Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

One moment, please. The Senate Committee on Appropriations will now come to order. Sergeants, please contact any absent members and we could get started here with the quorum. We do have a very busy agenda before us today. We had a very busy summer as well.

We have 424 measures on the agenda today. We will have author presentations on two bills that are eligible for a do pass motion and one author who would like to present on a suspense candidate. The authors for all of the remaining suspense bills have waived presentation as usual. However, we will be taking testimony from the public on every item. We do have six items that are listed today on the agenda that are in the daily file that will not be heard.

Those are AB 599 Connolly, AB 1923 Soria. They both have been pulled by the author. The following bills will be rescheduled for the hearing next week, AB 163 Schultz, AB 2058 Harabedian, AB 2469 Papan, and AB 2619 Papan. Before we begin, I want to remind all witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspect of the bill. Please do refrain from any lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments.

Considering the length of our agenda, I may also need to place limits on witness testimony, but I will ensure that equal time is afforded to both supporters and opponents for primary witness testimony. The rest will be name organization, when you do step up and position when you step up to the mic. Before we begin today's hearing on the measures, let's establish a quorum. Madam assistant, please please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum has been established. We will move on to the business of the day. I would like to invite Assembly member, Schiavo, to the microphone to tell us about AB 28, which is before us on a 29.10 referral and eligible for a vote this morning. Welcome, Assemblymember. Please begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much, and thank you for the opportunity to present AB 28, which as some of you may have heard about our burning landfill at Chiquita Canyon which has been burning for over four years and is expected to burn for twenty years or more. This is a horrific tragedy that is impacting the health in our community. And these, landfill fires are technically called subsurface elevator temperature set events, are spreading across the state.

We have 11 landfills aroUnd the state who actually have requested waivers to operate at higher temperatures, which means they could also, if Unregulated and Un, Unmonitored, could turn into these kinds of disasters. We know we have a set event at, Elsa Bronte as well and, Avenal, as well.

And so these are ongoing disasters that we need to make sure we get ahead of so they don't turn into the kind of nightmare that we have at Chiquita Canyon where, people are getting so sick that they're losing their jobs, losing their homes, and unbelievably sick. The root cause of this disaster was the negligent operation of a landfill. AB 28 will protect our communities by ensuring critical safeguards and regulatory tools are in place to present prevent another disaster like this.

Turning towards the fiscal analysis, various state agencies involved in a multi agency coordination group as prescribed by the bill would include CalRecycle, State Water Board, CARB, OEHHA, DTSC, and estimated total annual cost of approximately $4,650,000 Additionally, CalRecycle estimated a one time cost of $3,000,000 over three years to cover regulatory development costs. I wanna note that Cal E.

P. A. Submitted, submitted a funding request recently that was approved already in our budget of $5,140,000 to ensure that CalRecycle, State Water Board, OEHHA, and DTSC can can continue to address the set events like the one at Chiquita and Avenal, and El Sabrante, as well as participating in ongoing multi agency coordination group meetings, which I've been a part of, convening with these agencies as well.

Further, AB 28 specifies that landfill operators must reimburse agencies for all reasonable and necessary response costs, which the appropriations analysis notes costs may be at least partially offset by reimbursements made by the owners and operators of landfills that set, that experience set events. This could happen in any and is happening in multiple communities, and it should not.

We should be able to prevent these disasters, and I hope that we will all join together to prevent and protect our communities and respectfully request an aye vote on AB 28.

Thank you. We will now move on to witnesses in support of this measure. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support for AB 28? Seeing none, do we have any individuals who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 28?

Good morning, Madam Chair. We are a Tweener. I'm Farrah Mc Daid Ting from the County Health Executives Association of California. We have a concerns position and the author has been working closely with us on Section two of the bill, which is would require a local health department to, conduct, community health needs assessment and, again, the author has been fantastic in working with us on all of the issues. The one issue that we have remaining is the cost of conducting that assessment.

Our local health departments need that, funding up front to be able to conduct the assessment. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no additional individuals in opposition, we will move to the Department of Finance who is with us today. Finance, do you have anything on file for this measure?

Good morning, madam Chair. Christian Beltran with the Department of Finance. No, comments on this bill. No file. Thank you.

Thank you. Bringing it back to members of the committee. Are there any questions or comments? Okay. Yes.

Vice Chair, Seyarto.

Thank you very much. So I'm sure you've done a lot of research on this. And so my question pertains to the cost of, each of the mitigation events that need to take place And, and how those costs recover. In other words, what's the science that says we're gonna make an impact by whatever the solutions are. How much are those solutions? Because those solutions will be passed on to Joe taxpayer and the ratepayer.

So, I mean, I would say the most economic way to prevent that from happening is to keep your landfill at a reasonable temperature and that is what this bill does. This bill raises alarm bells if you get to 135 degrees, which you should not based on national EPA standards, and says, hey, what's your plan to get it back down under control? So it doesn't turn into the kind of multimillion dollar disaster that's happening at Chiquita Canyon Landfall.

Yeah. And that's my question is, there's if there is a way of doing that, because this all relates to how much there is to combust underneath the ground. In other words, how much landfill. Because there's a heat that what you're talking about is heated combustion. And You or not heated combustion.

You're talking about the heat of, that's produced when things are breaking down. Materials are breaking down. Organic materials and other material. Where is the heat coming from then?

So, it There's because

I don't wanna get into the discussion of Sure. Sure. Thing. I was just talking about

very quickly. Typical kind of decomposition that happens in landfills does heat up but it might heat up to eighty, ninety, maybe a 100 degrees. Right? Normally.

So when you have something that reaches a 131 or a 145, which is major alarm bells going off and you should not be at that temperature level, then you have probably either overdrawn because a lot of these landfills draw out the methane and then even have energy producing plants on their, you know, properties that they'll burn the the methane for energy.

Right? And so if they're overdrawing and they're then pulling in oxygen that can fan just like you fan a fire, Right? It will fan the flames fan the fire within the landfill, heat it up beyond what it's supposed to be. So it's actually mismanagement is typically and not staying on top of it. There are wells.

There are you know, if you're checking what the temperatures are, if you're seeing if there's cracks in the surface and covering up quickly, you can get the temperatures down in hours, a day, a couple days. It should not be burning for twenty years. And so when landfills are on top of it, then it's great. But what's, I think, what's happened in this industry is that there's been a culture of hot rodding these landfills.

And, you know, we had someone at another landfill in my district, because I'm blessed with three, to who said in a community advisory committee meeting that they don't really worry until it gets up to 165 degrees.

It's not even supposed to be at 135 or 31. So they're already 30 degrees above what the highest temperature should be and they don't worry until it gets there. So this is to change the culture of how we're operating in these landfills and if they're operated appropriately and I've toured many landfills now at this

point and other landfills they don't get you know, over 80, 90, 100 degrees. So if they're operating appropriately, they're on top of it and they're doing the job they should be and our regulators are watching them and monitoring them, then we won't even have those problems. And that's what this bill is trying to do.

Okay. Because the cost to mitigate that, especially in landfills that are in areas that are excessively warm sometimes, Elsa Bronte is one of those, a 109 the other day. Yeah. I'm And Santa Clarita was much the same.

Yeah.

The one the landfills that are nearer to the coast are gonna be cooler and they can operate cooler. So the mitigation that you're talking about is really expensive mitigation and that expense is going to be passed along to the rate payers. And in order for us to be able to support that, which is in direct conflict with our goals of reducing cost for people, we need to know for sure that whatever it is that we're requesting them to do Will work.

If it's not going to work, then we have to figure out another plan for that.

Yeah.

And and whether you think shutting down landfills is and moving them towards the coast is a good idea, I don't know.

So There's nothing in this bill that requires

To to the author, if you could please, through the Chair and, again, we wanna refrain from lengthy policy discussion.

Sure. There's nothing that requires mitigation measures in this bill. Those are through regulations. So this is simply saying they need to come up with a plan if their temperatures get out of control.

Any additional members who'd like to comment? Seeing yeah. We do have a motion, but I'd like to give Assembly member Schiavo an opportunity to close.

Thank you. As I mentioned on the fiscal piece of this bill, there is, dollars already beyond what is estimated in the, analysis. There are dollars already approved in the budget to, cover the costs of these administrative costs and, as was mentioned, in my testimony, also to cover the costs of agencies, who have to come in and do more oversight and administration. So respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. This item is eligible for a vote today. We have a motion by Senator Grayson. The motion is do passed to the Senate floor. Please call the roll.

The motion is that the measure be returned to the Senate floor for consideration. [Roll Call]

Current vote is 4-1 and we will put it on call until all others to add on. We will now invite Assembly Member Caloza to the microphone to tell us about Assembly Bill 1899, which is a suspense candidate.

Welcome, Assembly Member. Please begin when you are ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you, as well as to the members of the committee for the opportunity to present AB 1899, a proposal to create a new office of youth homelessness prevention, and thank you as well to the committee consultant staff and our sponsor for their hard work. This bill has been on consent, throughout the entire legislative process.

However, we wanted to take an opportunity to highlight this bill and make the case for its potential to reduce youth youth homelessness in California, especially given the rise in homelessness in the most recent point in time count, including in Los Angeles. I also wanted to highlight its success in obtaining private foundation funding to cover a meaningful percentage of the Office's initial expenses.

Nearly 10,000 unaccompanied youth experience homelessness in California, and an estimated thirty-three percent of all youth experiencing homelessness in The United States, unfortunately, live in our state. In Los Angeles County alone, the 2025 point in time count found that there are more than 72,000 people experiencing homelessness countywide. At the same time, recent federal proposals have included significant reductions to homelessness funding, including a proposed $532,000,000 cut to the homeless assistance grants and broader reductions of up to 44% to federal housing programs.

These changes, along with policy shifts that could cap permanent housing funding, put more than 170,000 people at risk of losing housing assistance. This makes it even more urgent for California to strengthen its own response.

The State of Washington has a success story with establishing the Office of Youth Homelessness. It was established in 2015 with a goal of preventing state systems from discharging youth and young adults into homelessness. Since the Office was established, the State of Washington has reduced youth and young adult homelessness by 40%. We have unique responsibilities to youth who live in or emerge from the State's foster care system. The State is their parent and has a duty to ensure their safety, welfare, and protection.

Youth and young adults who experience homelessness have a higher risk of chronic homelessness once they reach adulthood. One in four youth who have lived in foster care report experiencing homelessness by the time they are age 24 and fifty percent of homeless adults experience homelessness by age 25.

AB 1899 fixes these gaps by establishing an Office of Youth Homelessness Prevention in the Housing and Homelessness Agency with a singular focus of developing and leading a coordinated state effort to reduce youth and young adult homelessness to functional zero, meaning the number of youth and young adults experiencing homelessness does not exceed the capacity to provide them with permanent housing.

With that, I would like to introduce our witness testifying in support of AB 1899, the former Assembly Majority Policy Leader, and previous Los Angeles City Attorney, Michael Feuer, who is here to present, in support of the bill.

Thank you. We will now move on to the witness in support.

Thank you very much, madam Chair, members of the committee. Good morning. Mike Feuer, now a senior policy advisor with the inner city law center in Los Angeles, cosponsor of AB 1899. We've been working with those experts from the state of Washington and believe that with this new office, we can drive homelessness for youth closer and closer to functional zero. Some of you have voted for this bill already in policy committees.

We're in the fiscal committee. Let's get down to the cost. The bill is slated to cost about $1,200,000 annually. We know the state's fiscal situation, so we've been reaching out to private philanthropy to help defray the costs of this office in a really extraordinary effort. The response has been amazing.

From the state of Washington to Southern California, foundations have stepped up with the following commitments. The first year is estimated to cost about $1,200,000. We raised $575,000 from private foundations for the first year of operations. For year two, we raised $450,000 from private foundations, 300,000 dollars of which is contingent on them providing county specific data, and $150,000 for the third year of operation. So nearly 1,200,000 over three years. California's youth believe in the power of this office.

Experts around the state do too. There has been unanimous bipartisan support for this bill. We've worked closely with the department, the administration. Amendments will be taken when the bill comes off of suspends that actually have a cost reduction in them as well. With that, I urge that we continue that bipartisan support with a strong I vote today. Thank you very much.

Morning. Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth, proud co sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support of this measure?

Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities in Support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kathy van Austen on behalf of John Burton Advocates for Youth in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. On the behalf of Larkin Street Youth Services, Jenny Choislaw in support. Thank you.

Michael Henning, California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

My name is Reina Morales from Unity Care and Fostering Program. I'm in support of AB 1899 to ensure that we do not age out of foster care into homelessness. Thank you.

My name is Ezekiel Ashley from Unity Care and Fostering Promise. I strongly support the AB 1899 bill to ensure we do not age out into homelessness.

Hello. My name is Tiana Curry from Unity Care and Fostering Promise, and I'm in support of AB 1899, so to ensure we don't age out of foster care.

Hello. Cody VanFelden. I myself am a former foster youth in support. Thank you.

I support youth too.

Alright. Are there any are there any, individuals who would like to testify in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we will turn it to the Department of Finance. Do you have anything on this measure today?

No file, madam Chair.

Understood. We have a motion. Excuse me, actually. One moment. Do Let me let me move to members.

This is a suspense candidate, so no questions, comments from members today. Miss Caloza, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, madam Chair. And, thank you so much to all the witnesses, all the young people and youth who came out respectfully. Hope that this committee can consider moving this bill forward. We appreciate your time today.

Thank you. Again, this is a suspense candidate without objection. This item will be moved to the suspense file.

We will now invite Assembly member Wilson to the microphone to share with us Assembly Bill 2788, which is eligible for a do pass as amended. Motion. Welcome Assembly member. Please begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 2788 is the Assembly Transportation Omnibus Bill. This bill contains six sections that address technical and non-controversial changes. In Section 1, Government Code Section 14528.5 states that the use of revenues from the sale of excess property on the canceled routing of State Highway 238 may fund a local alternative transportation improvement program subject to the approval by the California Transportation Commission, also known as CTC. Further current law prohibits CTC from approving a local alternative transportation improvement program after 01/01/2010.

The provision in this bill would allow for an amendment to be filed with the CTC to update the project priority list after approval by the prescribed local governments. Sections 2 and 3 clarify that the bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun includes the ports of Sacramento and Stockton and that insurance provision apply to any portion of a vessel transit that occurs within the waters of the ports of Sacramento and Stockton.

Sections 4 and 6 make several clarifying changes to SB 720 Ashby, from 2025, related to automated transport traffic enforcement and the appeals process for violations under the program. Section five clarifies that motor carriers, drivers, vehicles and shippers transporting hazardous materials must comply with the federal regulations set forth in the Hazardous Materials Regulation adopted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as they now exist or are amended in the future.

All of these provisions have been verified by the Assembly Transportation Committee and the Transportation Omnibus Review Group to be technical in nature.

This bill has no opposition. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We will move on to the witness in support of this measure. Seeing none, are there any individuals who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 2788? We will turn to the Department of Finance. Finance, do you have a file on this bill?

No file.

Do any members have questions or comments? We have a motion. Assembly member, I just wanna, verify you are accepting the proposed author amendments.

Thank you. I am. I forgot, I failed to mention that in my testimony.

Thank you. The bill has been moved, by Senator Cabaldon. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate floor. Please call the roll.

Cervantes, aye. Seyarto?

Cervantes.

Aye.

Aye.

Seyarto aye. Cabaldon?

Aye.

Aye.

Cabaldon?

Cabaldon aye. Dahle?

Aye.

Aye.

Grayson aye. Richardson?

Dahle aye, Grayson?

Richardson aye. Wahab?

Aye.

The bill is out 6-0, we will hold that measure to allow others to add on.

Thank you, Senator.

AB 2 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support of AB 2? Seeing none. Are there any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2? Seeing none, we would bring it back to members of the committee, seeing no questions or comments.

This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2 will move to the suspense file. AB 649 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 649? Are there any individuals who like to testify in opposition, TAB six four nine?

Good morning, madam chair. Chris McCauley here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Respectfully opposed. Thank you, madam chair.

Does the Department of Finance have this measure on file?

No file.

Do any members of the committee have questions or comments? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 649 will move to the suspense file. AB 883 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 883? Are there any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 883? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, turning it to the Department of Finance.

Do you have a file on this measure?

Thank you, madam chair. The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. Cal Privacy estimates this bill will result in one time un absorbable cost of $200,000 data brokers registry fund in 26/27 related to updating the delete request opt out platform, conducting rulemaking, and increased enforcement cost. Additionally, Cal Privacy notes that DBRF is funded by registration fees and any changes in programmatic spending may require an increase to registration fees. The secretary of state estimates this bill result in minor and absorbable costs.

And at this time at the analysis, the judicial council was unable to provide a fiscal estimate. Lastly, the bill may create a state reimbursable mandate because it requires a new program or higher level of service.

Thank you. Bringing it back again to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 883 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1709 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1709? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1709?

Alex Zucco from the Commission on Status of Women Girls moving our cosponsor to oppose unless amended.

Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

No file.

Do any members of the committee have questions or comments? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1709 will move to the suspense file. AB 1803 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1803? Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1803? Alright. Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments from committee members.

This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1803 will move to the suspense file. AB 1858 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1858? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1858? Bringing it back to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?

I do, madam chair. The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. Significant cost pressures related to the uncertainty in the number of participating CSU and community colleges campuses is driving the opposition. Finance notes that this bill becomes operative only upon a property appropriation. Excuse me.

Therefore, any appropriation necessary to carry out the bill's requirements would be subject to consideration in the annual budget process.

Do any members have questions or comments? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1858 will move to the suspense file. AB 2030 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2030? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2030? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 2030 will move to the Suspense File. AB 2076 is a Suspense File candidate. Assembly Member Lowenthal has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2076? Are there any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2076? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 2076 will move to the Suspense File.

AB 2223 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2223? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2223?

Seeing none, we will turn it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Department of Finance is opposed mainly associated with CDCR costs anticipated to range in the low to mid millions of general fund dollars annually due to increased staffing to respond to data demands, contracting policy updates, and monitoring.

Bringing it back to the committee for questions or comments. Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2223 will move to the suspense file. AB 2384 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2384? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2384? We'll turn it back to the Department of Finance to have a file on this measure.

Yes. We do not have a specific position on this bill. However, the DOJ anticipate cost of approximately $1.5 million general fund in 26/27, and increasing to $5.5 million general fund in 28/29, and then decreasing to 2.5 million general fund ongoing for 11 positions.

Are there any comments or questions from members? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2384 will move to the suspense file. AB 31 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ramos has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 31? Are there any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 31? Seeing none, we see no questions or comments from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection.

AB 31 will move to the Suspense File. AB 53 is a Suspense File candidate. Assembly Member Ramos has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 53?

The-- Cesar Gonzales with the California Rural Indian Health Board, and we support the bill.

Any additional witnesses in support to AB 53?

Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, in support.

Are there any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 53? Seeing none. Department of Finance, you have a file on this measure?

We do not have a position on the bill. However, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Water Control Board estimate minor and absorbable costs related to this bill. Any costs associated with staff time required to facilitate conservation land transfers would be offset by the savings made by the reduction in land management and oversight costs.

See no questions or comments on this measure from committee members. This bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 53 will move to the Suspense File. AB 1586 is a Suspense File candidate. Assembly Member Ramos has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1586?

The California Rural Indian Health Board. We support this bill.

Any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 1586? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 1586 will move to the Suspense File. AB 1592 is a Suspense File candidate. Assembly Member Ramos has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1592? Any witnesses who'd like-- please approach.

The California Rural Indian Health Board, and we support the bill.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1592? Bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a Suspense-- let me turn it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?

The Department of Finance is neutral on this bill and notes that this bill is subsequently similar to trailer bill language proposed by the administration in the 26-27 May Revision.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a Suspense File Candidate. Without objection, AB 1592 will move to the Suspense File. AB 1681 is a Suspense File candidate.

Assembly Member Ramos has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who'd like to testify in support to AB 1681?

The California Rural Indian Health Board, and we support the bill.

Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 1681? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. CDCR estimates that this bill may result in annual General Fund costs in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions of dollars with roughly half the cost ongoing due to an increase in workload associated with verifying victim information, conducting outreach, processing victim registrations, and facilitating participation in the notification and restitution processes. Finance additionally anticipates this bill may create a state reimbursable mandate because it requires a new program or higher level of service to be provided by local agencies.

See no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 1681 will move to the Suspense File. AB 1769 is a Suspense File candidate. Assembly Member Ramos has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1769?

The California Rural Indian Health Board, representing 76 tribes and 21 tribal health programs. We support the bill.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1769? We will turn it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance opposes this bill. While developing and implementing transfer agreements and articulation programs between the public higher education system and tribal colleges and universities is a laudable goal, it could result in significant ongoing Proposition 98 and non-Proposition 98 General Fund costs and cost pressures ranging from the mid to high millions of dollars. The Community Colleges estimates ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund local assistant costs ranging from 2.4 million to $5.5 million systemwide to implement the bill's transfer and articulation requirements.

The CSU estimates unknown one-time General Fund costs potentially in the low millions of dollars to implement this bill's articulation requirements. The CSU also estimates unknown ongoing General Fund costs potentially in the low millions of dollars to maintain articulation agreements, support ongoing implementation, and provide the student support services and outreach required by the bill. At the time of the analysis, UC did not provide any fiscal estimates. However, Finance assumes that UC would incur similar costs as CSU, specifically one-time and ongoing General Fund costs in the low millions of dollars.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members, this bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 1769 will move to the Suspense File.

AB 1841 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Ramos has waived presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify and support to AB 1841?

Cesar Gonzalez with the California River Indian Health Board and we support the bill.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 1841? Seeing none, the Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it could create cost pressures of approximately 16.3 million dollars, of which is 12.2 million dollars general fund in ongoing costs. Additionally, the bill's framework misplaces the authority to determine whether sufficient funds exist to support new ongoing expenditures on Cal HR. Funding availability and budgetary decisions go through the budget development process as directed by the Department of Finance, not Cal HR.

Issues regarding, state employee compensation and holidays are more appropriately addressed through the collective bargaining process or the annual budget development process, which allows for consideration alongside other fiscal priorities and available resources.

Thank you. Seeing no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1841 will move to the suspense file. AB 1889 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Ramos has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1889? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1889? Seeing none.

Seeing no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a suspense suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1889 will move to the suspense file. AB 2115 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Ramos has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2115?

This is Cesar Gonzalez with the California Rural Indian Health Board, and we support the bill.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2115? See none. We will bring it back to the committee. Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to speak in support of AB 2115, which is requesting that a plaque and memorial memorializing, would be done, within the State Capitol, based upon, the apology that was issued back in 2019. I think that with the new, State Capitol Building being built, as we speak, it's quite timely for us to have this done.

And so I hope and would respect that, given the modest amount that's requested, that we would get this done, so it can take, it can be in effect when the new building is open. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Richardson. See no additional comments or questions from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2115 will move to the suspense file. AB 2187 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Ramos has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses in support to AB 2187? Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 2187? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 2187 will move to the Suspense File. AB 65 is a Suspense File candidate. Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 65? Please approach the mic.

You could approach name, put organization and position only on AB 1803. You could approach the mic at this moment in time. Again, name, organization, position only.

Thank you so much. My name is Amber Arias. I'm with Calvary Chapel stand up ministry, and we vehemently oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I am Leslie Alves from Community Impact Team RCI, and I definitely oppose this bill.

I'm Carolyn Whitmore from Community Impact RCI. I also oppose it. Thank you.

I am Pamela McAledy from Fairfield, California. Thank you. I oppose a AB 1803. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Miyoko Bonebrake. I'm from Picksburg, California. I oppose AB 1803.

Hello. My name is Kit Nelson. I oppose AB 1803. I live in Fairfield, California.

Stand up ministry. Mary Anderson from Fairfield. I oppose AB 1803.

Good morning. Lisa Disbrow with Informed Parents of Contra Costa. Contra Costa Patriots. Our duty, we I oppose this bill.

Thank you. We will now bring it back to Assembly Bill 65. Are there any witnesses in support to AB 65?

Good morning, Chair and members. Jason Henderson, on behalf of the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges, proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Russell Manning, on behalf of California State Treasurer, Fiona Ma, proud co-sponsor.

Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 65? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 65 will move to the Suspense File. AB 464 is a Suspense File candidate. Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 464? Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 464? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 464 will move to the Suspense File. AB 1706 is a Suspense File candidate. Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify testify in support to AB 706?

Madam Chair, Chris McCauley here on behalf of Humboldt, and Mendocino Redwood companies in strong support of AB 706. Thank you.

Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 706?

Good morning. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in respectful opposition.

We'll bring it back to the committee seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 706 will move to the suspense file. AB 904 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 904? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 904? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. We have no position on the bill, Madam Chair, but CalRecycle estimates any costs to implement this bill are minor and absorbable within existing resources because the bill primarily modifies implementation timelines, reporting requirements, and administrative provisions of the Successor Carpet Producer Responsibility Program. The Department of Toxic Substances Control estimates that any cost to implement this bill are minor and absorbable within existing resources.

The Department of Finance notes that because the Successor Carpet Producer Responsibility Program is funded through producer responsibility mechanisms rather than the General Fund or other special funds, this bill is not expected to result in additional costs to the state.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members on this measure, this bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 904 will move to the Suspense File. AB 1812 is a Suspense File candidate.

Assembly member Aguiar-Curry has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify and support to AB 1812? Are there any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1812? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection.

AB 1812 will move to the suspense file. AB 1857 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Aguiar-Curry has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1857?

Are there any witnesses who like testify in opposition to AB 1857? Bringing it back to the committee seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1857 will move to the suspense file. AB 2026 is a suspense file candidate Assembly member Aguiar-Curry has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2026? Are there any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2026? The Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. We do not have a position on the bill. However, the water board estimates $3,500,000 general fund, 2,500,000 from the water rights fund, and 20 permanent positions in 2027, '28, and 2,500,000 general fund, and $2,500,000 from the water rights fund in '28, '29, and ongoing to implement this bill. Finance notes that this bill requires fees for permits to be set at levels to encourage applications, which may not be sufficient to cover the cost associated with the actual cost for the water board.

Any difference between the fee revenue and water board's cost would require a general fund appropriation to cover the difference.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates $1,400,000 general fund in 2728, 1,400,000 in, '28, '29, and ongoing general fund for staffing to review permits, inspect sites, and assess environmental impacts for lake and stream bed alterations. CDFW collects fees to recover the cost of administering these agreements. Although this bill exempts the issuance of some minor and temporary permits from LSA agreement requirements, it still requires consultation with CDFW prior to approval.

This would result in the loss of CDFW's ability to collect fees to cover staff costs associated with these consultations, which would create general fund costs. DWR, Department of Water Resources, estimates no fiscal impact.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2026 will move to the suspense file. AB 2216 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who'd like to testify in support to AB 2216? Any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 2216? Bringing it back to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. Finance is opposed to this bill because it creates significant General Fund cost pressures by expanding the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Conservancy's responsibilities without providing funding for those activities. This bill establishes a new fund without a dedicated funding source and restricts any funding utilized to this expanded territory to the new fund this bill creates, effectively walling off existing fund sources.

The fund originally established by the conservancy has not been utilized, as bond funds have been directly appropriated to the conservancy rather than transferred into the fund. If future projects for the valley and lake areas are funded using bond funds or appropriations from the General Fund, creating the Valley and Lake Conservancy Fund is not necessary and makes the tracking of bonds more difficult.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members, this bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 2216 will move to the Suspense File. AB 2250 is a Suspense File candidate. Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2250? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2250? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments.

This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2250 will move to the suspense file. AB 72 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Jackson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 72? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 72? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The Labor and Workforce Development Agency estimates a general fund fiscal impact of $5,400,000 one time in '26, '27, and $1,500,000 in '27, '28, and ongoing to collaborate with the county of Riverside to develop and administer the program. The California Workforce Development Board estimates a fiscal impact of a $160,000 one time general fund in '26, '27 and '27, '28 to implement the bill's provisions.

In addition to the extent an appropriation was made available to establish the new program, this bill may create a state reimbursable mandate because it requires a new program or higher level of service to be provided by local agencies.

Specifically, the bill imposes requirements for the county of Riverside to implement the program created by the bill, which could drive reimbursable state mandated costs of unknown magnitude.

Do we have any questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 72 will move to the suspense file. AB 673 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Jackson has waived presentation.

We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 673? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 673? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. While the provisions of this bill are contingent upon appropriation, the bill could create significant one-time Proposition 98 General Fund cost pressures in the low millions to tens of millions of dollars to provide grants to local education agencies for the pilot program. Additionally, provisions of this bill may be duplicative of existing efforts to provide homeless youth with supports.

The federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act authorizes ongoing funding for the federal Education of Homeless Children and Youth Program, which provides sub-grants to local educational agencies to address the needs of homeless youth. California receives approximately $15 million federal fund annually for the EHCY Program to support approximately 115 LEAs.

Additionally, the 2026 Budget Act provided 116 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund to support three-year grants to LEAs to increase identification and improve educational outcomes for students experiencing homelessness by supplementing the existing EHCY Program to expand access to the program.

Seeing no questions or comments from committee members on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 673 will move to the suspense file. AB 1201 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Jackson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who like to testify and support to AB 1201? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1201? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1201 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1578 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Jackson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1578? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1578?

Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1578 will move to the suspense file. AB 1584 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Jackson has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1584? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1584? See none. Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. This bill creates costs not included in the 2026 Budget Act and is duplicative of existing law that already establishes processes and procedures to protect individual civil rights. CARB estimates $644,000 from the Air Pollution Control Fund in 26-27 and $1.3 million in 27-28 and ongoing for six and a half positions to oversee the development of the Civil Rights Training Program and Evaluation Tool, investigate and track civil right complaints, and perform other administrative support functions.

The Department of Finance notes that while APCF may sometimes receive large, one-time lump sum revenues as a result of successful lawsuit settlements, it is in a long-term structural deficit due to declining fee revenues as compliance with state regulations for air pollutants and emissions increases. Also, settlement funds are generally tied to specific programs or activities and cannot be allocated for baseline administrative workload. Therefore, any new and increased workload resulting from this legislation may exacerbate this fund's structural deficit.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members on this measure, this bill is a Suspense File candidate. Without objection, AB 1584 will move to the Suspense File. AB 1664 is a Suspense File candidate.

Assembly member Jackson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in support AB 1664? Do we have any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1664? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments.

This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1664 will move to the suspense file. AB 262 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Caloza has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who like to testify and support AB 262? Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 262? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 262 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1650 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Caloza has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1650? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1650?

Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1650 will move to the suspense file. AB 1899, we did that this morning. We'll move to the next item, AB 2050 is a suspense file candidate, Assembly member Caloza has waved presentation, we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who'd like to testify, in support, to AB 2050? Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify, in opposition, to AB 2050?

Assembly member Caloza has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2050? Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 2050?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Christopher Sanchez representing the Consumer Federation of California in respectful opposition. We believe that this would increase the state's cost related to, increase in court cases as, the only way that folks will be able to ensure that they're not able to pay these additional fees would be going through the courts, and that has been stated in previous testimony by the bill sponsors. Additionally, if many homeowners aren't able to pay these additional fees, they can be foreclosed on.

We've provided amendments to the author and, and to, members of the Committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Do we have any comments or questions from Committee members? Seeing none, before we take final action on this bill, we will continue moving to the file and circle back. AB 2422 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Caloza has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2422?

Kylea Lindelli on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 2422?

Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2422 will move to the suspense file. AB 2550 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Caloza has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2550? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2550? Seeing none, we will turn it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. EDD estimates an initial general fund cost of $1,000,000 for the initial report and ongoing general fund cost of $1,000,000 every three years. EDD notes that the first report is due 07/01/2027, which would not give EDD time to request funding for the report through the normal budget process. The DAS estimates a general fund cost of $250,000 in '26, '27, $450,000 in '27, '28, and $400,000 in '28 '29, and ongoing to support the bill's data collection and reporting requirements.

Finance knows that any request for additional resources will be evaluated as part of the annual budget process.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2550 will move to the suspense file.

AB 2717 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Caloza has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support AB 2717? Any witnesses who would like to testify AB 2717. Support or opposition?

Opposition.

Please.

Briefly, madam Chair and members, Pat Whalen, on behalf of the our client, the city of Inglewood. This bill is being promoted as an effort for the Los Angeles Dodgers to generate more billboard revenue for their stadium. If that was all the bill did, we wouldn't be here. What it does is it modifies state law across the state, for billboard revenue generally.

And this bill has a specific provision that calls out the city of Inglewood, of all California cities, to eliminate Inglewood from the exemption to protect it against the proliferation of billboards.

That would allow the billionaire owners of SoFi, IntuitDome, and The Forum to build up to six new billboards throughout the city of Inglewood, and Inglewood already has enough billboards. They have a revenue share agreement. This bill would dilute that revenue and cost the city of Inglewood up to $200,000,000 over the next ten years. There's no reason why billionaires should be making all that money at the expense of a city that is primarily black and brown. We respectfully ask the bill to be amended.

We've submitted language to both the author and this committee to take out the Inglewood specific provision, so it would apply equally across the board, and that's all we're asking. Thank you.

Thank you. See no additional witnesses in opposition. We will bring it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2717 will move to the suspense file.

AB 277 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Alanis has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in support to AB 277?

Good morning. Roxy Ortiz with the Association of Regional Center Agencies representing the 21 California Regional Centers in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 277? Seeing none, bringing it back to the Committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 277 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1572 is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly member Alanis has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1572? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1572?

Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure as it creates ongoing non proposition 98 general fund cost, for the commission. The commission estimates non prop 98 general fund cost of approximately $635,000 in '27 '28, and $625,000 in '28 '29, and ongoing for five positions to process fingerprint requests, manage case intake, and misconduct cases, and support related legal workload for an estimated $23,000 for CIF supporting officials.

Thank you. Seeing no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1572 will move to the suspense file. AB 1612 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Alanis has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who'd like to testify in support to AB 1612? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1612? See none.

Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. DOJ anticipates implementation of this measure would require one permanent position and general fund cost of $322,000 in 27-28, $440,000 in 28-29, and $431,000 in 29-30 and ongoing to develop and publish guidance on the proper disposal of controlled substances seized by law enforcement. Department of Toxic Substances Control estimates minor and observable costs to consult with the DOJ to review controlled substances disposal guidance and make sure it aligns with hazardous waste management requirements.

Finance notes that this bill makes implementation of the bill's requirements subject to appropriation by the legislature in the annual budget act or any other measure.

So this bill will not result in cost unless an appropriation is made available for these purposes. Finance notes that this bill is likely to result in general fund cost pressures to develop and maintain this guidance.

Thank you. Seeing no questions or comments from Committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1612 will move to the suspense file. AB 1728 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Alanis has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1728? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1728? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee.

Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1728 will move to the suspense file. AB 2282 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Alanis has waived presentation we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2282?

Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2282? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2282 will move to the suspense file. AB 306 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who'd like to testify in support to AB 306? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 306? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee seeing no questions or comments.

This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 306 will move to the suspense file. AB 1546 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who'd like to testify in support to AB 1546? Any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 1546? Seeing none, the Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Department of Motor Vehicles estimates that this bill may result in costs ranging from low millions to tens of millions of dollars to modify its core legacy systems to modify suspension and reinstatement systems pursuant to this bill. The DMV is currently undertaking an information technology project to modernize its existing core legacy system, to which all of its IT resources are fully committed.

Implementation of this bill may require DMV to build a temporary IT solution outside of its core legacy system and may delay implementation of its digital experience platform modernization project resulting in significant cost for the MVA or the motor vehicle account.

Finance notes that the MVA is currently in a structural deficit. Based on projections developed as part of the 2026 budget act, the MVA will be insolvent by the end of '28, '29. Any increase in MVA expenditures will exacerbate fiscal pressures on the fund.

Thank you. I see no questions or comments from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1546 will move to the suspense file. Okay.

We have our next item on file. Assembly Bill 1595 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1595? Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 1595? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1595 will move to the suspense file.

The next item on file is AB 1603 by Schultz that was put over to the following hearing. AB 1787 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify and support AB 1787? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1787?

Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure and estimates ongoing costs in the mid to high hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Public Utilities Commission, reimbursement account for the Public Utilities Commission to ensure IOUs offer eligible customers at least one optional dynamic rate to consult with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and to monitor and mitigate cost shifts from participating customers to non-participating customers. This fund revenue is generated typically from a surcharge on utility bills.

This measure may result in increased costs for rate payers to generate adequate revenue to cover costs.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1787 will move to the suspense file. AB 1917 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support AB 1917? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1917? Seeing none, bringing it back to the Committee.

Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1917 will move to the suspense file. AB 2266 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2262? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2262? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members of this Committee on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2266 will move to the suspense file. AB 2319 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify and support to AB 2319?

Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the city of Burbank in support of the bill. Thank you.

Any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2319?

Rosso Manning, state treasurer's office, in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2319? Seeing none, we will turn it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?

The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. Assuming an appropriation is made authorizing $100,000,000 in tax credit allocations in '27 '28, the Department of Finance estimates that this bill will result in general fund revenue losses of approximately $2,000,000 in '27 '28, $9,400,000 in '28 '29, 18,100,000 in '29 '30, and additional revenue losses in subsequent years. Finance estimates that this bill results in sales tax revenue losses to the local revenue fund, of, $18,000 in '27 '28, $86,000 in '28 '29, and $1,600,000 in '29 '30, and additional revenue losses in subsequent years.

Assuming an appropriation is made, the franchise tax board estimates this bill results in increases in administrative costs by $290,000 in '26 '27, $342,000 in '27 '28, and $3,000 in '28 '29 and ongoing. Assuming an appropriation is made as well, the California Film Commission estimates annual general fund cost of $672,000 in '26 '27 through 2034, '35 for five positions to manage increased volume of credit applications and provide technical assistance.

The Film Commission notes that allocated tax credits may continue to be awarded for multiple years after 07/01/2032 sunset date because the film commission will not be able to verify in state spending requirements until the qualifying production is completed.

See no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2319 will move to the suspense file. AB 2478 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2478? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2478? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection.

AB 2478 will move to the suspense file. AB 2560 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2560?

Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2560? Seeing none, bringing it back to the Committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2560 will move to the suspense file. AB 2612 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Schultz has waived presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2612? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2612? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2612 will move to the suspense file.

AB 311 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member McKinnor has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 311? Are there any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 311?

Seeing none, bringing it back to the Committee seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 311 will move to the suspense file. AB 1237 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member McKinnor has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in support to AB 1237? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1237? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate.

Without objection, AB 1237 will move to the suspense file. AB 1383 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member McKenna has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1383?

Madam Chair, members, Randy Perry on behalf of Porat, cosponsors of the bill.

Madam Chair, Gary Cooper representing UAPD in strong support of AB 1383.

Thank you, madam Chair, members. Doug Zuberz on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, pleased to cosponsor this measure and in strong support.

Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 1383?

Good morning, Chair Cervantes and committee members. I am Scott Sedgley. I'm the mayor of Napa, and I'm here today respect to respectfully oppose Assembly Bill 1383. Let me begin by acknowledging the important work of California public employees and public safety professionals. We value their service and believe they deserve strong and secure retirement, excuse me, benefits.

Full disclosure, I'm a retired Napa fire captain, and my daughter is a current police captain in the city of Napa. However, AB 1383 would reverse key components of the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, which was enacted to put public retirement systems on a more sustainable financial path. This bill increases the pension compensation cap, lowers the retirement age for safety employees, and authorizes enhanced retirement formulas that would significantly increase long term pension obligations for public employers.

According to CalPERS, the bill's provisions would add billions of dollars in future benefit liabilities and hundreds of millions of dollars, in additional annual costs for state and local government employers. Those costs would ultimately be borne by taxpayers and local agencies already struggling to balance, competing priorities.

These costs come at a particularly difficult time for cities. My city, we have estimated over 3,000,000 annually from general fund costs associated with the implementation of the bill between increased our PERS under, unfunded accrued liability and ongoing benefit costs. The existing employers for existing employers, like the additional costs would be identified through implementation. Like many local governments across California, we are facing significant budget pressures and are evaluating difficult decisions to maintain essential services while living within our means.

Every additional ongoing cost means fewer resources available for the service services our residents rely on.

Increased pension obligations could force cities like ours to make even harder decisions between funding long term liabilities, maintaining core services such as police and fire staffing, road maintenance, park up keeps, and place recreation programs, and other community priorities. We support strong retirement benefits, but those benefits must be sustainable. The progress made under PEPRA has helped improve fiscal stability for public agencies and is now is not the time to take a step backwards.

For those reasons, I respectfully urge your no vote on AB 1383. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. So I will count that as a primary, testimony for opposition. That was, two minutes and thirty seconds and for a total of five minutes. So I just want to note that at this point in time is

Alright. Thank you. My name is Steve Young. I'm the mayor of the city of Benicia. And I respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1383.

And I'd like to focus on the scale of the financial obligations this bill would create and what those costs would mean for local governments like my own. Benicia just lost our biggest taxpayer and our biggest employer last year, and we're looking at a annual revenue hit to the general fund of about $10,000,000. Pension payments currently make up a significant part of our general fund, and they're only growing. AB 1383 may be well intentioned, but it comes with significant long term costs.

According to CalPERS, the bill's mandatory provisions would increase annual pension costs by approximately $282,000,000 add $233,000,000 in accrued liability, and create nearly $5,000,000,000 in additional future benefit obligations.

And those costs don't stop there. If agencies subsequently adopt the new 3% at 55 formula authorized by the bill, CalPERS estimates the cost could increase by another $353,000,000 annually and 3,400,000,000 in future liabilities. In total, CalPERS estimates AB 1383 could add more than $8,000,000,000 in new pension obligations. It's important to recognize that these are only the CalPERS estimates. They don't include county retirement systems or other independent pension systems across the state.

The true statewide cost is most certainly higher than what is reflected in the CalPERS analysis. And these are not one time expenditures. These are long term obligations that will remain on the books Thirty seconds

remaining for opposition primary witness?

Once these liabilities are created, future city councils, county boards, school districts, and taxpayers become responsible for funding them regardless of the economic conditions or budget realities. As local elected officials, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of public resources. We can support public employees, maintain competitive retirement benefits, and honor our commitments without creating billions of dollars in new unfunded pressures for future generations. AB 1383 moves us away from that balance.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1383.

Thank you. For the following folks in opposition, name, organization, position only.

Thank you.

Hello. Zachary Christiansen here on behalf of Reason Foundation. We would just ask the committee to consider our analysis, that shows that this bill could impose, $14,500,000,000, cost on local governments and taxpayers, and considering that CalPERS maintains over $200,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities

position only. Okay. Thank you very much.

Lance Christensen, California Policy Center. We're opposed to, dismantling, PEPRA and, AB 1383, and we're also due on behalf of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association. Thank you.

Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the cities of Santa Rosa, Vernon, Belmont, Burbank, the town of Truckee, the city of Merced, the city of Bakersfield, Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members, and the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, all in opposition. Thank you.

Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Steve Potter, City of Napa. Opposed.

Good morning. Dylan Elliot on behalf of the counties of Kern and Humboldt in respectful opposition.

Seeing no additional witnesses in opposition to AB 1383, we will bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1383 will move to the suspense file. AB 2186 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember McKenna has waived presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2186? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2186? Okay. Verifying there's some movement here. Seeing no one wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2186, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. Since it is unknown if, when, and how much in future reparation payments may be made, the Franchise Tax Board provided a provisional calculation estimating general fund revenue loss of approximately $63,000 for every one million dollars in reparation payments made. Franchise tax board states that its administrative costs are minor and absorbable.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members. On this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2186 will move to the suspense file. AB 2411 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member McKinnor has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2411? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2411? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments.

This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2411 will move to the suspense file. AB 395 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Gabriel Hazway presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 395? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 395? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 395 will move to the suspense file.

AB 186 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who'd like to testify in support to AB 186?

Catherine Bridge, private citizen, Sacramento. The cost of AB 186 is moop, nonexistent, if ICE or federal officials don't kill people in California. There is no independent review board for such killings at federal level. Example, DHS kicked Alex Pretti investigation to FBI, which after six months, declared it wouldn't investigate such cases.

Some in Congress have tried to establish an independent body in such cases. They have no power to do so. California, as a bellwether state, should establish in law the right to investigate such killings, or else no justice exists for citizens or non-citizens alike. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 186? Seeing none. Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. We do not have a specific position on the bill. However, we would note the Department of Justice did not have an updated fiscal estimate available at the time of our analysis. Based on the bill as amended on March 16, 2026, the DOJ estimated that implementation of the bill would require 28 positions and 5.1 million dollars general fund in 26, 27. 34 positions in 10.2 million in 27, 28, and 34 positions in 9.7 million ongoing.

Finance notes that the amendments made after March 16 added conditional language specifying resulting in death, which would reduce the number of cases the attorney general would be required to investigate.

While the amendment, amendments may minimize the overall fiscal impact for DOJ, it is still likely this bill would result in ongoing annual general fund cost in the low millions of dollars. At the time of our analysis, the Judicial Council also did not provide a fiscal impact, and it is unknown if additional cost pressures would result from this bill. To the extent that this bill adds to the trial court's caseload, court backlogs may increase and could create pressure on the general fund to handle the increased caseload.

However, finance notes that the courts do not typically receive funding on a workload basis. Therefore, unless the particular caseload becomes significant and could be documented, it is likely to be absorbed.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection, AB 1806. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1807 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1807?

Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the sponsor of the bill, the California Immigrant Policy Center here in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1807? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. We do not have a specific position on the bill. However, the Department of General Services estimates up to $4,500,000 general fund to implement the provisions of the bill. In addition, the office of the attorney general estimates the cost resulting from this bill are minor and absorbable within existing resources.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1807 will move to the suspense file. AB 1836 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1836? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1836? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee.

Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1836 will move to the suspense file. AB 1915 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in support to AB 1915?

Morning, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli here on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support of AB 1915. Thank you.

Thank you. Any individuals here to testify in opposition to AB 1915? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1915 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1924 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1924?

Good morning, madam Chair, members of the committee, Mike Feuer and his City Law Center, cosponsor of the measure California needs a homelessness prevention strategy. Strategy this bill will require. Urgent aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to AB 1924? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1924 will move to the suspense file.

AB 2020 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Gabriel has waived presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have witnesses here in support of AB 2020? Any witnesses to testify in opposition to AB 2020? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee.

Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection, AB 2020 will move to the suspense file. AB 2204 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Do we have any witnesses present who'd like to testify in support to AB 2204? Any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 2204? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. Notwithstanding the merit of offering organized sports to incarcerated individuals, finance is opposed to this bill because it could potentially result in significant general fund costs not covered by the funding provided in the 2026 budget act. Specifically, CDCR anticipates costs associated with this bill while contingent upon the policies, what policies are developed and implemented would likely be significant. Finance also notes that the policies created by this bill may not be feasible without significant infrastructure improvements.

Additionally, it is unclear how GovOps will participate in prioritizing the use of funds from the Second Chance Sports Fund, as the agency does not currently facilitate any prison operations or programming for the incarcerated population.

Thank you, seeing no questions or comments from members on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2204 will move to the suspense file. AB 2244 is a suspense file candidate.

Assemblymember Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. We have witnesses in support. AB 2244.

Brent Spencer, behalf of the Environmental Working Group, sponsor of the measure, as well as the California Podiatric Medical Association and the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, all in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2244? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments from measures from members on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2244 will move to the suspense file.

AB 2354 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have anyone here wishing to testify in support to AB 2354?

Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 2354? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2354 will move to the suspense file. AB 2378 is a suspense file candidate.

Assemblymember Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2378? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2378? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee.

Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2378 will move to the suspense file. AB 2626 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gabriel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2626? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2626? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2626.

We'll move to the suspense file.

Assembly Bill 412 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan has waived presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support for AB 412? Do we have anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 412? Seeing none.

Seeing no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 412 will move to the suspense file. AB 1577 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Bauer-Kahan has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Do we have anyone present wishing to testify in support to AB 1577? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1577? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1577 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1705 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Bauer Kehan has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1705? Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 175?

Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill. However, the Department of Justice anticipates minor and observable cost to implement this bill. Finance also notes that if multiple bills similarly identified as having minor and observable costs are enacted, additional resources may be needed to address the cumulative increase in the workload. Lastly, to the extent the bill adds to trial court's caseload, court backlogs may increase and could create pressure on the general fund to handle the increased caseload.

Finance notes that courts do not typically receive funding on a workload basis. Therefore, unless this particular caseload becomes significant and come can be documented, it is likely to be absorbed.

Thank you. Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 175 will move to the suspense file. AB 207 is a suspense file candidate.

Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2007? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2007? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee.

Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2007 will move to the suspense file. AB 2047 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Bauer-Kahan has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2047?

Do we have any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 2047? Five minutes for opposition witnesses. Please begin when you're ready.

Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2047? Five minutes for opposition witnesses. Please begin when you're ready.

Good morning. Good morning, committee members, Chair.

No.

Nice to see you all. Is this up?

Oh. I'm sorry. It was before. Hello? Check?

I think we could hear you clear enough.

Check. Check. Check. You hear it? Okay. There we go.

Okay. Yes.

You hear it?

There we go.

Good morning. I'm David Tobin. I'm the executive producer of the show 3D Printing Nerd.

I'm also the executive director of the community manufacturing initiative. I'm sure by now you've all learned a lot about three d printing from all the emails that have come in. I wanna focus on some fiscal aspects of the bill. The appropriations committee analysis just came back. It said the Department of Justice cost the staff to police this program are unquantifiable, and that requires the hiring of personnel and securing technological expertise outside the Department of Justice existing scope and capabilities.

of the community manufacturing initiative. I'm sure by now you've all learned a lot about three d printing from all the emails that have come in. I wanna focus on some fiscal aspects of the bill. The appropriations committee analysis just came back. It said the department of justice cost the staff to police this program are unquantifiable, and that requires, the hiring of personnel and securing technological expertise outside the Department of Justice existing scope and capabilities.

We've had this happen before here in California with AB 2273. That was the age-appropriate design code that was proposed to have no cost on the state, end up getting caught in First Amendment violations, and cost the state millions of dollars before actually getting killed in legislation. Then the Breeze licensing system, which proposed to only cost 28 millino dollars. It spiraled to 96 million dollars with only delivering half of the resources before being cancelled.

And with the same structure was the MyCalPays payroll system, which we spent over 250 million dollars here in California before canceling and delivering nothing. AB 2047 follows the exact same pattern with infinite general fund exposure, and every manufacturer on the planet is writing in saying this is not even a thing.

One other issue we wanna bring up is the statutory language, which also creates a financial problem. The analysis said it will cost the courts 10,500 dollars per day. Most court cases probably go on for, I imagine, five to ten days. And if we have 10 cases throughout the span of a year, that's a million dollars plus. I assume there's other fees from expenses with the Department of Justice, and that's just if we have a minimal amount on those.

The non-existent technology, according to letters from the industry and the appropriations consultants, said it creates an unquantifiable Department of Justice administrative burdens and guarantees millions in litigation. This is something I don't think we can amend our way out of. It is unacceptable fiscal burden to the state, and I respect a no vote. I respectfully request a no vote on the bill.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition to AB 2047?

Hello. My name is Nick Spinner. I'm the director of the Crockett Community Services District in Tim Grayson's district, and I was on the primary ballot in Contra Costa, and 63,000 people voted for me. In addition to state costs, this is gonna affect the ban on low-level affordable printers from the California market, increasing costs for schools statewide and universities. I oppose this bill.

Computer engineering consultant and open source maintainer. I oppose this bill.

Malia Labor, computer engineer, open source maintainer, and I also oppose this bill.

Ryan Pearl, software engineer and artist. I oppose this bill.

Rolando Javier, professional computer engineer, and I oppose this bill strongly.

Riley O'Connor, engineer and hobbyist. I am opposed to this bill.

Ryan Hopkins, mechanical design engineer. I strongly oppose this bill.

Carmen Mork, private citizen and designer. I strongly oppose this bill.

Amra Abdaladi, medical doctor living here in Sacramento, and I strongly oppose this bill. If one thing to add to David's excellent testimony is undue expenses added to local business owners as well for having to figure out how to get a legitimate shape past intent detection algorithm, the proposed intent detection algorithm versus an illegitimate shape. So that translates to time. If somebody wants to print a cylinder, very easy. There's plenty of geometric shape detection algorithms out there.

There's no intent detection algorithms out there. And so having to spend the time to figure out how to get my legitimate cylinder made for life saving valve for a ventilator versus trying to figure out, you know, versus, you know, that gets caught by this algorithm, that's gonna cost a lot of money and time to the taxpayers and the consumer. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Dave Tittle. I'm taking time away from my job developing software for the state of California to speak out against AB 2047. I built my first open source three d printer twelve years ago, and I've spent countless hours since, following industry developments, designing three d models, and modifying three d printer hardware and firmware. Keeping keeping illegal guns off the street is a laudable goal, but this bill will not make a meaningful impact.

The firearm detection software described in the bill is pure fantasy.

It would require incredible technological leaps that would transform the manufacturing manufacturing industry as we know it. To reliably determine the function and intent of an object based on a three d model or g code is far beyond the most cutting edge three d software. AI is not magic, and the state's own guidance states that it should never be used without a human making the final decision when it comes to safety.

Additionally, the open source nature of three d printing software and hardware means that there is no party with effective means of restricting prints. Converting a printer to run locally, using open source software is trivial even for novice users.

Directing the DOJ to create guidance for impossible software is blatantly wasteful. Any vendor promising software described in this bill is guilty either of ignorance or of fraud. The only thing this bill can accomplish is wasting taxpayer funds. Thank you.

Thank you. See no additional witnesses. Bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection.

AB 2047 will move to the suspense file. AB 2084 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Bauer Kehan has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify and support to AB 2084?

Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2084? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2084 will move to the suspense file. AB 2093 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Bauer Kehan has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2093? Are there any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2093? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee.

Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2093 will move to the suspense file. AB 2212 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Bauer Kehan has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2212? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2212? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2212 will move to the suspense file.

AB 2504 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Bauer Kehan has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any individuals wishing to testify in support to AB 2504? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2504?

Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2504 will move to the suspense file. AB 2631 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Bauer Kehan has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2631? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2631? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection.

AB 2631 will move to the suspense file. AB 2724 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Bauer Kehan has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support AB 2724?

Do we have any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2724? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2724 will move to the suspense file. AB 458 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Stephanie has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 458? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 458? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. Finance is opposed to this bill and notes that state entities procuring firearms may incur additional unknown costs depending on how the guideline is written. Affected entities include those that employ law enforcement officers and are required to purchase firearms. This includes, but is not limited to, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, California State Parks, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Department of Justice that employs law enforcement officers and purchases firearms.

The California Highway Patrol anticipates costs up to low millions if the model guidelines developed and integrated into bid specifications and eliminates current lawful manufacturers from bidding processes.

However, if the guidelines are suggested best practices, CHP may not incur any additional costs. The DOJ additionally anticipates minor and absorbable costs. However, if an aggregate number of bills are chaptered, the cumulative workload impact may require additional resources. The Department of General Services anticipates general form cost of $648,000 in 26-27 and 2027-28, $280,000 ongoing to implement the provisions of the bill.

This estimate includes one time cost of $368,000 for two limited term positions.

Thank you. See no questions or comments from members on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 458 will move to the suspense file. AB 1245 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Stephanie has white presentation. Will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1245? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1245? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee.

Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1245 will move to the suspense file. AB 1588 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Stephanie has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1588? Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1588? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate.

Without objection, AB 1588 will move to the suspense file. AB 1604 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Stephanie has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1604?

Are there any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1604? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Department of Toxic Substances Control estimates cost of $979,000 for the, toxic substances control account beginning in 2829, and ongoing to develop and implement the required compliance and enforcement activities. The toxic substances control account is funded by the environmental fee, which is charged to most businesses in California. This bill would result in an estimated increase by up to 1% to the face, to sorry.

Excuse me. To the fee, to fund these activities.

Thank you. So no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1604 will move to the suspense file. AB 1640 is a suspense file candidate.

Assembly member Stephanie has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1640? Do we have any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1640? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee.

Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1640 will move to the suspense file. AB 1753 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Stephanie has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any individuals wishing to testify in support to AB 1753? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1753? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1753 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1802 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Stephanie has white presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who would like to testify in support to AB 1802? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1802?

Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1802 will move to the suspense file. AB 1846 is a suspense file candidate, Assemblymember Stephanie Hisway presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1846? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1846? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1846 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1877 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Stephanie has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1877? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1877?

Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1877 will move to the suspense file. AB 2146 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Stephanie has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2146? Do we have any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2146? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection.

Without objection, AB 2146 will move to the suspense file. AB 2208 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Stefani has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2208?

Vanessa Cajina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians here in support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses here to testify in opposition to AB 2208? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2208 will move to the suspense file.

AB 2540 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Stephanie has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2540?

Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2540? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2540 will move to the suspense file.

I'd like to invite Assembly member Coloza to the microphone to present on Assembly Bill 2,050.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2050, also known as HOA Rainy Day Fund. This is a measured and thoughtful proposal aimed at promoting fairness and transparency for California residents living in common interest developments, also known as HOAs. Today, more than 13,000,000 Californians live in 55,000 HOAs. Condominiums continue to also be an affordable option for first time homebuyers.

In my district alone, 70% of associations are more than 20 years old and 73% are condominiums, meaning many communities are managing aging buildings that require significant long term maintenance. Deferred maintenance can also create serious safety risks. Recent building failures across the country highlight the dangers of inadequate reserve funding and the importance of responsible long term planning. Also, many lenders are now refusing to write mortgages and con for condominiums if the association has underfunded reserves.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require an association to have a minimum of 10% in reserves and we'll increase that level to 15% starting in 2027.