Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Senate committee on labor, public employment, and retirement will commence. We have 12 items on the agenda today, and it looks like we are starting as a subcommittee as we are missing some of our members. There are a number of committees happening simultaneously, so folks will be coming in and out. I see we have a good a good Assembly member, Gibson, here with us for file item number one. So we will start there.

And if you have witnesses, they're welcome to sit at the table. An Assembly member, we now have it looks like a quorum. So if you don't mind, we're gonna call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1054. Assembly Bill 1054. I want to start by thanking the committee and the Chair for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the the amendments, the committee amendments.

All of us share a common knowledge that natural disasters once thought incomprehensible are now part of a common, common California fabric.

We have entered an era that is being called the new norm. The best response during these times of crisis is to retain the most experienced public safety personnel to protect our people, our neighborhoods, and our businesses. Assembly Bill 1054 helps law enforcement agencies retain knowledgeable highway patrol officers and firefighters on the job.

Unfortunately, both highway patrol officers and Cal Fire struggles to keep on board the personnel ideally to suit, to direct response when they need it when they are needed the most. The Deferred Retirement Option Program known as DROP is nearly revolutionary nor untested.

We have seen it work well in other parts of California and even in other states. Specifically, Assembly Bill 1054 will allow CHP officers and Cal Fire, Cal Fire fighters who is eligible for retirement to voluntarily work for an additional five years while accumulating retirement benefits, in an interest bearing account. The DROP program works for employees because they receive the accumulative funds as a supplemental to their pension.

And if, and if it works for the state because it is cost neutral and I wanna repeat, it is cost neutral. The legislature is absolutely clear that there cannot be a cost to the state.

This is this is a this is a bill long overdue. We will benefit from the legislation when California need it the most. Members I have with me today, we will have the President of the California High Patrol, the President of the Association, but his duties allow him to, right now, to have to stay in Southern California, but we have a well capable representative representing both sides.

Mister Terry McKay, McKay, McHale, here who will be representing Cal Fire Local 2821, and also will be speaking on behalf of also the President of the California Association of Highway Patrol as well for any technical questions and also be testifying in support of this measure 1054.

Thank you. And Sir, you have two minutes.

Madam Chair, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing Cal Fire firefighters and the California Association of Highway Patrol. First, I wanna thank the committee consultant Glenn Miles who willingly gave up a day off to sit with the Assembly PERS consultant Michael Bolden, Assemblymember Gibson staff, and stakeholders to work on this legislation. It was very much appreciated. Madam Chair, we had such a good time. We've decided to make it an annual event.

We have come to agreement on the fundamental principles that the DROP program created by this legislation must be cost neutral, completely transparent, actuarily reviewed every five years, and through the bargaining process determined to be beneficial both to management and to employees.

The bill is sponsored by the Women and Men of the California Highway Patrol and the firefighters of CAL FIRE. Mister Miles' analysis is succinct and accurate.

The program allows participating officers and firefighters to continue working one to five years as bargained with the state, freeze their defined benefit pension, benefit accrual, divert the employee's contribution to their DROP account, and with the amendments that we are taking, allow a return that is one and a half percent less than the reinvestment return for CalPERS.

AB 1054 serves as a voluntary program allowing eligible officers and firefighters to extend their careers while securing enhanced retirement benefits at no cost to the state.

AB 1054 not only addresses the critical staffing shortage but retains the knowledge and experience of veteran officers. We've agreed with the amendments that have been put in place. Although just for clarification, I did speak with Mister Miles in terms of the legislature opening and being able to vote and close on this. I would just wanted to make sure that it didn't interfere with the California rule. I do not believe that it does.

The legislation itself says that notwithstanding subdivision a, nothing in this chapter shall prevent the legislature from making changes to this chapter where the terms of the program and DROP is not an initial offering. But just as a cautionary note, I just don't wanna do anything to inhibit the the California rule. So Madam Chair, members of the committee, this is a great bill and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any me too's in support of this bill? Please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

We were merciful, Madam Chair. We knew you were going to have enough me too's on another bill. So we worked this out we worked this out with your committee not to bring.

Okay. Well, we appreciate that.

But we certainly support those who did come today for the other bill.

Opposition, any other opposition witnesses here today. Please come to the table if you're a witness speaking in opposition to the bill.

And you have two minutes.

Yeah. I don't think I need it on this. My name is Marsha Fritz I'm a retired CPA. I assisted I was requested to assist Governor Brown when he developed, PEPRA and I was also a member of the governmental accounting standards board task force that changed the accounting rules. And I can help help you on this if it goes through.

I strongly oppose a DROP program. When we passed PEPRA, our bond ratings in California almost a day later went up. That's like a tax increase that we didn't have to pay. If drop passes California's bond rating may be impacted negatively. I've worked with the bond industry.

I hope you've consulted with them because they do not like DROP. It require it it's cost neutral on paper but it requires a guaranteed rate of return on the pension money that's being accumulated and that creates risk and that's why your bond rating may be affected. 70% of the voters, 70% of the citizens opposed the pensions before we passed PEPRA.

And Brown and I worked to acknowledge their anger at the I actually posted online the $100,000 pension club that created a massive revolt among taxpayers. When you add drop to the $100,000 pension club list of these payouts and we're talking half a million, 3 quarters of a million dollar is going to be going to people that enroll in this DROP programs.

That is going to be a voter backlash that's going to come back on Cal Fire and CHP. So I just caution you to be very careful with this even though it's cost neutral.

Thank you. Any more Me too oppositions out there, please step to the mic.

Okay. Seeing none, we will come to members. Any questions or comments?

I'll move the bill.

We have we have a motion from Senator Strickland. Senator Durazo, would you like to speak?

Yes. Thank you very much. Of course, you know, in broad terms I support I support their proposal. But if someone could respond to the remarks, the concerns that we just made, I think is really important because we all have to be concerned about the financial aspects of it. So if you could

Yeah.

Yes, Senator Durazo, Terry McHale.

And as specific as

I'll be very specific.

Because that's

When we did DROP, we looked at I'm sorry.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry.

When we when we did DROP, we looked at previous history and what DROP programs didn't work. This bill, we did an actuarial analysis in the Assembly before it was introduced. The bill gets analyzed every five years by finance. Every five years, it has to be actuarially sound. Unlike previous drop bills, the only contribution that is being made is the employee contribution of 14.5 %.

The employee contributions the employer contribution stops, and in reality we feel that the department and the state make money on this because they stop making the employer contribution. The other thing that's unique to this DROP program is that there is absolutely zero double dipping.

So the defined benefit part of retirement ends is does not start until the DROP program is in cessation. So it's it really is cost neutral. It really does have guards to make sure that it doesn't become problematic.

And, I think we've dealt with all the doomsday possible impacts, by making sure that the return is 1.5% less than what CalPERS would be getting. So we've been very, very conscientious. We have taken seriously what the previous testimony had said. It's and we will continue to listen to her, and I'm sure she'll hold us accountable.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. It looks like we have a motion from Senator Strickland. Assembly member, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. And I'm glad that Terry was here to respond to the opposition. This is an effective way to, one, keep our experience not only high patrol officers here because there is a shortage in California, not only of experience, but also personnel who is retiring early or retiring. And we want to make sure we keep, the best and the brightest and experienced officers, but also firefighters as well.

We wanna make sure that in case of an emergency that we have personnel that is there to be able to handle the that kind of emergency.

And also, we wanna make sure that we take care of those in uniform to handle the emergencies that continue to rise here in California. I wanna thank my witness for being here and also thank the men and women in uniform that stepping up each and every day, putting their lives on the line, and being our frontline warriors and champions. I respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have a motion for Senator Strickland. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

Okay. We have a vote of 4-0. The bill's on call. We'll take it out when members return. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I would move the consent item which happens to be authored by the guy walking out of the room. So I would I would move the consent item.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird on the consent item. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A vote of four to zero. The consent calendar is on call. We are going to move now to file item number two two.

Okay. We're not moving to a file item. We're gonna take a little break here as we wait for Assemblymember McKinnor. File item number two, and then we have file item number three with Assemblymember Muratsuchi. If you are in and around the building, please come to Room 2200.

Alright. We have a member. We're excited very excited to see Assemblymember Flora. We're gonna move on to file item number 9, AB 2129. And you may proceed when ready. If you have a witness, they can have a seat at the front table.

I think we're gonna try to find him, but we'll present it. If not, like, I don't think we're gonna need him.

That's we appreciate it. So well, thank you, senators. Appreciate your time. Today, I'm presented AB 2129, which improves compensation for CAL FIRE firefighters by ensuring their salaries are more competitive with local fire departments. AB 2129 aims to improve hiring and retention and will reduce firefighters or losing firefighters to higher paying jurisdictions, which will assist CAL FIRE in meeting the their state's public safety needs.

And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I do have a witness, but we'll see.

K. Well okay. Well, we will take the Me Too's in support. Please come to the mic. State your name and affiliation.

Thank you, madam Chair and members. Megan Soopers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Thank you. Seeing any other me too's. Okay. We will move to opposition. Is there an opposition witness here?

Seeing none, opposition me too's. K. Seeing none, we'll move to the dias. Do we have?

Madam Chair, I would move this one.

Thank you. Have a motion by Senator Laird. Assembly member, would you like to close?

I just really appreciate it. This bill's been we've been working on it for a while and look forward to get to the governor's desk again, and hopefully, he'll sign it this year. But we appreciate you here in the bill and appreciate the senators vote an aye on when they get here. Appreciate your time.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Assistant, please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of three to zero. That bill is on call. We'll take it up when the members return.

Since we're waiting. Thank you.

Alright. We are gonna just open up the the role on file item number nine, and that was AB 201 29 by Flora. Let's call the role.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of four to zero. That bill remains on call.

Alright. The member of the hour has arrived. We have now moving to file item number 2, and that is AB 1383, Assembly member Mckinnor.

If you have witnesses and support, they're welcome to have a seat at the table. Okay. Alright. Well, we are ready to proceed when you are.

Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you madam Chair, and thank you so much for your patience. Of course, it's a very, very busy day. Madam Chair and members, AB 1383 makes limited revisions to the California Public Employees Pension Reform Act or PEPRA to address recruitment, retention, and challenges among the state's first responders.

Thank you madam Chair, and thank you so much for your patience. Of course, it's a very, very busy day. Madam Chair and members, AB 1383 makes limited revisions to the California Public Employees Pension Reform Act or PEPRA to address recruitment, retention, and challenges among the state's first responders.

Sixteen years ago, and in order to stabilize the excuse me, stabilize the state's retirement system, the legislature made significant modifications to public employee retirement benefits including the retirement formulas, the age of retirement, and requiring public employees to contribute more to their own retirement benefits. While many of the of these changes to PEPRA are still necessary, for the long term health of the retirement fund, retirement formula reductions are a contributed factor to vacancies throughout the public sector in the state, especially with our first responders.

AB 1383 does not grant retroactive retirement benefit increases or pension holidays, and it does not change other necessary appropriate PEPRA guardrails. AB 1383 only applies prospectively recognizing the ongoing challenges and dedication of our firefighters, police, and the unique challenges and risk associated with a career as a first responder. AB 1383 represents our need to recruit and retain the next generation of first responders needed to protect the lives and property of residents across California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Today, my witness is Daryl Roberts, president, California Professional Firefighters.

Thank you.

Thank you. And you have one witness or two? Two. Okay. And you each have two minutes.

And please introduce yourself. You may proceed.

I will.

You may proceed.

Good morning, madam Chair and president, members of the committee. My name is Joe Roberts, and I'm the president of the California professional firefighters representing over 37,000 firefighters and emergency medical personnel throughout California. I'm also an active duty firefighter in the city of Chula Vista, where I've been proud to serve for the last twenty five years. Every day spent in the firehouse with my brothers and sisters is both rewarding and challenging, and I'm grateful for every opportunity to put on my gear and run calls.

However, that doesn't mean that I and every firefighter here today are blind to the risks that come with every day on this job and what each year spent working means for us and our families.

The danger is obvious when we're running into burning building, but the invisible threat of cancer is the one that plagues us the most. Showing up to a shift means being exposed to deadly, potent carcinogens, diesel fuels, PFAS, asbestos, benzene, hydrogen fluoride, off gases from electronics, lithium ion batteries, plastics, all of these and more that I can name here. Each year, cancer takes more of my members, more of my colleagues, and more of my friends, And the risk only keeps growing.

Every day has a cost, and it's one that we pay with our lives. This job is physically and mentally demanding in the extreme and asking us to work until 57 is pushing us not just to our limit but beyond it.

By lowering the retirement age of firefighters and other public safety officials to 55, this bill takes reasonable measured steps to balance both the security of retirement funds and protect the health of the men and women who have stepped up to protect us all. For their sake and for the future of profession, I strongly urge your support of AB 1383 with an aye vote. Thank you for your time.

You may proceed two minutes and introduce yourself, please.

Good morning, madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Brian Marvel. I am the president of PORAC, the Peace Officers Research Association of California. We represent over 87,000 public safety officer members across California. President Roberts spoke about the physical and personal cost of public safety jobs.

I wish to address the cost to California's communities. We face a staffing crisis without a modern precedent. Departments struggle to recruit, retain, and fill academy classes. The result is forced overtime, staff burnout, all white communities endure longer wait times. At my department in San Diego, residents wait an average of more than thirty eight minutes for a priority one call, which involves serious crimes in progress or threats to life, such as domestic violence, child abuse, bomb threats, Other calls are waiting hours.

Imagine a domestic violence victim hiding in a bathroom as her abuser remains in the house. Imagine a parent whose child has gone missing knowing help is thirty eight minutes away or longer. Those are the longest thirty eight minutes of a person's life, and they reflect the daily reality of public safety in California's second largest city. These delays stem not from a lack of dedication, but from a workforce stretched beyond capacity.

The modest statewide employer cost of AB $13.83 pale against the far greater expense of chronic understaffing, record overtime, officer burnout, turnover, and declining service letters.

California is already paying dearly for this crisis. The question before this committee, therefore, not whether employers can afford AB 1383, but how much longer our communities can afford to go without it. PORAC Respectfully urges your aye vote and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have support witnesses here? Me too's. I know we have quite a few, and we're gonna really keep everyone to just your name, affiliation, and position. We have many folks to get through.

So I ask that folks have real discipline around name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Please begin.

Aliyah Griffin, American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, proud cosponsor in support.

Alisha Rosa, president of the Sheriff's Employees Benefits Association in support.

Vince Wells, CPF fourth district, representative of the nine Bay Area counties, speak in support.

Good morning, honorable Chair, honorable committee members. Roger Hilton, president of the California Fraternal Order of Police, in strong support of 1383. Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair. John Kaczewski, Santa Ana POA, in support.

Good morning. Shane Lavigne, California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, Long Beach Police Officers Association, and the Sacramento Deputy Sheriff Sheriffs Association, all in support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Ross Pounds. I'm a Monterey firefighter. I'm also the California Professional Firefighters third district vice president. I represent 46 different locals from Monterey all the way up to the Oregon border. I stand in support.

I I stand in support.

Good morning. My name is Afrak Vargas. I'm with Fire and Flood Emergency Services. We're the world's foremost experts in high volume water movement, proud to support CPF sponsored measure to save firefighter retirement.

Morning, madam Chair. George Osborne for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in strong support.

Good morning, committee. Charlie Martinez, Vandenberg Professional Firefighters Local F-116, and fifth district vice president representing federal and industrial fire firefighters up and down California in strong support. Thank you.

Morning. Brian Oftedal, captain with the Oakland Fire Department and also fire commissioner with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Matthew Chircop, president of the Santa Maria Firefighters Local 2020 with strong support. Thank you.

Sarah Flock, California Federation of Labor Unions in strong support.

Good morning. Sam Gabler, president of San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 in strong support. Thank you.

Bruno Bovo, also San Francisco firefighter in strong support to support my brothers and sisters. No more cancer.

Good morning. Sean Ramsey, Modesto City Firefighter Association in strong support.

Good morning. James Woodmansee, president of Modesto City Firefighters. We're in strong support.

Good morning. Devin Robeson, local 456, Stockton Firefighters president, strong support.

Good morning. Rob Murphy, Oakland Fire in strong support.

Good morning. Captain Alameda County Fire Department, Local 55, Alameda County Firefighters, strong support.

Good morning. Kevin Todd, Oxnard Fire, strong support.

Good morning. Matthew Bollinger, fire department Chair for Oakland Firefighters Local fifty five with strong support.

Good morning. Dustin Rodriguez, Sacramento, area firefighters local 522 and strong support.

Dustin Rodriguez, Sacramento, area firefighters local five fifty two and strong support. Andrew Galley, union president for Hayward Firefighters Local Nine Three Zero Nine, strong support. Greg Fonts, Sacramento area local five two two in support. Good morning. Steve McGraw, local eleven eighty six, Solano Napa, professional firefighters in strong support.

Andrew Galley, union president for Hayward Firefighters Local 1909, strong support.

Greg Fonts, Sacramento area local 522 in support.

Good morning. Steve McGraw, local eleven eighty six, Solano Napa, professional firefighters in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Tim Pearson with eleven eighty six in strong support. Thank you.

Tim Pearson with eleven eighty six in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Molina Menicktis on behalf of the lieutenant governor, Eleni Kounalakis, in support.

Good morning. Brandon Dowdy, Sacramento Firefighters Local 522. Strong support.

Good morning. Ryan Henry, Sacramento firefighters local five two two in strong support.

Good morning. Sean Scollard, Sacramento area firefighters local 522 in strong support.

Trevor Jamison, president of Sacramento area, firefighters, local 522 in strong support. Thank you.

Ryan Dockter, Dixon Firefighters Local 4665 in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jose Luna, part of local thirty five forty priority fire and rescue in support.

Good morning. Anthony Hallworth, local thirty five forty Murrieta Firefighters Association in strong support. Thank you, guys.

Good morning. Vic Reeves, Chula Vista Fire Department, San Diego, and local 2180 vice president in strong support.

Good morning. Nick Parra, Chula Vista Fire Department, local 2180 secretary in strong support.

Good morning. Dawson Wisser, Gilroy Firefighters 2805 at strong support.

Good morning. Steven Hayes, Gilroy Firefighters president, strong support.

Steven Hayes, Gilroy Firefighters president, strong support. Good morning. Peyton Turner, local twenty o five City of Gilroy, and I'm strong support.

Good morning. Peyton Turner, local2805 City of Gilroy, and I'm strong support.

Good morning. Christopher Channel, local 2805 Gilroy Firefighter. Strong support.

Good Morning. John Ward, Oxnard City Firefighter, local sixteen eighty four, strong support.

Let me get three. Three.

Andrew Barrons, Oxnard Fire Department, local 1684 president, strong support. Thank you, guys.

Good morning. Justin Matsushita, officially here representing the California Fire Chiefs Association. Cal Chiefs is in full support.

Good morning, everybody. John Bagala, president of the brand professional firefighters in strong support, and we thank you all for being here.

Good morning, everyone. Kevin Fugate, retired firefighter, local 1430, Ontario, California, strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Andrew Martinez, local twenty four hundred president, and, we support AB 1383. Thank you.

Jackson Shales, local 2400, DVP, strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Lance Letekin, local 2400, strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Dan Curtis, local 2400, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Randy Shipley, Local 2400, and I support this bill.

Good morning. Brendan Murphy, Local 2400, strong support. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Matt Van Orden, local 2400, strong support.

Thank you. Good morning. Will Claire, local 2400, strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Dustin King, local 2400 strongly support. Thank you.

Dustin King, local twenty four hundred, strongly split. Thank you. Good morning. Jake Wilkerson, president of Daley City Firefighters Association, local 2,400, strongly support.

Good morning. Jake Wilkerson, president of Daley City Firefighters Association, local 2,400, strongly support.

Los Simon, 2,400, I support this.

Good morning. Nick Van Laningham, San Mateo County 2400, strongest support.

Good morning. Blaine Fisher, local twenty four hundred, strongest support. Thank you.

Dale Hemsock, president of El Dorado Hills Professional Firefighters, local thirty six zero four, strongly support. Thank you.

Good morning. Andy Wise, Santa Cruz City Firefighters vice president, strongly support. Thank you.

Good morning. Eddie Carlson, Santa Cruz City local seventeen sixteen president, strongly support.

Sam Carter, Hayward Firefighters, local 1909 vice president, showing support.

Good morning. Chris Buck, Hayward firefighters local 1909, strongly support.

Shane Mantor, Hayward firefighters local 1909, strongly support.

Morning. Craig Martin, Hayward Firefighters local 1909, strongly support. Thank you.

Craig Martin, Hayward Firefighters local 19 o nine, strongly support. Thank you. Good morning. Samira Madzai, Hayward Firefighters local 19 o nine, and I strongly support. Good morning.

Good morning. Samira Madzai, Hayward Firefighters local 1909, and I strongly support.

Good morning. Ronnie Ryans, Hayward fire. Strongly support, 1383. Thank you.

Ronnie Ryans, Hayward fire. Strongly support, nineteen eighty three. Thank you. Samuel Farhi, local five two two, strongly support. Good morning.

Samuel Farhi, local 522, strongly support.

Good morning. Bruce Becker, Hayward fire, local 1909, strongly support.

Bruce Becker, Hayward fire, local 19 o nine, strongly support. Good morning. Zach Markey, local 19 o nine, strongly support.

Good morning. Zach Markey, local 1909, strongly support.

Good morning. Nicholas Stevens, Hayward, local 1909, strongly support.

Gavin Homer, 1592, strongly support.

Jordan Majestic, 522, strongly support.

Chris Relan, Sacramento City Fire, strongly support.

Good morning. Steve Dorsey, Contra Costa Firefighters Local 1230, strongly support.

Thank you. Good morning. Anthony, Siew Contra Costa County Local 1230, strongly support.

Morning. John Ford, 1230, strongly support.

Brian Pizzimenti, local 1230, strongly support.

Good morning. Dar Jalili, local 1230, strongly support.

Good morning. Justin Grima, local 1230, strongly support.

Ryan Porter, local twelve thirty, strongly support.

Alex Torugino, local 2,400, strongly support.

Ryan Reynold, 2,400. I support this bill.

Nick Viana, local twelve thirty, strongly support.

Dave Magnan, local 2,400, strong support.

Griffin Sims, local twelve thirty, strongly support.

Carrie Gregg, local twelve thirty, strongly support.

Jared Jones, local twelve thirty, strongly support. Nate Batts, local twelve thirty, strongly support. Kyle Wellington, local twelve thirty, strong support. Good morning. Will Pagoza, local twelve thirty, strong support.

Jeff Bradford, local twelve thirty, strong support. Good morning. Andrew Desmond, local twelve thirty, strongly support. Good morning. Zach Kendall, local twelve thirty, strong support.

Wait. Hold on here for one second. David Zalutski, local twelve thirty, strongly support.

Bob May, local twelve thirty, strong support.

Aaron Lemmings, Sioux City Fire Department, local eleven eighty six, strongly support. Luis Rivera, Sioux City Fire Department, eleven eighty six, strong support.

Julie Malinowski Ball, on behalf of the Fire Districts Association of California, in support.

Lucas Myers, five two two, strong support. Alex Heislinger, five two two, strong support. Jonathan Covey, local five two two, strongly support. Zach Sedrosno, local five two two, strongly support. Matt France, local five two two, strongly support.

Tom Gonley, local five two two, strongly support. Ted Gregory, local five two two, strong support. Adam Vansuch, five two two, strongly support. Magnus Johnson, five two two, strongly support. Austin Saz, five two two, strongly support.

Justin Williams, five two two, strongly support. Jordan White, five two two, strongly support. Alex Meeks, five two two, strongly support. Matthew Anderson, five two two, strongly support.

Alman Everett, five two two, strongly support.

Corey Condren, local two thirty, strongly support.

Good morning. Daniel Loomis, Hemet Firefighters, local twenty three forty two, strongly support.

Samantha Harper, Hemet, firefighters, local twenty three forty two, strongly support.

Chris Chapman, local ten sixty seven, strongly support.

Good morning. Dakota Downs, local ten sixty seven, strongly support. Morning. Dominic Luna, 1067, strong support.

Hello. Good morning. George Acosta, two two seven four, strong support.

George Hardeman, Local two two seven four, strongly support.

Good morning. Eddie Pimentel, Local two two seven four, strongly support. Good morning. Connor Gregorio, Local two two seven four, strongly support. Good morning.

Jeremy Day, National City Firefighters, local twenty seven forty four, Horizon strong support. Good morning. Dominic Province, local forty seven fifty nine, Horizon strong support. Dennis Young, Anaheim Firefighters, local twenty eight ninety nine, strong support. Good morning.

Jeremy Kunkel, Anaheim Firefighters, local twenty eight ninety nine, strong support.

Hello. Adam Diaz, local twelve eighty nine Modesto, showing our support.

Kai Lechler, local twelve eighty nine Modesto, I strongly support. Good morning. Dylan Gutierrez, 1289, strong support. Michael Herring, local 12 eighty nine Modesto, and I strongly support. Hi.

I'm Will Kaiser, local 12 eighty nine, strongly support. Peyton Camacho, local twelve eighty nine as well. Modesto, I strongly support. Jake Ryan, local twelve eighty nine, also strongly support. Eric Arnold, local twelve eighty nine, strongly support.

Joe Jarrett, Tracy Firefighter Association, strongly support. Stephen Pine, union president, Tracy Firefighter Association, strong support. Justin Legasa, Tracy Firefighters, strong support. Joe Flores, Tracy Firefighters, strong support. Good morning.

Anthony Anaya, local six eight nine, Alameda Firefighters, strong support.

Good morning. Sean Berger, local six eight nine, and strongly support.

Tyler Carrino, Local 689, strong support.

Good morning. Nicholas Mignani, Local 689, strong support.

Good morning. Deshaun Leally, Local 522, strong support.

Good morning. Jake Redmond, Local 522, strongly support.

Good morning. Noah Gula, Local 522, strongly support.

Good morning. Ryan Ryder, Local 522. I strongly support.

Good morning. Brandon Barrett, Local 2081. Strongly support.

Good morning. Retired firefighter from Local 2081. Strongly support.

Good morning. Retired, Local 2081. I strongly support, Nate Terrell.

Good morning. Brad Niven, CAL FIRE Local 2881, strong support.

Good morning. Jordan Mota, CAL FIRE Local 281. I support this bill.

Good morning. Brian Coffee, Local 2881, strongly support.

Good morning. Christopher Dean, Chico Firefighters, Local 2734 in strong support.

Good morning. Kevin Snyder, retired firefighter captain, local five two two. Strongly support this bill. Thank you for your time.

Good morning. Andrew Whaley, retired Sacramento area firefighters, Local 522. Strongly support. Thank you.

Good morning. Brandon Faddis, Local 522, and I support this bill.

Good morning. Chris Casielli, firefighter, local 522 and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Brian Benson, local 522. I support this bill.

Good morning. Jonathan White, Local 361 strongly support this bill.

Good morning. Daryl Bedrosian, Orange County Firefighters. We strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Matt Carlson, Orange County Professional Firefighters 3631. I also support this bill.

Chris Ham, President of Orange County Firefighters here supporting this bill. Thank you.

Miguel Gonzalez, President of Orange City firefighters, and I'm here strongly supporting this bill.

Good morning. I'm Jeremy Dantz. I'm with Local 1165 Santa Clara County firefighters. Strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Matthew Council. 1165, and I support this bill.

Good morning. I'm Spencer Riffenberg, Local 1165. I strongly support this bill.

Good morning. Anthony Fletcher, president, Santa Clara County Firefighters Local 1165, and we support this bill.

Good morning. My name is Marty Collins. Local 1165. We strongly support this bill. Thank you for your time.

Good morning. Joe Andrews. Local 1165. Strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Matt Duffield, 1165, strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Eric Mortimer, Napa City President, Local 3124, strong support.

Good morning. Rick Boatman, vice president, Local 3124 in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Tara Carlos, Local 3124, Napa City Firefighters in strong support. Thanks.

Good morning. Tim Pratt, Marin Professional Firefighters. Strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Syd Jamat, Health and Safety Chair for the Marin Professional Firefighters. Strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Jack Kicks Miller, Marin county professional firefighters, 1775. Please support this bill.

Good morning. Grant Ferguson, marine professional firefighters, local 1775. I support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Tommy Pasalka. Marine Professional Firefighters, local 1775. And I'm here on behalf of myself and my family to ask for your support on this bill. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Aaron Hakinen, Marin Professional Firefighters, local 1775. Strongly support.

Good morning. Jared Meyer, Marine Professional Firefighters, local 1775, here in strong support. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Ryan Fisher, Marin professional firefighters, local 1775. I strongly support this bill.

Good morning. Chris May, Marin professional firefighters,1775. I support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Damon McGuire, local 1775. Again, strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Carlos Berlanga, local 1775, in strong support of this bill.

Good morning. Dalton Locke, local 1775 in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Jeff Larkin, Marin professional firefighters, local 1775. I'm in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Ryan Day with Marin Professional Firefighters as well. Local 1775, and I strongly support this bill.

Good morning. Joe Stewart, Professional Firefighters of Sonoma County Local 1401. Strong support.

Good morning. Jonathan Bauer with Professional Firefighters of Sonoma County Local 1404. We strongly support this bill. Thank you.

My name is Zach Leandro. I'm in with professional firefighters, Sonoma County, local 1404. Heavily, strongly in part of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Gilbert Collins, Running Springs professional firefighters, local 5308. I'm in strong support of this bill.

Good morning. Seth Schachter, local 522. I strongly support this bill.

Good morning. My name is Steven Inderbitson with local 522, and I strongly support this bill as well.

Good morning. Frank Avank, Glendale Local 776, and I support this bill.

Good morning. My name is Greg Gonzales from Pasadena local 809, and I strongly support this bill.

Good morning. Local 809 Pasadena fire department, strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Joseph Hurley, local 809. I strongly support this bill.

Good morning. My name is Robert Ruzin, Pasadena fire department, local 809. I support this bill.

Madam Chair members, Matthew Seiberling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs in support. Thank you.

My name is Joshua Halsey with Sacramento local 522, and I thank you for supporting this bill.

Good morning. Ryan Cortez, Corona Firefighters, local 3757 and I support this bill.

Good morning. Michael Legal, Corona Firefighters local 3757. I support this bill.

Good morning. Robert Corral, Corona Firefighters local 3757, and I strongly support this bill.

Eric Estes, Corona Firefighters, strongly support this bill.

Connor Lardner, local 3737. I strongly support this bill.

Rex Pritchard, Long Beach Firefighters, local 372 in strong support.

Okay. I don't wanna ask, but is there anyone else, me too's in support?

Seeing none, we're all clear. We'll move to opposition.

Are there opposition witnesses? Please come and take a seat at the front table. We'll ask support to sit in the audience.

Okay. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members. I am Johnnie Pina on behalf of the League of California Cities here today and very respectful opposition to AB 1383. I wanna begin by acknowledging the authors, staff, sponsors, and supporters of this bill. We certainly recognize the critical role public safety professionals play in protecting our communities and the significant demands placed on those who serve. We share the goal of ensuring public employees have strong and reliable retirement benefits.

Our opposition to this bill is because of the fiscal impact this bill would have on our local authorities and the state as well. I just wanted to kind of go over the three main pieces of this bill and go over the price tag that is estimated from CalPERS with kind of the caveat that is just the cost estimate, done by CalPERS and does not include the cost estimates from all of the other, pension agencies that this bill would also impact.

The first being the increase to the pensionable compensation cap in the bill, that's applicable to not only public safety folks but every PEPRA employee. So every public employee who's hired after PEPRA went into effect in 2013.

CalPERS estimates that cost just in the first year could increase than normal cost by $241,000,000 per year. The second piece of that bill is of course, the reduction of the retirement age for public safety from 57 to 55.

CalPERS has tagged that at much lower but still significant cost of $38,000,000 in the first year for the normal cost. And third is the bargainable piece of the 3% at 55. CalPERS does have an estimate, a pretty significant price tag on that but again that depends on the decisions that are made at the local agency level.

And I wanted to talk about the normal cost piece as well, kind of how that is split amongst employees and the employers. Under PEPRA, the normal cost is split.

In general, half and half, if that increase goes over 1%, it's shared by employees and employers. If it's under, it is borne by the public agency. So if it goes over, it is split in half. So I wanted to point out an issue with the pension compensation cap. Could be that if the pension compensation cap goes up, increases the normal cost for that local agency over 1%.

The cost is shared between employers and employees. However, only those that are making over the cap itself will see a benefit from that increase. Essentially, those folks making under the cap will be paying out more out of their check but not seeing a benefit in their retirement because of that.

Just to conclude, we do definitely support strong retirement benefits, but those benefits must remain sustainable and fiscally responsible for our local agencies.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning Chair members. I'm Eric Lawyer speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties representing all 58 counties in the state. We too would like to start by recognizing the vital service provided by public safety employees and remain committed to maintaining a stable and sustainable retirement system for all public employees.

PEPRA was critical legislation necessary to avoid a funding crisis for the public pension systems and provide fiscal relief for public agencies. We deeply appreciate the bill analysis, which covers the history of PEPRA and frames, much of our broader concerns with the bill in great detail.

Pension systems are funded through multigenerational commitments from employers and employees. Sustainable funding relies on careful planning, investment, and management over decades. We are just beginning to see the benefits of PEPRA, which has already led to billions in savings and is projected to deliver more than 26,000,000,000 in savings over the next decade, helping stabilize the state and local budgets and support essential services.

It is easy to forget the time when PEPRA was passed.

Immediately following the great recession, CalPERS had a funded status of 58.4%, and public agencies were still paying off public obligation bonds after the 2004 recession. Many were calling to convert public pension benefits to a defined contribution hybrid plan akin to 401K. Public pension systems have climbed out of fiscal crisis but have a long road to go.

By increasing the pensionable compensation cap, lowering the retirement age for safety employees, and authorizing enhanced benefit formulas, AB 1383 would substantially increase long term pension liabilities and undermine the critical reforms of PEPRA. CalPERS estimates billings and additional future benefit obligations and higher annual contribution costs for employers and employees alike.

These costs come at a particularly difficult time. Local governments are already facing severe budget constraints, raising service demands, and the impacts of HR 1. AB 1383 would add to these severe fiscal pressures. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any me too opposition witnesses? Please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

Marsha Fritz, retired CPA, former adviser to Governor Schwarzenegger on his pension initiative, which was suspended, adviser to Governor Brown on PEPRA, member of the governmental accounting standard board task force on pension accounting and reporting, and I also represent 70% of the voters who oppose this bill.

Thank you, Lance Christensen, Vice President of California Policy Center, also somebody who had spent all the time on PEPRA. I represent also a coalition of local governments opposed to increase costs if we proceed down this path with AB 1383. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Brendan Orpickey on behalf of the California Transit Association, the Humboldt County Board Of Supervisors, the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and the City of Beverly Hills in respectful opposition.

Ophelia Szegetti on behalf of the California Special Districts Association respectfully opposes this bill.

Sarah Dekette on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, oppose the bill. I'll align my comments with both, individual testifying.

Good morning. Michelle Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Michelle Rubalcava with Nielsen Merksemer on behalf of the Board of County Supervisors of Contra Costa County in opposition.

Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the Cities of Burbank, Santa Rosa, Vernon, Merced, and the town of Truckee all in opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members, Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California. Also, respectfully opposed.

Anna Ioakimedes on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in opposition.

That looks like the end of our opposition may toos. We will come to the dais, Senator Strickland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanna announce and give you a reason why I'm voting the way I am. First of all, I take deep pride in my kind of brand of being fiscally responsible. And I always say when we talk about the budgets, a budget is nothing more than a blueprinting your priorities. I've always said, as Mayor of Huntington Beach and here at the state level, the most essential role of government is public safety.

On the national level, it's national security. But when you talk about locals, as Mayor of Huntington Beach and also as a State Senator, I wanna put public safety first. I think this should be the first thing that gets funded. I think we do a lot of funding. We could agree to disagree on some of the other things.

But I think our number one role is to keep our neighborhood safe. And when we talk about heroes, a lot of times it's loosely use loosely. My dad was a criminal military soldier. These individuals were the firefighters and the law enforcement officers put their lives on the line for us to keep us safe every single day.

We're at a time now where a lot of people are not going into these professions, and there was testimony here that response times are down because a lot of people are not going into this profession.

And they take a lot of big toll on their body. As a former athlete, I wish I was still playing. I played semi pro basketball. But at some point in your life as an athlete, your body breaks down, and you just can't do the job anymore. And they tell you your time's up.

To ask these firefighters and law enforcement officers, and I had the privilege to go to the Orange County Fire Authority and do a training. And I'll tell you, there's a reason why I'm not a firefighter. First of all, when there's danger, I run away from danger. They run into the building. Number two, I think they have some kind of instinct, that really is a calling.

But again, their body breaks down. I was carrying those packs going up and down the up and down the walls, breaking down the doors. It's physical exertion. And to ask these firefighters to go beyond 55, your body breaks down, just like you do as an athlete. And so just taking my district, Orange County Fire Authority, their pensions are 99% funded right now.

And on average, 58% of their salary is put into their pensions, which makes it 99% funded. If we can't support law enforcement and fire, you know, again, I go back to the most central government's public safety. And I also have another personal experience just a few weeks ago. We had a incident in Garden Grove, where there was a likely, we we came in on Thursday, and this company said there's nothing we can do.

We're gonna have a blubbie explosion larger than the Oklahoma City bombing in my district in Garden Grove.

The Orange County Fire Authority and their leaders said they would not accept that, that notion, and that's what they heard from the business. They said their backup two backup systems went down, and there's nothing we can do. We're gonna have a bloody explosion. That's where we were on Thursday, and the firefighters got the best and brightest out there. We call it a state emergency, a federal emergency.

I wanna thank Governor Newsom, President Trump for allowing us to do that to give the best and brightest. But there was nights where these firefighters went to this facility, and they actually hand removed some of the I forgot what is the terminology it's called. But they knew there, at that time, that can blow at any time. And I was praying.

I still get goosebumps for these firefighters and their families that had to know that they're that they're they were putting their lives online to save that explosion from happening, which they actually end up doing.

You can't put a price tag on that, in my opinion. And so we will be fiscally responsible. These folks do pay into this pension, and I think this is a very reasonable ask of the state government. And if you're asking me to cut in other areas, I'm happy to cut in other areas for whatever the testimony was. The it says it's an extra I forgot it was a couple.

241,000,000 per year. If you're asking me to go cut 241,000,000 to pay for this, I'm happy to do that because I think this should be the first thing that gets funded. And that's those reasons I'm supportive of this bill, but and I'll move it at the appropriate time.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Strickland. We have a motion. Any other members, Questions? Comments?

Senator Durazo.

Thank you. It's great to see all of our firefighters and officers here. I wanna big a big shout out to the firefighters who are now still fighting a week long fire in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles. The dangers that those firefighters are facing are not just the is not just a routine fire. There are dangers that have never been confronted.

A 500,000 square foot roof of solar panels catching on fire is not something that happens every day. How do you deal with that is a question that it's not just a matter of standing there with the water hose. There's enormous dangers and responsibilities for our community. So I want to, thank the officers and firefighters who were there, in particular local 112 and local 1014. And also, I don't think there's a shortage.

Everybody has an experience, a story to tell of what firefighters mean and officers mean to our community. So wish we had all day to tell more of those stories, but this one stands out the most for me because it's happening right now. I also want, and I think all of us want to make sure that this is fiscally responsible and sustainable, because it doesn't do any good to do this for our firefighters and officers.

But then, you know, a few years later, something economically or financially tragic happens. And then what good did it do to be supportive?

So I have great respect, not a popular message to deliver to be opposed. I mean, I wouldn't wanna be in your shoes, saying no to the firefighters and what we all know that they need and they deserve. So I guess my question, has to do with how do we address the financial and fiscal responsibilities that that come with this, especially knowing that it's, as someone said, it's not something that you just buy today and pay today. This this takes planning.

This takes time to make sure that it's fiscally stable, to make sure that those benefits are actually paid out when they become due.

So Madam Chair, I guess it's maybe it's with the author. Just to or one of the

the witnesses

The witnesses

And then I can also talk about the caps. The current pensionable compensation cap for those in Social Security is about a $159,000. And for those not in Social Security, it's about a 191K. AB 1383 would adjust the caps by aligning it to the updated social security wages based on 01/01/2027, and then have the rate for those not in social security by a 135% of that base. For reference, the Social Security wage base in 2026 is a 184,500.

And when we talk about PEPRA, and people are concerned, will this lead back to the crisis that we have with PEPRA, I say no. The adjustment made by AB 1383 are perspective and paid for by both the employees and employers. This measure does not provide retroactive benefits and ensures benefits are funded by contributions.

We're gonna have thank you for that, Assemblymember. We will maybe ask this question. Do you wanna direct it to maybe we'll have it from the opposition and from the support to answer the question as well. Thank you.

I'm happy to go first. Thank you, madam Chair. Megan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. So on the fiscal responsibility question, it's a very good question. And we have thought, I think very deeply about this question before we even introduced the bill, which has changed since it's come to your committee and the costs have actually reduced.

A few things. The as you the opposition mentioned, CalPERS gave us an updated analysis based on the current version of the bill, estimating that everything in the bill rolled up together, about a $233,000,000 cost to CalPERS contracted agencies. There are 3,000 CalPERS contracted agencies.

So that $233,000,000 is spread amongst all 3,000 agencies, and it is split in half in terms of con employer contributions. Half of that 233,000,000 has to be paid for by the employees in our contributions to our retirement ourselves.

So, we have compared that to the savings that CalPERS has put out in their analysis from the first ten years of PEPRA, which is about $5,000,000,000 or since PEPRA has passed. CalPERS contracted agencies have saved about $5,000,000,000. And in the next ten years, they're estimating, I believe $26,500,000,000 in savings to employers. So we are comparing the $233,000,000 again split in half.

Half of that is will be borne by the employer to the billions in savings that have already been accrued and will continue to accrue at a higher rate as classic employees or pre pepper employees retire. So the retirement allowance for the PEPRA employees is much smaller as we know than the classic employee.

So those dollars will continue to accrue at higher rate than the first twelve years of PEPRA. I hope that helps.

Yes. Thank you.

You can respond to a question.

Thank you. So I think my colleague, you know, summed up a lot of kind of how the bill is structured and the framing. I guess to maybe simplify it, there's there's really kind of two main pieces of the bill. There's the section of the bill that is specific just to public safety and reducing the retirement age and creating new benefit tiers.

There's also the other portion of the bill that raises creditable compensation effectively increasing the compensation that can be factored into pension benefits for the most highly compensated public employees.

That applies to all public employees, not just public safety. By far, the most significant cost driver of the bill is in the creditable compensation cap increase. CalPERS estimates that the the present value benefits effectively the long term cost of that of the creditable compensation increase would be 4,200,000,000.

Conversely, the reduction in retirement age for public safety is estimated to have 560,000,000 over that same time period. So by far, the largest cost driver is that creditable compensation increase, which again is applies to all public sector employees.

So. Okay. Yes. So that's a big difference from what you said. I'm just I'm trying to understand it more than

Yeah. The $4,800,000,000 number that he's using is over the life of the that benefit. So I was using numbers as like year over year what CalPERS is saying the cost to employees and employers will be that $233,000,000 number. And the $4,800,000,000 number is what they refer to as, I think, the present value of future benefit number, which is the the lifetime of those benefits for all those employees in the future. So

It's a it's not apples to apples, but it is a it is a number that CalPERS produce.

You use it as an explanation.

Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Is your answer question answered?

Maybe just final if he has a final comment. Okay.

If a response to that.

Through the Chair, thank you. And to to clarify, if we're talking about the annual costs for each of those two categories, the annual cost for the creditable compensation cap is 240,000,000, whereas the annual cost for the reduction retirement age, new benefit tiers would be 38,000,000. So 241,000,000 for top compensation, 38,000,000 for the public safety new retirement tiers.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments? So I do have a couple of questions. Well, I wanna thank the Assembly member for bringing this bill forward and working so diligently with sponsors to get to this point. It's been a long time coming and really appreciate the comments that have been shared and the question shared so far.

I do think that we absolutely agree, and it's very few things that Senator Strickland and I, can agree on. But we do agree that when a worker leaves home and doesn't know if they will return, it's usually the firefighters and the police, in our communities, our safety personnel, who unfortunately have to have that thought in the back of their minds every day. Many of us, don't face imminent harm and death on the job every single day.

And I think that, that is why, you know, we are even having this conversation because we recognize how important it is for us to make this a job that values those lives, and that sacrifice. But at the same time, we know that we've had a very windy road and sometimes dark history when it comes to supporting and funding and making sure that our pension funds are solvent.

And, you know, we have been lucky to be recession proof and not having having lived through a recession in recent memory, but we know some of the past that, you know, not all pension stewards are the same. Not all pay attention to the the financial risk. Not all are doing the work that needs to be done to ensure that an alarm is sound sounded when, our pension and our economy start to, face trouble.

And so I know that you all are concerned with that too because we want every firefighter and safety personnel to be able to receive their retirement benefits and to have those funded. I do know we need to look at, and I talked with the Assembly member about this and and with the sponsors.

I think we have to look at a way to create an alarm system, a notice system that looks at our state's rainy day funds.

I think that has been, in my time in the legislature, the warning sign when our economy is slowing, when the state is needing to spend, that rainy day fund may be a a way to sound an alarm and to notify our pension funds so that they are aware that it's time to pay close attention to, what shifts and adjustments need to be made. And I thank you all for committing to continue to explore that and and to find ways to do that.

I agree with my dear colleague from Los Angeles. You know, we know the toxins that are coming out of that East LA fire right now and, you know, as it's get beginning contained, we know that they are gonna be firefighters that are gonna pay the price for inhaling whatever is coming out of those panels.

And we know that the cost will will be too great and that's why we think they deserve a well, a well, supported pension opportunity, here in the State of of California. So I am prepared to support the bill today. I look forward to us moving this vote, and we have a motion from Senator Strickland.

And, again, I wanna thank all of the firefighters who took time out of their busy, what hopefully is a rest day, before going back on the job to share their testimony and some report for this bill. I wanna turn it back over to you, Assemblymember to close and then we will take the vote up.

Well, I'd like to thank the, excuse me, the committee and the chairperson and all of the consultants for the work they did on the bill. I'd also like to thank all of my first responders for coming and standing with me as I stand with them today. I will look at all the amendments and, take them into consideration and work with our stakeholders to make the bill better. So with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And we have a motion from Senator Strickland. Please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

The bill has a vote of 4-0. It's on call. We'll take it up when the rest of our members return. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're gonna let the room clear before we take up our next bill. I see Assembly member Maratsuchi will take you up in just a few seconds. Okay, everyone. We are going to move to file item number three, AB 605. Assembly member, you may begin.

If you have witnesses, they're welcome to sit at the front table.

Alright. I will yes. Thank you, madam Chair. I think I dodged your most popular bill. Maybe.

Thank you, Madam Chair and senators. Thank you to the committee for working with me on this bill, and I would first like to commit to working on amendments and the next committee hearing to ensure that the proposed task force and their duties has been proposed in this bill, did not conflict with, CalOSHA's, processes.

And so with that, I am here to present Assembly bill 605, which seeks to address refinery staff, shortages and worker safety, as well as community safety, by establishing a refinery safe staffing task force, and requiring refineries to develop, safe staffing management plans. A lot of people are surprised to hear that I think I might be the the state legislator with the most well, at least the the Assembly member with the most refineries in my district.

I have the Chevron refinery in El Segundo, the Torrance refinery in in Torrance.

And until last year, although we still have 20 employees operating, I also have the Phillips 66 in Wilmington that is in the process of shutting down. And as you will hear from our witnesses, the announcement of the closure of the refinery has predictably led to a situation where a lot of refinery workers are looking for their next job or they're losing their jobs with the announcement.

And so that raises critical concerns in terms of how safe is the refinery going to continue to be as it's winding down, especially where we're faced with the situation of people either losing their jobs or leaving to to find their their next job opportunities. And so that is at the heart of of of what this bill is is trying to address. I am pleased to be working with the United Steelworkers who represent the the refinery workers at the refineries day in day out.

Representing the United Steelworkers is Norman Rogers, as well as a former Phillips 66 Refinery employee, Lori Wallace, who will share her experience.

You each have two minutes.

Okay. Very good. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak. If we go back to September 2020, that's when we started this journey that we're on now, which is that's when Governor Newsom made the signed the executive order that there will be no new internal combustion engine passenger cars or trucks sold after 2035. So that was very clear that refining was going to start to contract.

So that's put us in a position to see how clever we can be on how all that has to happen and the different things have popped up. And as Assemblymember just mentioned, the shutdown piece hasn't been looked at. We have rules for while we're up and running and safety regulations for how all that's supposed to take place, but nothing for the shutdown. And so as we've seen twice now in particular with Phillips 66, an announcement was made that they're gonna close.

People leave to go find other jobs before all the other good jobs are taken.

That leaves behind a workforce that was 350 people down in the case of Phillips down to 250, 225 doing the same amount of work. And that's put them on a schedule where they're working thirteen days on, one day off, multiple hours, 12-14 hour shifts. So there needs to be a plan in place on how we handle shutdowns. And this is what this bill is hoping to address is that we come up with some solid recommendations on what that looks like.

The nurses unions have a document that show that link fatigue to a certain blood alcohol level.

And you've got folks running refineries trying to shut them down, working to shut them down safely that are working under these conditions and Lori can speak better to what the actual conditions were.

Dear Chair and esteemed members of the committee, I work for Phillips 66 Wilmington Refinery as a process technician operator for nearly twenty years, and I am a proud member of the United Steelworkers Local 675. I am here today to urge your strong support for the Assembly Bill 605. When Phillips 66 announced its plant closure, our workforce was completely devastated, but the hardship didn't stop there. In the months surrounding the announcement, severe staffing shortages forced my coworkers into grueling, unsafe schedules.

As he said, we had worked not only just twelve hour shifts or fourteen hour shifts.

There were some that worked sixteen and eighteen hour shifts. And this wasn't for a normal turnaround situation. This is for months on end. I know for me, I did night shifts for almost half a year, if not a little bit longer. When you are working an excessive amount of hours or an excessive amount of days, you don't have time to do anything except for work and sleep.

When you're going into work, you're so exhausted and overwhelmed by everything. You're trying to figure out who's gonna do my dishes or my laundry or anything because you literally are just working and sleeping. There is no time for anything else. If you're lucky, you're you're you're getting some sleep. So we were trapped in a longer cycle of work shifts because of all of these people that were leaving the refinery, and bravo to them for getting those opportunities.

But there is a whole entire workforce of us that were trying to still maintain the refinery for our company because we care, because we care about the the community, we care about each other, and we care about the company. So for those of us that left, it was really devastating. This completely destroyed any semblance of work life balance for months on end. Our lives consisted of nothing but working and sleeping. This wasn't a brief temporary push for standard maintenance turnaround.

This was a sustained chronic exhaustion. I saw firsthand how difficult it was for my coworkers just to survive, let alone do their jobs You're too safely. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any me too witnesses in support of the bill? Please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

Good morning. Leo Dale on behalf of the Climate Center in strong support.

Julia Spashen on behalf of California Labor for Climate Jobs in support.

Christina Scringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Catherine Bearer, Houston United Steelworkers District twelve in support.

Tweener.

Yes. Okay. Please go ahead.

Madam Chair, members, Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. We have concerns and believe that the state should be spending resources on how to keep the refineries open rather than allocating all these resources to planning for their premature demise. Thank you.

Okay. We're registering that as a tweener. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Please come to the table. You have two minutes.

Thank you madam Chair and members. Zach Leary on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. In respectful opposition to AB 605. I wanna start out with the premise of the bill and it it begins in the findings and declarations. It says, multiple refineries in California have closed or announced closure within recent years and there is a likelihood that more will close in the foreseeable future in line with declining demand for refined products.

I think it's important to note that you should reject this false premise that refinery closures are inevitable when state actions are refineries to continue operating and investing here. Refinery closures are not an unavoidable outcome and that is why we work with the Newsom administration, we work with the California Energy Commission. We worked with USW and other stakeholders and the legislature to find ways to stabilize the fuel market. The legislature took action last year on SB 237.

There's more work to be done to ensure that refineries are viable, businesses able to operate and compete in a global market.

I also want to address the the premise of declining demand. That is just not the case that we are seeing in California. Demand is staying persistent. We use about 13,000,000,000 gallons of gasoline a year in California. That's 35,000,000 gallons a day.

And our member companies and the USW are the ones who are providing that to your constituents. We would we would invite the, you know, the proponents, the author to to fight to ensure that we, refineries, are able to stay open and keep your members employed. But it's the state policies that are making us uncompetitive. And it's no mystery that California refineries are some of the least competitive in the world.

And we need to change the policies to keep them open to provide your constituents with fuel.

Thank you. Right on time. Any other opposition Me Too's, please step to the mic, state your name, position. Sure.

Horacio Gonzales on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in opposition.

Okay. We'll bring it back to the dais members. Any comments, questions? Senator Durazo? Yes.

Basically, I think that what you all are asking is very reasonable. You're losing your jobs, and you're leaving others with more work and less people doing it. But you deserve I mean, we had to hold you up in esteem for all the work and what you've done, dedicated yourselves to allowing people to be able to jump in their cars or their trucks and go to work and go to school. Wherever you land on the issue of the the climate issues, it doesn't matter.

You ought to be thanked.

And the worst thing in the world is to think that you don't have a way of knowing even the next day or a few days later for whatever reasons that's what you're facing. So I'd be glad to support you today. I, for one, am grateful to you, and we ought to do whatever we can to help you in whatever you wanna call it, transition, whatever you wanna call it. There's there's a word for it, but bottom line is you're losing.

Many of you have lost your jobs.

What happens next? We're not here to judge. So I just wanna I just wanna say that to you. There was a minor issue, but I think you've addressed it, which is, is there duplication with the work that's being done? And I only say that not because just for duplication purposes, but time.

We know some of the agencies also are taking far too long, and I don't wanna add that more time would be added to this and take even longer to to come up with with what's needed. So that's my that's my concern there.

Alright. Thank you.

And thank you for that, Senator Durazo. And I also wanna thank you and the sponsors for bringing this forward. This is about safety. This is about a plan. And, absolutely, how much we rely on your industry and the workers who are doing the job, as the Senator mentioned, of making sure folks can get around the state of California day to day to do the work that needs to get done.

You know, I appreciate you also accepting the amendments. I think that was critically important because it's duplication but also we wanna make sure the plan happens. We wanna make sure the agencies actually get the work done and I think, working with committee helps us to get closer to that that outcome. The standards board within Cal OSHA will convene, an advisory committee and it will consist of representatives from industry labor, the public, and other interest parties to begin drafting the standard.

And I think that's what we want to see happen, and we want to see it move forward.

And we know that these amendments will be taken up in EQ, because we ran out of time. And so we're looking forward to SB 605 establishing this task force and making sure that best practices are set in this industry. And, you know, I hear you loud and clear. We know that we are in a moment of transitioning, the transitions in some ways.

And I think the state, as we work through how do we meet the climate and energy needs of the future, it is going to be an all hands on deck scenario for some time to come.

So I think this helps us just have an open and a proactive plan for the workers, which is critically important to this committee. And I think, did we get a motion? I'm not sure we have a motion yet, but great. We have a motion from Senator Ross. Would you like to close, Assemblymember?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for working with us to make sure that this bill can move forward. We look forward to working with you on the specific amendments that would be taken up in the next committee. I just want to make it clear that, you know, as Senator Tauraso and as you, Madam Chair, correctly focused on, this is about making sure that the refinery workers are working in safe working conditions as the refineries are winding down.

I also want to make it clear to the Western States Petroleum Association that this is not an anti-refinery bill. I mean, the United Steelworkers rely on those refinery jobs.

And so, you know, we can't put our heads in the sand and act like refineries are not closing. You know, with WSPA sitting right next to an actual refinery worker who lost her job because of the closing of Phillips 66. And so these refineries, you know, this is about if and when refineries close, how do we make sure that workers are continuing to work in safe working conditions, but also communities.

You know, when the Torrance Refinery exploded in 2015, I live just a couple miles from the Torrance Refinery. And so this is not just about making sure that workers are being safe, but it's that communities are being safe from these refineries as they're winding down, as they're operating with these bare bones skeleton crews.

How do we make sure that we continue to have workers and communities safe? So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And we have a motion from Senator D'Orazzo. Assistant, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of three to zero. The bill's on call. Thank you very Okay. Thank you. Okay.

We are moving on to file item number five. I don't see Assemblymember Aaron's here.

So we're going to move on to, yes, Assemblymember Ortega. You have three bills. Three bills before us. And we have to be out of this room by one.

So we're going to, every time, yeah, we need that representation for our overtime pay. But until then, we have the good Assemblymember, and we'll start with file item number four. Five?

I'm sorry. Five. Five, file item number five.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1859 today. California faces a severe enforcement gap when enforcing our public works labor law. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or DLSE, has a backlog of 47,000 wage theft claims. AB 1859 would allow JLMC representatives to physically visit public works job sites to ensure contractors are complying with wage and safety laws.

It would also balance access with protections for contractors by ensuring that site visits do not disrupt work. AB 1859 would enhance the DLSE's enforcement capabilities without straining taxpayer resources. Most importantly, it ensures that contractors who use state dollars honor the contract they signed with us. Testifying in support today is Matthew Cremins with the International Union of Operating Engineers and Keith Dunn or Mike West with the California State Building and Construction Council.

Sorry about that. Yes. You may proceed. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of AB 1859, which would strengthen enforcement of our public works laws and assist the state's Labor Commissioner by requiring public works contractors to allow joint labor management committees to have reasonable access to their projects. Joint labor management committees, or JLMCs as they are otherwise known, are federally approved formal bodies consisting of equal representation of both labor and management.

And these groups are designed to improve workplace conditions, safety, and productivity. Simply put, these entities are the gold standard of labor and management collaboration. In the construction industry, JLMCs play a critical role and in many ways are already seen as the eyes and ears of the state's Labor Commissioner, as they work day in and day out to ensure a level playing field for contractors and workers and ensure compliance with all state and federal laws that govern the construction industry.

Under existing law, JLMCs already currently work hand in hand with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and they do so by turning over finalized investigations to the Labor Commissioner, which can have the effect of significantly streamlining state investigations at no cost to the state. So with that being said, this bill simply seeks to provide job site access for joint labor management committees. Importantly, this bill does provide critical protections for contractors by making clear that JLMC access shall not impede or disrupt the performance of work.

It specifies that contractors shall not be liable for any violations of safety standards. And in closing on my end, I'm happy to report that we recently took amendments that removed the vast majority of contractor opposition to the bill. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully request your aye vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. To expand on the remarks of my colleague, a JLMC often becomes aware that a project is significantly underbid compared to the rest of the pool of bidders. There's no way the low road contractor can make up the difference between what is specified and the hours it takes to perform the work unless they plan to cheat the workers out of the correct wages.

Monitoring the job by the JLMC to substantiate or discredit what is eventually submitted on the certified payroll reports can then be part of a larger investigation by the Labor Commissioner.

One real example in my experience is a project that was significantly underbid. For days, they only had two painters on-site who came late, but left with the paint rigs out before leaving early. Then miraculously, many of the rooms and hallways were painted the next day. It turns out they ran a bunch of painters dressed as janitors in to take up the tools and do the painting work at night. This would not have been discovered unless we had caught them in the act.

This example is just one of literally dozens of schemes to commit wage theft to benefit the low road contractors and the end user, who are all complicit when they knowingly take a significantly lower bid on a project.

Finally, the JLMCs have their own workers' comp insurance and personal protective equipment, and are only seeking to access the job sites to protect the workers from wage theft and our contractor partners from bidding against bad contractors on construction projects. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any me too's in support of this bill, please come to the mic and state your name and affiliation.

Madam Chair and members, Sarah Flock, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Madam Chair and members, Martin Vindiola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, in support. Thank you.

Aloha. Mitchell Bechtel on behalf of the Operating Engineers, Local 3, in support.

Okay. Any other supports? Okay. We will move to opposition. If we have an opposition witness, please come to the table.

Are there two opposition witnesses? Then we need a support witness to sit in the audience. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers here on behalf of 80,000 hardworking men and women throughout the state. I want to thank the author, her staff, and the committee for their hard work on this issue and the continued dialogue that we have.

And it does pain me to be on the opposite side of my brothers from the trades and the operators on this issue, because I think we could all agree about 98% of the time we're on the same side. This is one of those outliers, but I do think that there is a reasonable solution to this.

So with that today, we're in a respectful opposed unless amended position. But I want to state clearly that the Laborers completely agree with the author and the sponsors regarding the critical need to root out wage theft and protect prevailing wage standards. Our opposition is not with the bill's intent, but rather with the bill's implementation. As currently drafted, this bill completely fails to account for public works projects that are already operating under strict, comprehensive, state mandated enforcement oversight.

To fix this, we have been asking for a simple common sense amendment to prevent costly and wasteful redundancy. Our proposed amendment would create a carve out for job sites that already have a state approved labor compliance program, or LCP, actively operating on a project under Labor Code sections 1771.5 and 1771.8.

Projects with an approved LCP already possess a dedicated, legally recognized, and state monitored framework designed to aggressively audit payrolls and enforce prevailing wage compliance. The reality of the construction industry is that our enforcement resources are finite. Independent JLMCs should be empowered to focus their investigations exactly where they need it the most: unorganized public works projects, unmonitored sites, and bad actors working in an underground economy. They should not be bogged down duplicating oversight on heavily monitored projects that are already being strictly policed by state approved programs.

Our safe harbor language will ensure that this bill successfully targets the true bad actors, protects public infrastructure delivery from unnecessary friction, and maximizes enforcement resources where they actually matter. Until these amendments are adopted, we must respectfully remain opposed. Thank you.