Senate Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

So technically, Senator Allen is here to present first.

He's he's here to co present. For a dollar.

The committee on revenue taxation will now come to order. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will proceed as a subcommittee. And first, we will hear from the first author. Have you decided who will present first? Senator Archuleta. And this is file item number four, SB1124, public health. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you. And I wanna thank my colleagues for allowing me to toss a coin in the air to decide who's gonna go first. They should know better to than flip coins when I have both sides of the coin. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair and and, committee members, for allowing me to present Senate Bill 1124, lung cancer screening. And I will tell you this, that it's amazing what you're gonna hear today about pertaining to lung cancer and screening.

Senate Bill 1124 would require the California Department of Public Health to create signage for lung cancer screening eligibility criteria. It would also require that signage be displaced. Displaced at a point of sale at locations where tobacco products are sold. That means the gas stations, the markets, the liquor stores. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in California nationally, yet California has the lowest lung cancer screening rate in the country.

The primary barrier is awareness, given that 62% of Americans don’t even know lung cancer screening exists. In 2024, an estimated 16,920 California residents were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 9,320 died from the disease, which is more than from other lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia all of them combined. Eighty percent of patients diagnosed with lung cancer at an early stage are alive 20 years later after screening.

So we've got to emphasize that people should be screened and looked at by their physicians as early as possible.

However, in California, only 25.9% of lung cancers are diagnosed at an early age and an early stage, which is significantly lower than the national rate, as I had mentioned. To address California’s particularly low screening rate and the disparities in access across the community, Senate Bill 1124 will require signage created by the California Department of Health for lung cancer screening eligibility criteria at the point of sale of tobacco products.

And with me today, I have doctor Zhu, and I believe. And to talk about the devastation of lung cancer and and how we can prevent it if we're screened early.

Doctor, you are welcome to approach the table and take a seat.

Good morning, members of the committee, and, thank you for the opportunity to speak today, in support of SB 1124. I would also like to thank, Senator Archuleta for his leadership in authoring this bill, as well as the bill's co-authors for their support for recognizing the importance of lung cancer screening, and introducing this life saving bill. My name is Alex Zhu. I'm a general surgery resident physician at UC San Diego.

I'm currently also a research fellow in thoracic surgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital, where my work focuses on lung cancer.

I'm a strong advocate for lung cancer screening and I currently help lead a clinical trial on lung cancer screening in high risk populations. And I'm a member of the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative founded by my mentor, Doctor. Chi Fu Jeffrey Yang. Over the last few years, I've had the privilege of leading one of the clinical trials at the Massachusetts General Hospital, the INSPIRE study, through which we are working to reduce large existing gap in lung cancer screening for high risk patients.

Many of whom previously were not even aware that lung cancer screening guidelines existed.

We collaborate with the American Lung Cancer Screen Initiative and outreach and spend many weekends at local health fairs speaking directly with community members in The United States. Regardless of where we are, we always encounter the same sentiment from patients, and that is that they have never heard of lung cancer screening. Sadly, the data confirms this. 62% of Americans do not know that lung cancer screening exists, and only, around 1% of, people in California who are eligible have undergone recommended screening.

As a comparison, nearly 70% of California women at risk of breast cancer have undergone their screening mammogram in the past two years.

This is especially striking as the plurality of patients are diagnosed with lung cancer at stage four when it cannot be cured. When caught early, lung cancer is highly treatable and patients often go on to live long, healthy lives. After their surgeries, many of our patients tell our team that they would have never known about streaming if it wasn't for the fact that they came to our local fairs.

It weighs heavily on me that so many others who may never attend a health fair, including those in rural and underserved communities, are not being reached and will die of lung cancer simply because they've never heard of lung cancer screening. That is why I urge you to vote yes on SB 1124, as this is a simple life saving policy that would require information about lung cancer screening to be posted wherever tobacco is sold.

California already mandates notices about legal age of purchasing tobacco products, but nothing about education on lung cancer screening. Adding a notice about lung cancer screening is a low cost, actual addition that would reach millions of high risk citizens in the, most underserved communities and undoubtedly save thousands of lives. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak today and for considering SB 1124.

Thank you, doctor, for your testimony. Are there any other primary witnesses.

No.

Are there any other witnesses in the public that wish to support this bill. Please state your name and your support.

Natalie Pita on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians in support.

Any of the witnesses, in support of the bill. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill. You can sit at the table if you prefer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, representing the majority of small independent gas stations stores here in the State of California. Want to start off with a concerned position on the bill. I want to thank the author and his staff for the willingness to engage.

Certainly understand the intent of the bill. We do have some concerns, though, really on the implementation side and they kind of fall into two buckets, I would say. The first one is around the signage requirements themselves. Some of our operators have very small footprints, so ensuring that the signage is able to fit in their stores and is also provided to them, that's a really important concern for us.

The second, I would say, is really on the notification side of the bill to ensure our members before they're assessed a penalty for not having a sign up know their obligations under the law and are they therefore able to follow it.

So at this time, we do have a concerned position, but appreciate the willingness of the author and the chair to engage. Thank you.

I think, thank the gentleman. Are there any other witnesses in opposition that wish to, voice that opposition. Please oppose the microphone. Give your name and your opposition.

Hi. Good morning. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association. I also echo my colleagues’ concerns, and as well thank you to the staff. We also share the same concerns, and we will continue working with the author’s office.

Thank you.

Any of the witnesses in opposition. With that, we'll move to the committee, for comments, questions. Any ones from the committee. The vice chair is recognized.

Thank you so much, Senator Archuleta for presenting this bill and for expanding on the work of the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act or the STAKE Act. I've seen the work of this legislature to ensure that our young people are protected and have education around their choices, particularly around tobacco products. My question is really about the penalties.

I think under the Stake Act, we have implemented anywhere from 1,000, to, 1,500 for, of a penalty for the first offense and then up to 20,000 for five offenses over five years. So I'm a little concerned that this bill is equating, not having a sign, as the same penalty as selling, tobacco products to minors.

Can you speak a little bit to the penalty and your flexibility there.

You you've gotta remember, we try to do everything we can to save lives with signs. We stop tragedies with signs. We have signs in the freeways. Why. Because we're trying to save lives.

And if we save lives, we're doing our work as protecting society. But when you think of people who have smoked for a number of years or will smoke, as you mentioned, the young kids, they've got to know that there's danger up ahead. And if we can go ahead and influence them to understand, even to tell their parents and grandparents that, hey, take a look. You should need to go to the doctor and see if you have a problem.

In reference to the signage, there's gonna be a period of time where the merchant can once he's notified that he's not conforming, to go ahead and have a period of time to go ahead and fix it.

So, we have it's it's not punitive because they're gonna be told. We wanna help the merchant put the sign up. And if we save one life per gas station, one life per store, one life across the state at every merchant stop. Imagine what we're gonna do to stop lung cancer. So with that, I strongly urge your aye vote.

I would also add that the author has agreed to reduce the penalty, in the next committee.

Yeah. We'll we'll take a good look at that.

Great. Thank you. The question for the witness. So lung cancer screening, can you talk a little bit about what type of preventative screening is available, the access and then cost to a consumer.

Yes. Thank you for the question.

So lung cancer screening in general is just a low dose CT scan of the chest. It's a pretty quick procedure. There's no IV contrast needed, so it would take about, the scan itself probably a minute or so. I think the longest part is waiting in the waiting lobby room. Most places, you know, in most major cities will have a CT scanner that, patients can go to.

In terms of cost wise, it is, if you are eligible for lung cancer screening, it's generally covered by all insurances.

Okay. So in terms of being eligible for, lung cancer screening, would would it be someone who, is at risk because, they use tobacco products or, like, someone like me that doesn't smoke. Can I ask for a lung screening or how is it set up right now through the medical system so that we can have preventative screenings?

Thank you for the question.

Currently, right now, there's some pretty, kind of stringent guidelines for lung cancer screening. It's mostly directed at people who are at higher risk. So that would include, anyone between the ages of 50 and 80 who've smoked around twenty pack years, meaning packs per day multiplied by number of years and who either currently smoke or quit within the last fifteen years. That's indicate that's designated as a high risk individual who would benefit from lung cancer screening.

Thank you. So to the author, I really support what the Stake Act is doing. And of course, we wanna save lives. I'm not gonna be able to support this bill today, but I'm gonna continue to watch it. I think one of my concerns is that we are setting a precedent for screening for individuals that's not accessible, something like cervical cancer screening or skin cancer screening that's very readily accessible for all ages.

I want to make sure that we have a system in place that would not only educate around potential lung cancer screenings, but also have the infrastructure in place. And I just don't think we have that right now in California. Perhaps that's something that the California Department of Public Health will create within their signage. So I look forward to seeing your bill developed. Unfortunately, I'll just gonna be able to lay off today, but continue to watch the work that you're doing.

And thank you for bringing this forward.

Good. Thank you.

With that, I was gonna ask about the accessibility of screening, lung cancer screening, but you already took that question. So I thank the vice chair for that. Sir, thank you for bringing this forward. I know that you care a lot about public health and this is gonna be a step in the right direction. If the bill passes this afternoon, it's going to go to the committee the health committee this afternoon.

Yes. I understand that you're working on a health committee to address concerns about the penalty which is already brought up, and the procedure for retailers to obtain a signage. Thank you for working with the committee here and and the health committee. With your commitment to resolve these problems, I am happy to support your bill today. Senator, would you like to close.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your comments, Senator. We're faced with technology that it just moves us right along. But we don't think about our seniors.

I think of the veterans who, in the military, were told, ‘Hey, you got one? Light them up. You need one? Bum one.

Can you imagine standing around people and you were encouraged to smoke. That's your grandfather. That's maybe your father. And, well, we've curtailed that in the military. And, so now it's more healthy military because we realize the cost of lives, the cost of cancer.

And this bill just brings awareness. That's it. Awareness. So imagine if, again, somebody walks in, sees the sign, maybe not for them, but for their loved one, and go back and ask for the screening. That's basically it, awareness.

And as we develop the bill, we'll go ahead and make some adjustments where we have to in reference the penalties, which is a logical step, no doubt. But we must keep that sign up one way or the other. And I would think logically, if there isn't much of a window, then the sign would probably be smaller because it can't absorb the entire window for the merchant. So everything will be adjusted. But the important thing is to go forward and bring awareness.

Imagine the lives we're gonna save and to be able to do it early enough. And as the doctor mentioned, if it's detected early enough, they could add another twenty years of life. So let's try and do that. And with that, I respectfully ask for aye vote.

I thank the Senator. Before, we move to a vote, I would like to establish a quorum. Will the secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum, so we can proceed as a committee. And with that, I will ask this. Is there a motion on this bill.

So move.

Moved by Senator Grayson. Would the secretary please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to the Committee on Health. Senators McNerney, aye. McNerney, aye. Alvarado-Gil. Ashby. Becker. Grayson, aye. Grayson, aye. Two-zero. Two-zero is the bill. The vote is two-zero. The bill is now on hold.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we will have file item seven, SB 1352, Senator Valadez. And I understand, Senator Allen is also going to be helping in the presentation. Senator Valadez, please proceed when ready.

Thank you, mister chair and vice chair and members for the opportunity to present Senate Bill thirteen fifty two. Following major wildfires, including the LA fires last year, state and local governments often adopt policies to give fire victims some flexibility when rebuilding. These policies typically allow homeowners to rebuild up to 110% of the original structure size to accommodate updated building standards and resiliency improvements. Under current law, fire victims may retain their original base year property tax value if the reconstructed home is substantially equivalent to the original.

However, it is unclear whether this standard permits modest increase in size.

SB 1352 provides that clarity by explicitly allowing up to 10% increase in size, ensuring that wildfire victims are not subject to reassessment and higher property taxes. This bill only applies to homes destroyed due to a disaster for which the governor has proclaimed a state of emergency and sunset in 2036. Also here co presenting with me is Senator Ben Allen.

Well, thank you. Thank you, mister chair for this opportunity. Thank you to, Senator Valladares for authoring this bill. I'm a proud joint author of SB 1352 because I I we've been so aware of how much these issues are impacting fire victims all throughout the state, certainly in my district that are currently navigating the rebuild process.

And I wanna thank our our county assessor who's been working so hard on this issue on the ground, making sure that we're trying to reduce some barriers for these poor folks who've lost so much.

As Senator Valleres mentioned, under current law, a home has to to must be constructed substantially equivalent to the original home to be able to transfer the base tax year to the new construction. The problem is the standard's unclear, and it's led to some confusion as people plan for their rebuilds. Additionally, for older homes, like so many of the ones that were destroyed, both in the Palisades and also now to Dina, substantially equivalent might not encompass adopting modern building standards, including door heights or hallway widths.

It isn't also clear as to how the additional cost for installing expensive fire mitigation measures in a rebuild could be substantially equivalent. So this bill seeks to provide clarity and flexibility.

I thank my colleague for bringing the measure forward. I thank the assessor for working so closely with us, and I just really urge my colleagues to to to support this important effort.

And here to testify in support is our LA County assessor, Jeffrey Prank.

Thank you very much, mister chair, senators, and thank you, Senator Valadares, for your support on this bill. I'm proud to LA County is the sponsor of this bill. It's gonna provide much needed, clarity and certainty for Californians rebuilding their homes and communities following devastating disasters. Senate bill thirteen fifty two addresses a critical gap in current property tax law clearly defining what is known as substantially equivalent for purposes of rebuilding damaged or destroyed properties due to a misfortune and calamity.

Specifically, the bill allows a reconstructed improvement to be up to a 110% of its original size without triggering a reassessment as new construction for properties damaged or destroyed on or after 01/01/2025.

Under Proposition 13, homeowners are prohibited or protected from reassessment when they rebuild after disaster, so as long as the replacement property is substantially equivalent to what was lost. The protection is essential, it ensures that families are not burdened with higher property taxes at the very moment they're trying to recover and rebuild their lives. However, current law does not clearly define what substantially equivalent means. It's creating uncertainty for property owners navigating the rebuilding process.

This ambiguity has become essentially problematic in the wake of the recent fires including Eaton fire and the Palisades fire.

In response, the governor issued a disaster declaration allowing governments to adopt expedited building policies allowing modest increases in structure size up to a 110% of the original footprint to accommodate building codes and safety improvements. Yet despite these approvals, homeowners have faced uncertainty about whether that additional 10% will result in a reassessment.

SB 1352 provides clear and practical solution by expressly stating that rebuilding up to 110% of the original size qualifies as substantially equivalent, this bill aligns the building code standards with the assessment standards for these fire victims. Just as importantly, set up bill thirteen fifty two promotes consistency across counties, it strengthens taxpayer protection statewide, it provides assessors with clear statutory guidance, reduces disputes, and ensures uniform application of the law so the disaster survivors are treated fairly regardless regardless of where they live.

At its core this bill is about stability, fairness, and recovery.

It recognizes the realities of modern rebuilding while upholding California's long standing commitment to taxpayer protections. For families recovering from disaster, certainty matters and SB 1352 delivers that certainty. I did want to emphasize that the California Assessors Association also has endorsed this this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony. Any other primary witnesses in support of the bill? Any public members of public wish to voice their support? Please just state your name and your support.

Sure. Good morning. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors in strong support of the measure.

Thank you.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in support.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to voice their support? Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, are there any members of the public that wish to voice opposition to the bill? Seeing none, we will now ask the members of the committee for their comments and questions.

Seeing none. Senators, thank you for advancing this bill. Those affected by the Los Angeles County fires have been through tremendous hardships. Access of praying, mayor Bass, and many others deserve tremendous credit for their leadership during a very, very difficult time. I hope that the bill grants sufficient flexibility to help Los Angeles, Los Angeles, In places like that they can rebuild quickly.

Are you accepting committee amendments?

We are accepting committee amendments.

I will be supporting the bill today. Senators, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Very good close.

I'll move the bill.

And the bill is moved. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriation. Senators McNerney.

McNerney, aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye.

Aye.

Ashby Becker Grayson.

Aye.

Grayson, aye. Three zero.

The bill is three bill three to zero. The bill is now on hold. Thank you for your presentation.

Mister chair, if I may, I'm also joint authoring a bill with Senator Dahle and she's not present. I'm gonna be presenting her bill, SB 1343.

Okay. There's two the Senator Dahle has two bills. Are you gonna present both?

I'm just doing the one that I'm

Okay. Bill so that'll be a file item three, 1343?

Yes.

K. Senator, please proceed when ready.

Thank you so much, mister chair. I really appreciate it. And and I do, on behalf of the Senator and myself, we're we're joint authoring the bill together. I wanna thank the committee staff for their work on the bill. We are accepting the committee's amendments on behalf of we are committing accepting the committee's amendments.

Okay. So California, as you know, is facing ever increasing devastation challenges from wildfire with the deadliest, largest, most destructive fires in state history occurring in the last decade. And both Senator Dolly and Aye, you know, were brought together like so many of us. All of us have fire zones. And we've heard firsthand from constituents, friends, family about the overwhelming financial burden of rebuilding their homes, following the Carr, Camp, and Dixie Fires in Senator Dolly's district, the Palisades, and Eaton Fires in Los Angeles, Woolsey.

I mean, the list goes on and on. Together, all of these fires have destroyed thousands of homes. They've displaced tens of thousands of people. And to this day, many people are still living in temporary housing as they navigate the rebuild process. Fire victims need to spend, hundreds of thousands of dollars in some in in in most cases to rebuild their homes and replace their lost personal longings.

The state and local governments are still collecting revenue through sales tax on the goods that would never have been purchased if not for one of the most destructive wildfires in state history. So let's just, you know, remember this. Right? These are expenditures that they have to to to effectuate that but this is not a remodel. This is not someone, you know, trying to do some luxury, you know, improvement to their property.

This is people rebuilding their homes that were flattened, destroyed, because we all failed each other, in in these fires. So, with the committee's amendments, this bill will provide some, relief to disaster victims that are rebuilding their homes and wanna return to their communities. It'll provide an income tax credit of $4,000 per disaster for the portion of sales tax paid on furniture and appliances that are purchased to furnish a home for up to three years post disaster.

It also includes a carryover period of five years for claimants to receive the remainder of the credit, in future years if their annual tax bill does not amount to $4,000 in a single year. The credit is limited to, individuals rebuilding primary residences, so that, you know, we avoid subsidizing luxury purchases by limiting the credits items with a price less than $3,500.

We don't have any witnesses here to support this morning, but I know there are thousands of fire victims who would benefit from this bill, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

So I heard the the author or the substitute author say there's no primary witnesses?

That's right. Yeah. Support. Joint author. Joint author.

Are there any members of the public that wish to support the bill? Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any witnesses of the public in opposition? Please state your name, your organization, and your opposition.

Michelle Warshaw, Caliverny Teachers Association, respectfully oppose.

Thank you. Seeing no more public witnesses, we will now turn to members of the committee for comments or questions. Seeing none. Senators, thank you for your presentation this morning, and thank you for standing in. I share your concern that the cost of rebuilding after losing one's home and belongings in a natural disaster can leave residents and families with impossible decisions.

This is especially true for lower income families and instances where insurance claims were denied, which is unthinkable. This bill would help families recover costs to replace important household items. However, I'm concerned that the bill would benefit higher income households and be difficult to administer. That is a concern that the chair feels. And I see that you are accepting committee amendments.

With that, I will be in support of SB 1343. Do I have a motion? Senator Becker moves the bill. Would you please call the roll? Oh, again, does the author wish to close before the roll?

Yeah. I no. I appreciate the comments of the of the the chair. I just remind people, these are not new builds. These are people that lost everything in a fire. And so, you know, they are struggling to get back on the ground and get themselves up and running and we need them to get back up and running for revenue, for recovery, for regenerating communities.

And it just it seems right that we would provide them some tax relief associated with the direct rebuild of their homes after they lost everything. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I thank the Senate for the closing remarks. Will the secretary please call the roll?

Motion is do passes amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators McNerney.

McNerney, aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ashby Becker.

Aye.

Aye.

Becker, aye. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Four zero.

Thank you, members. Thank you very much.

All with the 4-0 vote. We have another author in the house, Senator Hurtado. Final item 6, SB 1172. Senator, please proceed when ready.

Good morning, Mister chair and members. I'm here to present SB 1172, the Local Tax Savings Act. SB 1172 is about fairness, accountability, and protecting the communities that can least afford to lose. And it is about protecting every local tax dollar as well. Across California, local governments rely on tax sharing agreements as a tool to attract economic development.

But when those agreements are structured without clear guardrails, they can end up doing the opposite, diverting critical tax dollars away from the very communities they are meant to support. In the City of Shafter, a small Central Valley community in my district, local leaders worked in good faith many, many years ago to bring in economic opportunity to boost local revenue. But instead of seeing the full benefit of that growth, significant portions of their local tax revenue were redirected through consultant agreements that lack transparency and reasonable limits.

For a community like Shafter, where every dollar matters, that means fewer resources for public safety, infrastructure, and basic services. It means residents who already feel like they've gotten the short end of the stick are left wondering whether the system is really working for them.

What happened in Shafter also happened in Dinuba and should never, happen anywhere else. SB 1172 takes a balanced and responsible approach. It does not eliminate tax sharing agreements or local control. Instead, it puts in place reasonable caps on consultant compensation and requires full transparency so that the decisions are made in the open and with accountability. By aligning incentives with genuine economic development, we ensure that public dollars are actually reinvested back into the communities that generate them.

With this bill, we are making sure that small and rural communities have confidence that their government is safeguarding their taxpayer dollars, not not allowing them to be quietly siphoned away. SB 1172 ensures that economic development works for our communities not against them. And with me today, I have Chris Micheli representing the City of Shafter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, Chris Micheli on behalf of the sponsor of the bill. We thank the author for carrying the measure. As the author so eloquently put forward, these local tax sharing agreements do have some beneficial use no doubt.

However, we believe that prospective regulation of them, particularly when it comes to consultant compensation, the total amount and the length of time that they can be compensated on that deserve some reasonable guardrails and that's what this bill does. Again, it does not affect any existing ones. It's on a going forward basis because we want to ensure first local control, but also more importantly that these revenues, primarily stay within, that jurisdiction.

So, we hope that you will support this bill as it went unanimously out of the Senate local government committee, last week. Thank you, Mister chairman.

I wanna thank, Mister Micheli for your testimony. Are there any other witnesses of the public that wish to voice their support? Please state your name, organization, and support level.

Good morning. Ben Treville with League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Leticia Garcia with California Retailers Association also in support.

Thank you. No other, witnesses in support. Are there any other are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any members of the public that wish to voice opposition? Seeing none, I will ask the members of the committee for comments and questions.

The Vice chair is recognized.

Thank you, Senator Hurtado. I can certainly empathize, as you and I both represent rural areas of California, particularly up some of the main highways, you know local economic growth, job development. We're always looking for investments in our rural communities. I'm struggling with this bill, for a few reasons. One is I do believe that this does infringe on local control.

I do believe that by us legislating from Sacramento, we're taking away the ability for local, cities to kind of build those those scaffolding for these. I certainly do not believe any brokers or consultants should be, enriching themselves on tax dollars. So I agree with you very strongly on that. Where I struggle with is that the local control part. I do like that this has been proposed by the City of Shafter and has the support from some of the associations that look out for our small cities.

I just I wonder about if we take this away or we limit it, I should say, not take it away, but limit it. Where is the incentive for the competition for our small rural cities to say, yes, you know, bring this economic driver to my city versus bringing it to some somewhere else. So if it's capped at 250,000 you know, where where else can they have incentives to drive the business and drive the the the jobs to their cities?

And so this is a philosophical question, I'm not asking you directly. So this is where where I'm struggling.

What I'd like to do is lay off of it. Keep watching your bill move through. I think it's a crafty solution to a problem that we can all recognize and say we need to do more because, again, our responsibility is to safeguard taxpayer dollars. I'm just reluctant because of local control issue right now. But, I am not gonna oppose it.

Just lay off. Okay. Thank you.

Of course.

Thank you, Mister chair. And I would like to hear the response of, the author of the bill, especially on local control coming from local government. And I noticed that, you already went through local gov with 6-0 vote and that the League of Cities are in support of the bill. So how does this impact local control, which is important to me?

Well, what I would say is that it doesn't take local control away. If anything, it's a safeguard put in place to protect communities across the state of California and not just the City of Shafter. But I'll also allow Chris to see if he wants to add anything to that as well. If I don't

With your permission, Mister chairman? Yes. Thank you. Through the chair, I think that the the unfortunate history of these as your Chief Consultant knows very well, a lot of local jurisdictions have been leveraged, unfortunately, by some of these consultants who have been paid an exorbitant amount of money has been set forth in the analysis and so we believe that having those guardrails statute will enable the local governments to work collaboratively with each other without getting leveraged by those consultants by having the backstop of these limitations in statute.

Okay. Thank you.

And if I may add, Mister chair. So part of the reason why I brought this measure forward to begin with is because maybe almost two decades ago or a little over a decade ago, there was a tax sharing agreement that was done with the City of Shafter, and it was a significant portion or percentage of that agreement. I think almost the entire thing that it took instead of it going to the community, it ended up all going to the consultants.

So imagine and I don't have the exact percentage with me at the moment, maybe Chris knows, but it was pretty significant where that shouldn't be happening anywhere. So you know, I understand where some of the concerns may be coming from, but at the same time, I think there needs to be some sort of balance and protection of our communities across the state because that was just absurd.

The level of the percentage that it that these consultants got away with.

Yeah. I just wanna thank the author. And I understand some of the the concerns, but you know, I think I see this as just as a good government responsible government bill, and I appreciate your leadership here trying to be a good steward of of dollars. And you know, again I see this as a good government bill, and I'll be supporting the bill. I appreciate it.

No other comments from members of the committee. Thank you for presentation, Senator. And thank you, Chris, for your presentation. And I understand you're accepting committee amendments.

That is correct.

You're a great advocate for economic development for the cities in your district which is always appreciated. I'm happy to support your bill today. And Senator Grayson, I think you've already moved the bill. Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Respect last for an aye vote.

Thank you for that, succinct closure. The secretary, would you please call the roll?

Motion is do passes amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators McNerney?

Aye.

McNerney, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Ashby? Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Grayson.

Aye.

Grayson, aye. 3-0.

The bill is on call with 3-0 vote. Are there any other authors present? None at this time. No, no other authors are present at this time.

We might as well do the consent calendar. Thank you for that. Senator Grayson? The consent calendar has now been moved.

I'd like to identify the bills. File item one, SB 1072, housing committee. File item five, SB 1165 by Caballero. File item 10, SB 1435 by rev and tax committee. File item 11 SB1436 also by this committee and file item 12 SB1437 again by this committee. And we have a motion with the secretary call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is three zero. The consent calendar is on call. For recess. The sit committee will now go on recess until we get additional authors.

Committee will now come back to order and we will look forward to hearing file item nine SB 148 by Senator Arreguin.

Senator, when soon as you're ready, please proceed.

Well, thank you Mr. Chair members. My pleasure to present SB 1408, which is a district specific bill to address the transportation needs for the county of Contra Costa. So I just ran over from the capital. This bill would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to place a countywide sales tax measure of up to 1% on the ballot to continue funding transportation programs in the county.

Provide context, CCTA is already receiving funding from a prior sales tax measure that was approved in November 2004 that is set to expire in 2034.

And that measure was the result of a stakeholder process to develop a countywide transportation expenditure plan. This bill will allow CCTA to place a similar tax measure on the ballot. I want to clarify all this does is gives the voters the ability to put that measure on the ballot.

Put the voters aside if this is the right thing for them to invest in to fund critical transportation improvements in the county and I'm honored to represent Contra Costa County with my colleague, Senator Grayson, as well as Senator Cobaldum. It's anticipated that revenues generated with a new sales tax.

We'll continue to fund highway construction upgrades, local road maintenance and improvements, biking and pedestrian infrastructure, public transit, and mobility expansion programs. With me to testify in support is Darlene Gee, the chair of the board of CCTA, and Tim Hales, executive director.

Witnesses will will please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It’s a pleasure to be here. I’m Darlene Gee. I’m the Chair of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and also the Vice Mayor of the City of Orinda. Senate Bill 1408 is a vital tool for us that builds upon our history of success with our approved Measures C and J.

And through these half cent sales taxes, CCTA has consistently delivered projects that boost our local economy, and we see the direct impact of this. I see it in my own city in Orinda. For example, Measure J funds helped pave the way for a lot of our infrastructure including very important large projects such as the Caldecott 4th Bore, tunnel.

We use it and see it a lot in our, even our local paving projects in the city of Orinda, major arterials, and a program that's incredibly important to us locally, our school bus program. However, despite these successes, our countywide challenges continue.

And according to a San Francisco Chronicle article this past week, four of the top 10 worst bottlenecks in the entire Bay Area are in Contra Costa County, not a list we wanted to be on. But with Westbound Highway 4 ranking as the second most congested corridor in the region, SB 1408 authorizes CCTA to seek the voter approved funding necessary to continue to tackle these challenges. The legislation is also essential for strengthening the backbone of our public transit, network and increasing access across communities.

While Contra Costa is home to Bart's Yellow Line, the busiest and most popular line, many residents, particularly seniors, students, and low income residents still lack reliable first and last mile options to use transit. We have already approved the value of localized transit investments in Orinda where Measure J supported our ADA ramp grades and better pedestrian lighting to access our BART station in downtown.

Ultimately, 1408 is about maintaining flexibility to solve our county’s unique transportation challenges. And the bill recognizes that state funding limits can constrain our local solutions. A voter-approved measure can provide the fiscal flexibility that we need while maintaining accountability to our taxpayers. Thank you very much. We hope that you will give this great consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Arreguin, and and good morning, members and and and the chair, Mr. Chair. My name is Tim Hale. I'm the executive director of Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and CCTA is a public agency that was formed in 1988 to really manage the overall countywide transportation sales tax as well as our system in Contra Costa County. We plan, fund, and deliver really important critical projects. Our motto is promises made, promises kept.

And through our voter-approved half-cent sales tax, Measure J, we’ve invested in major projects and programs, as some of the ones that Chair Gee had mentioned. And SB 1408 authorizes CCTA to really seek voter approval to continue those investments in Contra Costa County. Really building on the foundation of the prior measures, these investments will include continued investment in our highways and those bottlenecks, local roads and maintenance, potholes, bike and pedestrian, public transit, and mobility programs.

Many of those who live in Contra Costa County face and continue to face challenges getting where they need to go in Contra Costa County. And SB 1408 is a critical step in ensuring continued investment to address these issues.

And I respectfully urge the committee to support SB 1408. And this legislation will lead lead to investments to a safer, more connected, and more accessible transportation system in Contra Costa County. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Well, thank you for your, brief testimony. Are there any witnesses, in the public that wish to, voice their support? Please state your name and, your organization.

Mister chair, Brendan Rypicki on behalf of County Connection and the San Francisco Bay Ferry in support.

Good morning, chair members. Chris Lee on behalf of the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority. I wanna thank the author and sponsor, and we're in support.

Jeff Neal representing the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors also in support.

Good morning. Paul Olsen on behalf of the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any members of the public, any additional members of the public who wish to support their, voice their opposition.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in opposition and also on behalf of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to voice opposition. Now I will ask members of the committee if they have, comments or questions. Mister Grayson.

Thank you, mister chair. And, this effort, to put this on the ballot before the voters is a really common sense where the rubber meets the road, paves the pathway forward, plans absolutely intended, to make sure that, transportation is exactly what it what you have achieved in the past.

CCTA has proven, as an agency, to deliver, and not just take a single dollar from the tax revenue, but to take that dollar and leverage it to be able to produce multiplicity, be able to multiply it beyond exponentially, beyond what most people would imagine. So it’s a trustworthy agency. They deliver.

And this is something that the voter deserves to be able to vote on. We are not actually voting on the tax itself. We're actually voting to let the voter be the ones to decide for themselves. And so I appreciate what the author has done in giving the voters of Contra Costa County the opportunity to continue moving forward with the transportation agency to create economic growth, connectivity, and just good transit in Contra Costa County. Thank you for your good effort.

Mr. Chair, I'll move the bill when it's appropriate.

Thanks, Senator. Any other members of the committee wish to voice opinions or questions. Well, with that, thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I have worked closely with Contra Costa Transportation Authority over years. I've seen the quality of their work and appreciate that the effect it has had on the on the community.

Now, this bill again gives the voters the right to decide. Not everybody likes taxes and voters will be able to choose will be able to show if they think that work is quality enough to warrant a tax raise and that's the that's as it should be. So, with that, this is a self help measure and again, I appreciate self help counties, the work they've done in the past, and I'm supporting the bill. Senator, would you like to close.

Well, thank you and Senator Grayson made my close for me. But I'll just say that the proof is in the projects and the work that's been done over several decades to improve mobility, in Contra Costa County from highway improvements, investing in transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and to relieve congestion as the chair talked about. Some of the most congested quarters in the Bay Area are in Contra Costa County. There's more work that needs to be done. That's evidence why this bill is so essential.

Giving the voters the opportunity to make the decision to invest in these critical transportation projects in Contra Costa County. Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

So you can continue. We don't have another witness, so that's not a really good guess. Okay.

Anyway, I think Senator, we have a motion with the secretary. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass. Senators McNerney, aye. McNerney, aye. Alvarado-Gil, no. Alvarado-Gil, no. Ashby. Becker, aye. Becker, aye. Grayson, aye. Grayson, aye. Three to one.

The vote is three to one. The bill is on call. I thank the author. And again, we are we'll be waiting for an additional author and the committee will go into recess.

The committee, on revenue tax, will now come back into order.

And we have one of our authors here, Senator Stern. Final item eight, SB 1404. Please catch your breath and proceed when ready.

Yes. I apologize for keeping you all waiting. I need to clone myself on days like this. But look, we we're bringing this measure here today to try to address both ongoing wildfire risks that we face in in my community and throughout the state of California, but also to manage a fee that was suspended, about a decade ago, that has since been backfilled, by the greenhouse gas reduction fund.

The state responsibility areas, the fee that associated with the CAL FIRE ongoing firefighting needs and fire mitigation needs for prevention and suppression in these areas is not going away. In fact, it's it's increasing.

And yet, at at this moment, we are no longer requiring people like I've represented my whole life in places I grew up in, like in Malibu or Marin or places where, you know, like, I don't wanna throw my parents under the bus in the middle of this hearing, but I've gone in for a quick second, where they could probably pay a $115 to make sure that their firefighters have the ability to save their house where the mountain fire came, you know, right across the street, and yet, the greenhouse gas reduction fund is offsetting that bill.

I know not only can they pay it, but they would be happy to do so as would many other people. We recognize that there are challenges around the state the SRA fee, both administratively and from a equity perspective. And I appreciate my conversations with RCRC and CSAC as well as the realtors on those who say live in fixed incomes in these areas.

These are my neighbors too. My high school nurse, she's you know, she doesn't have any money, and her house just burned down, as did my entire neighborhood in the Palisades fire. So I'm intimately familiar with all these issues. We're trying to find ways going forward, both working with your committee and also with some of the opposition, I think, that remains on the bill.

If there are ways to tailor the current subsidy from the greenhouse gas reduction fund to those areas or to those particular individuals who might have, hardship or ongoing, you know, fixed incomes where they're they're unable to pay that $115 a year.

But we also recognize that, as the committee analysis points out and as your staff has worked with us on that historically has been a bit of a clunky, fee to administer for CDTFA. And so a few ideas that we're putting out there, I know we're not accepting any committee amendments in in the, bill today, but at least to outline for the sake of this committee where we hope to head is to ensure that the program is administered more cost effectively in the future.

Whether or not I think the the analysis points out that, historically, it's been about a 10% of the fees that essentially gone to administering the fees. We think there's a much more cost effective way to do so, and in fact, would be open to, say, capping those administrative fees or finding other ways to challenge the agency to get get that cost down, say, to 5% rather than 10%.

I recognize we haven't sort of figured out the the mechanics that yet, but I wanna express my willingness to work with the chair and this committee on, on mechanics that could do so.

So, I realize it's tough stuff. I'm sure some of you all have fire communities too, but we believe that, by folks having skin in the game and being able to be part of this solution with a modest fee that, it's not as if we're gonna be cutting wildfire funding anytime soon, but we need everything we can get.

And so we think this is a really important part of that process, to have buy in from our local community as well as the subsidy from the state, whether it's prop four, greenhouse gas reduction fund, and more. We're looking for insurance buy in. We're gonna look to the utility sector for more.

We know we need more. So, this bill hopefully just brings those folks to the table and sets us on a path where, we stop burning down our houses every every few years. Don't follow real estate advice from me, by the way, if you want to because that's two in a row, 2016 and then just now. And it's a lot It's a lot to handle. And so of all the authors to bring this bill before, you'd think I'm the one who would say bail us out.

And I'm not saying that. I'm saying we can do this too, and we can step up and be part of the solution. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Sorry. I'll turn to my lead witness, Jo Gardias with NRDC. Thanks.

Good morning, chair and members. I'm Jo Gardias with NRDC testifying in support of SB 1404 that would restore a fee on property owners within areas where CAL FIRE is responsible for fire management. As climate change has accelerated wildfire risk, progressive sources of spending have not kept up. As a consequence of that, within time periods between 2017 and present day, electricity rates have risen 80% making rate payers the number one spending source for wildfire prevention in the State.

Low income customers pay disproportionate share of these costs and it also discouraging switching away from fossil fuels.

Budget spending on suppression has risen 89%. Home insurance premiums have risen 25%. And wildfire acres burned damages haven't abated in terms of their rate. SB 1404 grows the total pool of investment options for counteracting these costs while maintaining critical investments in the SRA areas. Thank you and I welcome any questions.

I thank the witness are there any other primary is there another primary witness?

It was .... Is that right?

Brandon Ebeck on behalf of Pacific Gas & Electric. We did not spend a letter. We are kind of a late support tweener position. We support the concept of additional funding as NRDC mentioned. PG & E, we spent about $2,000,000,000 a year trimming trees on other private property owners' lands.

We would in general, our average customer pays about $400 to $500 a year in tree trimming and vegetation management. So the more the state does, the more we can take off of the utility bill. So we support any additional incremental funding from the state to to help us all out of the situation. So for that, we are supporting concept.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to voice support for the bill? Please state your name and organization.

Good morning, chair and members. Marissa Hagerman with Traton Price Consulting registering support on behalf of Climate Resolve. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support? Are there any witnesses are there primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. Staci Heaton with the Rural County representatives of California. We represent 40 rural counties statewide. We respectfully remain in opposition to this bill and, we appreciate the senators' conversations that we've had and his willingness to work with us on this. We hope to continue these conversations going forward.

However, we do remain opposed. Funding for resilience, for in wildfire prone areas was actually deprioritized in last year's cap and trade reauthorization. It was moved next to the bottom on the list of priorities. We have repeatedly said that climate change is the cause of our state's wildfire problem.

So we do believe that GGRF is the absolute appropriate place to backfill this because we always want polluters to pay and we're asking in this fee people that didn't cause this problem to pay for it.

We have approximately 4,000,000 Californians living in the wildland urban interface. Many of which are low income socioeconomically disadvantaged on fixed incomes, particularly in our rural communities. These residents are already grappling with affordability issues to obtain insurance and to keep it, Sometimes paying four to five times as much for coverage if they can get it at all. We're asking them to spend thousands of dollars on home retrofits. People are going into debt to fully retrofit their homes to make them fully fire safe.

They are also experiencing about 14 to 17% of their monthly utility bills going to the utilities for their wildfire mitigation activities. So they are already paying into that process. And finally, many cities and counties pay Cal Fire for fire mitigation and suppression services already through various types of contracts. And this is taken from county budget coffers to pay these contracts and those are funded by residents already.

So people are gonna get double double charged, and that was a main issue with this fee in the first place.

Beyond the financial burden, this is levied on a narrow portion of Californians, where all Californians benefit from mitigations and high wildfire areas from, fire risk. And, it improves the water. It improves air quality. It improves habitat. This fee was largely considered an illegal tax, and I'll let my friend here talk about that in a minute, by many residents in the WUI who paid double for benefits.

This reinstating this fee will cost California. Many of the Cal Fire employees that were set to or that were administering this program back when it was still active have been deployed to other things. So they'll have to be either moved or new staff hired. And then we've already heard about the CDTFA and their cost issues with implementing and maintaining this program. So this has a lot of issues for us.

We will remain opposed and continue to work with the author going forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Scott Coffin, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Our opposition remains the same as it was when the fire fee originally came about, and I'll just keep it real brief. You know, our our opposition is well known. It's just that we do not believe the state has or can satisfy its constitutional burden of proving that the fee does not does no more than recover costs resulting from the payer's burdens on or benefits from the state's fire prevention activities.

Rather, as a result, the fire prevention fee is a tax and it needs a two thirds vote of the legislature to become law.

Thank you.

I thank the, witnesses. Are there any other members of the public? Please state your name and organization.

Mister chair, Brendan Ruppiki on behalf of Butte County in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, I will ask members of the committee to, voice their opinions and ask questions. Vice Senator Alvarado-Gil, you are recognized.

Thank you. I can really empathize, and thank you for bringing your personal story to this, because I think, you know, in the decisions we make, not only do we bring the impact that it has on our constituents, but sometimes we walk in those same shoes. And you certainly have had your your fill of natural disasters here in California. Respectfully, I am with the opposition on this one.

And reason being is that we've looked to address the issue of deprioritizing funding for Cal Fire year after year.

And I think that we're close. This bill, I believe, rolls us back. It proposes a new and now a permanent fee on rural homeowners and those of us who live in the WUI. And I'll say, you know, the WUI wildfire wildfire urban interface, has expanded outside of rural communities now. So it's it's absolutely has grown to, a large portion of our state.

I really do believe that the state has a funding plan through Cap and Invest. I think that both sides of the aisle, we looked at the pros and cons. We had a set of bill. Was that SB 840

840 that went through that was set to allot money for for this issue. I just I really feel like shifting costs on a specific group of Californians due to our budget choices is not the right way to go for many of the reasons that the opposition already stated, increases in utility rates, increases in homeowners insurance, and and really continuing to squeeze those who live throughout California that have been impacted by, wildfire.

I also wanna point out that both, nonpartisan, both sides of the the legislature have wanted to prioritize funding for CAL FIRE men and women, those who are working on the front lines. Assembly Bill 1309 asked the state to pay CAL FIRE rank and file firefighters within 15% of the average salary for comparable positions across 20 specified local fire departments. And so there is a will of this legislature to close the gap on funding.

I just don't think this is the way. So I'm going I'm going to pose it today. I do think that there's an opportunity for us to continue to support bills like AB 1309 for for firefighter pay and retention. I think there's a way for us to continue to support the GGRF revenues and ensure that that percentage of the revenues comes back to Cal Fire. I think we're looking also at the 2026-2027 expenditure plan.

The governor has proposed to allocate a total of 1,600,000,000 in discretionary activity including 1,250,000,000 to backfill Cal Fire cost. So I'd love to see some of those pieces work. I'd love to see prioritized funding at the executive level of California work. I'd like to see that 15% increase for our Cal Fire men and women work. I'd like to see those pieces come together before we're coming back to residents asking them to further squeeze from a very tight budget already. So thank you.

Appreciate that.

Opinions and questions? Senator Grayson, you recognize?

Thank you, mister chair, and pardon my absence during your testimony, but glad to be back in just in time. Thank you, the author, for what you're trying to accomplish here and and work at. I totally get where you're trying to go. And I know that in past, there's been an agreement that was made and moving forward, trying to figure out a better way for more funding.

And, so I get that because we're facing a crisis that is exponential beyond what anybody thought would ever be, as far as wildfire, climate change, and everything else.

So having said that, I think for us right now, affordability remains top of mind for everybody. You know, when it's just a $5 or a $50 or a $100 here and there, that's that's doable. But when you start stacking them one on top of another, that's what makes it undoable. And so if there's any way to possibly look at and and figure out as as this bill moves forward, if it was to move out of this committee.

If there's a way to consider that as this bill moves forward, I would greatly appreciate that.

And I know that some information was already requested and asked, I as well would be interested in that information as well. So with that, author, I appreciate what you're trying to do here and I wanna see you continue to work on it. So my vote today in support is going to be for you to continue to work on it. That'll be my vote for today.

So with that, when the time's appropriate, I'll make the motion.

Thank you for that clarification, Senator Grayson. Senator Stern, I am and I voiced this concern to you that the cost of collecting is too high for this in the past, and we'd like to see that improved. And I know that you're aware of that and sensitive to that. We can all agree that nobody likes paying taxes or fees, but they should be transparent and simple for the taxpayers to comply with.

If this bill moves forward and I request that you work with the committee to improve it so that we can have something more perfect move to completion.

And with that, I will ask the Senator if you'd like to close.

Yeah. Thank you. I just wanna appreciate the the thoughtful comments from the committee. I from your vice chair and Senator Grayson, and this is just a it's a deeply unsatisfying and almost sometimes, it feels like an impossible problem to solve. You're right about the stack, your insurance bill, utility bill.

Incidentally, the greenhouse gas fund isn't free money. Right? And right now, there's a decision sitting before the Air Board in terms of implementing what we hoped would be there from SB 840. But the current proposal is actually because the sensitivities around gasoline bills that are spiking from under this war, that somehow we're gonna try to offset that by giving about $4,000,000,000 back to, to hopefully make the oil and gas the oil sector lower those costs for drivers.

So they're not they're not the drivers aren't footing the bill for the fight you know, aren't footing our firefighting bill.

It's a it's a closed system here in some ways. There's no free money. There's no there's no easy way out of this puzzle, especially when FEMA's not here. I mean, we're short over a $100,000,000,000 from the Federal Government right now. It's not just us.

It's, you know, governor Huckabee Sanders and a number of others. So we're what the the pie, as it stands right now, is too small just inherently to deal with the problems we've got. I guess the thesis of this bill is we've gotta try to do some uncomfortable things to grow that pie to address wildfire risk. So I wanna be very clear my commitments.

First of all, as an author of 1309, and another good Senator here is the man when it comes to protecting our firefighters.

So we can pay our firefighters the wages they deserve and take care of those budgets and have zero cuts. I wanna see, let's be clear, zero cuts and actually increases to Cal Fire's budget. So that I think you said 1.6. It's like yeah. Depending on how you do math, 1.2 or 1.6.

The goal here is not to undercut those funds in any way. It's actually to try to find a way for the people in those areas who love their CAL FIRE firefighters so much. You know, people throw money in the boot where I'm from. Right? Like, that there is a will.

They have to trust us that when they like, when you throw money in the boot and it's for your firefighter, like, you know it's going to them, and you feel good about it. When you pay for a fee, which is why our friends from Howard Jarvis are here, they don't always trust that the government's gonna do the right thing with it. And in fact, you can be clunky in collecting it. It can be costly.

You can you can administer those funds inappropriately in a way that doesn't directly benefit that person, which is why they argue about the tax point.

But I think I would like to use this bill and fulfill the the challenge from Senator Grayson here to put in that effort this year to try to make these mechanics work. I don't I don't even know if I'm gonna be able to satisfy Howard Jarvis, but to make true this truly the fee that it's supposed to be and not a general tax and not trying to be something, you know, sort of a shell game here, but actually benefit the people that I serve.

To the realtors and and some of the concerns from our rurals, I wanna drill down further if this bill moves forward, try to get to that dataset. Let's look at those rural communities. Let's look at those areas where it's not gonna work for them to pay $115.

And I appreciate your concerns about, say, double counting. I think the current design is if your if your county's paying in, you do get a deduction in the fee, but you might say that's not enough. You might say, okay. It's a 150. It drops down to a 115.

What it really should drop down to is 75. Or I think it's it the important part is at a policy level, I think there are statewide impacts to wildfire. The state responsibility areas are our duty to to uphold and and defend. And so I feel like there has to be something that's connected to the people who live in there getting the benefits from that. So that's why I'm putting this this tough bill forward.

That's why I'm taking grief back home from even trying to tackle this. And I just appreciate if you guys give me the grace, to keep working on it. We're gonna we're gonna try to make good on it. And and if in the end, the mechanics don't work, we won't we're not gonna just plow ahead blindly here. That is not the plan.

So I appreciate a little bit of grace on it. I know this is hard stuff, and I would just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thanks for indulging me here. My long winded stuff gets personal too to your vice chair's point. You know, it's like it's close to home. So

I thank the Senator for your presentation. Yeah. We have a motion. Secretary, would you call the roll?

Motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Senators McNerney?

Aye.

McNearney, aye. Alvarado-Gil?

No.

Alvarado-Gil, no. Ashby Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye.

Thanks,

Thank you, mister chair.

Three to one.

The vote is three to one. The bill is on call. Thank you, witnesses. And our last witness is here. This is file item two, SB 1102.

Senator Dahle, please present when ready.

Afternoon. Good morning.

Still morning.

Thank you, chair and members. Thank you for this committee's app with work working with my office. I accept the committee amendments. Today, I'm going to present Senate bill 1102. The bill support rural rural health care workers.

Rural hospitals can't face the staffing challenges. Rural hospital struggles to invite nurses. The way the nurses leave rural areas of care is impacted. Trust me. I for I have the first hand knowledge that nurses save lives.

SB 1102 offers a simple tool. $2,000 track credit for front line nurses, rural working in rural hospitals. This will, that this helps retention and patient giving timely care. This is a a modest tax exemption, but it was make a real difference. The with me today, Jo Campbell from Hill Country Clinic.

Thank you, chair and members. My name is Jo Campbell, and I'm the CEO of Hill Country Community Clinic. Our story begins in 1985 when four community members saw that rural mountain towns had no local access to health care. They built a clinic from the ground up raising money through community dinners, using donated land and equipment and even working without pay because they believe their community deserved care.

That spirit is why we are still here today serving the mountain communities East of Redding and caring for patients who often have nowhere else to go.

We provide medical, dental and behavioral health services and for many we are their only point of access. But like many rural providers, including our hospitals, we are struggling, especially when it comes to nurses. We struggle to recruit them, we struggle to retain them, and when we lose even one nurse, care is delayed, services are reduced, and patients are forced to travel long distances for care they should receive close to home. SB 1102 will not solve every challenge we face, but it is a necessary step.

It provides meaningful incentives for frontline nurses working in rural health care facilities. If we want health care workers in rural communities, we must support them in tangible ways.

This is not a partisan issue. We are facing a statewide health care workforce crisis, especially in rural areas. And no matter where we live, we all rely on the same system. We all end up in the same emergency rooms. SB 1102 offers a simple tax credit to support rural nurses.

It's not everything, but it helps. It supports retention. It supports stability. It supports access to care because clinics like ours depend on people. And if we can't keep staff we cannot keep our doors open.

Thank you.

Well, I thank the witness for your testimony. Are there any, members of the public that wish to speak in favor? voice or support through the bill? Seeing none, any opposition? main witnesses? Seeing none, any member of the public wish to voice their opposition to this bill. Please state your name and your organization.

Michelle Warshaw on behalf of the California Teachers Association in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to voice their opposition? Well in that case, I will turn to members of the committee to ask questions, and state opinions.

Thank you, Mister chair. I do have a question about opposition because I understand this to be a tax credit

Yeah.

And not a tax exemption. Would that be correct

Yes.

To the author?

Yeah.

Yes. A tax credit, if I may, if I understand it correctly again and this is for me to be educated a little bit, a tax credit is an expenditure on the general fund and not extracted from Prop 98. Is that correct?

Would that may I ask of the teachers or anybody that might have the right answer to that? It's important to me because I have another bill that. Has implications as well. So this is education for me.

So for all, tax credits, tax deductions, anything like that that is reducing from the general fund, it then would reduce the amount that goes to a proposition 98.

Okay. That helps me a little bit, I think. I thought there was a difference between that's the whole difference between an exemption, which decreases it, whereas a credit would be treated no different than any other expenditure of the general fund.

So when when there's still a tax credit, then the that is still reducing the amount that is with the general fund.

Okay. Okay. I and I appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you so very much.

I just wanna state this that, you know there's been a lot of action around telehealth here of late the past several years, and we thought that was gonna be the panacea and that was gonna fix everything and, you know, doing everything virtually. And that's just not possible. It's impossible. You know, they they say, and I can stand to be corrected, but they say 70% of all communication is nonverbal.

And so when you're in the virtual world, you're missing out on a lot, and especially in our rural communities who are in dire dire need. I mean, some of them would love to have a nurse, let alone a doctor. And so just having a nurse present and anything that we can do to help facilitate that, I think this is a well measured bill. And thank you to the committee for the amendments.

When the time comes, it's appropriate. I'll move the bill.

So, Becker, you recognize? Yeah.

Actually, I have very much experience with kind of working in the in the area of of the board of companies that sort of about training nurses and you know, I just saw about the nurse shortage in California generally, nationally, and I'm sure it's much more extreme in the in the rural areas. So I appreciate the thought that going into here and the importance of the issue. And I do plan to support this today. Thank you.

Thank you.

We should be recognized. None. Seeing none. Well, Senator, I wanna thank you for bringing this forward. You've been very cooperative and compromising and I really appreciate that.

It's really kind of a tough sell to make sure that we give enough relief to the nurses but not give it to the wrong people.

We wanna make sure it's used properly. I think we've gotten pretty close to that so I appreciate your working with the committee on that. California does have the highest projected shortage of nurses in the country. That's a problem. We don't want that to persist And this credit demonstrates that the legislature is committed to tackling that shortage.

Yeah.

And I again, I appreciate you accepting the committee amendments. I will be supporting this bill. And I thank you for working with committee and the working families. We have a motion. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Very good. With that, will the secretary please call the roll?

Motion is do passes amended to the committee on appropriation. Senators McNerney?

McNerney, aye. Alvarado-Gil?

Aye.

Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ashby?

Aye.

Aye.

Ashby, aye. Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Grayson?

Aye.

Grayson aye. 5-0.

The vote is five zero. The bill is out.

Thank you.

And now we will call on the the bills that are on call. Secretary would you please proceed when you're ready?

[Roll Call]

The vote is four to one. The bill is out. And that concludes our bill count. And that will conclude this hearing.