Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

I wanna say good afternoon or good evening. We will start expeditiously because the hour is far spent. I wanna say welcome to the final hearing on the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation for Senate bills. I wanna remind everyone that our committee has a suspense file and the details about, the process is spelled out on the committee's rules and posted on our website. In summary, bills with revenue impact, more than a 150,000 will not be eligible for a vote immediately after the presentation.

Instead, we'll be referred to our suspense file quarterly. The following items will be eligible for a vote during the regular order of business portion of today's hearing. Those bills are file item number 2, SB 911. File item number 3, SB 1172. File item 5, SB 1408.

File item number 7, SB 1072. All other items will be referred to our suspense file. We will be dispensing with bills on the suspense file today during our second portion of our hearing. Bills that are, presented are referred to our suspense during the regular order. Portions of today's hearing will be taken up first and the file order, when we begin that suspense portion.

We will then consider, suspense items that were presented at a previous hearing in file item. We will ask our secretary to please call the roll to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call] we have a quorum.

Thank you very much. A quorum has been established. We don't see our first speaker, but we see Senator McNerney. Would you please come and have a seat? We will take you.

We will be moving down to file item number four, SB 1329. Thank you and welcome. Your witness has, two minutes, and we will, strictly follow the two minute rule order, of this committee. And, Senator, welcome. You may start when ready.

Thank you, Chair Gibson, vice Chair Sanchez, distinguished members of the committee. The solar tax inclusion ends in 2027. Counties will get new revenue. So this bill is not doing anything except taking the new revenue and helping to understand how to how to assess it. The solar energy is ready to pay the taxes that will start in 2027, and counties will be receiving new revenue from solar property tax.

However, once the exclusion ends, solar will be assessed differently in all 58 counties or potentially differently in all 58 counties. This increases uncertainty for solar future in the California. As a former renewable energy developer, I know financial planning is a great challenge. Without certainty around tax liability, we will be losing new solar developments to other states increasing prices for our rate payers.

SB 1329 creates statewide standards for solar property assessment so the developers will know how to be taxed or they have how they will be taxed.

Specifically, SB 1329 excludes intangibles like federal tax credits and renewable energy credits from assessed property value, provides clear definitions for useful life and fair market value. California continues to need seven gigawatts of solar developments every year to reach our 100% renewable energy goals. We must continue develop in state. SB 1329 protects our climate goals and helps solar energy providers supply renewable energy at affordable prices.

Today, with me, I have John Redling Schaffer from Avantus, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

thank you very much. Welcome. Two minutes, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is John Redling Schaffer. I'm the senior tax counsel for Avantus, a San Diego based company building six gigawatts of solar and storage across California. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 1329 today.

Let me be clear upfront. Our industry is ready to pay its fair share of property taxes, and in doing so, supporting the communities which host us. Avantus expects to pay over a billion dollars in property tax during the during the the life of the projects, which are currently gonna be installed and during the next three years. However, as this new era begins, developers face a real risk of over assessment. When costs go up, rate payers pay the price.

SB 1329 mitigates the risk of over assessment. It brings property tax consistency to all 58 counties, and it gives developers the certainty they need to continue building the power which California needs for grid reliability, climate goals, and affordability. The bill in front of us is narrower than where we started. We listened to the opposition and removed what concerned them most. What remains is simple, a clear and fair set of inputs for assessing solar projects.

Here's why it matters. We sell power to utilities under long term contracts, and the price of the contract is built upon our cost. Higher costs or uncertain taxes means higher energy prices. It's a direct correlation. The formula in SB 1329 is fair.

It's based on the value of what we actually invest, our net cost to build. Opposition may claim that solar is seeking special treatment, and it's important to highlight how solar is unique. The state mandates the purchase of solar, and rate payers don't have discretion over this. So keeping their energy, their energy prices low is equitable. In short, 1329 is not a favor.

It's a necessity. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak, in support of 1329, should you please line up your name, your, organization, and your position. This is support only.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. Happy to be here in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hello, Chair and members. McKinley Thompson Worley on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, EDF Power Solutions, and EDP, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kara Martinson on behalf of the Large Scale Solar Association in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair members. Alicia Priego on behalf of Nexamp in support.

Thank you.

Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of Qcell is also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair members. Brady Van Engelen on behalf of Southern California Edison in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Brandon Garcia with Advanced Energy United in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair members. Kristin Olsen-Cate here on behalf of TerraGen in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Primary, opposition, So please come forward and have a seat at the desk, and you have two minutes each. Lead opposition. Alright. You may start.

K. Good evening, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Laura Avila. I'm the current county assessor recorder, and I'm here speaking on behalf of the California Assessors Association in respectful opposition to SB 1329.

We appreciate the author's amendments, but the bill still contains structural issues that cannot be resolved through additional edits. First, even without the original cost approach wording, the bill still creates a statutory formula by defining useful life, limiting allowable revenue, and prescribing adjustments. When statute dictates the inputs, it predetermines the value, preventing assessors from determining fair market value as required under California law. Second, the bill sets a fixed twenty five year useful life, which is not supported by actual operating evidence. Useful life must come from market data, not statute.

A shortened life accelerates depreciation and forces assessmentS Below market. Third, the bill excludes recognized revenue streams, including revenue tied to renewable energy attributes. These facilities generate both electricity and the associated environmental benefits, and buyers consider both when determining price. Excluding recognized revenue prevents the income approach from reflecting market value. Fourth, SB 1329 sets up dangerous precedent for industry specific valuation rules.

Once one industry is granted a statutory formula, others will pursue the same, undermining statewide uniformity and the stability of the property tax system. Finally, California already has strong strong framework for valuing complex property. Existing board of equalization rules allow assessors to account for depreciation, obsolescence, and incentives without abandoning market value principles. For these reasons, we must remain opposed. The core conflicts remain and the bill still replaces fair market value appraisal within a statutory method that is inconsistent with California property tax system.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Mister Chair members, Paul Yoder, ... on behalf of, the eight counties in the Central Valley Of California. They're individually and collectively opposed to the bill. I'm gonna keep this brief. One, because of the hour, two, because I forgot my reading glasses. As Laura mentioned, this is preferential tax treatment for large scale commercial solar projects at the direct expense of rural counties that are staring down the barrel of HR 1 and the impacts and the cost of that.

This bill would hardwire artificially low valuation formulas into statute to what the witness said, for the bill just on two points and that that I'm gonna wrap. One, that the author took amendments, and I have nothing but respect for the author. I work with them all the time on important issues to Central Valley. But on the statement that amendments have been taken to address what matters to the counties most and what they identified, that's not correct.

What the counties care about is the loss of revenue at the expense of a literally at the expense of a tax break, a continued tax break in California for large scale solar.

In terms of the uniqueness of solar, again, as Laura touched on, every industry in California members thinks they're unique. Every industry in California would love to have this bill, and I guarantee the rest of them won't be here if this goes to the governor and gets signed. So respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition, should please line up. Name, organization, and this is opposition only. 1329.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County in opposition.

Thank you.

Emma Jungwirth, on behalf of California State Association of Counties, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County representatives of California, respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California, also opposed.

Thank you.

And Jeff Neal representing the county of Imperial also opposed.

Thank you.

Greetings, Chair. I was two seconds too late, so NRDC is supporting. I was just too late, but thank you for supporting.

Anyone in the room wishing to add on in opposition? Hearing none, wanna bring it back to the dais. Any questions? Hearing and seeing none. Senator, this wanna give you offer an opportunity for you to close on this measure.

Well, I wanna thank the Chair, and I wanna thank the committee. And as was mentioned by the opponents, the opposition, we do we did take several amendments including eliminating the reference to the preferred methodology and the intangibles was was shortened down. But one of the issues was that the opposition raises that the amendments don't address loss of revenue, but that's not really the way it looks to me.

If you're having an asset that's not having any tax revenue and then the law changes to bring in tax revenue, then you're not losing revenue. And so the real opposition comes down to not wanting to be told not wanting to be recommended how to assess property.

And solar property is unique in the sense that the assets the physical assets aren't the entire asset, but we have to have some way to identify what the asset is so that it can be assessed in a uniform way across the street. The state, which would encourage development of solar energy in the state of California instead of seeing those developments go to other states and having California's pay for that energy without creating jobs.

So I think we have a pretty good case here, And I do respect what the opposition said, but honestly, we didn't see a single recommended amendment from the opposition. We just looked at their opposition notes and did the best we could to address those those comments. So with that, I'm gonna have to ask for an aye vote, and I appreciate the committee's indulgence.

Thank you very much. This item will refer to our suspense file. Thank you and your witness for appearing before this committee. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you.

K. We have one more bill. Do you wanna present? Okay.

Yes. File item number eight is committee bill, SB 1435.

Again, I thank the Chair, Vice Chair Gipson. Chair Gipson, Vice Chair Sanchez, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Last year, we enacted SB 711, California's first date change conformity bill in ten years. SB 711 made hundreds or maybe a thousand substantial changes in the revenue and taxation code to make tax filing and compliance easier for all Californians.

However, there was a significant emission in SB 711, which SB 1435 would fix. The bill also makes other technical and conforming changes suggested by tax practitioners and the Franchise Tax Board. I have no witnesses in support, but committee staff is here for any technical questions. I respectfully request consideration of the measure for your suspense file.

Thank you very much, Senator. Great. Wonderful. Anyone wishing to speak in support of this measure, file item number eight, SB 1435, would you please come to the microphone? Hearing and seeing none. Anyone primary opposition, lead opposition to this measure 1435? You have the same right. Hearing and seeing none. Wanna bring it to the committee for any... Yes. Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva.

Thank you. Yeah. I wanna thank you for bringing this forward. As we know, we have spent many hours deliberating the budget, which we know impacts many of our food banks and so forth and have had to look long and hard for resources to provide. So anything that we can do related to these food bank donations is definitely needed and warranted. So I support this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Great. The Chair is recommending, is recommending an aye vote. My apologies. This item is a suspense item, and we will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator. Please forgive me. Do you wanna close on this item as a suspense file?

Well, I wanna say, last year, the bill SB 711 did make maybe a thousand changes in the tax code. It generated additional revenue, but there was an omission. And this is just really basically correcting that omission. So I indulge the committee to ask for an aye vote.

We appreciate it. Thank you very much for appearing and appreciate you and your leadership on the Senate side. Thank you very much. This bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you. No. I'm fine. Okay. So in file item order, we have Senator Hurtado.

We'll be taking file item number one, SB 661. Senator, thank you very much, and you may begin in opening up SB 661 whenever you're ready. If you have witnesses, they may have a seat, and you have two minutes to your witnesses, two minutes each.

Okay. Well, good evening, Mister Chair and members. Is it appropriate to start with Go Dodgers? Okay. Well, I'm here to present on Senate bill 661, the Airport Expansion and Regional Optimization Act.

And before I begin, I would like to thank the committee consultant for the hard work put into this bill and for working with my office, and I'll be accepting accepting the committee amendments outlined in the analysis. And I'm gonna really just cut my my statement short today and say that, you know, Senate bill 661 is about creating a dedicated funding stream using existing jet fuel sales tax revenues to support our entire airport network and better prepare California for the nation's aviation strategy.

ThiS Bill also brings California closer into compliance with federal aviation revenue use requirementS By making targeted investments that strengthen every part of our airport network from our largest international gateways to our smallest community airports. If we want California to remain the nation's leader in transportation, commerce, and innovation, we must invest in the entire airport network, not just pieces of it, and that's what SB 661 does.

So with me today, I have Jim Lights, executive director for the California Airport Council, and Juliet Jordan, the managing director of industry affairs with the National Air Transportation Association.

Thank you very much, and welcome, Mister Mandy. You have two minutes each.

Good evening, Mister chairman and members. This bill takes an incredibly important step towards moving California into compliance with an FAA requirement that all sales tax revenues derived from aviation fuel sales be used for an aviation purpose. This is a long standing rule that the FAA honestly did not seek to enforce for the better part of thirty years, but this has been a a ten year discussion at this point, And so we're incredibly thankful to the author, Senator Hurtado, for bringing this forward.

And we ask for an aye vote and go Dodgers.

Thank you very much. Next witness, two minutes.

Good evening, distinguished members of the committee. As the Senator mentioned, I am Juliet Jordan, Managing director of Industry Affairs at the National Air Transportation Association, which represents aviation businesses and airports across The United States, including a 145 in the state of California. I live in San Francisco and I serve on the board of the association for California airports. And today I wanna highlight native support for SB 661.

Native supports this legislation as an important step toward bringing the state of California into compliance with federal aviation revenue use requirements.

For decades, federal policy has made clear that aviation fuel tax revenues must be used for airport and aviation purposes. SB 661 recognizes that principle and takes a constructive step to ensure aviation generated revenues are reinvested back into California's diverse aviation system. California's aviation network is a vital transportation and economic asset. The state is home to more than 200 general aviation airports.

Together, those facilities support emergency rescue, medical transport, law enforcement, fire response, agricultural operations, flight training, freight movement, and access for communities that may not have scheduled airline service.

General aviation airports support important functions that benefit the broader aviation network, including communities, the traveling public, and the state economy. However, small airports operate on thin margins. To support critical public services, these airports require financial assistance and funding. Reinvesting air aviation fuel tax revenues into their infrastructure helps to maintain safe operations and preserve the significant services that communities across California rely on. Native use SB 661 as a necessary and constructive step toward compliance, reinvestment, and long term aviation system strength.

I ask and encourage your support of SB 661 in favor of protecting California's airport ecosystem, strengthening the statewide aviation network, and ensuring aviation generated revenues are used for designated aviation purposes. Thank you kindly.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room, in the audience wishing to speak in support of SB 661, should please line up your name, your organization, and this is support.

Mr. Chair and other members, Paul Yoder, this time on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in strong support. Cannot thank the Senator enough for her work on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Isha Ayer, on behalf of the city of Bakersfield, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thought someone was moving in support. Lead opposition, would you please come in to have a seat at the table? You have two minutes each in your presentation, and you may begin when ready.

Thank you, Mister chairman, members of the committee. Not technically in opposition this afternoon but didn't feel appropriate to come up here and support either. Alberto Torrico on behalf of Airlines for America. Subsequent to the Senate Transportation Committee hearing, where the Chair directed the parties to engage in good faith negotiations. We've done that.

We've all done that. I'm not questioning that. It does remain a very important part of the puzzle that the airlines and I'd say with some confidence, LAX and SFO don't agree with, which is the distribution of the money. In the current version of the bill, Mister chairman, we've talked about this with you and members of the committee. There's a 70/30 split.

The 70% also from the 70%, there's another million dollars taken off the top to cover administrative costs, and our position is that some of their some of the airlines believe that all the money should stay at the airport where it's generated.

I'm not here to take that position today. I just want to contextualize that some airlines believe that's the case. Some airports believe that there should be 85% to 90% should stay at the airport of origin.

Despite our efforts to negotiate, we can't support the 70/30 split today. We think that it is appropriate to, number one, take urgent action on this matter because the FAA is threatening severe sanctions.

Two, it is appropriate to support the smaller airports to a degree, and it's also appropriate to support, the Bakersfield Airport, which is in the senator's district and I appreciate the fact that any legislator here runs a bill and if they want to bring some benefit to this, it's completely appropriate.

We unfortunately, we can't support the bill in its current iteration, and we hope that we can continue to have discussions with the author and others to come up with a more equitable and much and something that the airlines and the large airports can live with. Regrettably, we won't be able to support the bill today.

Thank you very much. We strongly encourage to continue the conversation in that regard. Anyone in the room wishes to speak in opposition, name, organization, and this is opposition to SB 661.

Yeah. Julie Malinowski Ball on behalf of Southwest Airlines. We share the concerns you you just heard from Airlines for America and encourage everyone to keep working on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Kathy Van Austin on top on behalf of United Airlines to share this position of a four a.

Thank you very much. Senator, thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. I want to bring it back to the committee. Any questions from members of the dais of committee?

Hearing none, Senator, thank you very much. We know that individuals have visited my office regarding this, and certainly, we know that you will probably continue to work, try to strike a balance, in working with the opposition, and you may close if you wish.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I appreciate the comments here, made today. Look, when I first got started with this bill, I was I wanted it all just for Bakersfield. Right? I tried to get away with that, but, as we moved along, we obviously there was an issue that we needed to address.

Actually, when the bill made its way well, it actually got started in the Senate, where in Senate transportation, where some members were like, well, we want some funding for our airports, and then when I got to the Assembly side, it's like, well, I heard from more Assembly members saying that they wanted some funding for their smaller airports too.

The way that we see this is that this is an investment in the safety of the public across the state and there's critical, airports that provide transportation to ensure that, when there's fires that there's aviation that can take the air and be able to put those fires out and throughout the state of California.

So, all airports have a critical role to play here in the state of California. They all deserve investment no matter how big or how small, and we think that this is a step in the right direction. Of course, happy to always continue conversations moving forward, but I respect the last Friday night vote.

Thank you very much. This item will refer to our suspense file. Thank you and your witnesses for appearing before this committee. Thank you very much. We know that you have another bill, so we'll move right to that. File item number three, SB 1172. Your witnesses may come and have a seat with you, and you may start when ready. And your witnesses have two minutes each.

Okay. Thank you. So I'm here for SB 1172. And before I begin, I want to thank the committee consultants for their diligence and assistance in working through this measure. And after careful consideration, we'll be accepting the committee amendments today. This measure is really about protecting our communities and the hard earned dollars that those communities and the individuals within those communities make.

And, you know, SB 1172 is really a balanced and responsible approach on tax sharing agreements. And when cities work to, you know, attract businesses, create jobs, and grow their local economies, they should be able to rely on receiving the revenues generated through these efforts. So SB 1172 provides reasonable safeguards, and we ask that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. First witness. Two minutes, sir.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli here on behalf of the City of Shafter. First wanted to thank our State Senator for authoring this measure and for your committee and other interested parties in working together on the language. As the Senator indicated, we believe that this bill is important because it provides some guardrails.

Of course, it is prospective in nature, so it does not impact any existing contracts or agreements on tax sharing. And it provides important guardrails in capping or limiting compensation and also the duration of that compensation. So would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of this measure, please come forward. Name, organization, and this is a support item.

Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.

Isha Iyer on behalf of the City of Bakersfield and the City of Thousand Oaks in support.

Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. Any primary opposition to this measure, would you please come forward and have a seat at the table? Again, primary lead opposition in opposition to this.

So I think everyone is removing their opposition. We were, we were, based on the acceptance of the committee amendments. So Nicole Wordelman on behalf of Neumo. We had requested the amendment as recommended by the Chair, and we are greatly appreciative of the author for taking that amendment. And we are removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, Committee. Bob Young, Client Services Director with HDL Companies. And, like Nicole and the prior speaker, we appreciate the Senator's accepting of the amended language and the Chair's suggestions they're in, and we remove our opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to, in the audience wishing to speak in opposition. You have the same right. Hearing none, wanna bring it back to the committee. Any Members wishing to? This is a vote item. It's been moved. Is there a second? It's been properly moved and second. This the motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly floor. The amended, the amendments clarify that this bill do not impact the agreement related to the reallocation petition. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly floor. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll keep the roll open for absent Members. Thank you very much. Senator... Wait a minute.

Yes. Senator Becker. Thank you very much. File item number 2, SB911 or 911. Senator, your witness here, witness have two minutes, and you may begin when ready.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I wanna really thank your team, and thank you for discussing this with us. I do object to your shirt, but, you know, I understand it was a special day for the for the dodges. Okay.

So this bill is really about the inspection of homes in high wildfire severity zones to short compliance with defensive space standards. More than 2,000,000 California households, approximately one in four are located within approximately two high or extremely high fire risk areas. And overwhelming data is just the two most important factors in protecting homes from wildfires are number one, selection of building materials. Number two, the maintenance of vegetation and other flammable materials in order to add establish adequate defensive space.

Additionally, the insurance industry has told us time and time again, they're more likely to insure homes in higher fire threat severity zones when there's compliance with defensive space standards.

In 2019, our our former colleague, Jim Wood, passed a bill through the legislature that approved legislation requiring that a seller of real property that is located in high fire severity zones provide the buyer documentation stating that the property is in compliance with fire defensive space standards or agree that the buyer will bring the home into compliance within a year of sale.

These sales transactions are ideal time to bring a home up to code, but there's no provision in the law on how to alert the appropriate fire enforcement agency of said agreement between seller and buyer. So how best to make that notification? Key stakeholders in the real estate industry have agreed there's no need to create a new form, but let's use an existing real estate form called the preliminary change of ownership report or PCOR to alert fire enforcement agencies.

This is a form that provides essential information about a real estate transaction to the assessor, by law, is made available to specified government agencies.

Assessors have expressed concerns over using PCOR. And while I appreciate their concern, I just wanna make two points in response. Number one, the statute already authorizes the use of PCOR for numerous other government agencies unrelated to property assessment, including Department of Social Services, Water Resources, and Caltrans, among others.

And two, just in case, purpose of using the PCOR, in this case, to enhance wildfire safety, should hopefully outweigh the concern over the particular use of that form. The bill supported by the California Fire Chiefs Association, all the property council associations, the fire districts association, who all agree that getting properties into compliance defensive space is critical. So here today, in support, we have chief Steve Aubert representing the California Fire Chiefs and the Fire Districts Association.

Thank you. Thank you very much, chief. You may begin. You have two minutes.

Evening, Chair and committee members. I am Steve Aubert. I'm here tonight to represent the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association in support of SB 911. It's a practical and important wildfire resilience measure that helps close a significant defensible compliance gap that currently exists during property transfers in the high fire hazard severity zones.

As California's fire service continues responding to larger, faster moving, and more destructive wildfires, one thing remains clear, defensible space works, proper vegetation management reduces combustible fuel loading, and limits the ember ignition, potential.

It also improves firefighter access and significantly increases the home likelihood of surviving a wildfire event. Today, with property change ownership, like we discussed, defensible space compliant responsibilities often are deferred. And at this point in time, there's no mechanism to follow-up on those actions that need to be taken.

SB 911 strengthens our process by creating a practical accountability framework that provides local fire agencies and CAL FIRE with notification of those compliance obligations and the ability to verify that defensible space requirements are completed within the required time frame. Spill not simply, is about individual properties.

Wildfire risk is a community risk, and noncompliant parcels can contribute to structure to structure ignition. Increased fire spread, and threaten entire neighborhoods during major wildfire events. By improving defensible space compliant rates over time, SB 911 helps strengthen community survivability, supports firefighter safety, and advances California's broader wildfire mitigation goals. For those reasons, the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support, you please line up. And this is SB 911, name, organization, and this Assembly member.

It was. Mr. Chair members. Jim Wood here on behalf of Fireside, a technology based wildfire risk management company, in support.

Thank you very much. Lead opposition op lead opposition, on this measure. Would you please come up and have a seat at the table? You have two minutes. You may proceed when ready.

Good evening again. Again, I'm Laura Avila, the current county assessor, recorder here on behalf of the California Assessors Association with an opposed unless amended position to SB 911. The association has no concern with the author's intent to streamline the communications and access that Cal Fire and local fire agencies have as it relates to documentation of compliance. However, as assessors, we are administrators and have strong concerns with the bill's use of the preliminary change in ownership report, also known as the PCOR.

As noted in the bill analysis, the PCOR is an administrative document designed to be used exclusively for assessment purposes enforced by current law that states that the PCOR shall not include any questions that are not germane to the assessment function.

Defensible space compliance is not an assessment function. It also it's also important to note that a PCOR is not legally required to be filled out and included to complete a property transaction, emphasizing that this document is not the correct process or place for this disclosure. In addition, redesigns of the p core are done by the State Board of Equalization in consultation with the assessors. And as far as spacing on the p core, there is no additional space available for additional information.

Additional items such as what would be prescribed by SB 911 would require additional pages leading to additional printing and mailing costs for assessors.

Coming out of Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Becker expressed a commitment to working with our association to explore alternatives that would remove the PCOR from SB 911. Following that, remove the PCOR from SB 911. Following that committee, our association provided the author and his staff an alternative method that would provide a proper streamlined route for Cal Fire and local fire agencies to assess access to assess all documentations of compliance.

The alternative we suggested would establish a separate stand alone recordable document that could be recorded concurrently with the sale or purchase of real property. This recorded document would be available to Cal Fire and local fire agencies.

This alternative process would carry out the author's intent with SB 911 and would remove the p core and our offices from handling such matter that does not fall within our purview. The p core is an important document for ensuring buyers receive an accurate property tax assessment. Adding questions unrelated to the assessment of the property risks adding confusion and complexity for something something unrelated and is outside the PCOR's purpose.

It is for all of these reasons that I state I stated that we'd ask you to reconsider passage of SB 911 out of this committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition, to this measure, SB 911, please come forward. Seeing no one wishing to do so, I wanna bring it back to the committee. Any members? Miss Quirk Silva.

Yes. I would just ask the author to respond to the PCOR.

Sure. We've been all around this issue. We've looked at every possibility and, ultimately, this is just the best way to do it. And it's an existing forum. I'm I'm I I I hear their concerns, and, you know, we have worked with them, and I appreciate their engagement.

But we've we've looked at every way to do this. Again, since this is since 2019 when our our former colleague passed this bill. We've been trying to deal with this issue, and, you know, for the reasons I mentioned, you know, we feel that statute already authorizes the use of this form for numerous other government agencies. And and again, although, you know, we we hear their concerns as we feel that the case of public wildfire safety, you know, has to kinda rule the day in this case.

Additional questions from members of the this body? Hearing and seeing none. Members, this will be a vote item. Senator, thank you very much, and I wanna give you an opportunity to close.

Yeah. Thank you, again, for the consideration, the discussion. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Members, again, this is a vote item, and we like this motion is do passed to the, committee on appropriation. Can I have a motion? Yeah. It's been moved by Mister Carrillo.

Second. Second by missus McKenna. Again, this motion is do passed to the, committee on on appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

What's this? That that bill is out. We'll keep the roll open for absent members. Thank you. We'll see we'll go to file item number five, SB 148, Senator Adaggin.

Senator, welcome. And your witness you have two you have two minutes for your witness. And, Senator, you may begin when ready. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair, members, with the opportunity to present SB 148, which is a district specific bill to address the transportation needs of

the county of Contra Costa, which I represent. SB 148 would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority or CCTA to place a countywide sales tax measure of up to 1% on a future ballot to continue funding transportation programs within the county. Currently, CCTA is receiving funding for measure j, a previously approved transportation sales tax that was approved by the voters in November 2004 and set to expire in 2034.

Through a stakeholder process, CCTA adopted a county wide expenditure plan for measure j expenditures, which have funded major freeway interchange improvements such as Interstate 680, in addition to local street repair programs, bus and rail infrastructure, and paratransit services for seniors and people with disabilities.

CCTA seeks to put a measure, to the voters, in advance of 2034, because early renewal ensures a smooth transition between the new measure and the prior, transportation sales tax to allow project certainty as transportation projects have a long lead time for funding and completion.

Similar to measure j, CCTA, if if this bill moves forward, will prepare a countywide expenditure plan in coordination with local agency stakeholders in the public. It is anticipated that the revenues generated from the new sales tax will continue investments in state highway construction upgrades, local road maintenance and improvements, biking and pedestrian infrastructure, public transit, and mobility programs. So with me to testify and support the bill is Mark Watts on behalf of CCTA. At the appropriate time, respectfully ask for an eye vote.

Thank you very much. You may begin.

Thank you, Chair and members. As indicated, I'm Mark Watts here today in support of SB 148 on behalf of the board of directors of CCTA. First, I'd like to thank the or the board would like me to thank the author for introducing this measure. For more than thirty five years, Contra Costa County has had a very clear record of success as a self help county in the providing transportation services through voter approved transportation funding.

CCTA has delivered transformative projects and improved mobility, safety, and economic vitality throughout the region.

For example, a half billion dollar addition of the 4th Floor of the Caldecott Tunnel improved connectivity between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and was delivered on time and on budget. The author did mention the six eighty program that's underway that will increase corridor throughput without adding general purpose lanes. Contra Costa voters had twice renewed their commitment to this local transportation model because they have seen real results. They know that local decision making, accountability, and efficient project delivery create value for taxpayers.

Simply put, SB 148 provides local residents the opportunity to decide whether to renew the existing 1 half cent transportation sales tax before it expires in in 2034.

On behalf of c CTA board of directors, I respectfully ask for your support of SB 148. I'll leave it at that. I'll cut this short. Thank you very much. Yeah.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of this measure, 14 o eight. Please come to the microphone, name, organization. This is support for this measure.

Isha Ayar on behalf of the city of El Cerrito in support.

Thank you.

Mister Chair, Jeff Neal representing the board of supervisors of Panchaca County also in support.

Thank you very much. Lead opposition to this measure 1408. Would you please come forward and lead opposition? Hearing and seeing none. Wanna bring it to the committee.

Any members wishing to speak? Have any questions? Let me just open up. Anyone in the room wishing to add on in opposition to this measure? You have the same right.

Don't wanna leave you out of the conversation. Hearing and seeing none, no members. Senator, you may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Members, this item is a vote item, so I will entertain a motion. This is do passed to the Assembly floor, so I'll entertain a motion on fourteen o eight. Okay. It's been moved by member Court Silver and second by miss McKenna.

Madam secretary, please follow the role.

The motion is do passed to the Assembly floor. Gibson?

Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, no. Carrillo?

Aye.

Aye.

Carrillo, aye. De Maio? No. DeMio, no. McInner?

Aye. McInner, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva, aye.

Michelle Rodriguez?

Not voting.

Michelle Rodriguez not voting. 42. It passes.

That bill is out. We'll Thank you. No one's asking. Right? Well, step didn't Okay.

So it's 42.

It's 42. That bill is out. Thank you very much, Senator.

And then I'm gonna present the omnibus bill for the housing committee. Yes. As the chairman of the committee. Item number seven.

Yes. Item number seven, SB 1072. You may open on that measure.

Okay. Thank you once again, Mister Chair, members. As the chairman of the Senate Housing Committee, I'm presenting the annual housing omnibus bill, which is intended to make a variety of technical, noncontroversial changes to state law within the Senate Housing Committee's jurisdiction. And and the bill updates various provisions of state law relating to the low income housing tax credit statute to account for recent federal changes among other technical changes.

As we know, the omnibus bills are brought forward and reviewed by an extensive list of housing policy experts and practitioners.

And as per omnibus policy, all measures must have consensus between all members of the committee. This is a bipartisan measure that received no no votes throughout the process, including on the Senate floor. I respectfully ask for that vote.

Thank you very much. Any no witnesses. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of this measure ten seventy two, should please come forward? Hearing and seeing none. Any primary lead opposition to this measure?

Hearing and seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Any members wishing to have any comments? It's been properly moved by miss Rodriguez, seconded by Mister DeMaio. Senator, you may close if

you wish. Secretary, I vote.

Thank you very much. This is do passed to the committee on appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to Assembly appropriations. Gibson.

Aye.

Gibson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Carrillo.

Aye.

Carrillo, aye. DeMile. Aye. Mayo, aye. McKinner.

Aye. McKinner, aye. Quirk Silva. Quirk Silva, Aye. Michelle Rodriguez.

Michelle Rodriguez, Aye. It's out seven zero.

Thank you very much, Senator.

It's out.

That bill is out. Seven zero?

Seven zero.

Seven zero. I'll file item number six, s B1424. Archuleta. Thank you very much, Senator, and you may begin when ready. I think you have two items before us.

Just one. Excuse me.

Just one.

My eyes are trying to play tricks on me. And your witnesses, you're they have two minutes each, and you may begin when ready, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Chair Gibson, thank you so very much for allowing me to to present my bill. And I'd also like to thank the committee as well because I know each and every one of you worked awfully hard to move this along with me, and I appreciate that. So it it's important that the economy in California and the economy of hydrogen and EV is is moving forward.

So this bill, with your support, has moved along, and that's why I appreciate accepting your amendments and working with me to this to this point.

Senate bill 1424 will allow zero emission vehicle fueling equipment, including charging and hydrogen station to qualify for the state's existing partial sales and use tech program intended to support advanced manufacturing and power generations. This program is administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and is scheduled to sunset on 07/01/2020. So assuming this bill is passed and signed, it would be a term limited three year bill, which is very, very important. A term limited three year bill, partial sales tax exemption.

California transportation sector account for roughly 50% of the state's green gas emissions and about 90% of the diesel, participant, matter in pollution, making the transportation and the transition to zero emissions technologies essential to achieving the state's climate and air quality goals.

To this end, California has established ambitious zero emission vehicle deployment targets through both legislation and executive action. Achieving these goals depends heavily on the availability of a robust fueling network, which Senate Bill 1424 is designed to support. By expanding the existing partial sales tax exemption to include a broader range of zero emission vehicle fueling equipment, California can help mitigate the significant impacts stemming from reduced federal support for clean transportation.

These challenges have been further compounded by the federal actions under the Trump administration that have undermined key programs California has relied on, such as the natural electric vehicle infrastructure program, also known as the NEVI program, and Arches, California's hydrogen hub, thereby setting back the state's transportation decarbonization efforts. Senate bill 1424 seeks to support those activities investing in the decarbonization of California's transportation sector by providing a term limited exemption from the state's portion of the sales and use tax for zero emission vehicle fueling equipment.

This targeted incentive will reduce upfront capital costs for infrastructure developers, help, projects pencil out, and accelerate the deployment of both charging and hydro fueling networks at the scale required to meet California's climate and clean energy mandates. Without the support, California risks slower infrastructure expansion, higher costs for operators and consumers, and delays in achieving its emissions reductions targeted by broader transportation decarbonization goals. This bill has received no no votes, has no known opposition, and is supported by both the hydrogen and charging community.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today, I have Theresa Cook with the California Hydrogen Coalition and Julie Melonowalski Ball representing the California Electric Transportation Coalition to testify and support and help answer any technical questions you may have.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you very much. Whoever wants to go first.

Good evening, Chair and members. Theresa Cook on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, pleased to cosponsor SB 12201424. This measure would provide additional support to zero emission vehicle fueling infrastructure developers by expanding the existing sales and use tax exemption for manufacturing under CDTFA for the remaining three years until the program sunset. The timing of this support mechanism is critical as industry seeks to continue investing private capital and clean transportation while the enabling regulatory policies and federal support have stalled.

S B 1424 also contains critical reporting mechanisms to ensure funds are meaningfully impacting charging station and hydrogen station counts.

For these reasons, we encourage your support for fourteen twenty four at the appropriate time, and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Thank you.

Julie Malinowski, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support. You know, Cali, the author already talked about this, but, you know, the Federal Government is rolling back all our clean air goals. You know, in particular, our zero emission vehicle incentives have disappeared. Our infrastructure incentives to the tune of over $1,000,000,000 have disappeared.

Our vehicle emission standards have been rolled back and our CAFE standards. You know? So the so when a vehicle needs to meet certain basic, you know, fuel efficiency rules, those things have been rolled back. Now California can't make up for everything that the federalist government is doing to attack our clean air goals.

So this bill, SB 1424, comes in and says, well, at the very least, let's make sure that for those who have vehicles today and those who are gonna buy zero emission vehicles in the future, at the very least, let's make sure that we can fuel them, long into the future.

That is why we are supporting this technology neutral, approach. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of this measure, fourteen twenty four, would you please line up? The room is thinning out. Okay. Lead opposition to this measure.

You have the same right to come forward hearing and seeing none. Anyone in the room wishes to speak in opposition to this measure? Okay. Wanna bring it to the dais. Okay.

The suspense? Yes. It is. She was looking at me like she she was serious. Wow.

Okay. Thank you very very much, Senator. You may close if you wish.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair, and thanks for allowing me to hit a home run today.

And go Dodgers. And thank you, and thank you for your aye vote, and I appreciate it.

Yes.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. This item will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you and your witnesses for coming forward. Thank you very much. Go away with the call. Absentees

Yeah. On these two. Okay. I'm gonna open the roll up for absentee members on file item number two, AB 911.

Yeah. On these two. Okay. I'm gonna open the roll up for absentee members on file item number two, AB 911.

Calling the absentee members, madam Chair. [ ROLL CALL]

Opening file item number three, AB, 1172, madam secretary, for absent members.

The bill has passed. Absentee is DeMio?

Eleven seventy two.

[ROLL CALL]

So, we're all caught up, and both of those bills are out. Having dealt with all the items under the regular order of business portion of the of this hearing, we will now take up bills on the suspense file and file item order, including bills that were presented earlier today. We will start with a file item number one, SB 661, by Senator Hurtado.

The Chair is recommending an aye vote, and the motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriation. The technical amendments or clarifying amendments are spelled out on in comments J of the bill analysis. Do we have a motion and a second?

So been properly moved in motions and second. Madam secretary, please call the roll on file item one SB 661.

The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

That bill is out seven zero. We're now moving to file item number four, SB 1329 by Senator McNearney. The Chair is recommending an aye vote, and the motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriation.

The amendment strikes the contents of the bill and instead includes the value. Attributable, renewable, energy credits, and the governmental subsidy under the income method and to the governmental subsidy under the cost method. Do we have a motion and a second?

Been moved and seconded by Quirk Silva and seconded by McKenna. Madam secretary, please call the row. I don't think this is right. I don't think I got you.

The motion is do pass as amended. [ROLL CALL]

Next up, file item number 6.

You have to say it passes 5 to 2.

Oh, that I'm sorry. That item passes

5 to 2.

5 to 2, and that was SB 1329. We're now moving on to file item number six, SB 1424. That bill will be held in committee. File item number eight, SB 1435.

Okay. For everyone following along, we are now having completed actions on the bill that will refer to the suspense during the first portion of the day's hearing. We will now move to items that will refer to the suspense file prior hearing. So first file item is file item number 9 SB 288.

We're going back to file item number 8 SB 1435. So, file item number eight, SB 1435, the Senate Committee on Revenue Taxation.

The Chair is recommending an aye vote, and the motion is do passed, to the committee on appropriation. Do I have a motion? Okay. It's been moved by McKinnon, second by miss Rodriguez. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

That bill is out 7/0. That street's So now we're going to file item number eight, SB 288, Seattle. The Chair is recommending aye vote, and the motion is do passed to the Assembly committee on appropriation. Do I have a motion? Christian. Move on quirk silvers. Second by McKenner. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

That bill is out 7/0. Next file, item number 10, SB 296. The Chair is recommending an aye vote, and the motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly on Committee on appropriation.

The amendments exempt the half of the value of the disabled veterans on homes or those who do not qualify as low income to align with the action this committee took on AB 2022 by the Assembly member, Gonzales. Do I have a motion?

It's been boomed by McKenna, second by miss Rodriguez. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

That bill is out 7/0. File item number 11 SB 353 will be held in committee. File item number 12 SB 420. The Chair is recommending an aye vote, and the motion is do passed to the committee, to the Assembly floor. The record of the amendment clarifies that the welfare exemption shall not apply to any detention facilities.

Do I have a motion? It's been moved by miss Carrillo, second by miss McKenna. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed as amended to the Assembly floor. [ROLL CALL]

That bill is out five to two. The next is file item number 13, SB 881. The rules committee has approved the adoption of an urgency clause. Do I have a motion and a second on the urgency clause? It's been moved by McKenna.

Second by miss Rodriguez. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

On the urgency for SB 881. [ROLL CALL]

On the urgency that bill that passes seven zero. On the bill, the Chair is recommending an aye vote, and the motion is do passed to the Assembly Committee on Appropriation. Do I have a motion? Motion. It's been moved by Sanchez, second by miss Rodriguez.

Madam secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed as admitted to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

That bill is out 7/0. Next file line number 14 SB 888. The chairs recommend so we'll file out under 14 SB 888. We can go back. The chair's recommending aye vote, and the motion is do passed to the committee on appropriation. Do I have a motion? It's removed by Rodriguez, second by miss Sanchez.

Madam Chair madam secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to appropriations. [ ROLL CALL]

That bill is out seven zero. File item number 15 SB 1053. The Chair is recommending aye vote. Do I have a motion? It's been moved by Rodriguez, second by McKenner. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to appropriations. [ ROLL CALL]

That bill is out seven zero. File item seven file item 16, SB 1249. That bill will be held. File item 17, SB 14O6. The Chair is recommending an aye vote and the motion.

File item number 17 SB 14O6. The Chair is recommending aye vote. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriation. Do I have a motion? It's been moved by Rodriguez, second by McKenner.

Madam secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

That bill is out 5 to 2. File item number 18, SB 14O7. Final bill, file item number 18, SB 147. The chair's recommending an aye vote, and the motion is do passed with committee on appropriation. Do we have a motion?

Moved. It's been moved by miss Rodriguez. Second by miss Quirk Silva. Madam secretary, please call the roll. The motion is do passed to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

Before we adjourn, I want to thank everyone who, who participated in our hearings for the Senate bills, including members of the public and stakeholders and the Assembly sergeants and, of course, the committee members. Thank you very much. This, for all purposes, my last hearing as the Chair of the Assembly Revenue Taxation Committee. It's been a privilege and a pleasure.

I want to thank, speaker Robert Rivas for one appointing me, to Chair of this Committee, but I also want to thank, acknowledge the not only each and every one of you, but also our Republican caucus consultant, miss King.

I want to applaud her for her leadership, for her dedicated service, to the state, but also to this committee. She will be retiring, and so we want to say best wishes on your future endeavors. It has certainly been a pleasure working with you.

We thank you for your dedication to this committee, but also your dedication and service to the people of state of California. Thank you so very, very much, and we applaud you. Thank you. So let me check. Is there any business for us?

We're good.

We're good. Thank you. The committee on revenue and taxation stands adjourned. Thank you.