Assembly Local Government Committee

Assemblymember Nguyen, please proceed when you are ready. Yes. I'm happy to present AB 1625. This is a very simple bill we have in our district, Sacramento Regional Transit District Act, also known as SAC-RT. Currently, the law allows the Board of Directors for Sacramento Region Transit District, also known as SAC-RT, to meet up four times a month and establish a $100 stipend per meeting. Typically, the board is to conduct business for the month in one meeting. This bill makes a minor change to act by reducing the number of times the board of directors are allowed to meet from four to three. The bill also makes a modest increase to the stipend amount from $100 to $200 per meeting. Doing so will preserve SACRT's efficiency while ensuring that Sacramento maintains reliable access to public transportation. And here to answer any technical question is Greg Fishman, Senior Community Relation Officer for SACRT.

Thank you so much for presenting the bill. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? We have none. And do we have any questions from committee members? All right, so thank you so much. We don't have a call room right now, so we will take a vote. We will have a call room.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.

Thank you. members of the committee. I'm pleased to present AB 1621. This aims to strengthen the integrity and efficiency of California's housing approval process. Currently delays in post-entitlement permits both slow down housing production and drive up cost, making homes less affordable for Californians. Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California's housing crisis, housing crisis, excuse me. As highlighted by the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform, these delays continue to slow production, increase costs, and make housing less affordable. This is why I've chosen to reintroduce this legislation as AB 1621, building on AB 660, which I'm thankful all of you supported in committee last year. AB 1621 builds on existing law by establishing clear timelines and real accountability for local agencies to process post-entitlement permits, ensuring that improved housing projects can actually move forward. It also provides applicants with a clear path when agencies fail to meet their obligations. This legislation aims to streamline the housing approval process, targeting areas where housing developers have experienced significant issues. This bill would prohibit local agency inspectors from requiring a project to make changes in field that would deviate from plans a local agency has already approved. It stops local agencies from delaying the process by sending applications to outside reviewers and limiting how many times they can ask applicants to revise and resubmit their plans. Now while we heard some concerns about AB 1621 it is important to note that local agencies can go beyond the two plan check limit if there strong evidence that more review is needed to address a serious health or safety issue AB 1621 simply closes gaps and improves existing laws regarding the timeline for local agencies to act on post entitlement permits. With me today to testify on the importance of this legislation are Audrey on behalf of California Building Industry Association and Deborah Carlton on behalf of the California Apartment Association.

serious barriers remain that continue to delay much needed housing across the state. AB 1621 addresses those barriers and strengthens the existing framework with a narrowly tailored approach by prohibiting last minute yield checks that contradict previously approved plans, limiting excessive plan check resubmittals and closing loopholes that currently allow indefinite extensions of the shot clock. The need for these reforms is clearly documented. As highlighted in the final report from the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform last year, failures in the permitting process have an outsized role in the overall housing crisis, with delays directly contributing to increased costs and uncertainty for developers. This not only affects the viability of projects, but also impacts affordability for future homeowners and renters. AB 1621 offers a balanced and common-sense solution that does not override local control or compromise safety. Instead, it creates a clear, consistent, and accountable framework that ensures timely permit processing, fair treatment of applicants, and ultimately the ability to deliver housing our state so desperately needs. For these reasons, we support. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yes. Yes, good afternoon. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. Of course, our housing shortage is not just about approvals, but what happens after the approvals. The apartment registry faces a considerable amount of delay with these replans and rechecks. Sometimes it can take us up to five to eight years to get a project, at least a shovel in the ground. This builds on prior reforms and would create predictability and accountability. And I think what this also does is strikes a balance. It maintains local authority, as you've heard earlier, and safety standards while promoting a more transparent and efficient process. At a time when every delay means money and fewer units that are delivered, improving the process with AB 1621 is incredibly important. And we thank the author for presenting this bill, and we request your aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. And do we have any witnesses in opposition? Do you have the add-ons? Do we have any other witnesses in support? Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable and the California Business Properties Association in strong support. Porva Bada Chargi with Housing California in support. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and members Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur San Diego Housing Commission Habitat for Humanity California, Fieldstead and California in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Nicole Quinones on behalf of Cal Chamber and support. All right. Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Good afternoon, Mark Neuberger of the California State Association of Counties, also making comments on behalf of the League of California Cities and the rural county representatives of California. I want to thank the author and the sponsor for listening to our concerns, as well as the committee for the analysis outlining what the bill seeks to do, and as well as how that interacts our concerns. Unfortunately, though, I'm here today to register our opposed unless amended. Our letter outlays our concerns and details, so I'll just reiterate the major points. The bill would eliminate the local government's ability to enforce non-health and safety regulations in state and local building codes, such as air quality regulations that interact with building codes, as well as solar energy requirements and other green codes. We're also concerned with the reasonable person standard the bill creates, as it is concerning utilizing the standards, given the safety and risk issues that are addressed in current building codes that trained professionals spend years working with to understand and appreciate. There is a reason why state requires licensors and standards of practice for engineers, architects, and building inspectors that work in the building code area and don't just entrust their critical work to whomever is interested and thinks they're a reasonable person. I think the final thing I want to reiterate is the bill needs to be amended to address the incomplete and non-compliant applications. The language is kind of a little bit tricky around how we would deal with those. This is really important that given the bill is kind of folded into the Housing Accountability Act, a denial of a non-compliant application has significant ramifications. And I think for the most part, building officials, as has been said, we want to get the applications that are non-compliant and missing up to where they need to be in the post-infidelment phase process. We do look forward to working with the authors and sponsors on the bill to address our concerns and want to thank you all for your time today. Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who oppose the bill? Please come up. All right. I see none. Any questions from committee members? I see none. Any closing statement from a Senate member? Wilson, please. Thank you, Vice Chair. And I would like to note, you know, I enjoy great relationships with CSAC and League of California Air Cal Cities, and we'll continue to work with them to ensure we can address some of the needs that they have. I will note when it comes to the additional plan checks that may be caused by air quality districts or others, those can happen in the first two. And so, you know, those are ones that should happen in the first two and not in the field. And what we're trying to eliminate is those filled ones. And so what we feel like this bill does is it streamlines the housing approval process by closing those loopholes and local permitting timelines, holding agencies accountable when they are the cause of the delay, not when the developer is the cause because of incomplete applications. And so helping ensure Californians can build housing faster and more efficiently. We want to cut red tape. And this bill supports timely housing development to better meet our state's growing needs. And with that, at the appropriate time where we have a quorum, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much. We will cast a vote when we have the quorum. Thank you. All right. So next bill, AB 1712. One two Assembly member Pachenko Good afternoon Mr Chair and members I am here today to present Assembly Bill 1712, a district-specific bill to aid one of the cities I represent, Santa Fe Springs. Santa Fe Springs owns a water system that faces groundwater contamination issues and requires urgent infrastructure upgrades. However, due to the system's small size, the city cannot afford to finance these upgrades without at least a 300% increase to customers' rates. In contrast, if the city sells its system to a larger water provider, that provider will have the capacity to spread the cost across a much broader customer base, allowing rates to remain steady. However, under current law, a public entity must hold a municipal election before selling its water system to a PUC-regulated provider, adding cost and delay for the city and its residents. Instead, AB 1712 allows the city to proceed through a protest process, facilitating a smoother, more affordable sale. After the sale, the water system will be regulated by the PUC, which will help to ensure reasonable and stable rates for residents. A similar approach was successful in a nearby city, which is the city of Montebello, under AB 850 in 2021, where rates remain stable after the sale. With me today to speak in support of the bill and answer any technical questions is James Enriquez from the City of Santa Fe Springs Public Works. He's a Public Works Director. Thank you, and I will hand it over to my witness. Good afternoon, Vice Chair and members of the committee. I am the Public Works Director for the City of Santa Fe Springs. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am here asking for the committee's support to move this bill forward. This bill is critical to the City of Santa Fe Springs. As stated, the city has been operating its water enterprise for several years with a structural deficit. That is for a number of reasons. and it will continue to operate in a structural deficit for the foreseeable future. Although the city did raise rates by 30% several years ago, that simply has not been enough to keep up with inflation from decades of the city not keeping up with inflation in terms of rates. It's left the city in a situation where there's decades of deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects that we now can no longer afford. Since we're in a structural deficit, we've got literally no capital funding available for these upgrades or repairs. The city currently has about $150 million of deferred maintenance. That's a combination of very old-aged distribution piping that needs to start to get replaced real soon But more importantly two wells are inoperable because of contamination We're estimating right now that each well will take at least $8 to $10 million to bring back online. And in the meantime, the city, for the last several years and, again, foreseeable future, are dependent 100% on imported water, which is significantly more expensive than the water that we would be able to produce. I ask the committee's support in moving this bill forward and helping the city consolidate sooner than later with a larger water purveyor that would have the resources to make these improvements and ensure that the citizens of Santa Fe Springs have a reliable water source and some sort of rate stabilization. Our current study is indicating that we will have to triple rates at the very least to start a capital improvement program. Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who support the bill? Please come forward. Gabriel Menard is on behalf of San Gabriel Valley Water Company in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Caitlin Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association in support. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? See none. Anyone else who oppose the bill? See none. Any questions from committee members? All right, so any closing statement from the author? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. At the end, thank you for allowing me to present this very important bill. On behalf of the residents of Santa Fe Springs, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much. We will cast a vote when we do have a quorum. All right, so we have a next bill, AB 2080 from Assemblymember Johnson. Thank you. Thank you. Ready? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Please. Welcome to the committee and welcome to my first available presentation in Locoka. It's a big day. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am here to present AB2080, a very straightforward measure intended to improve local government efficiency and remove unnecessary administrative burdens. Under current law, county board of supervisors must go through a formal renewal process every single year to delegate investment authority to their county treasurer. This creates a reoccurring administrative hurdle that serves no practical oversight purpose but carries significant technical risks. In many cases, simple scheduling delays or agenda backlogs can cause this one-year period to lapse, putting the county in technical noncompliance with the law. This uncertainty can impact not just the county government, but also the school districts and special districts that rely on the county's investment pools. AB 2080 fixes this by shifting from an annual renewal model to an ongoing delegation that remains in effect until the board chooses to revoke it. To be clear a County Board of Supervisors retains full control and can affirmatively revoke this authority at any time The bill also ensures transparency by requiring the board to establish specific monthly or quarterly reporting requirements for the treasurer within the county investment policy This bill is sponsored by the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors and has no opposition on file. It is a common sense fix that provides stability to local investment operations while maintaining strict board oversight. With me to testify this afternoon is Chuck Lomeli, the Solano County Treasurer Tax Collector and Vice Chair for the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I'm Chuck Lomeli, as the Assembly Member just indicated. I want to thank the Assemblymember Johnson for sponsoring AB 28 on behalf of the California Treasurer's Association Current law allows the Board of Supervisors to delegate investment authority to the treasurer The delegation can only be granted to the treasurer and must be delegated annually This bill will remove the burden of annual delegation and allow delegation to be effective until revoked by the Board of Supervisors The bill protects the public process This change promotes efficiency for the treasurer, the county administrator and the board of supervisors, removing unnecessary administrative burden. It also reduces the risk of unintentional lapse due to administrative delays and it helps avoid compliance risks. Additionally, it provides clarity and stability for participants in the investment pool, including school districts and special districts. I would encourage an aye vote. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who supports the bill? Do we have any witnesses in our position? Do we have anyone to oppose the bill? I see none. Any comment from committee members? I see none. Oh, you'll see why I'm making a comment. Thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. Of course, we want to ensure that the least amount of bureaucracy that we can have, the least amount of time wasted on paper possible. And so thank you for bringing that forward. And I would just like to this happens to be my elected official in my county. So I want to say thank you for coming and testifying on this bill and having leadership position within the association, as well as this is your last year of service. Is it not? It is. That's correct. And so wanted to make sure in public we say thank you for your service on behalf of Solano County. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. And any closing statement? I respectfully. Yes. I just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. We will cast a vote when we have a quorum. Oh, we do have quorum right now? Okay. We have to take attendance. So please. Carrillo? Ta? I'm here. Ta here. Johnson? Here. Johnson here Pacheco check out here Ramos Ransom Rubio Stephanie Stephanie here Ward Ward here Wilson here listen here so who were to entertain a motion okay so have a motion a second for AB 2080 2080 yep that's item number six AB 2080 motion is do pass Carrillo. Ta. Aye. Ta aye. Johnson. Aye. Johnson aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco aye. Ramos. Ransom. Rubio. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie aye. Ward. Aye. Ward aye. Wilson. Aye. Wilson aye. Thank you so much. We have a next bill, AB 2180. Yes, anyone? Whoa. Oh, yes, please. So can I have a motion and a second on consent item? Okay. We have a motion and a second on a consent item. Yeah, consent item. Go first. Yes. Items on the consent calendar. Item number 2, AB 1622. Motion is due pass. Item number 5, AB 1834. Motion is due pass as amended. Carrillo? Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ransom? Rubio? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. All right. So, Samuel Moore? Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Pleased to present here today AB 2180, a measure which would update the Prop 218 Omnibus Implementation Act to provide clarity, consistency, and a practical framework consistent with industry best practices for water agencies setting proportional rates which are in compliance with the constitutional requirements of Prop 218. Now, in 1996, California voters adopted Prop 218, which requires water rates to be, quote, proportional to the cost of service attributed to the parcel. To meet the strict proportionality requirements of Prop 218, public water suppliers routinely hire experts to develop proportional rates backed by rigorous cost-of-service data and analysis. And despite this diligence, high water users have regularly challenged these rates in courts, alleging any constitutional violations. So recent appellate courts have reached conflicting decisions regarding the constitutionality of some methodologies used by water providers when setting water rates, specifically tiered water rates. This has created significant uncertainty for water agencies attempting to comply with Prop 218's proportionality requirements, including one of those court cases from my home city, the city of San Diego. AB 2180 would address this issue by codifying the framework established in the 2025 December Draylor decision. It was Draylor v. City of Los Angeles. And that found that water agencies may base tiered rates on sources supply costs, even when supplies are commingled. Secondly, that tier breakpoints do not require cost-based justification. And thirdly, that agencies may rely on peak pumping and storage costs to support higher rates in those upper tiers. AB 180 would follow the precedent set in Dreher and used by water agencies for decades across the state, preserving the core constitutional requirement that REITs not exceed the proportional cost of service while giving agencies the flexibility to use reasonable industry standard methodologies By establishing clear legal standards based on the Dreher framework, the bill protects both water agencies and ratepayers by reducing costly litigation and ensuring that low-use customers are not subsidizing infrastructure costs, which are driven by high-use customers. For witnesses and support, I have Soren Nelson, Senior Policy Advocate at the Association of California Water Agencies, and Ludwig Karouf, the partner in the Special Districts and Public Finance Practice Groups of Best, Best, and Krieger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Soren Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies, proud to sponsor AB 2180 and appreciate Assemblymember Ward's leadership on this issue. Prop 218 is the foundation upon which most of the spending on water in California is built. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that 85 percent of all spending on water infrastructure in the state happens at the local level and that funded primarily by water rates As financial support from the state and federal government becomes less reliable that number is only expected to climb Public water agencies are held to a higher transparency and public engagement standard than any other utility when setting rates. Public water agencies are accountable to their communities for the money they spend and are constantly striving to balance the cost of providing safe and reliable water with the need to keep water affordable for Californians. Unfortunately, despite the high standards to which water agencies are already held, opportunistic lawsuits have become more frequent and created what is quickly becoming an impossible legal landscape for our local governments to navigate. As climate change accelerates and our infrastructure continues to age, the ability to set water rates that accurately reflect the impact of high volume water users on our water systems is critical. Because the courts are reaching conflicting conclusions about how water providers should comply with Prop 218, it is now both appropriate and necessary for the legislature to weigh in. AB 2180 will give public water agencies the clarity they need to set rates without diluting the consumer protections built into Prop 218. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Lutfi Karouf. I am the Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee for the Association of California Water Agencies. I'm also a partner at Best Best and Krieger, where I head the Taxes, Fees, and Assessments Practice Group. Agencies across California share a simple goal. is to set constitutional water rates that proportionally recover the costs of safe and reliable service. The fundamental problem and the issue that all Californians should be concerned about is the legal uncertainty over how those costs are allocated. Proposition 218 was adopted 30 years ago. We're still litigating the most basic terms in the Constitution. And just to be clear, the portions of Prop 218 that deal with proportionality are less than half of a page of the Constitution. So there is a lot of room for clarification. The uncertainty has spawned an industry of unnecessary litigation that delays critical infrastructure, undermines state policy objectives, and ultimately makes water more expensive for the average user. This uncertainty is reflected in conflicting appellate decisions. Capistrano Taxpayers Association versus the City of San Juan Capistrano directed agencies to set water rates in a manner that ensures that average and below average users don't subsidize the cost of water, don't pay for infrastructure, that their level of usage does not require. However, recent cases like Pats v. City of San Diego and Koziar v. Yotai Water District provide no realistic path to achieving this goal. These two cases impose unclear and candidly unworkable evidentiary requirements that do not actually exist in the Constitution without direction on how water agencies can actually achieve them. Dreher v. LADWP confronts these issues head on. It takes a direct and practical approach that aligns Proposition 218 and that agencies can follow to confidently set constitutional water rates. But Dreher stands on equal footing with prior published decisions, which means the law remains in conflict. The legislature can act within its authority to provide the much-needed clarity. I recognize that the Supreme Court has granted review in Dreher. That makes legislative action more, not less, important. The California Supreme Court has already looked to the legislature to interpret ambiguous terms within Proposition 218, for example, in the context of voter secrecy, by looking at the Prop 218 Omnibus Implementation Act. And the real situation here is that agencies are struggling today to figure out how to set constitutional water rates. Finally, the Supreme Court's review is narrow. It will not resolve the full range of practical questions agencies face when setting water rates including how to allocate capital costs AB 2180 provides a practical path forward It reconciles these conflicting decisions and establishes a clear workable framework In some I respectfully request your support Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who want to speak in support the bill? Please come forward. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Andrea Averjol with the California Municipal Utilities Association, strong support. Good afternoon. Marcus Dettweiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Caitlin Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties in support, also on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jamie Miner on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, pleased to support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Danny Merkley with the Guaco Group on behalf of Kings River Interests and Stockton East in support. Good afternoon. Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of Otay Water District in support. Good afternoon. Lily McKay on behalf of West Valley Water District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Kyle Jones on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program and community alliance with family farmers in support. Thank you. Jack Wurston on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Alevenheim Municipal Water District, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, and the City of Ventura in support. Good afternoon. Adam Quinones, California Advocates, on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency in support. Brian Polson with El Dorado Irrigation District in support. Good afternoon. Ryan O'Jacken with the Regional Water Authority in support. Good afternoon. Cyrus Devers for the Coachella Valley Water District and the Las Burgess Municipal Water District in support. Good afternoon. Brenda Bass with KP Public Affairs on behalf of Western Municipal Water District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Marty Farrell on behalf of California Coast Keeper Alliance in support. Good afternoon. Kendra Bagley on behalf of City of Roseville in support. David Quintana on behalf of San Diego County Water Authority, Irvine Ranch Water District, and East Valley Water District in support. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chau, for chairing the committee in my absence. I believe that we now have a quorum. We already have that. We already have that. Okay. I believe those were in support witnesses, any primary witnesses in opposition. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee, and to the author and proponents. My name is Scott Coffman with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. I actually agree with the proponents that there needs to be clarity in the water rules as currently. Dreher was mentioned. Dreher directly conflicts with the Pat's decision and the Kweziar decision. And so I think clarity is needed, but that clarity is going to come from the Supreme Court, which has taken up the Dreher decision. And this bill, as the author acknowledged, its foundation is based on Dreher, and Dreher is unsettled law. So we believe that the bill as currently written is premature It not necessary If the Supreme Court upholds Dreher then this bill is not necessary because Dreher is law If the Supreme Court decides to split the baby and uphold some aspects of Dreher and reject others then we'll be back here next year clarifying the clarification. And if the Supreme Court ultimately rejects Dreher, then much of what is in this bill we feel is unconstitutional, and we frankly feel it's unconstitutional as currently written in Proposition 218. so that we ask that you vote no because we think this is premature, and it would be best to wait and see what the Supreme Court decides. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for that. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in opposition, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Good afternoon. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors, also in respectful opposition to the bill. Thank you. Seeing no one else, I take it to committee members. Assemblymember Lori Wilson. Just a follow-up question on what was proposed by the opposition in terms of the court case. Could you explain from your point of view how that relates to this work and the timing of when you would expect to have some type of ruling headed down? Appreciate that. And I think limited to that issue, I think it was kind of mentioned by one of my witnesses. But as you know well, and we all know well, the legislature has the opportunity to improve upon the statute for which the judiciary would then interpret what the legislative intent was. And so because the ambiguity is currently existing that is underwriting either the past decision or the Drerner decision, we can provide that clarity right now and get ahead of this to make sure that we are more effectively allowing water agencies using formula they've used for decades in a way that is consistent with supporting our policies that low-use users should not be subsidizing high-use users. So I hear that the timing is important now so that there is clarity for the water agencies, but also to potentially guide further judicial review with the legislative intent being clarified as well. And hopefully provide some more immediate relief to water agencies that today are frozen. They don't know what to do. They've already adopted these regulations, or maybe they want to change the rates that are coming up at their next rate-changing, rate-setting cost-of-service study. I think the faster that we can provide that clarity for them, the better off everybody will be. Any other committee member with questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close, Assemblymember Ward? I think I would respectfully request your aye vote. I think it's important that we marry up our policies on making sure that more California, especially as we're moving to a more water-efficient future for a lot of our residential homes, that we are supporting that with policies, rate structures that are actually also supporting that as well. Respectfully request your aye vote. We have a motion that I second. Second by Ms. Pacheco. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Item number seven, AB 2180. Motion is do pass. Carrillo? Aye. But I didn't mean to say thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will support your bill today. The motion is do pass. Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? No. Ta, no. Johnson? No. Johnson, no. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ransom? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. the vote is 6 to 2 we leave the roll open for others to add on thank you Mr. Chair and we're Move on to agenda item number eight, AB 2640 by Assemblymember Hadwick. Whenever you're ready, Assemblymember. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this issue. When a law, executive order, or state agency directive imposes a state mandate, a local government must be reimbursed for implementing that new mandate. These mandates are usually in the form of a new program or a higher level of service for an existing program. State-mandated programs carried out by local governments are critical to California's health, safety, and quality of life. The process to get a mandate approved for payment often takes several years, all while local governments are forced to comply with state mandates using their own money. Unfortunately, California owes cities, counties, special districts, schools, and community colleges over $1.8 billion of unpaid state mandates. Even after reimbursement is paid out, an audit may force the local government to pay the state back. This happened to Shasta County in my district, who was forced to pay back over $1 million for money that was spent on a child abduction and recovery program. This program was approved for reimbursement in 1979, almost 50 years ago. Unfortunately, this repayment must occur even if the state owes the local government money for other unpaid mandates. For small rural counties that are already on tight budgets, repaying even a fraction of what little reimbursement they are owed can cripple their financial health. AB 2640 creates a mechanism that allows the local government to offset any reduced reimbursement from the other unpaid reimbursement claims. This bill brings financial relief to cash-strapped local governments by helping them hold on to critical funding for their under-resourced communities. AB 2640 is a modest and sensible solution to provide desperately needed fiscal flexibility for my communities. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I am joined today by Shasta County Auditor-Controller Nolda Short. Thank you, Chair Carrillo and members of the committee. My name is Nolda Short. I'm the Auditor-Controller for Shasta County.

Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition? See, no one. No, no one's coming as primary opposition. Anybody else in the room, Chesa, is in opposition as a me too? See, nobody. Committee members, we have a motion, there's a second. Thank you for presenting your bill. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you again for presenting your bill today. We'll be supporting your bill. We do have a motion and a second, and that is a do pass to the Education Committee. Secretary, please call the roll. Item number eight, AB 2640. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson aye Pacheco aye Pacheco aye Ramos Ransom Ransom aye Rubio aye Rubio aye Stephanie Stephanie aye Ward aye Ward Wilson Wilson aye that 90 zero the bill is set and we leave the roll open for us congratulations I believe that all we have left on the agenda are bills by committee members and we're gonna go by order Assemblymember Wilson already all All the other of them. All right. Well, that's what happens when you step out to present other bills outside of committee. Thank you for doing that. Thank you for such an efficient meeting. I share. How we got? I just opened the roll. I put the roll in the vote. Motion is out. That's right. Yeah. So we're going to leave the roll open for those that are not here yet. Is there any other votes that we need to? My votes, I guess. We're going to start with the consent calendar. We're going to start with the consent calendar. Okay. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ramos? Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. None. 9-0. The bill is set, and we'll leave the roll open for a couple of minutes for others to add on. For AB 1621, we need a motion. Of the bill. First and a second. Please call the roll. Item number one, AB 1621, the motion is due pass to housing and community development. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. 9 to 0. The bill is out, and we're going to go on to the next item. Motion for AB 1625. There's a person a second. Okay. So motion by Natasha Johnson. Thank you. And the second by Assemblyman Wilson. Please call the wrong. So item number three, AB 1625. Motion is do pass to appropriations. Carrillo. Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta. Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson. Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ransom? Aye. Sorry, Ramos, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Tense here. The bill is out. The next item, we need a motion for AB 1712. Second. Motion and a second. Please call the roll. Item number four, AB 1712. Motion is due pass to Waterparks and Wildlife. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Checo, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. 10-0, the bill is out. We do have a couple more Add for AB 2080 So item number six AB 2080 The motion was due pass. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ramos? Item six? Yes. Aye. Ramos, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. 10 to 0. The bill is out, and we have another one. We need add-ons for AB 2180. That's item number 7, 2180. Motion is due pass. Ramos? Not voting. Ramos not voting. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. That bill is out 7-2-2. And we need to also open the roll for AB 2640. So that's item number 8, AB 2640. motion was do pass to education Ramos Ramos I must end to Syria the bill is out and we have a couple of items for mr. Ramos okay so on the consent calendar Ramos Ramos I consent color South and to zero and item number one AB 1621 Ramos Ramos I that's 10-0 motion South really so thank you I'm just double check that we're good and without we are turn this meeting thank you Thank you. Thank you.