the associated general contractors in opposition to AB 1675.

Thank you very much.

David Bullock on behalf of the SFE Alliance in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Scott Governor Baff with the Construction Employers Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Nick Chiappe with the California Trucking Association in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Wanna bring it back to the committee. Seeing no one wishes to speak on this measure, this bill raises a number of administrative questions as currently drafted. Are you willing to work with the committees and staff to on the amendments to clarify the provision, Mister Lee?

Yes, mister chair. We've had some productive conversations with the committee staff about clarifying and making it even more enforceable with FTB, so I look forward to seeing those amendments in print later in the process with this committee.

Great. And that's good to hear. There's just some issues that's been raised. Your willingness to work with the committee moving forward, that would certainly help.

With that, Mister Lee, you are invited to close if you wish.

Yes. Thank you, Mister chair, and thank you for the committee for working with my office and staff on this bill. We really do wanna make it the most enforceable bill as possible. Of course, companies today can already opt out of their contracts with Department of Homeland Security and ICE and preserve their California tax breaks.

Now I just wanna clarify something that came up in the opposition is that defined in the bill in print today, it is depart the agencies related Department of Homeland Security targeted with this is the United States Customs and Border Protection, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Management directorate as well.

It does not excludes FEMA. Now it is beyond me why FEMA had to be put into Department of Homeland Security, which is a different issue altogether, but, does not target FEMA whatsoever. It is about specifically ICE and its accompanying agencies or agencies that work in the deportation machine. Now this bill again is very simple. It's about canceling the tax breaks, which are tax expenditures that you and aye, we all pay for that would be subsidizing corporations that enable the paramilitary force that is ICE.

Without the software from Palantir, without the weapons provided from private contractors or even the drones, they would not be able to go out there in their unmarked vans and kidnap people. And that's why it's very important that we let corporate America decide. Should they be on the side of the people or on the side of the deportation machine? And with that, we're just looking to ask your aye vote at the at the appropriate time.

I look forward to working with the committee on, future amendments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This bill will refer to our suspense file and thank you very much for appearing for this committee once we have a quorum. Thank you very much. So, we're gonna move to file item number three, AB 2089 by Ward. You understand we have a staff person here to present on behalf of Mister Ward.

So we have witnesses?

Yes. There's one more coming.

Okay.

Awesome. Great. You may proceed on behalf of Mister Ward.

Of course. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. My name is Silverio Rizo Llamas. And on behalf of Assembly member Chris Ward, I am pleased to present AB 2089.

AB 2089 supports affordable housing projects by ensuring continuity of the welfare exemption during ownership transitions and by promoting an efficient, transparent application and recertification process. The property tax welfare exemption improves project feasibility for eligible affordable housing providers, supporting long term affordability and financial stability for low income Californians. Affordable housing projects lose crucial and extremely limited affordable housing dollars by paying for property taxes upfront, straining their limited resources.

AB 2089 would reduce the cost of sustaining affordable housing by allowing eligible organizations to withhold relevant tax payments without penalty during periods of ownership transition. This bill would also ensure adequate time to complete recertification, including the labor intensive process of verifying tenant's income And by authorizing verified electronic signatures, AB 2089 would modernize and streamline the recertification process.

For witnesses in support, I have Paul Shafer, Public Policy Manager with the California Council for Affordable Housing, and Justine Marcus, State and Local Policy Director for Enterprise Community Partners of Northern California.

Welcome. You have two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, shared members. My name is Paul Schafer, and I'm the Public Policy Manager with the California Council for Affordable Housing. CCAH represents the full continuum of the affordable housing industry, from tax credit investors and lenders to developers and long-term property managers working communities across the state. AB 2089 makes targeted common-sense improvements to the welfare property tax exemption process.

An exemption that is foundational to the financial feasibility of affordable housing. When an exemption of this importance becomes administratively inefficient, this strain ultimately falls on our nonprofit providers and the residents they serve. Each year between January 1 and February 15, nonprofit housing organizations devote the equivalent of more than a full work day every day to maintaining this exemption, often working nights and weekends to meet the statutory deadline.

One of the most burdensome requirements is collecting tenant signatures on affidavits that cannot be distributed until counties mail forms after January 1. This creates a compressed timeline in which thousands of tenants must complete paperwork leaving little room for correction or delay.

For large nonprofit operators serving tens of thousands of residents, this is not a minor inconvenience. This is a significant operational nightmare. AB 2089 addresses this directly by allowing earlier release of forms and verified electronic signatures. These changes would dramatically reduce administrative burden potentially by half, while still fully preserving program integrity and accountability. This bill also brings needed relief to the nonprofit partners during ownership transitions.

Under current law, property tax relief during exemption review is limited to projects under construction. AB 2089 makes reasonable extensions to this protection to changes in ownership or control, preventing unnecessary financial strain during restructuring that are often required to ensure long term affordability. In short, this bill modernizes an essential process, improves efficiency, protects nonprofit resources, and ultimately supports affordable housing sustainability. For these reasons, CCAH respectfully asked for your aye vote on AB 2089.

Thank you very much. Next witness, two minutes.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Justine Marcus. I'm the State and Local Policy Director for Enterprise Community Partners. We're a national nonprofit affordable housing organization that delivers technical assistance and capacity building, advocates for policies, and provides financing to produce and preserve affordable homes.

The welfare tax exemption plays a critical role in the financial feasibility of affordable housing production and preservations to keep rents affordable and cost low. Affordable housing operates on very thin margins, and the cost savings associated with the welfare tax exemption are a key factor in whether or not a project will be feasible or not. The welfare tax exemption, however, suffers from outdated and difficult to navigate systems.

And as a result, the initial application and annual recertifications can be time consuming and often cause significant costs for affordable housing providers. These delays and complexity, sometimes can require that housing providers engage consultants to even just navigate the exemption process.

As such, the welfare tax exemption space is right for modernization and more efficiency. The changes proposed in AB 2089 make this critical state benefit more efficient, more streamlined, and more transparent. For example, clearly specifying the documentation needed for an exemption is critical. Although the State Board of Equalization provides detailed guidance to County Assessors Offices regarding procedures for granting exemptions, annual, recertifications. Affordable housing providers must also abide by locally imposed requirements, which may vary from county to county.

We've seen this be an acute challenge for city and county funded projects. Additional requirements, backup documentation are not standardized across counties and can change from year to year without notice. This lack of transparency can prolong the process. With longer processing times, affordable housing groups may need to pay higher taxes for one or two years or more, ultimately jeopardizing their sustainability.

We believe AB 2089 would increase transparency, decrease exemption processing times, and we look forward to continuing the discussion with the assessors and the tax collectors to ensure that we're achieving our shared goals in an effective and implementable manner.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

That's good.

Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of this measure 2089, would you please come forward in your name, your organization, and this is support.

Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in strong support.

Thank you.

Taisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership, proud cosponsor and also doing support for Housing California. Thank you.

Thank you. Primary opposition, would you please come forward if there be any? We invite you to have a seat at the table.

This is primary opposition?

Yes.

Okay. Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and Members. My name is Jeffrey Prang. I'm the LA County assessor and immediate past President of the California Assessors Association, who I am representing here today. We appreciate the intent of AB 2089 to modernize processes and improve transparency.

However, we must respectfully oppose, the bill unless amended. First, electronic signatures. Assessors are already moving in this direction under existing law, authored by the chairman. Revenue and taxation code section 168.1 provides a secure and workable framework. Creating a separate standard for welfare exemptions forms unnecessary complexity and risks inconsistency across counties, at different stages of implementation.

Second, the seven day posting requirement is, operationally unrealistic for most assessors. As noted in the committee analysis, assessors, often cannot confirm all required documentation until after reviewing a claim. A rigid deadline could reduce flexibility and create compliance challenges without improving outcomes. Third, the requirement to release forms by November 15 is unclear, particularly since those forms are developed by the State Board of Equalization. Counties should not be placed in a position where compliance depends on timelines outside of their control.

From a large kind of perspective, such as LA County, the welfare exemption program operates at a very high volume with complex eligibility reviews. Even modest procedural changes can translate into thousands of additional administrative actions, increasing workload, and compliance risk if timelines are rigid and unclear. We remain committed to working with the author to refine the bill so it achieves its goals without creating unintended administrative burdens for assessors.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mister chair and members. Karen Lange on behalf of the California Association of County Treasures and Tax Collectors, the counterpart to mister Prang's operations. Once they receive the application, we have workload on our end as well to make sure that we're not collecting on the taxes where this where these property's been verified to be eligible.

The concerns that our association has, for starters, is that when the original bill was going through, we were emphatic with the sponsors that while we did not take a position, the reason we were not taking a position is that it did not mandate new investments in systems that we cannot afford. It's gonna get worse with HR 1.

Counties don't have the money to pay for us to build into the systems the ability to do this automatically. So everything that was gonna happen was gonna have to happen in a paper log. And for your home county, mister chair, that's gonna be a lot of manual work that they were gonna have to do to make sure they don't try to go collect on the tax bill for these properties.

And the bill does require new mandated systems that we don't have the money for, which our assessor counterparts don't have money for. The second piece of this, which we're very uncomfortable with, is the, exemption for properties that are changing hands.

My own client was sort of begrudgingly neutral because of the intent of the original bill, which was to get as many units of housing built, and we didn't wanna monopolize the capital to pay taxes that were ultimately gonna be refunded if that instead meant we could get one or two more affordable housing units built instead. That's why they stayed neutral on the bill.

This is a whole new concept of buying completed buildings, and we really wanna have a very close look at making sure we don't have folks taking advantage of this new program that has only gone through one tax cycle and make sure that we're not losing tax dollars that would be due, to the counties. So that's where our concerns are coming from, workload, new concepts that we're really not sure are have merit.

And then finally, on our end, and again, the assessors have to see this stuff first.

We haven't seen any anything come through from any county assessor's office in any of the large urban counties that we would suspect would be the most likely to see these applications. I've surveyed all of our largest counties in the association, and no one has seen an application come through on our end yet. And so it's and that's been two tax cycles at this point. So for all of those reasons, we are opposed to the measure, and thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to this measure 2089, would you please line up your name, organization, and this is opposition? Hearing and seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any members wishing to ask any questions? Hearing and seeing none.

Can't ask that question. Okay. We'll give you an opportunity to close on behalf of Mister Ward. We will say this. There was, of course, significant questions raised by the opposition, we would certainly ask that you take this back to the author.

This is, in fact, a suspense candidate, so there's time. Excuse me one moment.

I've been informed that this is a suspense candidate. It will go in suspense file, but we will be taking it up today. So it won't be an opportunity to have any kind of conversation to try to reach an agreement.

So we'll be it will go in suspense file, and then we'll be active on once we get a quorum. So well, thank you very much. Once we get in a quorum today, we'll be acting upon it. We have enough participants. One, two, three, four.

Okay. So we're gonna pause for a moment. We're gonna ask we're gonna ask our secretary to please call the road to establish a quorum.

Gibson?

Here.

Gibson here. Sanchez? Here. Sanchez here. Carrillo.

DeMio? Here. DeMio here. McKinner?

Here.

McKinner here. Quirk Silva? Here. Quirk Silva here. Michelle Rodriguez.

We have a quorom. I have a list.

So we wanted to invite you to see if you have any closing comments on behalf of mister Ward. Oh. And we invite you to close if you would like.

Yes. Of course. I guess all I'll say is, we're definitely, intend to work collaboratively with the committee, consultants, and all stakeholders to address concerns with this bill. And, just wanna say thank you and on behalf of assembly member Chris Ward. And when appropriate to do so, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So this bill will be referred to our suspense file.

I have a list. The other two. T75 and 2465. If you wanna formally refer those due to suspense

Okay.

We can clean that up.

Just Alright. It's formal with the suspense.

Okay. So file item number 2AB1675Lee is will be moved to our suspense file. File item number 7AB2465, Ortega. That item will be moved to our suspense file since we have a quorum. So we we have a author.

We have file number 1AB1633. Mister Haney? Well, thank you very much. If you have any witnesses, your witnesses can come and join you. Yep.

We're here. And you may proceed when ready.

Alright. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mister Chair, Members. AB2250 is a straightforward cleanup bill to help our hemp enforcement laws work as intended. Last year, I ran AB8 to prepare to better regulate hemp derived products and address the rise of intoxicating products in the unregulated market.

That law gave c d CDTFA additional enforcement tools, but a few technical fixes are needed to ensure the law is fully effective. The existing gaps in language could create enforcement challenges or cause uncertainty for businesses trying to follow the law. AB2250 makes targeted clarifications to close those gaps. It makes the law clear and enforceable so illegal products can be removed. It ensures products are treated consistently under state law, and it protects public health while giving businesses clear rules to follow.

The bill does not change the underlying policy of a AB8. It simply ensures the framework that the legislature passed last year can work as intended. With me today, I have Amy o Gorman Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators

Association. Hello, Mister Chairman and Members. Amy O'Gorman Jenkins on behalf of COCOA is the short version. We represent 500 licensees across California and very proud to have cosponsored AB8 last year in strong support for the current bill 2250. Prior to the enactment of AB8, intoxicating hemp products flooded the California market, sold openly in gas stations, liquor stores, and elsewhere, and was very proactive in passing, that bill.

Unfortunately, when you're looking at something as comprehensive as AB8, we did anticipate some cleanup, and so this is, obviously, that particular vehicle. There may be more, going forward. But this bill would tighten and clarify key provisions related to how cannabinoid products are treated under California cannabis tax law, refined CDTFA seizure authority so that it could be applied consistently and reinforce prohibitions on the sale of intoxicating products outside the cannabis supply chain.

For years, California operated under two parallel markets, selling functionally identical THC products under entirely different rules. One tax tested and regulated, the other one not.

This disparity was indefensible. So we appreciate and applaud the work of this author and the legislature and urge your passage of 2250, which will advance our comprehensive framework that provides fairness and parity and public health security for the state. Thank you so much, and happy 4/20.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of assembly bill 2250, would you please line up? And this is support. I don't see anyone running to the microphone. Okay?

Any primary opposition, we wanna invite you to the to come and join us at the table. Primary opposition to seeing none. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Seeing none.

Okay. Miss Aguiar-Curry, you may close if you wish.

You know, I, I, I pride myself on the bills we do, but always you have to make sure after you try to get them implemented if there's any loopholes or things we have to tighten up. And this is exactly what this bill does, so I respectfully ask for an aye vote for AB2250.

Thank you very much. This bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you very much for coming to the committee.

Thank you very much.

And your wishes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. So that takes care of that.

We're gonna ask the sergeant of arms if you could please call the offices for AB2403, Elhawary, AB2319, Schultz.

I have her stuff. If you wanna do yours.

Oh. You can be on call. We've got a quorum.

Chair Gipson, please proceed when you are ready.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, madam chair and member. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2172. Assembly Bill 2172 allow counties on a temporary basis to utilize a single member assessment appeals commissioner to hear a complex property tax appeal. Existing law requires property tax assessment appeals to be heard by a multi member board, which can create a scheduling, contentious administrative, insufficient, and delays in counties which which high appeal volumes.

This structure is designed to promote a balanced decision making and transparency in the appeal process. However, multi day appeals involve properties like hotels, stadiums, and possessory interests are often difficult to schedule under the current multi member system leading to backlogs. These cases often requires extensive testimonies, a detailing financial an, analysis and multi days of hearings, coordinating schedules among Board Members, parties, and legal councils frequently leading to delays, slow down resolutions for taxpayers and counties.

The datas from the past three fiscal years show that many assessment appeals take longer than six months and often over a year's to resolve indicating a backlog in the system. AB 2172 addresses the challenges by allowing counties to use a single qualified commissioner as a neutral decision making in a complex case while allowing the option to request in a traditional multi member board, ensuring state wide transparency.

This streamlines approach help move cases forward more efficiently while maintaining fair hearings, consistent procedures, and and a due process that safeguards for the taxpayers. Here with me to provide supporting testimonies is Los Angeles County Assessor Jeffrey Prang and Robert Miss Roberts, do you have another person?

Just me.

Oh, our our Los Angeles County assessor, mister Jeffrey Prang, who will speak in support of Assembly Bill 2172.

Thank you very much, mister chairman, madam chair, members. It's great to be with you, today. And I'm I'm proud to be a sponsor of this legislation aimed at modernizing and professionalizing the assessment appeals process in Los Angeles County and larger counties. In California, a board of supervisors serves as the local board of equalization. Since the nineteen sixties, larger counties such as Los Angeles have been authorized to appoint an assessment appeals board to hear property assessment disputes.

While the structure once met the local needs, it is no longer sufficient for the scale and complexities, that we face today. LA County has currently more than 20,000 pending appeals awaiting hearing, and these are not just numbers. They represent homeowners, small businesses, major employers seeking timely and fair resolution to their disputes. Unfortunately, the current system is not equipped to deliver that. Assessment appeals wars appeals Board Members are part time appointees.

They're required required to be highly qualified professionals such as attorneys, CPAs, and appraisers, and real estate brokers. Yet the role itself demands equivalent of full time commitment. Many Board Members understandably can only dedicate limited and intermittent time due to their primary professional responsibilities. As a result, cases are delayed, workflows are fragmented, and the consistency in decision making is often difficult to achieve. The inefficiencies of the current system are not just operational, they are costly for property owners.

Disputed taxes can remain unresolved for extended period times, sometimes years, creating financial uncertainty and strain. Many are forced to hire professional or legal assistance or appraisal professionals to navigate the process, adding a significant expense to simply exercise their right to appeal. For complex commercial properties, the cost can be substantial. For the county, the burden is equally real. Significant public resources must be dedicated to managing a backlog that the current structure simply cannot efficiently process.

In cases where taxpayers prevail, the county is required to pay interest on overpaid taxes, which now totals into the millions of dollars annually. These are avoidable costs driven by delay, not by policy. This legislation proposes a straightforward but transformative solution. It would authorize the board of supervisors to appoint a full time hearing commissioner to oversee and adjudicate assessment appeals, replacing the part time structure. This individual be would be selected from a pool of highly qualified candidates who would serve in a dedicated professional capacity.

A full time commissioner would also bring, continuity, expertise, and accountability to the process. They would have the ability to actively manage the docket, prioritizing cases that are ready for hearings and ensure that decisions are thoughtful, consistent, and timely. Additionally, this reform addresses a structural imbalance in the subject matter expertise. While many current Board Members are highly capable, the composition tends to be heavily weighted toward residential real estate experience.

Whereas in Los Angeles County, we have we have stadiums, we have oil refineries, we have major office towers, which require levels of expertise.

This proposal is about fairness, efficiency, and restoring confidence in the appeals process, and property owners deserve timely resolutions. Local governments depend on predictable revenue, and the system itself must be equipped to handle the realities of a modern economy. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any additional people in the room wishing to speak in support? K. Seeing none, do we have any, primary witnesses in opposition?

Okay.

And questions and comments from committee? Assemblymember Gibson, chair, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask when I vote at the appropriate time.

This bill is a vote item. Do I have a motion? And a second. Second? Okay.

Moved by assembly member

I apologize. Rodriguez

I'm so sorry. Rodriguez, second by Assemblymember McKinnor. The motion is do passes as amended to the assembly committee on appropriations. The amendments provide an appellant, an opt out option rather than opt in, and consolidate the provisions into a new section for the sake of simplicity. Miss Highland, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Gipson?

Aye.

Gibson, aye. Sanchez?

Sanchez, aye. Guerrero, DeMayo, Mckinnor?

Aye.

Aye.

Mckinnor, aye. Quirk-Silva? Michelle Rodriguez.

Michelle Rodriguez, aye. That bill has passed.

Aye.

Four to zero.

This bill has passed 4-0. Thank you.

Thank you. Wanna Wanna thank the vice chair for sharing the meeting while I present the bill. We see our next author, one of its member Schultz. File item number 5, AB 2319. You may approach, and if you have any witnesses, they're welcome to have a seat as well.

To your witnesses, you have two minutes each, and you may proceed when ready.

Alright. Thank you very much, mister chair and colleagues. Sorry to keep you waiting. I am pleased to present assembly bill twenty three nineteen today. California remains the center of the global film and television industry, but postproduction work, including editorial, sound, scoring, visual effects, and finishing, is increasingly being performed in other jurisdictions that do offer targeted incentives.

Current law limits eligibility for the California Motion Picture Tax Credit, primarily the projects that complete their principal photography in the state of California. As a result, post production work is often moved to competing jurisdictions that offer standalone or more flexible incentives for post production activity. I'd like to note that states and countries, including New York, New Jersey, Canada, The United Kingdom, and Australia, among others, offer incentives that allow productions filmed elsewhere to complete post production locally while still qualifying for tax credits.

These policies have led to the migration of high wage jobs, vendor spending, and related economic activity out of the state of California. Major post production editorial facilities, including but not limited to scoring stages operated by Sony, Fox, Warner Brothers, and Skywalker Sound are generating substantially less revenue than in prior years and face the risk of closure.

Economic analysis demonstrates that post production incentives generate significant returns on public investment through increased taxable wages, local vendor spending, and broader ancillary economic activity. Without a targeted post production incentive, California risks losing a critical segment of the entertainment industry supply chain even when creative leadership remains based in our state.

AB 2319, if approved, would create the California post production tax credit, a targeted incentive for qualified post production expenditures performed in California regardless of where principal photography photography occurred subject to program requirements and oversight. This post production tax credit, I will note, is not tied to the $750,000,000 budget of the motion picture tax credit that was passed last year. I've submitted a pending budget request to establish the separate funding for this post production tax credit.

To be eligible for the post production credit, the project either needs to be filmed outside of California, or be a project that was filmed in California, but did not receive the motion picture tax credit. A project, simply put, cannot double dip and receive both credits. I'd like to close, mister chair, with with just acknowledging the obvious. This bill before you today is a work in progress.

If it gets out of this committee, you have my full commitment to work with the studios, labor unions, and other stakeholders to ensure that future amendments will ensure that this post production tax credit provides benefits to workers in our state, in our communities, while attracting more post production work to come back to the state of California.

With me today to speak in favor of the bill is Adam Fowler, an economist with the California Post Alliance, and F Hudson Miller, president of the Motion Picture Editors Guild, IATC Local seven hundred. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you very much. We have two minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is F Hudson Miller. I'm the president, and I'm proud of Motion Picture Editors Guild, and I proudly represent 8,000 members. We are the world's preeminent labor union in post production of post production professionals. Our members work the magic that transforms raw footage into the stories that transfix the world.

We have more than 6,200 members in California, the historic heart of our industry, but our heart is ailing. You will hear the statistics, but they aren't just numbers to us. There are union sisters, brothers, and kin. Too many of them, talented artists and craftspersons, and, yes, California taxpayers are no longer confident they can support themselves and their families doing their work that they love in the state that they love.

That's why we should follow the lead of other states and establish a standalone post production tax credit.

Our California members need it. We loudly and proudly back the concept of this bill, but we need to get it right. Whenever California invests in job creation, the state needs to know the jobs being incentivized are good jobs. The kind of jobs that can support a family. The kind of jobs that provide health insurance and retirement benefits.

These are the kind of jobs our guild has fought for over the course for over the course of ninety years. We are having productive talks with the author and other stakeholders to add language ensuring the employers who receive California credits will be held to the highest standards. We're confident these talks can improve the bill. Our members are talking too. I bring more than 1,800 letters they've sent to this committee.

Their collective message is amend first and then pass AB 2319. In our business, there's a saying, when something isn't quite right with the script or didn't go perfectly in production, let's fix it in post. So let's fix this bill in post. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, two minutes.

Chair, Gibson, and members, thank you. My name's Adam Fowler, and I'm a founding partner and economist at CVL Economics. We're an economic consulting firm that works at the intersection of the creative economy and regional economic development here in California. I wanna take the few limited minutes I have and frame my remarks around the economy of 2026 because that is what AB 2319 is really responding to. This bill does not ask the state to build a new economic cluster from scratch.

It asks the state to update its regulatory and fiscal framework to the economy of 2026 and to move past a policy posture that still assumes California is the untouchable global powerhouse of film and television production. Post production work has shifted materially and rapidly out of California. Will the state collect revenue at a different rate than when we were the global center of film and television if this bill passes? Yes. And frankly, we already are.

Read the credits of any of this year's tops top box office films closely, And you can see where the work is being done and downstream of that where the fiscal taxes on personal income, sales tax, etcetera, are happening. Do I wish, as a Californian, that we were still the undisputed center of the universe in film and television production? Absolutely. I wish that a lot. The fact is that we were once the top of the ecosystem.

And candidly, that's part of what has made this conversation harder than it needs to be. A great deal of analysis on this bill is anchored in a world of analysis that no longer matches the competitive landscape. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of this measure, AB 2319, would you please line up your name, your organization, and support only?

Kendra Bakley on behalf of the City of Glendale in support.

Thank you.

Marielle Abaunza, president of the California Post Lines and sponsor of the bill and representing Signature Post in strong support of bill AB 2319.

Thank you.

Hello. Austin Scott, unemployed union picture editor from Altadena. Since the fire, I've turned to creating art for my family, including designing this pin that we're all wearing that says post proud in California. I strongly support this bill with amended language. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Lillian Benson, veteran film editor, a long time union member. I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Alyssa Cohen. I'm an unemployed editor and a thirty year member of Local seven hundred. I support AB 2319 if amended to include labor standard language. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Karen Baker Landers. I am vice president of the California Post Alliance and one of the sponsors of the bill. And this bill is a lifeline to postproduction workers, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Mister chair members, Andrew Antwie with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange here today on behalf of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass in support in Californians for the Arts.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Matt Dubin, founding member of CAPA and COO of Formosa Group, in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. Mike Rizzuto, from Sacramento in strong support of the bill.

Thank you.

I'm Ben Ricard. Woo. I'm a member of the, board member of the California Post Alliance and a big supporter of this bill. Thank you for having us.

Thank you.

AJ Catoline, twenty five year union motion picture editor. Strongly support this bill if amended to create good union jobs for middle class workers in scripted and unscripted television to bring our post jobs back to California.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dan Schmidt. I'm a visual effects supervisor and founder of a twenty five year visual effects company working in film and television. We have suffered decades of runaway postproduction in California. Companies like mine support this bill.

Apologies. I would like to make a verification. I believe I said Glendale. I actually meant the city of Burbank. Sorry about that.

It's close by. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Molly Mallow on behalf of the Walt Disney Company, the parent company of Industrial Light and Magic, which is the birthplace of visual effects. Look forward to this bill moving forward so we can continue to work on language that works for the VFX industry. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any primary opposition to 2319, we'll invite you up to take a seat at the table. Hearing and seeing none, anyone in the room wishing to express opposition to this measure, you have the same right. Hearing and seeing none, I wanna bring it back to the committee.

Anyone wishing to ask any questions of this author? Hearing and seeing none. To the author, the annual credit cap is currently unspecified in this bill. Do you have any sense of how much annual credit authorization, you want to provide?

Excellent question, mister chair. That is something that we are in active negotiation with many of the stakeholders here on, from folks like Skywalker Productions to the Guild as well. So I don't have a firm answer for you today, but that is something we're hoping to to land should it get out of committee.

Great. Thank you very much. You may close.

Well, thank you very much, mister chair. I'll be brief. Colleagues, there's there's just two points I'd leave you with. There was a lot of consternation about why this bill was brought forward this year and not at a later time, and I just wanna leave you with the economic picture. Between 2012 and 2025, this is what California's lost in terms of post production.

We've lost more than 4,400 jobs, more than $507,000,000 in wages. And in terms of total economic output in our state, $1,630,000,000. This is tied to post production, not the entertainment industry at large, post production. I agree with mister Miller. I don't think the bill is in perfect shape yet, but as he said so perfectly, let's fix it in post.

So at the appropriate time, mister chair, I ask that the the committee, allow the bill to come off the suspense file, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on Thursday when the matter is taken up. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you very much, and thank you, chair witnesses. This bill will be taken up today, mister Schultz.

Thank you.

What was that?

This bill will be it's gonna be referred to the committee. Oh. In the suspense file, but it'll be taken up today.

It will be.

Oh, it will? Okay.

Alright. Thank you very much, mister chair.

In a short while.

Thank you again, mister chair.

We're still waiting for one more our author, our last author. Two. Two. Which two? So we need at least rep no.

Elhawary and also at least someone for Miss Rodriguez, Celeste Rodriguez.

So we're gonna go-- we're gonna start File Item Number Six: AB 24, Miss Elhawary. Thank you very much, and you may proceed--I see you have your witnesses. You may proceed when ready.

Apologies for my delay, and thank you all so much for your patience. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB 2403, a bill focused on keeping commercial production jobs here in California for our workers, our businesses, and our local economies.

California has long been a hub for commercial production. We have the crews, the infrastructure, and the talent that built this industry. But we're losing that work. Over the past decade, California's share of nationally aired commercials has dropped from about 50% to only 25%.

In Los Angeles alone, production has declined by 35% in just five years. That decline has real consequences. It means fewer jobs for skilled workers, fewer opportunities for people trying to get their foot in the door, and less investment in our local communities. Commercial production is highly mobile.

And right now, other states are actively competing for this work and winning because they are offering targeted incentives. At the same time, California remains one of the only major production states without a dedicated commercial production tax credit. This bill is supported by labor organizations representing the very workers who power this industry every day.

It protects good paying middle class jobs and the workers who depend on them. Our labor partners know that when productions leave, careers leave with it. AB 2403 is about closing that gap. With me today is David Michael González, Vice President of Labor Relations and External Affairs Association, External Affairs for the Association of Independent Commercial Producers, and...

Mr. Rudy Reyes.

Oh, Rudy Reyes, set lighting technician and Restorative Justice Director at the Restorative Academic Mentorship Program. I have Ruby, so I know it wasn't Ruby. I was like... Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes each, gentlemen. Whoever wants to go first, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. I'm David Michael González with AICP, the Association of Independent Commercial Producers, representing over 300 companies that specialize in the production and postproduction of television commercials.

Advertising is, of course, the lifeblood of our economy. As the overall media landscape continues to evolve, advertisers today have more opportunities than ever to engage consumers across broadcast, Internet, mobile, streaming, social media, and more.

Therefore, there's a constant demand for commercials. Although the production processes of commercials parallels that of film and TV, it is creatively controlled by advertisers and ad agencies, making this a distinct segment of our industry. Commercials are short, fast moving, and highly mobile productions.

Decisions about where to film are often made in a matter of days. A single project may shoot for just one or two days. Because of that speed and flexibility, commercial production is uniquely sensitive to cost and logistics. Unlike long form productions that may be rooted in a single location for weeks or months, commercials can move easily to wherever conditions are most favorable.

If California is not competitive, these projects simply go elsewhere, and that's what's been happening. Over the past several years, California has seen steep decline in commercial production as work goes to other states that offer targeted incentives. Today, 29 states include commercials in their filming incentives, while California does not. Commercials are often described as the bread and butter of local film economies.

While individual projects may be short, they are more frequent and consistent in more geographically diverse areas and longer form projects. Commercial shoot in urban centers, suburbs, and rural communities alike. It brings steady work to crews, vendors, and small businesses across the entire state, not just in traditional production hubs.

When the commercial shoots in the community, the economic impact is immediate and tangible for local hotels, restaurants, caterers, equipment rental houses, transportation providers, location services, and others. Small locally owned businesses benefit directly. But because commercials are so mobile, that spending can leave just as quickly as it arrives.

When a project shoots another state, California doesn't just lose the production. It loses all of the downstream economic activity that comes with it. AB 2403 recognizes that commercial production is unique and requires a tailored approach. By making California competitive for this segment of the industry, the bill will help bring back projects that are currently being lost to other states and countries.

California remains the best place in the world to make content. The workforce, infrastructure, and creative talent are already here. But without a competitive framework, we're simply pricing ourselves out of a market that we once dominated. AB 2403 is an opportunity to course correct. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support.

Thank you very much. Next witness, two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Assembly. My name is Rudy Reyes. I'm a member of Local 728 Set Lighting Technicians Union, and I serve as a Restorative Justice Director for the Restorative Academic Mentorship Program, RAMP, in Los Angeles. And I'm a member of the Anti Recidivism Coalition.

Every day I work with young people who are fighting for a second chance, and I stand before you today to talk about an opportunity that connects economic policy with public safety, workforce development, and human potential. I'm here representing the thousands of skilled workers who rely on commercial production to make a living.

California has long been the global leader in film and television production. Through legislation like AB 1138, this body made a powerful statement that we were committed to keeping production and the jobs that come with it here at home, but there is a gap in that vision. Commercial production, advertising, branded content, short form media is quietly leaving California at a rapid pace.

These are not small projects. They are high frequency, fast moving productions that generate consistent jobs for crew members, electricians, grips, drivers, caterers, stylists, and countless entry level positions. Yet unlike film and television, they often do not qualify for meaningful tax incentives.

I remember a time when I would do two to three Super Bowl commercials per year. Then in 2024 and 2025, I did no Super Bowl commercials. As a result, they go elsewhere to states and countries that often that offer even modest financial advantages. California's share of commercial production has dropped from 50 to 25% over the last decade.

In Los Angeles alone, production is roughly down 35 to 40% in recent years. Through RAMP, we work with justice impacted youth who are ready to work, ready to learn, and ready to contribute. What we need is access. Commercial production is uniquely positioned to provide that access. It offers shorter project cycles, more frequent hiring opportunities, and entry points that do not always require years of experience.

In 2017, after spending 28 years in the juvenile and adult systems, I was paroled to Los Angeles where I joined ManifestWorks, a nonprofit workforce development that takes each student through the commercial film production from the beginning, the bidding process with the client agency, to the physical film production, and to the final post production process.

I made my way and built my career as a production assistant from the ground up without any family, father, uncle, brother to give me a leg up. I eventually earned my set lighting technician union days and commercials through hard work, sweat, sticky socks, and God's grace.

When we talk about expanding tax credits, we should not only be thinking about major studios, we should be thinking about workforce pipelines and smaller production houses that specialize in commercials. SMUGGLER, Biscuit, and Purdy Birch, to name a few.

Shout out to Rodney Nadlersson, Michelle Lawrence, Sanam Nasir, producers, Adam Chambers, Gaffer, Kevin Brady, DGA. An expansion of California's tax credit program to include commercial production would do three critical things. First, it would keep jobs in California by making...

If you could finish the thought, your two minutes are up.

The bill is about protecting middle class and union jobs, keeping California competitive. Without action, we will continue to lose work, talent, and economic activity. I respectively ask for your aye vote on AB 2403. Thank you for your time and your leadership.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of Assembly Bill 2403, would you please step to the microphone? I need your name, your organization, and this is support for this measure.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Connor Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Missy Johnson here on behalf of the Directors Guild of America. I've also been asked to express support on behalf of the Entertainment Union Coalition, DGA is a member, as well as the California IATSE Council, all in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Adam Keigwin on behalf of California LULAC and the National Action Network in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Esteban Núñez on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition and AICP in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Primary witness in opposition to this measure, 2403, to please come forward. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak in opposition. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition of this measure? You have the same right.

Hearing and seeing none. Wanna bring it back to the committee. Any Members wishing to speak? Okay. Great. To the, to the author, do you intend to incorporate any workforce training requirements similar to the Motion Picture Tax Credit program?

That's a really good question. I'm open to incorporating that and definitely would wanna talk to the team of sponsors as well as the unions to see what we can do to make that happen.

Okay. Great. Cool. Thank you very much for considering that because that's what was in the previous iteration of the Film Tax Credit that we had before. So with that, to the author, you may close.

I just wanna point to the story shared by Mr. Rudy Reyes and just recognizing the pathways that are created. Oftentimes, when we think of film and TV, and these huge amazing productions and the jobs that can come, commercials are really the first step.

Especially for folks who are coming home from incarceration who are open and and wanna be a part of this particular industry. And so respectfully ask for your aye vote once you all have the suspense hearing.

Thank you very much. This bill will be referred to our suspense file, and thank you very much to both you as well as your witness for coming in before this committee. Thank you very much. And so you have another bill you want to present on behalf of Ms. Rodriguez Celeste?

Yes. Good afternoon again... Oh, yes. Of course.

Okay. Sure. If we could also please have Mr. Carrillo and Mr. DeMaio please report to Room 126, the Revenue and Taxation Committee. Because as soon as Ms. Elhawary finished presenting on behalf of Ms. Celeste Rodriguez, we're going to open up and dispense with our suspense file. So Members, you can sit tight. We're gonna move rather quickly on our suspense file. So with that being said, the floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair Gipson and members. I am proud to present AB 2672 on behalf of Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez, which establishes a childcare contribution credit to incentivize private investment in California's early care and education system. And on her behalf, we'd like to accept the committee's amendments. I also wanted to thank Wesley, who is one of the committee consultants on behalf of Assemblymember Rodriguez for the thoughtful analysis. California's childcare system is severely underfunded with demand far exceeding supply.

Families are facing high costs and limited access to reliable care. In some cases, spending up to 25% of their income on infant care. At the same time, providers are operating on thin margins and childcare professionals are often underpaid, leading to workforce instability and ongoing challenges in recruitment and retention. These challenges don't just affect families. They impact the broader economy.

When families cannot access reliable care, parents, particularly mothers, are forced to reduce hours or leave the workforce altogether, creating ripple effects for employers and the state. AB 2673 takes a targeted approach to addressing these challenges. By encouraging private contributions to childcare providers, the bill helps bring additional resources into a system that is already stretched thin. These contributions can be used to support wages, training, and operations, helping stabilize providers and expand access to care.

This also helps support workforce stability by ensuring more parents are able to remain employed and engaged.

Importantly, this bill does not replace existing public investments. It complements them by leveraging private dollars. And with me today, we have Alexis Rodriguez with Cal Chamber to provide testimony.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Thank you, chair and members. Alexis Rodriguez with the California Chamber of Commerce here in support of AB 2623. We recognize the importance for families to access affordable and reliable childcare and how it directly impacts an employee's ability to feel successful at work. When we're working parents that can find consistent childcare, they may or when they can't find, consistent child care, they are, more likely to make difficult decisions between their jobs and their families.

This challenge disproportionately impacts women who make up nearly half of California's workforce, but but continue to shoulder the majority of caregiving responsibilities.

Studies show that mothers are significantly more likely to reduce their hours or leave jobs due to childcare barriers. The pandemic underscored this trend with women accounting for a large share of the workforce, exiting tied to caregiving. AB 2673 offers a practical way for employers to be part of the solution by encouraging businesses to invest in childcare options, whether that's supporting local facilities, helping their employees directly, or partnering with local programs to expand access in their communities.

When working families are supported, employees are more stable, engaged, and productive, and that benefits everyone. For these reasons, we respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 2673 should the bill move off suspense.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of assembly bill twenty six seventy three should please line up? Seeing none. Any primary opposition to this measure? Twenty six seventy three.

Seeing none. Oh, my god. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to twenty six seventy three? Okay. Wanna bring it back to the committee. We just wanna cut right through it. Anyone in the wishing to speak? K. Miss Elhawary, thank you very much for presenting this measure on behalf of miss Rodriguez. You may close on her behalf.

On behalf of my assembly bestie, we respectfully ask for your aye vote once it's off the suspense file.

I thought I was your bestie, but it's okay. I won't take it personally. Thank you very much. This item, you're gonna cause a lot of trouble. This item

Assemblymember Rodriguez

This bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you very much to you and your witness, Michelle. Okay. Thank you very much. We're gonna ask our secretary to please open the roll on AB, 2173, file item number nine for the 172.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Because that bill is out. Having dealt with all the items under regular order of business portion of this hearing, we will now take up bills on the suspense file order. File item number file item number 3, AB 2089 Ward. We will start with excuse me. We will start with file item number three, AB 2089 by Assembly member Ward.

The chair's recommending an aye vote with amendments to make the electronic signature requirement permissive, hold counties harmless for not publishing forms that have not been they have not yet been published by the BOE and remove provisions that prohibit collecting certain property tax and requires posting documentation on the assessor's website. Do we have a motion and a second? Second. Motion by Quirk Silva, second by mister

[Roll Call]

Yes. Okay. We're gonna recess for ten minutes while we yeah. We're gonna recess for ten minutes.

We're back on. We will start with file item number three, AB 2089 by a similar member Ward. The chair is recommending an aye vote with amendments to make electronic signatures require permissive, hold counties harmless for not publishing forms that have not yet been published by the BOE, remove provisions that prohibit collecting certain property tax and require posting documentation at the assessor's on the assessor's website. Do we have a motion and a second? It's been moved by McKenna and second by miss Rodriguez.

The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We can see. Thank you very much, committee. The revenue and taxation committee stands at adjourned. Thank you very much for your patience and your time. Thank you very much.