August 3, 2026 · Appropriations · 63,060 words · 27 speakers · 401 segments
Thank you. But if they do show, we can keep an eye out. For the bills that were pulled from the agenda late, their bill's shown as cross-offs in here.
I don't think she has the updated one.
Oh, I've got one.
Oh, do you?
Yeah, the one I sent her, I had crossed off.
Oh, you sent it?
Okay, cool.
So this is the accurate one.
Yes.
So, like, for instance, on page three, you got to tap on two bills. So just mention those bills were rescheduled. So just say that bill was pulled from Calendar as we go through it.
Oh, so I can't just not mention it.
You can do it at the beginning.
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 way 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 1603, Schultz. AB 2058, Herbedian. AB 2469 Pappen, and AB 2619 Pappen. 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 in 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 call the roll.
Cervantes? Here. Cervantes here.
Ciarto? Here. Ciarto here. Cabaldon? Here. Cabaldon here. Dali? Grayson? Here. Grayson here. Richardson? Here. Richardson here. Wahab.
A quorum has been established. We will move on to the business of the day. I would like to invite Assemblymember Shrevo to the microphone to tell us about AB 28 which is before us on a 29
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 Chiquita Canyon which has been burning for over four years and is expected to burn for 20 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 or 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 unmonitored, could turn into these kinds of disasters. We know we have a set event at El Sobrante 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 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, OEHA, DTSC, and estimated total annual costs of approximately $4.65 million. Additionally, CalRecycle estimated a one-time cost of $3 million over three years to cover regulatory development costs. I want to note that CalEPA submitted a funding request recently that was approved already in our budget of $5.14 million to ensure that CalRecycle State Water Board, OEHA, and DTSC can continue to address the set events like the one at Chiquita and Avenal and El Sobrante, 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 experience said 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 would like to testify in opposition to AB 28?
Good morning, Madam Chair. We are a tweener. I'm Farrah McDade 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 2 of the bill, which would require a local health department to conduct a 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 foul. Thank you.
Thank you. Bringing it back to members of the committee, are there any questions or comments? Yes, Vice Chair Sayerto.
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 how those costs recover. In other words, what's the science that says we're going to make an impact by whatever the solutions are, how much are those solutions? Because those solutions will be passed on to Joe taxpayer and rate payer. 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 Landfill. Yeah, and that's my question is 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 – what you're talking about is heat of combustion or not heat of combustion. You're talking about the heat of – that's produced when things are breaking down, materials are breaking down, organic materials and other materials. Where is the heat coming from then? So there's – Because I don't want to get into the discussion of the thing. I was just talking about the gloss. Very quickly. Typical kind of decomposition that happens in landfills does heat up, but it might heat up to 80, 90, maybe 100 degrees, right, normally. So when you have something that reaches 131 or 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 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 20 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, who said in a community advisory committee meeting that they don really worry until it gets up to 165 degrees It not even supposed to be at 131 So they 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 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 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, 109 the other day.
Yeah, I mean.
And Santa Clarita is much the same. Yeah. The landfills that are nearer to the coast are going to 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 ratepayers. And in order for us to be able to support that, which is in direct conflict with our goals of reducing costs 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. And whether you think shutting down landfills and moving them towards the coast is a good idea, I don't know. So there's nothing in this bill that requires certain minutes. To the author, if you could please, through the chair, and again, we want to refrain from lengthy policy discussions.
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 would like to comment?
Scene. Yeah.
We do have a motion, but I'd like to give Assemblymember Shrivo 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. So this item is eligible for a vote today. We have a motion by Senator Grayson. The motion is due pass to the Senate floor. Please call the roll. The motion is that the measure be returned to the Senate floor for consideration. Cervantes?
Aye.
Cervantes, aye. Ciarto?
No.
Ciarto, no. Cabaldon?
Aye.
Cabaldon, aye. Daly?
Not, no.
Grayson?
Aye.
Grayson, aye. Richardson?
Aye.
Richardson, aye. Wahab? Current vote is 4 to 1, and we will put it on call to allow others to add on. We will now invite Assemblymember Colosa to the microphone to tell us about Assembly Bill 1899, which is a suspense candidate. Welcome, Assemblymember. 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 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 33% 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 million 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 50% 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, testify 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, co-sponsor 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 in the fiscal committee Let get down to the costs The bill is slated to cost about million annually We know the state fiscal situation so we 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 $1.2 million. We've raised $575,000 from private foundations for the first year of operations. For year two, we've raised $450,000 from private foundations, $300,000 of which is contingent on them providing county-specific data, and $150,000 for the third year of operations, so nearly $1.2 million 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 and the administration. Amendments will be taken when the bill comes off of suspense that actually have a cost reduction in them as well. With that, I urge that we continue that bipartisan support with a strong aye vote today. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support of this measure?
Good morning. Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, proud co-sponsor of the bill. Thank you. Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. On the behalf of Larkin Street Youth Services, Jenny Choi Slott in support. Thank you. Good morning. Kathy Van Austin on behalf of John Burton Advocates for Youth in support. Thank you. Michael Henning, California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support. My name is Reyna 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 to ensure we don't age out of foster care. Hello, Cody Van Felden. I myself am a former foster youth in support. Thank you. I support youth, too.
All right. Are there any individuals here 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?
No file, Madam Chair.
Understood. We have a motion. Excuse me, actually, one moment. Let me move to members. This is a suspense candidate. So no questions, comments from members today. Ms. Caliza, 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. I 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. Thank you. Thank you so much We will now invite Assemblymember Wilson to the microphone to share with us Assembly Bill 2788, which is eligible for a due pass as amended. Motion welcome Assemblymember. Please begin when you're ready.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Section 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 January 1, 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 Sassoon 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 traffic enforcement and the appeals process for violations under the program. Section 5 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 would 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. Assemblymember, I just want to verify you are accepting the proposed author amendments.
Thank you. I am. I failed to mention that in my testimony.
Thank you. The bill has been moved by Senator Cabaldon. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate floor. Please call the roll. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Ciarto? Aye.
Ciarto, aye.
Cabaldon?
Aye.
Cabaldon, aye. Dally?
Aye.
Dally, aye. Grayson?
Aye.
Grayson, aye. Richardson?
Aye.
Richardson, aye. Wahab? The bill is out, 6-0. We will hold that measure to allow others to add on. Thank you, Senator. AB2 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Lowenthal has way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support of AB2 Seeing none, are there any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB2? Seeing none, we will bring it back to members of the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB2 will move to the suspense file. Here it is. AB 649 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lone Thaw has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 649? Are there any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 649?
Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee 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 weighed 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?
I do, Madam Chair. The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. CalPrivacy estimates this bill will result in one-time unabsorbable cost of $200,000 data brokers registry fund in 2627 related to updating the delete request opt-out platform, conducting rulemaking, and increased enforcement costs. Additionally, CalPrivacy notes the 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 will result in minor and absorbable costs, and at this time of 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, seeing 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 waved 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 Zuko from the Commission on Status of Women and Girls, moving our co-sponsor 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 would like to testify in support to AB1803? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB1803? All right, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection, AB1803. 3. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1858 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has weighed 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 of the number of participating CSU and community colleges campuses is driving opposition. Finance notes that this bill becomes operative only upon appropriation. 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 waved 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. Assemblymember Lontal has weighed 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 will bring it back to the committee so you know questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2076. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2223 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lowenthal has weighed 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 Lontal has way 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.
Do you have a file on this measure? Yes, we do not have a specific position on this bill. However, the DOJ anticipate costs 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 way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would 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. Assemblymember Ramos has way 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 Gonzalez with the California Rural Indian Health Board, and we support the bill.
Any additional witnesses in support to AB 53?
Christina Scringe 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, do 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.
I 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. Assemblymember Ramos has weighed 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 would like to testify in opposition to AB 1586? Seeing none, see 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. Assemblymember Ramos has weighed 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 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, see 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 substantively similar to trailer bill language proposed by the administration in the 26-27 May revision. Thank you.
I see no questions or comments from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1592. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1681 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ramos has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1681?
California rural Indian Health Board and we support the bill.
Are there any witnesses who would 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 costs 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. Assemblymember Ramos has way 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 cost and cost pressures ranging from the mid to high millions of dollars. The community colleges estimate ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund local assistant costs ranging from $2.4 million to $5.5 million system-wide 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's specifically one-time and ongoing general fund cost in the low millions of dollars. Thank you.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1769. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1841 is a suspense file candidate. Member Ramos has way presentation and we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1841?
Cesar Gonzalez with the California River in California. How do 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 This bill could cause costs of approximately $16.3 million, of which is a $12.2 million 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 CalHR. Funding availability and budgetary decisions go through the budget development process as directed by the Department of Finance, not CalHR. 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.
I see 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. Assemblymember Ramos has a way 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 see no questions or comments from committee members This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection AB 1889 will move to the suspense file AB 2115 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Ramos has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2115. Cesar Gonzalez with the California Brewing Health Board and we support the bill. Thank you. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2115? Seeing 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. Seeing 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. Assemblymember Ramos has waved 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. Assemblymember Aguiar Currie has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support AB 65? Please approach the mic. You could approach name, organization, and position only on AB 1803. You can 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 McElady from Fairfield, California. Thank you. I oppose AB 1803. Thank you.
Hi, I'm Miyoko Boenberg. I'm from Pittsburgh, California. I oppose AB 1803.
Hello, my name is Kit Nelson. I oppose AB 1803. I live in Fairfield, California.
Thank you. Sorry, Kate.
Stand-up ministry, Mary Anderson from Fairfield. I oppose AB 1803.
Good morning.
Lisa Disbro with Informed Parents of Contra Costa, Contra Costa Patriots. Our duty, 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 and support.
Thank you.
Russell Manning on behalf of California State Treasury Review on the Mall. 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. Assemblymember Aguirre 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 would 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. Assemblymember Aguirre-Curry has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 706?
Madam Chair, Chris McKaylee 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 Scringe 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 Aguirre-Curry has weighed 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 Cal Recycle 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 Substance Control estimates that any costs 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. Assemblymember Aguiar Curry has weighed presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1812 Are there any witnesses who would 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. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1857 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Aguirre-Curry has way 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 would like to 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. Assemblymember Aguilar 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 2026? Are there any witnesses who would 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 $3.5 million general fund, $2.5 million from the Water Rights Fund and 20 permanent positions in 2027-28, and $2.5 million general fund and $2.5 million from the Water Rights Fund in 2028-29 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 costs associated with the actual costs for the water board. Any difference between the fee revenue and water board's costs would require a general fund appropriation to cover the difference. The Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates $1.4 million general fund in 27-28, $1.4 million 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. Assemblymember Aguirre Curry has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2216? Any witnesses who 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 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. Assemblymember Edgar Curry has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2250? Are there any witnesses who'd 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. Assemblymember Jackson has weighed 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 $5.4 million one time in 26-27 and $1.5 million 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 $160,000 one-time general fund in 2627 and 2728 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
cost 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. Assemblymember Jackson has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who 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 subgrants 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.
So you know, 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 Assemblymember Jackson has way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1201 Any who would 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 weighed 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 would 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. Assemblymember Jackson has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1584? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1584? Seeing 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. The URB estimates $644,000 from the Air Pollution Control Fund in 2016-2017 and $1.3 million in 2017-2018 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 rights 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. I 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. Assemblymember Jackson has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1664? Do we have any individuals who like to testify in opposition to AB 1664? Seeing none, bringing it back to the Committee see 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. Assemblymember Colosa has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to 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. Assemblymember Coloza has weighed 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? See none. Bring it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1650. We'll 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? Assemblymember Coloza has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2050? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2050? Good morning, Madam Chair and members.
Christopher Sanchez representing the Consumer Federation of California in respectful opposition. We believe that this would increase the state's costs related to increasing court cases as the only way that folks would 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 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 through the file and circle back. AB 2422 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Colosa has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2422?
Kylie Mandeli 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 you 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. Assemblymember Coloza has weighed 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 million for the initial report and ongoing general fund cost of $1 million every three years. EDD notes that the first report is due July 1, 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 notes that any requests 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. Assemblymember Coloza has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to 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 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 Englewood, of all California cities, to eliminate Englewood from the exemption to protect it against the proliferation of billboards. That would allow the billionaire owners of SoFi, Intuit Dome, and The Forum to build up to six new billboards throughout the city of Englewood. And Englewood 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 million over the next 10 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. So you know additional witnesses in opposition? We will bring it back to the committee so you know 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. Assemblymember Alanis has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would 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. Assemblymember Alanis has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1572? Do we have any witnesses who 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 costs for the Commission. The Commission estimates non-Prop 98 general fund costs 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 sporting officials. Thank you.
See 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. Assemblymember Alanis has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1612? Any witnesses who would 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 in 2017 in 2018 and in 2019 and ongoing to develop and publish guidance on the proper disposal of controlled substances seized by law enforcement The Department of Toxic Substances Control estimates minor and absorbable 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 and the Annual Budget Act or any other measure. So this bill will not result in costs 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. See 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. Assemblymember Alanis has weighed 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. Assemblymember Alanis has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? 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 a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 306? Any witnesses who would 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. Assemblymember Schultz has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1546? Any witnesses who 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 costs for the MVA or the motor vehicle account. Finance notes that the MBA is currently in a structural deficit. Based on projections developed as part of the 2026 Budget Act, the MBA will be insolvent by the end of 28-29.
Any increase in MBA 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 We move to the suspense file Okay, thank you. We have our next item on file. Thank you. the committee see 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. Assemblymember Schultz has waived presentation and we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to 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 ratepayers to generate adequate revenue to cover costs. Thank you.
Seeing 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. Assemblymember Schultz has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to 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. Assemblymember Schultz has weighed 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, see 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. Assemblymember Schultz has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2319?
Good morning, Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank in support of the bill. Thank you.
Any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2319?
Russell 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 million in tax credit allocations in 2728, the Department of Finance estimates that this bill will result in general fund revenue losses of approximately $2 million in 2728, $9.4 million in 2018-2019, $18.1 million in 2019-2019-2019, 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 2018-2019, $18,000 in 2018-2019, and $1.6 million in 2019-2019-2019, and additional revenue losses in subsequent years. Assuming an appropriation is made, Franchise Tax Board estimates this bill results in increases in administrative costs by $290,000 in 2016-2017, $342,000 in 2017-2018, and $3,000 in 2018-2019 and ongoing. Assuming an appropriation is made as well, the California Film Commission estimates annual general fund costs of $672,000 in 2016-2017 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 July 1st, 2032, sunset date, because the Film Commission will not be able to verify in-state spending requirements until the qualifying production is completed. Seeing 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. Assemblymember Schultz has weighed 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. Assemblymember 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. Assemblymember Schultz has weighed 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. Assemblymember McKenner has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 311? Are there any witnesses who would 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 Assemblymember McKinner has way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses who would 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. Assemblymember McKinner has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1383? Madam Chair, members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC, co-sponsors of the bill. Madam Chair, Gary Cooper representing UAPD in strong support of AB 1383. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Doug Zubers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, pleased to co-sponsor this measure and in strong support. Thank you. 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 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 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 million annually from general fund costs associated with the implementation of the bill between increased, our PERS under unfunded accrued liability and ongoing benefit costs 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 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 upkeeps and 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 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 at 2 minutes and 30 seconds and for a total of 5 minutes. So I just want to note that at this point in time. All right. 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 an annual revenue hit to the general fund of about $10 million. 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 million, add $233 million in accrued liability, and create nearly $5 billion 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 million annually and $3.4 billion in future liabilities. In total, CalPERS estimates AB 1383 could add more than $8 billion 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 for decades. 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. Thank you. For the following folks in opposition, name, organization, position only. Hello, Zachary Christensen here on behalf of Reason Foundation. We would just ask the committee to consider our analysis that shows that this bill could impose a $14.5 billion cost on local governments and taxpayers. And considering that CalPERS maintains over $200 billion in unfunded liabilities. Name organization position only. Okay, thank you very much. Lance Christensen California Policy Center We opposed to dismantling PEPRA and AB 1383 And we also due on behalf of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association Thank you Good morning, K.R. 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 Elliott 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 McKinner has weighed 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? No. 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 $1 million 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. Assemblymember McKinner has way 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. Assemblymember Gabriel has a way 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 1806 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gabriel has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1806? Catherine Bridge, private citizen, Sacramento. The cost of AB 1806 is moot, non-existent, 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 pretty 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 1806? 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 16th of 2026, the DOJ estimated that implementation of the bill would require 28 positions and $5.1 million general fund in 26-27, 34 positions and $10.2 million in 27-28, and 34 positions and $9.7 million ongoing. Finance notes that the amendments made after March 16th added conditional language specifying resulting in death, which would reduce the number of cases the Attorney General would be required to investigate. While the amendments may minimize the overall fiscal impact for DOJ, it is still likely this bill would result in ongoing annual general fund costs 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 will move to the suspense file. AB 1807 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gabriel has weighed 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 $4.5 million general fund to implement the provisions of the bill. In addition, the Office of the Attorney General estimates the costs resulting from this bill are minor and absorbable within existing resources. Thank you. Seeing 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. Assemblymember Gabriel has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1836? Any witnesses who would 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. Assemblymember Gabriel has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1915? Morning madam chair Chris McKaylee 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 waved 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, co-sponsor of the measure California Needs a Homelessness Prevention Strategy this bill will require. I urge an 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. Assemblymember Gabriel has waved 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. Assemblymember Gabriel has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2204? Any witnesses who would 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 supports 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 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. I see 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 weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. We have witnesses in support. AB 2244. Ryan Spence, on behalf of the Environmental Working Group, sponsored 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. I see no questions or comments 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 weighed 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 weighed 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 weighed 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 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 412 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Bauer-Cahan has a way presentation. 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. Assemblymember Barr Kahan has weighed 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. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan has weighed 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 would like to testify in opposition to AB 1705? CNN, 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 costs 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 can be documented, it is likely to be absorbed. Thank you. Bringing it back to the committee so you have no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1705. We'll move to the suspense file. AB-2007 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan has white 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 Assemblymember Bauer has weighed 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 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. Nice to see you all. Is this on? No. Oh, it's on. It was before. Hello? Check. I think we could hear you clearer enough. Check, check. Check. You hear it? Okay. 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 3D printing from all the emails that have come in. I want to focus on some fiscal aspects of the bill. The Appropriations Committee analysis just came back. It said the Department of Justice costs 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 was proposed to only cost $28 million. It spiraled to $96 million with only delivering half of the resources before being canceled. And with the same structure was the MyCalPays payroll system, which we spent over $250 million 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 want to bring up is the statutory language, which also creates a financial problem. The analysis said it will cost the courts $10,500 per day. Most court cases probably go on for, I imagine, five to ten days. And if we have ten 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 physical burden to the state, and 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 going to effectively ban low-level affordable printers from the California market, increasing costs for schools statewide and universities. I oppose this bill. Thank you. Kahlil Stell, computer engineering consultant and open source maintainer. I oppose this bill. Malia Labore, computer engineer, open source maintainer, and I also oppose this bill. Ryan Perl, 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. Amr Abdel Adi, 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 the intent detection algorithm, the proposed intent detection algorithm versus an illegitimate shape. So that translates to time. If somebody wants to print a cylinder, it's 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, that gets caught by this algorithm. That's going to cost a lot of money and time to the taxpayers and the consumer. 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 3D printer 12 years ago, and I've spent countless hours since following industry developments, designing 3D models, and modifying 3D printer hardware and firmware. 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 industry as we know it. To reliably determine the function and intent of an object based on a 3D model or G-code is far beyond the most cutting-edge 3D 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 3D 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 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. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2084? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2084? CNN, bringing it back to the committee. See 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. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan has weighed 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 Assemblymember Bauer has weighed 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. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan has weighed 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. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2631 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would 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. See 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. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to 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. Assemblymember Stephanie has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 458? AB 458. Do we have any witnesses who 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 in 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 is 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 fund costs of $648,000 in 2016-2017 and 2027-2018, $280,000 ongoing to implement the provisions of the bill. This estimate includes one-time costs of $368,000 for two limited 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 Assemblymember Stephanie has weighed presentation We 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. Assemblymember Stephanie has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1588? Do we have any witnesses who would 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. Assemblymember Stephanie has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1604? Are there any witnesses who would 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 28-29 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 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. Assemblymember Stephanie has weighed 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? See none. Bringing it back to the committee. See 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. Assemblymember Stephanie has weighed 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, bringing 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. Assemblymember Stephanie has weighed 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 has way 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 Assemblymember Stephanie has weighed presentation We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1877? Any witnesses who 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. Assemblymember 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. AB 2146 will move to the suspense file. AB 2208 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Stephanie has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2208?
Finesca Hina 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'd like to testify in support to AB 2540? Do we have any witnesses who'd 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. Thank you. 2050.
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 million 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 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 will increase that level to 15% starting in 2027. Current law requires associations to conduct reserve studies every three years to assess the cost of maintenance, repair, and replacement of the major components like roofs, elevators, balconies, and other structural elements. However, there is no requirement to fund these reserves, which means many associations are not prepared to address these issues when they do happen. The absence of required formula to fund reserves penalizes homeowners because the only remaining option to address these maintenance issues is often through a special assessment. This can place significant and unexpected financial burden on residents. AB 2050 provides associations with a formula to achieve a sustainable level of reserve funding, which means doing nothing will cost consumers more in the long run. With that said, AB 2050 provides meaningful protections and greater financial stability for millions of homeowners while imposing only modest one-time administrative costs on the state. With me today to testify in support is Louis Brown, who is here to represent Community Associations Institute.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Welcome back.
Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. For various policy reasons, we support the bill. We also believe that it's fiscally good policy for the state moving forward by providing a formula for these associations to plan for this deferred maintenance, which is no doubt coming, and will ultimately be in the best interest of these associations. We give them a six-year ramp-up to prepare for this process that we're providing in the bill, and ask for your aye vote. I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.
Are there any additional witnesses in support to AB 2050? Do we have any individuals wishing to speak in opposition to AB 2050?
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez, representing the Consumer Federation of California, in a respectful opposition, Consumer Federation opposes AB 2050. We believe that there will be a cost to the state due to the increased court fees that will be brought forward by HOAs against California homeowners. In previous committee testimony, the sponsors of the bill have testified that the only way homeowners can get enforcement or the Homeowner Association can get enforcements of individuals who is unrealistic for, and this is unrealistic for low and moderate homeowners who live in HOAs. Additionally, if any of the homeowners in HOAs do not pay these fees, they could be forced to have foreclosure by the HOA. We've provided amendments to the author's office and to members of this committee. Thank you, Madam Chair and members.
Thank you. So, you know, additional witnesses in opposition, and bringing it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments for the author? Seeing none, Ms. Caloza, would you like to close?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2050.
Thank you. Thank you. This item is eligible for a vote today. We're due pass. Do we have a motion on AB 2050? Motion by Senator Richardson Please call the roll Cervantes Aye Cervantes aye Ciarto Cabaldon Aye Cabaldon aye Daly. Not moving. Grayson. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Wahab. Current vote is 3-0. 3-0. We will put it on call to allow others to add on. Thank you. Thank you. AB 467. By Assemblymember Fong. This is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Fong has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 467? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 467? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The California Community College Chancellor's Office estimate this bill would not result in general fund state operations or Proposition 98 general fund local assistant costs. The UC Office of the President estimates no state operation costs, and the CSU Chancellor's Office was not able to provide an estimate at the time of this analysis. However, the Department of Finance estimate that this bill would result in Proposition 98, General Fund Local Assistance Cost, and the loan millions of dollars to support the ongoing operations of the center. Thank you.
Seeing no questions or comments from members on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 467 will move to the suspense file. AB 2329 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Fong his way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2329?
Good afternoon. Kiara Ross on behalf of the City of Pasadena and very strong support for this bill that we think will really help community members along the 710 actually stay in their homes. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 2329? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2329 will move to the suspense file. AB 2374 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Fong is way of presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2374? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2374? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2374. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2392 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Fong is way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2392? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2392? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2392 will move to the suspense file. AB 501 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patvin has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who would like to testify in support to AB 501? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 501? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection AB 501 will move to the suspense file AB 1772 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Pappin has weighed presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Do we have witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1772? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1772? CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is
opposed to this measure. The Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates $86.2 million general fund in 27-28 and $74.9 million in 28-29 and ongoing to implement the provisions of this bill. The Department of Water Resources estimates $10 million to $15 million general fund in 27-28 and ongoing to decontaminate all vessels prior to launching in state water project reservoirs. The Department of Parks and Recreation estimates $30 million general fund in 27-28 and ongoing to inspect and provide decontamination stations for lakes and reservoirs operated and managed by parks. Finance notes that this bill establishes a $20 million invasive mussel infestation prevention fee for non-motorized vehicles to fund certain costs related to this bill. However, it is not known how much revenue this fee would generate. Additionally, the amount of revenue available for certain activities is limited to a specified percentages of total fee revenues, which may not be sufficient to fully fund the activities. Any costs not covered by fees would likely be funded by the general fund. Thank you.
Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1772 will move to the suspense file. AB 1931 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pappen has waved presentations. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1931? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1931? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1931 will move to the suspense file. AB 2111 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Papp in his way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2111? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2111? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill, mainly due to policy concerns, but notes that some of the provisions of the bill are duplicative of efforts already implemented by the Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission or under consideration by CAISO.
Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2111 will move to the suspense file. AB 2234 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pap and his wife presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any individuals present who would like to testify in support to AB 2234? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2234? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Department of Conservation estimates this bill requires $60,000 general fund in the first year and $50,000 ongoing. The Department of Conservation also estimates that this bill will require $261,000 from the Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Administrative Fund in the first year of implementation and $248,000 ongoing. Finance concurs with this estimate and also shares policy concerns with the bill.
See no questions or comments from members on this measure This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection AB 2234 will move to the suspense file AB 2469 was put over to next week hearing AB 2521 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pappin has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2521? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2521? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Department of Water Resources estimates minor and absorbable costs to determine appropriate watersheds for the study. However, DWR indicates approximately $2 million to $4 million general fund would be needed for a study of water available in a watershed. The actual cost for the study to be conducted by CCST may vary depending on the watersheds that are selected. For example, a previous study on the San Joaquin Valley watershed pertaining to Calaveras, Stanislaus, Duolamie, Merced, and Upper San Joaquin River systems cost approximately $20 million. DWR estimates that a similar study for the Tulare Basin would cost approximately $14 million over four years, and the Sacramento River watershed would exceed $20 million and require more than four years. The Water Board estimates $500,000 general fund in two positions in 27-28 and ongoing to consult with DWR and CCST on information relating to water right permits, licenses, and claims to ensure that this bill studies produces information that could potentially be used in future permit applications. Ongoing funding would be needed to assist applicants in making use of the study for their permit applications, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates minor and absorbable costs to consult with DWR.
I see no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2521 will move to the suspense file. AB 2619 was put over for next week's hearing. AB 539 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Shrivo has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 539? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 539? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 539 will move to the suspense file. AB 1914 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Schrevo has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1914? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1914? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1914 will move to the suspense file. AB 2116 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Schiavo has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2116? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2116? CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation estimates that this bill will result in unabsorbable costs of $1.6 million from the Financial Protection Fund in 2627 and $1.5 million ongoing for an additional examiner, support staff, and information technology systems and implementation expertise. Additionally, DFPI estimates additional revenues from the annual assessment fees. However, revenue amounts are unknown as it depends on the number of licenses.
I see no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2116 will move to the suspense file. AB 2219 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Schiavo has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2219? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2219? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2219 will move to the suspense file. AB 2311 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Schravo has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2311? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2311? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee. I see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2311 will move to the suspense file. AB 2545 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Shivo has way presentation.
We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2545? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2545? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Employment Development Department estimates one-time general fund costs of at least $1.3 million to conduct a survey of impacted workers and unknown significant general fund costs for workload and operational related to the panel's report. Finance notes that this bill specifies that members of the panel shall serve without compensation but would be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. To the extent that EDD and or other State Departments reimbursed panel members, additional pressure would be put on the general fund and or other state funds. Thank you. See no questions or comments for members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2545 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 550 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Petrie Norris has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 550? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 550? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 550 will move to the suspense file. AB 2031 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Petrie Norris has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2031? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2031? Seeing none, bringing it back to the Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. This bill changes the three-year dormancy period for unclaimed securities and appears to have a direct impact on state revenues. It is also adding safe harbor exceptions and may reduce the volume of securities that get transferred to the state. The Comptroller's Office indicates that the bill would modify the statutory standard for determining when securities are considered abandoned under the Unclaimed Property Program, resulting in an estimated 85% reduction in the number of securities remitted to the program annually. The Comptroller's Office also estimates that the modification is projected to reduce transfers to the General Fund by approximately $490 to $735 million, cumulatively from fiscal years 28 through 2031 and lower interest earnings by million over the same I see no questions or comments from committee members on this measure This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2031 will move to the suspense file. AB 2463 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Petrie Norris has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? to AB 2463. Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2463? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2463. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2493 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Petrie Norris has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2493? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2493? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2493 will move to the suspense file. AB 2516 is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assemblymember Petrie Norris has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2516? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2516? 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 2516. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2553 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Petrie-Norris has waved presentation and we will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2553? Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2553? CNN, Department of Do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. To the extent this bill adds to 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 courts do not typically receive the funding on a workload basis. Therefore, unless this particular caseload becomes significant and can be documented, it is likely to be absorbed. This bill could lead to costs for county probation departments if a probation period is extended. Since it is at the discretion of a probation department to file a petition for an extension, this bill is not likely to impose a state reimbursable mandate. By potentially imposing longer probation terms and increasing chances of violation of probation, this bill could also increase the local jail and state prison population. The annual costs associated with increasing the prison population by one individual can range within tens of thousands of dollars depending on various factors. Thank you. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2553 will move to the suspense file. AB 2656 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Petrie Norris has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2656? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2656? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2656 will move to the suspense file. AB 2761 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Petrie Norris has weighed presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2761 Any individuals wishing to speak in opposition to AB 2761? 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 notes that to the extent the implementation of a new crash reporting system with required electronic reporting impacts existing data collection process. This bill may result in costs in the low millions of dollars from the MVA, or the motor vehicle account. Finance notes that a new crash reporting system is already being developed by the CHP, and at the time of this analysis, it is unclear if DMV's potential costs are specific to this bill. The CHP does not anticipate a fiscal impact given the CHP has already received a five-year, $60.3 million grant from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to build a crash reporting system to provide agencies with the system to electronically submit crash reports for data collection for the CHP. Thank you, senior question or questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2761 will move to the suspense file. AB 599 Connolly was pulled by the author. AB 1711 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Connelly has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do you have any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1711? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1711? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1711 will move to the suspense file. AB 1891 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Connolly has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1891? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1891? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1891 will move to the suspense file. AB 2045 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Connolly has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2045? Any witnesses who like to speak in opposition to AB 2045? CNN, bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2045 will move to the suspense file. AB 2227 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Connolly 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 2227? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2227? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Department of Industrial Relations estimates a cost to implement these provisions that ranges from $850,000 to $1 million in 26-27, $1.6 million to $1.9 million in 27-28, and $1.5 million to $1.8 million in 28-29 and ongoing from the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund. The workload would consist of the Labor Commissioner's Office, updating processes and policies related to license application, review and investigation, conducting enforcement activities, and increasing resources for claimants in the wage claim process. Thank you. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate With that objection AB 2227 will move to the suspense file AB 2260 is a suspense file candidate Assembly member Connelly has waved presentation We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2260? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2260? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2260 will move to the suspense file. AB 16... I'm going to go back to AB 2260 for the Department of Finance. You have it on file. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill and is opposed because the additional workload associated with the bill imposes new costs to the Water Rights Fund and General Fund that were not included in the 26 Budget Act. The Water Board estimates a one-time general fund cost of $1 million in fiscal year 27-28 to develop the general conditions that must be adopted for this new use prior to allowing for registrations. During the development of the general conditions, the Water Board anticipates ongoing costs of $500,000 in 27-28 and 28-29 to the Water Rights Fund for two positions. Once the general conditions are adopted, the Water Board estimates ongoing costs ranging from $500,000 to $750,000 from the Water Rights Fund for two to three staff to process small restoration use registrations depending on the demand. And the Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates cost will be $759,000 in 27-28 and $749,000 in 28-29 and ongoing in general fund. Thank you to the Department of Finance. I see no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2260 will move to the suspense file. AB 605 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Murasuchi has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 605? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 605? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 605 will move to the suspense file. AB 1644 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Murisuchi has laid presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1644? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1644? Seeing none, bringing it back to the Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The Department of Education estimate that this bill would create additional workload equivalent to about three-quarters permanent position for an additional education program consultant, resulting in costs of $134,000 of non-Proposition 98 General Fund in fiscal year 2627, of which $132,000 is ongoing. Furthermore, the Department estimates one-time administrative costs of $50,000 non-Prop 98 General Fund for procuring survey technology and conducting data management activities for data received from the cell phone policies of selected LEAs or local education agencies. Lastly, this bill would potentially create a state-mandated local program and is duplicative of existing law. Thank you. See no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1644 will move to the suspense file. AB 2202 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Mursucci has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2202. Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2202? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2202 will move to the suspense file. AB 2526 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Murasuchi is way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2526? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2526? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, finance is opposed to this bill as it will create ongoing Proposition 98 general fund cost pressures in the tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars to include pupils eligible to take the California alternate assessment in the low incidence disability funding calculation. Finance notes that this new formula would not apply to the additional $40 million provided in the 2026 Budget Act for a low incidence funding add-on. So no questions or comments from members on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2526 will move to the suspense file. AB 2580 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Murasuchi has white presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2580? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2580? CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is neutral on this bill. The California Community College Chancellor's Office estimates one-time general fund state operations workload costs ranging from $33,000 to $53,000 to develop the plan in partnership with the California State University. Cost estimates for the CSU were unavailable at the time of the analysis. However, the cost to develop the plan is estimated to be similar to that of the Chancellor's Office. Finance estimates that this bill creates Prop 98 and non-Prop 98 general fund cost pressures in the millions of dollars for implementation of the required plan. See no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2580 will move to the suspense file. Department of Finance, would you like to correct the record on the last? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to correct the record and say that we are opposed to AB 2580. Thank you. Noted. Thank you. Assembly Bill 611 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lee has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 611? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 611? See none. Bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 611 will move to the suspense file. AB 1729 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lee has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1729? Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Skylar Waldeck-Meyers. I'm a fiscal analyst for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I just want to say, based on the state auditor's report that came out last year, allowing state workers to telework will save the state an estimated million per year with those savings expected to increase as time goes on All of that while maintaining or increasing productivity across the state or for state workers So this is one of those rare fiscal responsibility bills as a win for California, Californians, state workers, taxpayers, and those who rely on the services of state workers or provided by state workers. So with that being said, I respectfully ask for your support on this bill. Thank you. Madam Chair, members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the professional engineers in California government sponsoring the bill. I urge your support. We know it's going to suspense, but we encourage you to support this bill when it comes off and look forward to seeing it on the floor. Thank you. Julia Rose Pacheco, tax technician for the Franchise Tax Board. Myself and my colleagues who could not be here today support this bill. Thank you. Hello, Olga Ledergerber, SEIU 1000 local member as well as an analyst at EDD. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you. Melissa Hockey, analyst for the Housing and Community Development Department. Thank you, Sky. So I strongly support this bill and I urge an aye vote. This is a win for California, the taxpayers, the state workers, And with the money that we could save, we could reinvest in desperately needed funds for programs that benefit California. Thank you. Hello, I'm Jerry Brunsfield. I'm an IT specialist with the California Department of Public Health. I support this bill, and I ask you to also support it. Thank you. Hi, my name is Christine Lucky-Acamine. I am a legislative analyst with the Employment Development Department, and I strongly support this bill and ask that you do the same. Thank you. Hi, my name is Chelsea Lunsford, and I'm a legislative analyst with the DIB, and I urge you to support this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1729? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. so you have questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1729 will move to the suspense file. AB 634 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 634? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 634? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 634 will move to the suspense file. AB 2022 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Jeff Gonzalez has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2022? Susanna Stor, Gold Star Spouse. On behalf of Gold Star Spouses of America and the Gold Star Spouses in California, we strongly support AB2022. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Community members, Nick Bussey, combat veteran, father of five, and founder of Veterans of California. And we support this bill to enhance the quality of life of our service members, our family members and of course surviving spouses in the state of California Thank you Thank you Are there any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2022 Seeing none Department of Finance do you have a file on this measure Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill and concurs with the Board of Equalization's estimate that the bill would reduce annual property tax revenue by approximately $181 million for cities, counties, special districts, and K-14 school districts. Because As the state is operating under a tier test one of Prop 98 and will continue to do so based on current revenue projections, any property tax revenue losses incurred by K-14 schools will not be backfilled by the state. However, if the state moves to test two or three while this bill is operable, any property tax revenue losses incurred by K-14 schools will be backfilled by the state and impact the general fund. Assuming that 40% of property tax revenue accrues to K-14 schools on average, this bill will result in annual Prop 98 general fund costs of approximately $70 million in years when tests two or three are operative. Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2022 will move to the suspense file. AB 2055 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez has way of presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? To AB 2055. Nick Bussey, founder of Veterans of California, and we support this bill. Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 2055? Seeing none, bringing it back to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure? Yes, finance is opposed to this bill. The Department of Parks and Recreation estimates this bill requires $267,000 general fund in the first year of implementation to support one position and proctoring services and $174,000 ongoing to support increased workload resulting from this bill's for higher vessel definition change. Any requests for additional resources will be evaluated as part of the annual budget development process. And lastly, the California Highway Patrol and Cal Fire and Department of Fish and Wildlife all indicate that costs resulting from this bill are minor and absorbable within existing resources. So you know questions or comments from members on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2055 will move to the suspense file. AB 2163 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez's way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2163? Alejandro Solis, Amiga, Los Amigos de la Comunidad, in support. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2163? CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, Finance is opposed to this bill as it estimates costs would likely be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the California Energy Commission to review applications and designate proposed zones and minor and absorbable costs to GO-Biz and other state agencies to consult with CEC. CEC. Finance notes that the CEC expenditures will likely be incurred from the Geothermal Resource Development account in 2627 and ongoing. Seeing no questions or comments from members at this time, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2163 will move to the suspense file. AB 664 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Alvarez has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 664? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 664 Seeing none bringing it back to the committee Seeing no questions or comments this bill is a suspense file candidate Without objection AB 664 will move to the suspense file AB 1994 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Alvarez has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1994? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1994? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. committee see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1994 will move to the suspense file. AB 2325 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Alvarez's way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2325? Hello, my name is Siley Charlew. I'm a published research intern at UCI's Department of Bilingual Education, and I collaborate with CAVDE, California Association of Bilingual Teachers Education, Californians Together, and California Department of Education. California in general has more English learners than any other state in our nation, yet there's no funding mechanism to close that shortage of bilingual teachers. But this shortage is driven by that high cost of bilingual authorization, which is what AB 2325 directly supports. And so right now, our districts are paying for teacher shortages twice. Once, through the emergency permit hires who need that ongoing support and are temporary. And then second, again, through that learning loss, which follows when multilingual students cycle through these underprepared classrooms. And so AB 2325 asks you to interrupt that cost, not absorb it. And this committee also controls the size and the pace of the investment. So these requested grants build these durable, reusable pipeline infrastructure, which is not just a one-time recruitment, meaning that the state's investment keeps paying off in future bilingual teacher cohorts long after that grant is spent. And it's far more cost effective today where individual faculty absorb this coordination work with no dedicated budget line, which risks a lot of the pipeline sustainability as well. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 2325? CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is neutral on the bill, but notes concerns that the bill language, while similar to AB 126, deviates from what is included in the budget trailer bill language. to the extent that this bill is signed after the budget trailer bill. It would chapter out language agreed upon in the 2026 Budget Act, AB 126 of 2026, the pre-K through 12 budget trailer bill. It established the Pathways to Bilingual Teaching Program and provides an appropriation of $10 million, one-time Prop 98 general fund, to the Commission for Implementation. Thank you. I see no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2325 will move to the suspense file. AB 2386 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Alvarez is way of presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2386? CNN, do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2386? Please approach. Thank you, Madam Chair. Aaron Boehm with the Medical Board of California. The board has an On the bill, we agree that we need more qualified physicians, but is currently drafted to jeopardize this public safety by unacceptably reducing licensure requirements. This would lead to a substantial increase in the board's costs, requiring a significant rulemaking package supported by experts that we would need to retain, the hiring of additional staff to address new licensing workload, new investigation and disciplinary expenses for future licensees, and new litigation risks related to possible denials of applications for licensure. the costs would be offset by fees that could be determined through a rulemaking. The board does not believe that this is a prudent use of its financial resources, and in lieu of the current version of the bill, we believe we must first study this concept in consultation with experts in the medical regulatory field, along with patient advocates, the broader health care community, so that way the board can recommend to the legislature whether or how to offer a license to internationally trained physicians in a manner that balances access to care with appropriate consumer protections. Our position letter includes suggested amendments, and if the bill is approved during the upcoming suspense hearing, Madam Chair and Senators, we respectfully request that it be amended to include the Board's language. Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahina with the California Academy of Family Physicians here in opposition. I really appreciate the work of the author to attempt to get more culturally and linguistically proficient physicians in California, but this pathway to unrestricted licensure is problematic for us. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses. Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes. The Department of Finance does not have a position on this bill. However, it notes that the Medical Board of California estimate that this bill will result in one-time unabsorbable cost of $161,000 from the contingent fund of the Medical Board of California in 27-28 for a medical consultant and to build a new license type in the Breeze licensing application system. The board estimate this bill will result in unabsorbable costs between $586,000 and $1.7 million from the contingent fund in 28-29, and between $413,000 and $1.5 million contingent fund in 28-29 for three positions, a medical consultant, and increased legal costs. Additionally, the board estimates that this bill will result in additional contingent fund revenues of $49,000 in 27-28 and initial applications and licensure, and $33,000 in 29-30 ongoing from the application licensure renewals. Finance notes that the board is funded by special funds from licensing and regulatory fee revenues, and any increases in operating costs resulting from the implementation of new legislative mandates may place pressure on existing structures that in totality may necessitate legislation to raise fees. Thank you. I see no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2386 will move to the suspense file. AB 2693 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Alvarez's way of presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2693? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2693? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2393 will move to the suspense file. AB 2694 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Alvarez has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2694 Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2694 Seeing none bringing it back to the committee Seeing no questions or comments this bill is a suspense file candidate Without objection, AB 2694 will move to the suspense file. AB 2770 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Alvarez's way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? to AB 2770. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2770? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2770 will move to the suspense file. We'd like to open the roll back up for members to add on. We'll start with AB 28 Shrivo. The motion is that the measure be returned to the Senate floor for consideration. Dali? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 5 to 1, that bill is out. Our next item, Assembly Bill 2788. Wilson, please call the roll. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate floor. Wahab?
Wahab, aye.
7-0. That bill's out. Our last item is AB 2050. The motion is due pass to the Senate floor. Ciarto?
No.
Ciarto, no. Dali? Grayson? Wahab?
Aye.
Wahab, aye. Current vote. The vote is four to one. That bill is out. We will close the roll. Our next item is AB 686. Assemblymember Berman has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? To AB 86686, excuse me. Seeing none, we will move to witnesses in opposition for AB 686. Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 686 will move to the suspense file. AB 1130 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Berman has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1130? Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1130?
CNN Department of Finance do you have a file on this measure Yes the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill The Fair and Political Practices Commission anticipates general fund costs of in 26 in 27 an ongoing for one attorney three position to cover anticipated increased workload. The Secretary of State anticipates minor and absorbable costs to implement this bill. Thank you.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1130 will move to the suspense file. AB 1810 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Berman 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 1810? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1810? Bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1810 will move to the suspense file. AB 1864 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Berman has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1864? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1864? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1864 will move to the suspense file. AB 1901 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Berman has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1901? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1901? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1901 will move to the suspense file. AB 2236 is a suspense file candidate without Assemblymember Berman. His way presentation, we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2236? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2236? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2236 will move to the suspense file. AB 2313 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Berman has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have witness and support to AB 2313? Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee, on
behalf of Silicon Valley Clean Energy, a strong supporter of AB 2313. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB 2313? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. With that objection, AB 2313 will move to the suspense file. AB 2604 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Berman has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2604? Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2604?
CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Secretary of State indicates this bill would result in significant general fund costs to implement and administer a statewide electronic signature carrying system and the Secretary of State estimates costs ranging from million to million in 26 million to million in 2017 million in 2018 and million to million annually thereafter
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file. Candidate without objection, AB 2604 will move to the suspense file. AB 2682 is a suspense file. Candidate Assemblymember Berman has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2682? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2682?
CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, we do not have a position on the bill, but the Public Employment Relations Board estimates, and we concur, that this bill would not generate significant additional costs to the board and will therefore be minor and absorbable within existing resources.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2682 will move to the suspense file. AB 2771 is a suspense file candidate. This is a committee bill, business and professions. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify and support to AB 2771? Do we have anyone in opposition to AB 2771? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. AB 2771 will move to the suspense file. AB 2773 is a suspense file candidate. It's another committee bill, business and professions. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2773? Anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2773? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2773 will move to the suspense file. AB 2774, we have a committee bill, Businesses and Professions. We'll move directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2774? Any individuals wishing to speak in opposition to AB 2774? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2774. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2775 is a business and professions committee bill. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have anyone present who would like to testify in support to AB 2775? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to AB 2775? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2775 will move to the suspense file. AB 710 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Irwin has waited presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 710? Any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to AB 710? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 710 will move to the suspense file. AB 762 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Irwin has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Tony, are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 762? Any witnesses who like to speak in opposition to AB 762?
CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The Department of Tax and Fee Administration estimates a fiscal impact of $69,000 cigarette and tobacco products compliance fund in 2627, 408,000 in 2728, 732,000 in 2829, 721,000 in 2930, and 709,000 in 203031, and ongoing to notify retailers of the disposable battery-embedded vapor inhalation devices, seize and destroy prohibited devices containing tobacco products, issue civil penalties, suspend and revoke retailer licenses for repeat violations, handle appeals, and perform collections. Additionally, because of reduced tobacco sales, Department of Tax and Fee Administration also estimates a revenue loss of $17.4 million in 27-28 and would impact the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund.
See no questions or comments from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 762 will move to the suspense file. AB 1534 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Irwin has way presentation. We will directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1534? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1534? Seeing none, we will go directly to Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Finance is neutral on this bill because it aligns with state policy with current federal requirements and includes safeguards and appears to not create additional costs to the state beyond what was included in the 2026 Budget Act.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1534 will move to the suspense file. AB 1985 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Irwin has weighed presentation. We will direct lead a witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1985? Any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to Assembly Bill 1985? 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 1985 will move to the suspense file. AB 2103 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Irwin has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to speak in support to AB 2103? Do we have any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to AB 2103? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2103 will move to the suspense file. AB 2143 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Irwin has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to speak in support? To AB 2143. Any witnesses who like to speak in opposition? To AB 2143. Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2143. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2182 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Irwin has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any individual wishing to speak in support to AB 2182? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to AB 2182? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2182 will move to the suspense file. AB 2221 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Erwin has waved presentation and we will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2221
David Knight, California Community Action Partnership Association in support. Thank you.
Do we have any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to AB 2221? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2221. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2531 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Irwin has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any individuals wishing to speak in support to Assembly Bill 2531? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Assembly Bill 2531? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2531. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2589 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Erwin has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2589? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to AB 2589? CNN, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2589 will move to the suspense file. AB 713 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Solacha has laid presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 713?
Kylie Lindeli, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California, in support.
Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 713? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure. The UC and CSU indicate unknown but potentially significant litigation costs and a potential loss of billions of dollars in federal funding that is conditioned upon compliance with the Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act. For the administration of this bill, the CSU estimates a one-time general fund cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for all 22 campuses to comply with the provisions of the bill. In addition, the UC estimates one-time general fund costs in the mid-hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop system-wide regulations, update internal HR policies, and retain hiring personnel. The Community College Chancellor's Office indicates this bill will result in Prop 98, one-time Prop 98 costs ranging from $936,000 to $1.6 million to update policies and procedures regarding the hiring of undocumented student workers and to ensure compliance with other state and federal laws. In addition, the Community College Chancellor's Office anticipates one-time general fund costs of between $25,000 to $65,000 for the state operations of this bill. Excuse me.
Thank you. I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 713 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 1093 is a suspense file candidate Assembly Member Solache has weighed presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1093 Any witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 1093? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is neutral on this bill because it generally results in minimal costs to develop a plan to increase student participation in California and Mexico higher education exchanges. However, Finance notes concern that this bill could create ongoing general fund cost pressures that may be needed to address in the future.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1093 will move the suspense file. AB 2349 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Salacha has weighed presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2349? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Assembly Bill 2349? Seeing none. Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2349 will move to the suspense file. AB 2379 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Solacha has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2379? Anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2379? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill, notwithstanding the merits. Finance is opposed because it results in general fund impacts not including in the 2026 Budget Act. To implement the provisions of this bill, the Department of Social Services would require state operation resources for legal information technology and contract costs. amounting to approximately $2.3 million in 2728 and ongoing.
So you know questions or comments from members at this time, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2379 will move to the suspense file. AB 2496 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Solacha has waved presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who'd like to testify in support to AB 2496? Are there any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2496? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2496. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 748 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Harabedian has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 748? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 748? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 748 will move to the suspense file. AB 1594 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Herabedian has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1594? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1594? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1594 will move to the suspense file. AB 1642 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Harry Beattie and his wave presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1642? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Assembly Bill 1642? Seeing none this bill is a suspense file candidate Without objection AB 1642 will move to the suspense file AB 1842 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Harry Bedean has weighed presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1842? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1842? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1842 will move to the suspense file. AB 1847 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Harry Bedian has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1847? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1847? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1847 will move to the suspense file. AB 1970 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Harry Bedian has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1970? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1970? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1970 will move to the suspense file. AB 2058 By Harry Bidion was put over until the next hearing. AB 750 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Cork-Silva has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 750? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 750? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 750 will move to the suspense file. AB 2185 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2185? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Assembly Bill 2185? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2185 will move to the suspense file. AB 2748 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Cork Silva has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2748? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 2748? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2748 will move to the suspense file. AB 760 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ta has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 760? Any witnesses who like to speak in opposition to AB 760? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 760 will move to the suspense file. AB 1872 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ta has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1872? Any individual wishing to speak in opposition to AB 1872? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1872 will move to the suspense. file. AB 1947 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ta has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1947? Any individual wishing to speak in opposition to AB 1947? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it would likely create significant ongoing statewide costs in the high tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, including significant general fund costs. Caltrans estimates that it would require roughly 143 positions and tens of millions of dollars annually to appraise all Caltrans-owned land annually, based on Caltrans estimates of appraisal costs. If departments are now required to perform annual appraisals for all land, Finance estimates this bill would create significant ongoing statewide cost pressures in the high tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, including its significant general fund resources. Finance also notes concern that, according to DGS, real estate appraisals can take up to one year and are valid for only 12 months, so it is unclear if the requirements of this bill can be reasonably implemented.
Thank you. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB-1947 will move to the suspense file. AB-801 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bonta has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 801? Any witnesses who like to speak in opposition to Assembly Bill 801? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 801 will move to the suspense file. AB 910 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bonta has white presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 910? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 910? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 910 will move to the suspense file. AB 1979 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bonta has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1979? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to AB 1979? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1979 will move to the suspense file. AB 2161 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bonta has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2161? Any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to AB 2161?
CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill as it contains provisions that are already included in Chapters 27, 2026 or SB 164 and contains provisions that exceed the policy framework finalized between the administration and the legislature in the 2026 Budget Act.
Thank you. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2161 will move to the suspense file. AB 2348 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bonta has way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2348?
Yeah, David Knight, California Community Action Partnership Association, in support. Thank you.
Anyone who would like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 2348? Seeing none this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection AB 2340 You good Department of Finance turning to you Yes Department of Finance is opposed to this bill as this bill may result in ongoing state operation costs in the low millions associated with implementing the requirements associated with developing new policies conducting oversight and engaging with stakeholders Thank you. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2348. We'll move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2368 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bonta has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to speak in support for AB 2368? Are there any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to AB 2368? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2368 will move to the suspense file. AB 2434 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bonta has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to speak in support? To AB 2434. Any witnesses in opposition? To AB 2434. Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2434. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2624 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bonta has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2624? Do we have any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to AB 2624? Comedian members, my name is Max Boni. I'm here to testify in opposition to AB 2624. The bill before us today, which has often been dubbed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, has both significant First Amendment and cost to citizen implications. While the bill claims to expand a program that protects victims of domestic violence into a protection for immigrant service providers, there would be significant enforcement costs for attempting to jail independent journalists. While the state does not directly allocate a fixed appropriation for local prosecution, this enforcement will add a marginal case processing cost to local courts and law enforcement. And moreover, the average cost of incarcerating individuals in the state of California is anywhere between $127,800 to $132,860, and this is based on the Legislative Analyst Office data. And this is more than the national average cost of doing so, and this is all just to get an individual who might be engaged in filming an immigrant service facility, especially if they're being suspected of committing fraud. Now, in addition, as far as what I see, the bill does not have much of a self-funding mechanism aside from an application fee and an annual fee built in with the hopes of defraying system maintenance costs. Now, regardless, it appears that the cost of incarcerating individuals engaging in citizen journalism, whether that be myself, the younger gentleman who's accompanying me, or other members of the public, would far exceed any monies that are going to be inputted into the general fund as a result. And the problem is as much fiscal as it is a chilling effect. For example, if the independent petition circulator from Skid Row, who was recently charged for paying people to sign petitions and registering to vote, was with an immigrant-run nonprofit rather than by herself, this bill would disallow the uncovering of such misuse of public resources. This also puts the income and careers of independent journalists across the state at risk and under the threat of dragged-out civil suits. However the core fiscal point remains which is that public auditing by government agencies is often reactive or slow and in and of itself bears more taxpayer costs whereas external independent exposure acts as a zero-cost public audit that prevents ongoing waste of taxpayer money. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Chair, members of the committee, my name is Lucky Bassari. I'm an 18-year-old journalist and activist. And I stand here before you today in the strongest of opposition to this bill. And now I have grave concerns about this bill overall, but I definitely have concerns that specifically focus on the fiscal point of view. First, let's look at the last expansion of this, well, frankly, government censorship program. That is, there was $300,000 were spent mostly on administrative staff. Now, this expansion is significantly larger than that one, and it will no doubt cost the state hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars more in taxpayer-funded money going to support government-funded censorship. In addition to that, it is a disgrace that our state is going to be spending $29,000 by this assembly's own admission to jail journalists every time they violate the contents of this bill. In addition to that, not the massive burden that will be placed on the trial court system's finances, as massive amounts of journalists will fight back to defend their livelihoods, to defend their pursuit of the truth and watchdog of our public finances and our government in general. I urge you in the strongest of terms, please do not let this bill ever see the light of day. Thank you. 2624 also creates new fiscal burdens by increasing demands on our courts and law enforcement to investigate, prosecute, and enforce new misdemeanor offenses, civil penalties, and content removal orders. At a time when California faces budget challenges and existing laws already prohibiting stalking, harassment, and threats, creating an additional layer of enforcement is fiscally irresponsible. We should protect both public safety and constitutional rights by enforcing the laws already on the books, not by expanding government authority in ways that may silence legitimate public participation. For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2624. Thank you. Hi there. I'm Janet McLaughlin, a reporter, and I respectfully urge a no vote. due to the inherent chilling censorship effect this has on journalists. Thank you. And we will now go to name, organization, and position only. Thank you. I am Leslie Alves. I am with Community Impact Team RCI and I am from Alameda and I respectfully ask for a no vote Thank you Carolyn Whitmore from Community Impact Team RCI and I don like censorship so I would ask you to vote no on this Mary Anderson, Stand Up Ministry, I strongly oppose this bill. I'm Jennifer Besey from Calaveras County and I oppose this bill. Lisa Disbro with our duty. Informed Parents of Contra Costa, Patriots of Contra Costa, and Moms for Liberty, and I'm a whistleblower in my area of Contra Costa. I oppose this bill. Hi, I'm Miyoko Bonebrake of Pittsburgh, California, and I oppose this bill. The freedom of speech is our number one constitutional right. I'm Kent Nelson from Stand Up Ministry, and I oppose this bill. I live in Fairfield, California. I came down here. I'm Pamela McElady, and I oppose this bill. My name is Alicia Watkins, and I am a public speaker, and I oppose this bill. Thank you to our witnesses. Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2624 will move to the suspense file. AB 2651 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bonta has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who like to testify in support to AB 2651? Any individuals who like to testify in opposition to AB 2651? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2651. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 839 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Rubio has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who would like to testify in support to AB 839? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 839? Good morning, Christina Scringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in Opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no additional witnesses, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 839 will move to the suspense file. AB 880 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bennett has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who would like to testify in support to AB 880? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 880? CNN, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 880 will move to the suspense file. AB 1934 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bennett has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who would like to testify in support to AB 1934? Any individuals who would like to speak in opposition to AB 1934? CNN bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1934 will move to the suspense file. AB 1960 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bennett has way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1960? Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 1960. Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1960. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1964 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bennett has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1964? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1964? Seeing none, we will bring him back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1964. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 917 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Avila Farias has a way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support for AB 917? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 917? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill as it may create unknown potentially significant Prop 98 general fund cost pressures for local education agencies to the extent additional certificated employees obtain permanent status and later seek due process related to dismissal or layoff. Are we there yet? See no questions or comments. See no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 917. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1307 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Avila Farias has way presentation. We go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1307? Any witnesses who like to speak in opposition to AB 1307? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1307 will move to the suspense file. AB 2258 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Avila Farias has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2258? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2258? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate, AB 2258. Excuse me, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because the provisions create a new continuously appropriated fund for unexpended child care funding that would otherwise revert to the general fund as part of the annual budget process and places additional cost pressure on the general fund by approximately $1 to $3 million annually. Furthermore, this bill includes several provisions that conflict with statutory changes included in the 2026 Budget Act related to transferring funds between subsidized child care contractors. Lastly, this bill redirects one-time unexpended funds to increase expenditure levels for ongoing programs, which is not sustainable. Thank you. I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection AB 2258 will move to the suspense file AB 2278 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Avi Lafarias has weighed presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2278? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2278? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2278 will move to the suspense file. AB 2716 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Avi Lafarias has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2716? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2716? Good afternoon. Christina Scringe with the Center for Biological Diversity and Strong Opposition. Just noting that in addition to the millions in ongoing costs that is noted in the fiscal analysis, There is this bill significantly increases exposure to the state and to California taxpayers of a known escalating near term fiscal risk that $21 billion in industry cleanup costs, which they are legally obligated to do, will be dumped on taxpayers. So we oppose. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I see no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2716 will move to the suspense file. Okay, so one moment. Thank you. Our next item is AB 928, which is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Rogers has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 928? Seeing none, we will now move to individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 928. The primary opposition witness will have five minutes, and I'm going to pass it to our vice chair, Senator Sayarto, to take it from here. All right, as a primary witness, you have two minutes to present your testimony. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, for each. Yeah, total though. Oh, so you got two and a half minutes or five minutes total. Okay. Thank you. I work with California advocacy on behalf of the California Association for the Preservation of Gamefowl and opposition to AB 928. The California Association for the Preservation of Gamefowl unequivocally condemns cockfighting Our concerns before Senate appropriations are not about whether cockfighting should remain illegal It absolutely should Our concern is that AB 928 creates a costly new civil enforcement framework without demonstrating that California's existing criminal statutes are inadequate. AB 928 creates significant new costs for local and state government. Counties and cities will be responsible for investigations, inspections, citations, hearings, court proceedings, and animal impoundment. implementation will also likely require coordination with CDFA on biosecurity, disease prevention, and animal welfare, creating additional state costs. Tulare County shows that these costs are real. In 2023, Tulare County determined that enforcing a similar rooster ordinance would require additional personnel and county resources. After reviewing the anticipated costs, which were at an estimated $2,360,000 initially, $474,916 annually, the Board of Supervisors declined to adopt the ordinance. AB 928 would impose similar responsibilities statewide. The bill creates potential litigation and administrative costs. AB 928 contains no exemption for sincerely held religious practices, including those observed by many Hmong families. Local governments could face legal challenges over implementation, increasing costs for county council, courts, and public agencies. There is no statewide multilingual education or outreach requirement. The bill does not require meaningful outreach before enforcement begins. Without education and languages such as Hmong, Spanish, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and others, law-abiding residents may unknowingly violate the law, resulting in more citations, appeals, and administrative costs. The bill harms California's agricultural economy. Feed stores, feed manufacturers, breeders, veterinarians, and agricultural suppliers all depend on lawful poultry ownership. Reduced lawful poultry ownership will negatively affect small businesses, jobs, rural economies, and the state tax revenue. Creating a new civil enforcement system with significant implementation costs, litigation risks, and economic impacts is not a fiscally responsible use of state and local resources when California already has strong laws to prosecute illegal conduct. We respectfully urge your no vote on AB 928. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, at this time, if there's no other primary witnesses, we'll take witnesses in opposition. Please, because we have so many witnesses and we have to get to session right after this. Your name, the organization you represent, your opposition to the bill only, okay? Otherwise I have to interrupt you. Thank you. My name is Sue. I'm a business owner of XCity Fee, Animal Fee Store here in Sacramento. I'm representing the Hmong community, a leader in the Hmong community speaking in opposition AB 928. At the same time also on behalf of the following business who signed on to our coalition letters which is Oak Hills feed, Palos feeds and grain, distributor feeds, R&L feeds, El Guernero feeds, Leo's hayes and grain, Midway's feeds, West Pet and feed, Magnola birds and feed, Presley vet tracks and feed supply, Mike's hay and feed, Rancho vet tracks and feed supplies, Cruz feed, Nuevo LCVet feed, Med Valley feed store, Parrish Valley feed store, Foothill feed, Rochas Farms and feed. We are all in opposition to AB 928. Please vote no. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please. My name is Julio Cesar Barron and I from Alameda County and I strongly oppose AB 928 Thank you Thank you sir Next up Hi my name is Tibucho Vargas and I posted this bill Thank you. Mi nombre es Juan de Rosas, no a la 28. Thank you. Mi nombre es Cristian Quintero, y no a la 28. Gracias. Gracias. Charles Rutledge from Tulare County. I urge no on 9B28. Thank you, sir. My name is Frank Samora from Visalia, Tulare County, director of the APG and manager of Merrill King Avenue Feed. I oppose AB928. Thank you. Thank you. Christopher Bannequid from Sacramento, and I oppose AB928. Manuel Acevedo, Campo, California. Opposed 928. Thank you, sir. My name is Temo Alvarez, and no on AB 928. Got it. My name is Gerardo Guerra, San Diego, California, and I oppose AB 928. Robert Ramirez, San Benito County. I oppose to AB 928. Hello. My name is Dave Duran. I'm the promoter of the Mexican American Heritage Poultry Show since 1990. We do a lot of things for the missions, Salvation Army. You know, by my Christmas gifts, I've been doing it since 1990, and this is a bad thing for us. Name organization in opposition, sir? Yeah, it would be no on AB 928. Thank you very much, sir. Thanks. Sorry. Thank you. My name is Cuberto Flores Jr. I'm from Fresno, California, and I'm opposed to AB 928. Perfect. Thank you, sir. My wife. My name is O'Reilly Flores, and I'm opposed to AB 928. She's nervous. Thank you, ma'am. Don't be nervous. Next. High school sweetheart. All right. My name is Alfonso Gomez. I'm strongly opposed to AB 928. Thank you. Next up. My name is Eduardo Ramos. I'm from Lampo, California, and I vote no to AB 928. Thank you, sir. Next. Hi. Good afternoon. Eduardo Ramos Sr. of Santa Barbara County, and I oppose AB 928. Thank you. My name is Rafael Rodriguez, and I strongly oppose to Proposition AB 928. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Juana, I come from Marisville, 928. Thank you. My name is Juan Tijero, I oppose for 928. Thank you. Adrian Tapia from Madera, California, and I oppose for 928. My name is Maricela Jimenez from Woodland and I vote no. Thank you, ma'am. My name is Juan Romero from Dunningham, California. I vote no to 928. Thank you. I'm Jose DeRee from Solano County. I'm opposed. I'm Ismael Sagun from Santa Rosa, California. I'm opposed. I'm Hernando Aguilera. From Woodland, California, I oppose. Jose Moreno from Sacramento, and I oppose. Jesus Moreno, and I oppose. Alejandro Moreno, and I oppose Rio Linda, California. Sir, hold up right there for now. My name is Victor De La Rosa. I came from Rio Linda. I propose 928. Thank you, sir. My name is Ventura Villanueva, de Kerman, California. This is 928. Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Alfredo Barriga, Plumas Lake, California. I oppose 928. Thank you. I'm Julian Hernandez from San Joaquin County, and I oppose. Alfonso Romo from Loday, California, and I oppose. Hi, my name is Valentina Barriga from Denningan, California, and I will know. Thank you. Roberto Barriga, I am opposed. Yolo Kony. Thank you, sir. Hi, I'm Yadid, and I oppose. Thank you, sir. Hello, my name is Antonio Perez. I am opposed. Thank you. My name is Juan Botello. I live in Fresno County and I oppose this bill. Thank you, sir. My name is Carlos Gonzalez. I'm from River de California. I oppose. Hello, my name is Juan Orozco from Sacramento, California, and I strongly oppose AB 928. My name is Michael Mahoney and I strongly oppose this. Thank you, sir. Hi, my name is Nicolás Monárez from El Sorano, California, and I oppose to AB 928. Thank you. Hi, my name is Vince Beniquet from Sacramento County and I oppose AB 928. Thank you. Good morning. Leopoldo Betune from Sacramento County and I oppose 928. Marvin Ortalesa from Sacramento County I oppose. Nestor Peking Sacramento County I oppose. Tony Mendoza from Sacramento County I oppose on the 928 bill. Hi my name is Jim Brim. I represent Farmers Warehouse Company and the AO Gilbert Company out of Stanislaus County. We're a feed manufacturer and we strongly disagree with this bill because of economic impact within our rural counties. Thank you. Gavino Rodriguez, El Dorado County. I oppose. Hi there, my name is Sue. I'm representing Hmong community and we oppose this bill as it infringes upon our religious practice. I oppose AB 928. Good afternoon. My name is Eric. I'm with Tundra Feeds Chicken Feed Company and I oppose AB 928. Thank you. Hi, my name is Jenny. I'm with Yolo County. I represent Tundra Feeds and I oppose AB 928. Hi, my name is Jorge Alfaro and I oppose to AB 928. Hello, my name is Jonathan Mendoza from Modesto. I would like to say no. AB 928. Thank you. My name is Pedro Aguilar He said I bought no AB 920A Thank you My name is Fabian Mendoza This is a no to AB 29 Alex Castillo from Monterey County. I oppose AB 920. Yeah, my name is Jorge Garcia. I say no. Thank you. My name is Mateo Noriega, and I oppose. Hello, my name is Gustavo Noriega, Sutter County, owner of Live Oak Feed and Supply, and I strongly oppose. A. Borrillo, San Joaquin County, I oppose AB 928. Hello, I'm Aaron Borrillo, and I oppose AB 928. Hi, I'm Alvaro Borrillo, and I oppose. Hello, Luis Navarro and I oppose 928. Oscar Gutierrez and I oppose. Hi, my name is Sergio Alejandro Jr. from Butte County and I oppose AB 928. My name is Sergio Alejandro and I'm opposed. This is Gustavo Noriega, Anlaibo, California and I'm opposed. Earl Oshima, I oppose 928. Oscar Ramirez, I oppose. Arturo Avila, I oppose. Contra Costa County. Ben Padron, I oppose. My name is Christian, I oppose. Jorge Silva, Madera County, I oppose. My name is Luis, I oppose. Leopoldo Contreras, I opposed to AB 928, County Fresno. Owens, Sierra, Sacramento County, I opposed to AB 928, thank you. Hi, I'm Jesus Perez from Rio Linda, I opposed to 928. Rogelio Sandoval, I opposed to AB 928 for Onage Bill. Jesus from Yuba County and I oppose on AB 928. Enrique Sanchez in Clark County, I oppose to AB 928. Eloy Diaz from Estanilabos County, I oppose to AB 928. Rodrigo from Sacramento County, I oppose. Jorge Galicia from Sacramento, I oppose. Ignacio Mejia from Sutter County. I oppose AB 928. Luis Ramirez from Sacramento County and I oppose. My name is Joaquin Hernandez-Galvin and I vote no on this bill. Carlos Galvan, live in Sacramento County, vote no on the bill 928. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Luis Gabriel Garcia and I oppose the bill AB 928. My name is Manuel Faro, owner of Electrofile Company out of Riverside County and I oppose the bill. Hi my name is Jesus Avala and I oppose AB 928. Hi my name is Cruz Rivera to Larry County and I strongly oppose AB 928 Leonard Mu to Larry County I strongly oppose AB 928 Leonard Munoz Tulare County I strongly oppose against AB 928 Tulare County, I oppose. Hi, my name is Raul Gomez and I strongly oppose AB 928. Good afternoon, my name is Juan Ramirez from Fresno County and I strongly oppose AB 928. Alvaro Bravo, Fresno County and I strongly oppose AB 928. Omar Calderon from Fresno County, Stronger Pulse. Hola, mi nombre es Ángel, vengo de Contracosta y me opongo. Jesús Rodríguez, Santa María Farms y me opongo. Benji Guillén, Condado de Contracosta y me opongo. I'm Joe Tolentino, Sacramento County, and I strongly oppose this AB 928 bill. My name is Roberto Plandes. I really strongly oppose AB 928. Eder Martinez from Santa Rosa, and I oppose. I'm Otto Martinez and I'm opposed to the AB-928. My name is Richard Trejo from Fresno, California, and I oppose. Good afternoon. My name is Jose Marríquez. I oppose. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for looking into our bill. We're strongly opposed. My name is Edgar Garcia, and I represent all Hispanics and Latinos in my counties, Hunkin County. I strongly oppose AB 928. Thank you for your support. My name is Amber Arias, stand-up ministry leader, founder of Remnant Mama, and constitutional coach for Patriot Academy, and I strongly oppose AB 928. Thank you. Pamela McElady, Fairfield, with Stand Up Ministry. I oppose AB 928. Ronald Lechuga from Solano County. I strongly oppose AB 928. Good afternoon. My name is Alejandra Manriquez from Fresno, California, and I strongly oppose. Hello. Leslie Alves from Community Impact Team, and I strongly oppose. Hello, Alicia Watkins from Solano County, and I strongly oppose AB 928. Mary Anderson, stand up. I oppose. Miyoko Bonebrake from Pittsburgh, California. I strongly oppose to AB 928. Carolyn Whitmore from San Ramon. I strongly oppose AB 928. Jesse Ortega, I'm a certified poultry health inspector for the CDFA. I'm a poultry judge, 20-year veteran, and the current president for the preservation for the game fowl. On behalf of the membership, we vote no on AB tonight. Thank you. Hi, my name is Alasia Crump. I'm from Sacramento, California. I strongly oppose this bill. Good afternoon I Vita Wisham I from Sacramento California and I oppose this bill My name is Tenley Sam I oppose Alejandro Solis on behalf of the immigrant rights and social justice and community groups that signed on to our opposition letter Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHILLA, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Hispanic Cultural Preservation Society, Asian Law Alliance, La Cooperativa Campesina de California, California Human Development, Central Valley Opportunity Center, the Center for Employment Training, First Day Foundation, Los Amigos de la Comunidad, Mothers of East Los Angeles, Emigo LA, Comité de Acción del Valle, Social Equity Los Angeles, Wonderwood Ranch, and Proteus Incorporated, all in opposition to 8-9-2-8. Thank you.
Thank you to all of our witnesses who took time today to be here. Do you have any questions or comments from committee members at this time? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 928 will move to the suspense file. This committee will come to recess. We will return once Senate floor concludes. Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, we have returned and we will get started where we left off with Assemblymember Rogers. We have AB 1666 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Rogers has waived presentation. And we will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support of AB 1666? Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1666? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. With that objection, AB 1666 will move to the suspense file. AB 1699 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Rogers has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1699? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1699? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1699 will move to the suspense file. AB 1761 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Rogers has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. We will begin with witness testimony for support on AB 1699.
Afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of Silicon Valley Clean Energy in support of the bill. Thank you.
Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 1699? Seeing none. Opposition?
Yes, I would like to talk. I'm Danielle Hughes with Tahoe Spark. I'm in opposition unless the policies are changed for modeling. I represent Lake Tahoe, and we are in an area that we are unrepresented in climate modeling and energy modeling for the state of California. Seven counties across Lake Tahoe are not represented in those energy policies. Right now, I'm having to fight across two states to actually have someone represent us because data centers in Nevada are taking our power, which is actually the former Enron company. It has come out of the woodwork since the early 2000s to become Sierra Pacific again. And because I'm not in the energy modeling, I'm not in the energy code modeling, we're a zero forecast area, I'm excluded from all of this. So until we actually address that the seven counties across Lake Tahoe are included in the energy modeling, it needs to I oppose the bill. Thank you.
Thank you to our witnesses. Seeing no further testimony on this bill, bringing it back to the members so you have no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1699 will move to the suspense file. AB 1761 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Rogers' way of presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1761? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to 1761? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1761 will move to the suspense file. AB 2314 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Rogers has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2314? Do we have anyone who would like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 2314? Seeing none bringing it back to the committee No we have a Bringing it back to the committee seeing no questions or comments This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2314 will move to the suspense file. AB 2369 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Rogers has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2369? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2369? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2369 will move to the suspense file. AB 2494 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Rogers has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2494? individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2494. Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2494 will move to the suspense file. AB 1039 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hart has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any Any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1039. Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1039. See none. Bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1039 will move to the suspense file. AB 1682 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hart has WAI presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1682? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 1682? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1682, we'll move to the suspense file. AB 1804 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hart has weighed presentation and we will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1804? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1804? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. This bill is a, see no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1804 will move to the suspense file. AB 2461 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hart has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2461? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2461? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2461 will move to the suspense file. AB 2506 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hart has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2506? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2506 CNN the Department of Finance do you have a file on this measure Yes the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill The Department of Cannabis Control estimates this bill will result in unabsorbable costs of million Cannabis Control Fund in 2017 and in 2018 and ongoing for one Attorney 4 one Analyst 3 one Analyst 2 and one CEA to develop and administer tribal agreements prepare and manage agreement records track proposed adopt revisions coordinate document reviews for ongoing
compliance review and serve as a dedicated tribal affairs lead to support government-to-government engagement with tribes. The DOJ estimates this bill results in a minor and absorbable fiscal impact.
Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2506 will move to the suspense file. AB 2734 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Hart has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2734. Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2734. Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2734 will move to the suspense file. AB 1054 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gibson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1054? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1054? 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 1054 will move to the suspense file. AB 1519 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gibson has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to present in support of AB 1519? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1519? Seeing none, the Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes. Hello. Yes, Madam Chair. Hello, my name is Odette Avandano and I'm with the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance is neutral. The Franchise Tax Board estimates that this bill could result up to $100,000 in revenue losses in the first year and then the minimal amounts annually thereafter. The FTP states that that is administrative costs are minor and absorbable. Thank you.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1519 will move to the suspense file. AB 1795 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gibson has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who'd like to testify in support to AB 1795? Any witnesses who'd like to speak in opposition to AB 1795? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1795 will move to the suspense file. AB 1851 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gibson has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1851? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1851? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1851, we'll move to the suspense file. AB 1904 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Gibson has waived presentation We go directly to witness testimony Do we have anyone wishing to testify in support to AB 1904 Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1904? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1904, we'll move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 1990 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gibson has white presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1990? Any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 1990? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1990 will move to the suspense file. AB 2054 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gibson has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2054? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2054? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2054 will move to the suspense file. AB 2101 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Gibson has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2101? Any individuals who like to testify in opposition to AB 2101? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2101 will move to the suspense file. AB 2172 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gibson has white presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2172? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 2172? Seeing no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2172 will move to the suspense file. AB 2279 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Gibson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have witnesses who would like to speak in support to AB 2279. Any witnesses who like to speak in opposition to Assembly Bill 2279. Department
of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a specific position on the bill, but notes that the Public Utilities Commission estimates one-time costs of $3.1 million from the California Advanced Services Fund and nine permanent positions in 2627, including $1.5 million for vendor contract to modify the CPUC's web-based application portal for CASIF grantees to submit applications for resources from the consortia account. The CPUC estimates $3.2 million from CASIF in 27-28 and ongoing to open new proceeding and implement the programmatic changes to the consortia account. CASIF is supported by a monthly surcharge on approximately $53.6 million reported phone lines and the CPUC is authorized to collect up to $150 million in revenue per year to support the CASIF program. This bill may result in increased costs to phone subscribers to the extent the CPUC Public Purpose Program surcharge needs to be adjusted to cover these costs. Thank you.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2279 will move to the suspense file. AB 2405 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gibson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2405? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2405? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2405 will move to the suspense file. AB 1070 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Ward has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1070? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 1070? 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 1070 will move to the suspense file. AB 1542 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ward has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1542? Any individuals who like to testify in opposition to AB 1542? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance has no position, but the California Privacy Protection Agency estimates that this bill will result in an absorbable general fund cost of $286,000 in 2026 to 2027 and $520,000 in 2027-2028 and ongoing for an attorney and an information.
So, no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1542 will move to the suspense file. AB 1775 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ward has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1775? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1775? Seeing none, seeing no questions from members of the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1775 will move to the suspense file. AB 2222 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ward has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Is there any individual present who would like to testify in support to AB 2222? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to AB 2222? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The Franchise Tax Board estimates that this bill increases general fund revenues on net by $10 million in 26-27, $15 million in 27-28, and $23 million in 28-29. This is the net impact of the tax credit for local news organizations as estimated to decrease general fund revenues by $19 million in 2016-2017, $43 million in 2017-2018, and $42 million in 2018-2019. Conforming to federal law in further limiting business expenses for certain highly paid employees is estimated to increase general fund revenues by $29 million in 2016-2017, $58 million in 2017-2018, and $65 million in 2018-2019. Franchise Tax Board also anticipates administrative costs related to the implementation of the new tax credit of for two temporary positions and and ongoing for overtime for existing staff to update tax forms for the new refundable tax credit
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2222 will move to the suspense file. AB 1148 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Sharp Collins has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support AB 1148? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1148? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance has no position. However, the DTSC estimates a one-time cost of $121,000 in 2027-2028 for the Toxic Substances Control account, an ongoing cost of $900,000 for the Toxic Substances Control Account annually beginning in 2028-2029 to implement this bill. The Toxic Substances Control Account is funded by the environmental fee, which is charged to most businesses in California. This bill will result in an estimated increase by up to 1% to the fee to fund these activities. Thank you.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1148 will move to the suspense file. AB 1965 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Sharp Collins has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who'd like to testify in support? To AB 1965. Any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition? To AB 1965. Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1965 will move to the suspense file. AB 2108 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Sharp Collins has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who would like to testify in support to AB 2108? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2108? Seeing no questions or comments from members, we will take it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The Judicial Council estimates unknown, potentially significant costs for courts to manage additional hearing workload created by the new diversion program. The fiscal impact depends on how district attorneys file cases and the volume of defendants who cycle through the program, with the best estimate being thousands of cases annually. Costs are estimated in a range of $2.7 million to $13.7 million annually, beginning in 26-27. This bill may create a state reimbursable mandate as well because it could create a new program or higher level of service to be provided by local law enforcement agencies, specifically for county probation departments to determine whether a defendant qualifies for the specified theft diversion program. However, the determination for whether or not the bill's requirements qualify as a state reimbursable mandate ultimately rests with the commission of state mandates.
See no questions or comments on this measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2108 will move to the suspense file. AB 2395 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Sharp-Collins has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2395? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2395? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2395 will move to the suspense file. AB 2573 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Sharp Collins has weighed presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2573 Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2573? Bringing it back to the Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it results in general fund impacts not included in the 2026 Budget Act. Specifically, the Secretary of State estimates one-time cost of $135,000 general fund in 27-28, and this bill may create a state reimbursable mandate because it requires a higher level of service from counties, as it would require county election officials to make an elected officials or candidates' personal information confidential upon request. Further, this bill requires county election officials to notify SOS on a form established by SOS when an elections official has added the confidential designation for a federal or state elected official's voter registration record.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2573. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1265 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Haney has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1265? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1265? Bringing it back to the committee, before I go to the members, let me turn it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. This bill does not authorize an allocation for the new tax credit program. Assuming a one-time $50 million allocation in 2027, the Franchise Tax Board estimates general fund revenue losses of $1.1 million in 2728, and $4.3 million in 2018-2019, with revenue losses increasing each year thereafter until the total $50 million of credits are used. This bill continues to allow the Office of Historic Preservation and CEDCAC to change a reasonable fee to recover program administration costs.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. without objection. AB 1265 will move to the suspense file. AB 1629 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Haney has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1629? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1629? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1629 will move to the suspense file. AB 1633 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Haney has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1633? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1633? Bringing it back to the Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration estimates this bill generates roughly $177 million in annual revenue beginning in 27-28 to be deposited in the due process for all funds for immigration-related services. The Department of Tax and Fee Administration estimates this bill results in new administrative costs, however, of $240,000 in 26-27, $1.5 million in 27-28, and $123,000 in 28-29. This bill does not provide any funding or loan for CDTFA initial implementation costs but allows the CDTFA to reimburse administration costs with revenues if they are collected Finance notes this bill increases the state fiscal cost ahead of revenue that may not materialize Thank you See no questions or comments from members
This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1633 will move to the suspense file. AB 1720 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Haney has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1720? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1720? We'll bring it back to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The Department of Justice estimates this bill will result in unabsorbable, unfair competition law fund costs of approximately $1.5 million in 26-27, $1 million in 27-28, $812,000 in 28-29, and $582,000 in 29-30 and ongoing. To the extent that this bill adds to 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 this particular caseload becomes significant and can be documented, it is likely to be absorbed.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1720 will move to the suspense file. AB 2017 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Haney has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2017? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2017?
Good evening. My name, excuse me, good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Amber Arias. I'm a mother, grandmother, homeschooled parent, ministry leader with Calvary Chapel Solano, leader of stand-up ministry, founder of the Remnant Mama, a member of the California Parent Coalition, and a board member of the Solano County Ministerial Alliance. I respectfully oppose AB 2017 because it caused a significant fiscal impact on California's public schools. This bill creates new and ongoing costs for every school district in California. It requires districts to develop curriculum, create instructional materials, train staff, implement new educational activities, and provide ongoing administrative oversight. These are not one-time expenses. They are continuing obligations that will require taxpayer funding year after year. The bill directs schools to develop educational activities that teach students about the meaning and importance of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Ada, and to recognize those holidays. Implementing these requirements will require additional curriculum development, staff training, and administrative resources, adding costs that many districts cannot afford. It also raises concerns about consistency with the religious neutrality reflected in many California school district policies regarding the celebration of religious holidays. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Mahmood v. Taylor, makes it likely that districts will receive a substantial increase in parental opt-out requests involving religious instruction. Schools are meant to educate and not indoctrinate. We believe many families will exercise their right to opt their children out, creating significant administrative and financial burdens. districts could be inundated with opt-out requests requiring additional staff time alternative assignments parent communications legal review documentation scheduling changes and compliance tracking these are all ongoing costs that will divert limited education dollars away from our classrooms at a time when california school districts are facing budget deficits staffing shortages and difficult decisions about teacher layoffs and student services, it is fiscally irresponsible to create another ongoing mandate that consumes limited education funding. Many California students are still not meeting state academic standards and reading and mathematics. Every dollar spent implementing this bill is a dollar that cannot be spent on reading intervention, math instruction, teacher retention, special education, tutoring, school safety, or other student mental health. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for a no vote on AB 2017. This bill creates continuing costs, expanding administrative responsibilities, and places yet another financial burden on school districts at a time when our schools should be investing every available dollar and improving our student achievement and better outcomes for them. Thank you.
Please approach.
The AB 2017 I come up from the stand up ministry and I do not want all that money spent unwisely. It should be spent wisely for the kids and so I'm opposing that this one doesn't get voted in. Thank you
Thank you
Mary Anderson I oppose AB 2017 I'm Pamela McElady and I oppose AB 2017 Carolyn Whitmore and I oppose this bill. I think it's very poorly written. Thank you. Lisa Disbro, retired public school teacher here in Contra Costa County. I adamantly oppose this. Independent study plans are available for everyone. Miyoko Bonebrake of Pittsburgh. I'm a homeschool mother. I oppose AB 2017. My name is Gulberto Flores Jr. and I oppose 2017. My name is Oralia Flores and I approve 2017. Good evening. I am Leslie Alves, Community Impact Team RCI and I am from Castro Valley and I oppose this bill. Thank you. My name is Dave Duran and I oppose this AB 2017. Thank you. My name is Jennifer Besey. I'm from Calaveras County and I oppose this bill.
Thank you to our witnesses. We will now bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2017 will move to the suspense file. AB 2074 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Haney has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2074? Any witnesses who like to speak in opposition to AB 2074? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2074 will move to the suspense file. AB 2344 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Haney has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have witnesses in support? To AB 2344.
Hi, Chair and Members. Nicholas Sackett on behalf of proud co-sponsor Social Compassion in Legislation, along with our co-sponsors, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. First of all I want to thank the committee staff for an excellent analysis analysis pointing out the very minor costs that the courts would probably undertake with this law but that the cost savings to the court with more efficient proceedings could outweigh those minor costs Also highlighting specifically that this bill is aiming to get animals out of the shelters in cases where the accused have missed a court date. Currently in those cases the animals are being held in animal shelters for an average of 281 days at a cost of approximately $30,000. So this bill would streamline that where if the accused miss a date, the prosecution can petition the court to get those animals out of the shelters earlier. If we can cut that even in half, that would be a huge cost savings to local jurisdictions. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Thank you. Thank you. Are there any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to AB 2344? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2344 will move to the suspense file. AB 1334 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wallace has a presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1334? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1334? Seeing none, we will go to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that this bill would result in unknown temporary costs to the general fund. These expenditures could total several hundred thousand dollars until the required study and the written report are completed. The State Library estimates general fund costs of $460,000 associated with the required study and written report. This consists of $415,000 for limited-term staffing and $45,000 for survey technology, travel, and materials aligned with the January 1, 28, reporting deadline and 2032 sunset date.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 1334 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 1663 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wallace has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1663? Any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to Assembly Bill 1663? CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because the reduced fee revenue projected from implementing the provisions of this bill will have significant impacts to the Department of Fish and Wildlife's operations pertaining to the conservation of western Joshua trees and will result in a need for ongoing general fund resources not reflected in the 2026 Budget Act. Specifically, the Department of Fish and Wildlife's operations estimates a 1.6 million general fund in 2027-2028 and a 1.5 million ongoing to support the six positions required to implement the provisions of this bill.
Thank you. I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1663 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 1346 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member DeMaio has a wave presentation. We go directly to witness testimony Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1346 Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1346 Bringing it back to the committee Seeing no questions or comments this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection AB 1346 will move to the suspense file AB 1349 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Brian has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1349? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 1349? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 1346 will move to the suspense file. I just want to correct the record. The bill is 1346. Mistaken. I think I need more coffee at this point in time. Our next item is AB 1537. Assemblymember Brian has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1537? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 1537? Seeing none, we will take it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation anticipates potentially significant costs resulting from this bill. Specifically, CDCR would be required to develop a centralized process for verification of prohibited employment for the positions affected by this bill. CDCR would also likely require positions and resources to track and record secondary employment and comply with PRA requests related to this bill. The CHP anticipates costs in the millions of dollars to review personnel files to comply with this bill. CHP also anticipates costs to develop a new system for verification of prohibited employment for the positions affected by the bill. CHP would also likely require positions and resources to track and record secondary employment and comply with PRA requests related to the bill. Finance notes that the MBA is currently at a structural deficit. Based on projections developed as part of the 2026 Budget Act, the MBA will be insolvent by the end of 28-29. Any increase in MBA expenditures will exacerbate fiscal pressures on the fund. The state of California employs thousands of peace officers as defined over various state entities. By establishing prohibitions and requirements involving employment of peace officers, this bill could create cost pressures for the entities that employ peace officers. Finance anticipates that this bill could result in potentially significant costs to the various agencies and departments that employ peace officers. Finance notes that this bill may impose a reimbursable state mandate as well, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates by requiring local education agencies to track, verify, and keep record of secondary employment of peace officers. The magnitude of the potential mandate costs is unknown, but potentially significant.
Thank you. We have no comments or questions from members of the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate. With that objection, Assembly Bill 1537 will move to the suspense file. AB 1646 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Brian has way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1646 Anyone who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1646 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 1646 will move to the suspense file. AB 1655 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bryant has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1655? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1655? We will take it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but specifies that the bill results in unknown but potentially significant local assistant costs and the millions of dollars to maintain CalWORKs grants per assistance unit. This is estimated to be approximately $15,000 to $17,000 general fund as the CalWORKs program fully utilizes the federal block grant funding. Additionally, this bill results in one-time automation costs for a Calsaw's of approximately $110,000 general fund.
Thank you. So if you have questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1655 will move to the suspense file. AB 1661 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Brian has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support of AB 1661? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1661? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1661 will move to the suspense file. AB 1883 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bryant has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1883? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1883? 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 1883, we'll move to the suspense file. AB 2162 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bryan has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2162? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2162? Seeing none, this bill, seeing no questions from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2162 will move to the suspense file. AB 2599 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Bryan has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2599? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2599? Seeing none, the Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The Department of Justice estimates general fund cost of $130,000 in one position in 2627, $231,000 in one position ongoing to implement this bill. Finance notes this bill, as drafted, explicitly does not identify the department responsible for implementing the provisions of the bill. To the extent a department is later identified, it may result in general fund cost pressures to comply with reporting requirements, accept affidavits, and create public digital platforms.
Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. With that objection, AB 2599 will move to the suspense file. AB 1486 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Sora has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1486? Any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 1486? Seeing none. This bill, we see no questions from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1486 will move to the suspense file. AB 1923 Soria was pulled by the author. AB 2301, Soria is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Soria has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses in support to AB 2301? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2301? Seeing none, seeing no questions and comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2301 will move to the suspense file. AB 2326 is a committee bill. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2326? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2326? Seeing none, seeing no questions from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2326 will move to the suspense file. AB 2481 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Soria has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2481? Any witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 2481? CNN, let's go ahead and take it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance has no position, but CalRecycle estimate that this bill will be minor and absorbable within existing resources and the Department of Finance concurs.
Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2481 will move to the suspense file. AB 2739 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Soria has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2739? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2739? Seeing none, we will take it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, finance is opposed to this bill because it creates significant ongoing general fund cost pressures of approximately $1.8 billion annually to fully fund the Water Affordability and System Stabilization Trust.
So you know questions or comments for members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2739 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 1540 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1540? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 1540?
And for RIA, stand-up ministry, Calvary Chapel Solano, in opposition to this bill.
Thank you. See no additional testimony?
We on AB 1540 Opposition I oppose I Pamela McAleady I oppose in 1940 1540 I sorry
Thank you. We will bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1540 will move to the suspense file. AB 1896 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1896? Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1896? We'll bring it back to the committee so you know questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1896, we'll move to the suspense file. AB 1941 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Gonzalez has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1941? Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1941? 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-1941 will move to the suspense file. AB-2541 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gonzalez has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB-2541? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB-2541? 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 2541 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 1547 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Baines has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1547? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1547? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1547 will move to the suspense file. AB 2273 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Baines has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2273? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2273? 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 2273 will move to the suspense file. AB 1564 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Arons has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals present who would like to testify in support? To AB 1564. Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1564? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The California Community College Chancellor's Office estimates one-time Proposition 98 general fund costs between $936,000 and $1.6 million statewide for local assistance to 72 districts to update collective bargaining agreements and related policies and trainings regarding allowable communications between community college management and employees. The community colleges does not anticipate any state administration costs related to the bill The Department of Human Resources notes a potential fiscal impact of an unknown amount for costs related to an increase in dispute resolutions related to the bill The Public Employment Relations Board notes minor and observable costs related to its enforcement of the bill. Finance finds these estimated costs and work assumptions reasonable but does not have information as to whether other state or local entities would incur costs related to the trainings on the bill's provisions and other communications. Finance does not anticipate that this bill would create a state reimbursable mandate because it does not require a new program or higher level of service to be provided by local agencies. Thank you.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1564 will move to the suspense file. AB 1599 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ahrens has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1599? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1599? We'll bring it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1599. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1831 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ahrens has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1831? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1831? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. As currently written, this bill provides broad discretion in which post-secondary institutions may be used as an appropriate comparator to determine initial salaries for CSU presidents. Without limitations on which institutions are eligible for comparison, CSU presidents could see increases of up to 58%. UC or out-of-state public institutions are deemed to be an appropriate comparator. This could result in significant ongoing general fund costs if there is significant turnover in CSU presidents. And then Finance also notes that there are additional provisions in this bill that can lead to general fund cost pressures. Thank you.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1831 will move to the suspense file. AB 2768 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Arant has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2768? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2768? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. without objection, AB 2768 will move to the suspense file. AB 1591 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1591?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the bill, sponsors the California Podiatric Medical Association. Their sponsors measure to address the growing shortage of podiatric care in California, and with this bill specifically address the shortage in Puddyac medical schools. It is contingent on budget appropriation. There is a sunset date that is included to make sure it's effective, and hopefully you'll support it. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any individuals who would like to speak in opposition to AB 1591? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1591 will move to the suspense file. AB 1780 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Rodriguez has waved presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1780 Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1780? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1780 will move to the suspense file. AB 20.06 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to 2006? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2006? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee so you know if questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2006 will move to the suspense file. AB 2198 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? To Assembly Bill 2198. Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? To Assembly Bill 2198. Seeing none, seeing no questions from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2198 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 1600 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Arambula has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in support to AB 1600?
Good afternoon. Alejandro Solis, on behalf of the sponsors of the bill, La Cooperativa Campesina de California, in support, and also on behalf of Los Amigos de la Comunidad and Comite de Acción del Valle. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have any witnesses who'd like to speak in opposition to Assembly Bill 1600? Seeing none, we will bring it back. Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1600 will move to the suspense file. AB 2300 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Arambula has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2300? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2300? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2300. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2360 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Arambula has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2360? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2360? Seeing none, seeing no questions from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2360 will move to the suspense file. AB 2510 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Arambula has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2510? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2510? Seeing none, seeing no questions for members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2510 will move to the suspense file. AB 2605 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Arambula has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2605? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2605? Seeing none, Department of Finance,
do you have a file on this measure? Yes. The Department of Finance opposes this bill. The Office of the State Public Defender indicates that any clause resulting from
this bill are minor and absorbable. To the extent there is an appropriate and the bill's provisions become operative. This bill may create a state reimbursable mandate because it requires a new program or a higher level of service to be provided by local agencies for counties to collect information on public defense services provided and to report that data to the state public defender. Thank you. See no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file. candidate without objection. AB 2605 will move to the suspense file. AB 1609 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Zerber has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1609? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1609? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1609 will move to the suspense file. AB 1740 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Zerber has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1740? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1740? Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the Coastal Commission estimates this bill requires $98,000 general fund annually for five years to support half of one Coastal Program Analyst 1 to implement the annual reporting requirement in the bill. Finance notes that if the Commission fails to act on the city's local coastal program within the required timeline, the Commission is required to reimburse the city for reasonable costs associated with the time spent coordinating the Commission's suggested modifications. Finance does not anticipate that this bill would create a state reimbursable mandate because it implements Proposition 20, which was approved by the voters in 1976. Thank you. There are no questions or comments for members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1740 will move to the suspense file. AB 1887 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Zerber has void presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1887? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1887? Seeing none, seeing no questions from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1887 will move to the suspense file. AB 1930 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Zerber has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? To AB 1930. Any witnesses in opposition? To AB 1930. Madam Chair, committee, I'm Amber Arias, Senate Ministry. I respectfully oppose AB 1930 because it expands government authority, increases taxpayer-funded bureaucracy, and creates new legal and fiscal risk for California. This bill requires health care providers and certain businesses to report qualifying out-of-state legal actions involving abortion and gender-affirming care to the California Attorney General and expands the Attorney General's authority to become involved in those matters. One of the greatest dangers of AB 1930 is that it further entangles California in legal conflicts with other states. As states continue to adapt to different laws on these issues, expanding the state's role could lead to costly litigation, increased legal disputes, and significant taxpayer expense defending California's policies in court. This bill also creates additional reporting mandates and administrative requirements that will require more government staff legal review compliance monitoring and enforcement These ongoing costs come at a time when California is facing budget deficits and difficult funding decisions affecting public safety education infrastructure, and other essential services. AB 1930 also represents a continued expansion of government authority into an area where existing legal protections already exist. Every expansion of state power should be carefully scrutinized to ensure it is truly necessary and fiscally responsible. Instead, this bill adds another layer of bureaucracy with uncertain benefits but very real costs to California. California should focus on reducing government spending, improving essential services and protecting taxpayers, not creating new mandates that expand bureaucracy and expose the state to additional legal and financial risk. For that reason, I respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1930. Thank you. Pamela McElady and I oppose AB 1930 Carolyn Whitmore from San Ramon I oppose AB 1930 Leslie Alves Community Impact Team and I oppose 1930 Kit Nelson from Fairfield, California I oppose 1930 My name is Jennifer Bees, I'm from Calibres County and I oppose this bill. My name is Cudberto Flores Jr. and I oppose this bill. I'm Moralia Flores and I oppose this bill. I'm Elka Bohnberg of Pittsburgh. I oppose this bill, AB 1930. Lisa Disbro, representing our duty, informed parents of Contra Costa, patriots of Contra Costa, moms for liberty of Contra Costa. We oppose this bill. My name is Dave Duran, and I oppose this bill. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses. We will bring it back to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department does not have a position on this bill. However, the Department of Justice indicates this bill will not create a fiscal impact for them to implement the bill's provisions. At the time of the analysis, the Judicial Council has not identified if this bill creates any impacts for the trial courts. To the extent that this bill adds to the trial court's caseload, court backlogs may increase and can create pressure to 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 can be documented, it is likely to be absorbed. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1930. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1967 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly members of Brewer has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1967? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1967? Yes, I'm Ken Nelson, and I oppose 1967. Thank you. Chair members, I'm Amber Arias, stand-up ministry, and I respectfully urge you to vote no on AB 1967 because it creates a costly expansion of government, weakens due process protections, and diverts limited child welfare resources away from children who are truly in danger. While protecting children from abuse is a shared priority, AB 1967 expands the state involvement in families by allowing minors and residential facilities to initiate juvenile court proceedings that can trigger investigations before parents are notified or given an opportunity to respond The bill lacks meaningful guardrails to ensure investigations are supported by sufficient evidence before taxpayer resources are deployed. The greatest concern is the fiscal impact. California's child welfare system is already overwhelmed, with social workers carrying heavy caseloads, county agencies struggling to fill vacancies, and juvenile courts facing significant backlogs. AB 1967 will inevitably increase investigations, court hearings, legal representation, administrative processing, and ongoing case management, all funded by California taxpayers. Every unnecessary investigation consumes hours of work by social workers, county attorneys, court staff, judges, and support personnel. Those are resources that cannot be spent protecting children facing verified abuse or neglect. Rather than improving outcomes, this bill risks delaying responses to the most urgent cases by spreading on already strained system even thinner. This bill also shifts additional costs to counties, which will bear much of the financial responsibility for increased investigation, staffing, court proceedings, and dependency services. at a time when California is facing significant budget pressures and asking agencies to do more with less, expanding government bureaucracy without clear evidence that existing law is inadequate and is fiscally irresponsible. Parents have a constitutional right to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of their children, and government intervention should occur only when supported by credible evidence and robust due process, not through a process that increases costly investigations without sufficient safeguards. California already has established systems through Child Protective Services, mandated reporters, law enforcement, and the juvenile dependency courts to investigate credible allegations of abuse. Rather than creating another avenue that expands costs and government intervention, the legislature should strengthen the systems already in place and ensure limited taxpayer dollars are focused on protecting children in genuine danger. For those reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1967. Thank you. Next witness. Pamela McElady, I seriously oppose AB 1967. Carolyn Whitmore from Community Impact. This bill would allow a child as young as 12 years old to initiate proceedings to terminate the relationship with the parents. That's insane. And it's a gross violation of parental rights, and it would put minors at greater risk. I think we should be looking for ways to strengthen families rather than tearing them apart. Thank you. Please vote no on this. My name is Jennifer Bisi. I'm from Calaveras County, and I oppose this bill. Leslie Alves in Community Impact, and I oppose this bill. Hi, I'm Miyoka Bonebrake, and I'm a mother. And God gave me the right to take care of my children, and I go for all the children across America, and you guys will be held accountable if this bill passes. I'm against it. My name is Cuberto Flores, Jr. I'm a Catholic, and I oppose this bill. Thank you. I'm Moralia Flores and I oppose this bill. Hello, my name is David Duran. I'm from Stanislaus County and I oppose this bill. Thank you. Lisa Disbro Mom Moms for Liberty Chair of Contra Costa Informed Parents of Contra Costa Patriots of Contra Costa and a protector of families and reunifying broken families. I oppose this bill. Hello, Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels and strong opposition. Thank you to our witnesses. We don't have any questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1967 will move to the suspense file. AB 2039 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Zuber has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2039? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2039? 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 2039 will move to the suspense file. AB 2217 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Zerber has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2217? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2217? Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to the bill. The Board of State and Community Corrections estimates it will require $478,000 general fund for two and a quarter positions for its corrections planning and grants program to administer the Alternatives to Arrest program. BSEC typically receives 5% of program funding for administrative costs. Finance notes that the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program or Grant Program LEED Program was funded $15 million one-time general fund in the 2016 Budget Act. Thank you. See no questions and comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. With that objection, AB 2217 will move to the suspense file. AB 2383 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Zabr has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2383? Good evening. My name is Danielle Hughes with Tahoe Spark, and I would like to support this bill with amendments. This bill only represents three utilities in the state of California. There are six investor-owned utilities in the state of California, including Liberty Utilities, Bear Valley, and Pacificor. I am already having to participate in Nevada's integrated resource plan because the data centers already took my power. I'm actually having Sierra Pacific, which was formerly Enron, actually has a Google data center. They just took my power while you guys redistribute the state of California redistributed costs based on solar peaking, summer power of PG&E, while I'm winter peaking and I get my power from Nevada. So I'm not being represented at this point in time. The bill is correct. We need to actually manage our data centers, but the data centers just took my power. And this needs to be for all six utilities in the state of California. So thank you. Thank you to our witness. We'll bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2383 will move to the suspense file. AB 2417 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Zabr has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2417? Thank you. Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2417? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2417 will move to the suspense file. AB 2549 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Zuber has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 2549? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 2549? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2549 will move to the suspense file. AB 2634 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly members of Burr has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support? To AB 2634. Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition? To AB 2634. Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2634 will move to the suspense file. AB 1610 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ransom has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have anyone who would like to testify in support to AB 1610? Do we have anyone who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1610? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure? Yes. The Department of Finance opposes this bill because it may create a state reimbursement mandate because it requires a new program or higher level of service by placing new requirements on county election officials to update border registration records and to notify borders. Thank you. See no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. With objection, AB 1610 will move to the suspense file. AB 1832 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ransom has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1832? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1832? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1832, we'll move to the suspense file. AB 2032 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ransom has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2032? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2032? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no comments or questions, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2032 will move to the suspense file. AB 2046 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ransom has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2046? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2046? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it creates additional costs not included in the 2026 Budget Act and will exacerbate the APCF's long-term structural imbalance. Specifically, the Air Resources Board estimates $828,000 and approximately four permanent positions from the APCF in 2627 and ongoing. Finance notes that while the 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 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 legislation may exacerbate the fund structural deficit Thank you. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2046 will move to the suspense file. AB 2473 is a suspense file candidate. It is a committee bill, emergency management. We will move to witness to testify in support for AB 2473. Seeing none, we will move to any testimony in opposition to AB 2473. Seeing none, bringing it back. Department of Finance, you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is, notwithstanding the merits of the bill, opposed because it creates cost and significant ongoing cost pressures on the general fund or associated special funds that are not included in the 2026 Budget Act. As a joint lead of the center, the California Office of Emergency Services, or Cal OES, estimate costs around $3 million ongoing in multiple positions to implement the provisions in the bill. As the other joint lead, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CAL FIRE, anticipates costs of $1.8 million in 2016-2017, $1.3 million in 2017-2018, $1.3 million in 2018-2019 and ongoing, along with three positions to satisfactorily address the workload of this bill, specifically its training components. To support regional training and predictive services, CAL FIRE also indicates a need for $507,000 in 26-27, $159,000 in 27-28, and $129,000 in 28-29 to acquire new vehicles and other costs related to the long-term vehicle leasing. Lastly, finance notes potentially unknown but significant cost pressures across all state agencies if the governor proclaims a state of emergency in response to an extreme fire weather report. The magnitude of cost depends on the size of the state's response to the extreme fire weather report and if the proclamation would have happened absent the report. Any requests for additional resources is subject to review and approval through the annual budget process. Seeing no questions or comments for members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2473. We'll move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2475 is a committee bill. We'll move to witnesses in support. Seeing none, we'll move to witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it results in significant general fund costs, including the 2026 Budget Act. Cal OES estimates ongoing general fund costs of approximately $2.2 million in eight additional positions to fulfill the provisions of the bill. Additionally, the bill may create a state reimbursable mandate because it requires local agencies to complete an after-action report in a manner different than the existing requirements. Additionally, the bill makes expenses to draft a local after-action report and eligible costs for purposes of the California Disaster Assistance Act, resulting in potential cost pressures to increase state disaster assistance funding. The magnitude for both these types of costs depends on the number of local emergencies for which a report is required and the complexity behind those reports. Thank you AB 2514 will move to the suspense file AB 2543 is a suspense file candidate without objection AB 2514 We move to the suspense file AB 2543 is a suspense file candidate Assembly member Ransom has waived presentation We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to Assembly Bill 2543? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2543? Seeing none, bringing it to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2543 will move to the suspense file. AB 1613 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wilson 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 1613? Any witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to AB 1613? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes. The Department of Finance has no position on this bill, but the Department of Parks and Recreation estimates a one-time startup cost of $3.5 million, which includes a service contract for $2.2 million to administer the safety course and issue the required operator card, with an ongoing annual cost of approximately $1.3 million, based on a five-year cost estimate of $8.6 million and an anticipated 40% compliance rate. The department estimates a $25 fee for the safety course would cover the cost of administering the program. The cost of administering the program would be offset by the safety course fee. Therefore, this bill will be cost neutral to the department. Thank you. See no questions or comments for members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1613 will move to the suspense file. AB 1621 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wilson has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support of AB 1621? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1621? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1621 will move to the suspense file. AB 1731 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wilson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support of AB 1731? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1731? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to the bill. The Department of Food and Agriculture estimates one-time and ongoing costs to establish and administer the program, including fund and account setup, program development, administration, and monitoring and compliance activities that cannot be absorbed within existing resources. CDFA indicates that the total costs depend on the level of appropriation, complexity of the program, and the number of applicants. The Department of Finance estimates ongoing general forecasts in the low tens of millions of dollars annually for grants and administration of the program. Additionally, this bill is duplicative of existing efforts to deliver minimally processed, locally grown food to California schools through the Farm to School Program. I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1731 will move to the suspense file. AB 1798 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wilson has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1798? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1798? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file. Candidate without objection, AB 1798 will move to the suspense file. AB 2059 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Wilson has way presentation and we will go directly to witness testimony Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2059 Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2059 CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure? Yes, the Department of Finance opposes this bill. The Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation estimates this bill will require $75,000 general fund for one year for one quarter of a principal transportation planner to support updates to LCC. guidance and guideline documents to account for the changes envisioned by this bill the California Department of Transportation anticipates this bill will result in minor cost savings for qualifying rural projects including certain expansion projects with safety or emergency criteria thank you so you know questions or comments from members this bill is a suspense file candidate with that objection. Assembly Bill 2059. We'll move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 1669 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pacheco has wait presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1669? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1669. See none, see no questions from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1669 will move to the suspense file. AB 1754 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pacheco has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1754? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1754? CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure? Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it increases administrative costs associated with future geo bonds, thereby reducing funds available for projects and grants. Additionally, requiring the drafters of a bond act to include detailed performance indicators and specific data collection criteria for the actual projects to be financed, which can collectively number in the hundreds, are likely not yet known, and the requirement may limit flexibility in how bond proceeds can be used to address the most critical needs. So no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1754. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1844 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pacheco has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1844? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1844? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1844, we'll move to the suspense file. AB 2124 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pacheco has way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2124? Any witnesses to testify in opposition to AB 2124? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure? Yes, Finance is opposed to this bill because it creates unknown but likely significant general fund cost pressures to provide funding to CCST to analyze proposed legislation. The Department of Finance notes that the cost of CCST to complete the analysis required by this bill are unknown and would likely depend on the complexity of the proposed legislation required to be analyzed. CCST receives a portion of its operating budget from academic research institutions including the University of California, the University of Southern California, the California Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the California State University. So no questions or comments for members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2124 will move to the next. the suspense file. AB 2235 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pacheco has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2235? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2235? Seeing none and see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2235 will move to the suspense file. AB 1680 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Calderon has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to Assembly Bill 1680? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1680? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1680 will move to the suspense file. AB 1940 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Calderon has white presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1940? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1940? Seeing none. Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance opposes this bill. The California Civil Rights Department, CRD, anticipates that the state's fiscal impact of this bill would be minor and absorbable. CRD does not currently receive high volume of complaints related to menopause and other related medical conditions. However, CRD notes that this bill may create an increase in complaints and that additional resources may be required for this workload upon implementation. If that were to happen, the cost and cost pressures would be on the general fund. CRD notes that this bill is one of several bills that could increase the department workload and that the cumulative impact may result in costs not being absorbable. The Commission on the Status of Women and Girls Commission estimates a general fund impact of $190,000 in 2026-27 and an ongoing for additional staffing authority to manage the increase in the workload. Thank you.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1940 will move to the suspense file. AB 2299 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Calderon has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Is there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2299? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2299? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill. However, the bill results in significant costs, potentially up to $3 billion general fund annually due to the expansion of the California Food Assistance Program benefits, county and state administration for the Department of Social Services, and automation costs for the California Statewide Automated Welfare System. As the automation would not be ready by January 1, 2027, benefit and county administration costs are shown as beginning October 1, 2027, to align with the current CFAP expansion. Benefit costs are approximately $2.5 billion general fund annually, with as many as $800,000 individuals and 600,000 households newly eligible for CFAP as a result of this bill. This increased caseload also results in an estimated $230 to $400 million ongoing general fund costs for counties to administer their expanded CFAP benefits. Additionally, this bill results in ongoing state operation costs of approximately $1.7 million general fund to support nine positions at DSS. This bill also results in CalSaw automation costs of million general fund in 2017 and million general fund ongoing Finance notes that the 2026 budget act does not include funding for any of the above items but this will require implementation during 26 27 thank you see no questions or comments from members this
bill is a suspense file candidate without objection ab 2299 will move to the suspense file ab 2647 is a suspense file candidate assembly member calderon has way presentation and we will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2647? Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Jeff Donovan on behalf of GLOW Strategies and formerly an official at the International Atomic Energy Agency in support of AB 2647. This committee's job is to ask what a bill costs and what it buys. Here's what this one buys. California households pay the highest electricity rates in the country outside of Hawaii, roughly one and a half times the national average, according to the Federal Energy Information Administration data. Demand is rising for the first time in two decades, and state law requires a carbon-free grid by 2045. These facts will not reconcile themselves, meaning all three requires that the state understand every clean resource available to it. California is spending hundreds of billions of dollars transforming its electricity system, yet the state has never produced its own comprehensive assessment of advanced nuclear energy. AB 2647 directs the state's own experts to build for the first time in 50 years California's own fact base, costs, safety, water, siting requirements, and nuclear's possible role in meeting future need. This bill doesn't authorize a plant. It doesn't touch the moratorium. It asks a question. So the objection before you is cost. The expenditure here is limited, temporary, and less than $1 million a year. That is basic due diligence before California makes far larger decisions affecting electricity bills, reliabilities, and its 2045 climate target. I've seen in my years at the IEA how governments on every continent approach this technology. They study it first, and then they decide second. Over almost 40 countries, including the United States, have pledged to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050 for deep decarbonization. California may reach its own answer. What it can't reach is a sound answer on a question it has refused to study. I respectfully ask for your A vote. Thank you.
Thank you. To our witness, do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 2647? 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 2647 will move to the suspense file. AB 1685 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lackey has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1685? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1685? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the DMV estimates that this bill may result in costs and low millions of dollars to modify its core legacy systems to create a new point count for specified offenses and update driver records accordingly. The CHP does not anticipate a fiscal impact. 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, or DXP, modernization project, resulting in significant costs for the MBA. Finance notes that the MBA is currently in a structural deficit and based on projections developed as part of the 2026 Budget Act the MBA will be insolvent by the end of 2829 any increase in mba expenditures will exacerbate fiscal pressures on the fund and may accelerate its insolvency do we have any no comments or
questions from members this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection ab1685 will move to the suspense file ab1687 is a suspense file candidate assembly member lackey has way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1687? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1687? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on the measure?
Yes. The Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the DMV estimates an MBA impact of $3 million in 2627 and ongoing to implement the requirements of the bill, and notes it's unable to absorb the costs of existing resources. and I would just refer to my previous comments made for AB 1685 related to the MBA.
So you know questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1687 will move to the suspense file. AB 1752 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lackey has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1752? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1752? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1752 will move to the suspense file. AB 1826 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lackey has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 1826? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1826? Seeing none. Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to the bill. The Department of Cannabis Control estimates this bill will result in unabsorbable costs of approximately $2 million from the Cannabis Control Fund in 27-28 and ongoing for two senior environmental scientists, two attorneys, three attorney threes, and one attorney four positioned to support the expanded use of informal conferences, adherence to specified time frames, and expanded documentation and evidentiary requirements. The Department of Justice estimates that this bill results in no fiscal impact, and the Cannabis Control Appeals Panel estimates this bill results in minor and absorbable costs.
So no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1826. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2304 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lackey has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2304? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2304? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2304 will move to the suspense file. AB 2337 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Lackey has way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2337? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2337? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2337 will move to the suspense file. AB 1688 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Carrillo has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1688 Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1688 Seeing none Department of Finance do you have a file on the measure Yes The Department of Finance has no position
on this bill. However, the Department estimates that this bill likely has a minor and absorbable fiscal impact on the Department. Seeing no questions or comments from committee members,
this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, Assembly Bill 1688 will move to the suspense file. AB 1710 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Carrillo has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1710? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1710? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1710 will move to the suspense file. AB 1808 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Carrillo has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1808? Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 1808? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1808 will move to the suspense file. AB 2104 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Carrillo has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2104? Any witnesses present who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2104? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2104 will move to the suspense file. AB 2166 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Carrillo has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2166? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2166? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2166 will move to the suspense file. AB 2310 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Carrillo has white presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2310? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2310? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2310 will move to the suspense file. AB 2505 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Carrillo has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who'd like to testify in support to AB 2505? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2505? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2505 will move to the suspense file. AB 2662 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Carrillo has wave presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2602? 2662. Do we have any opposition to 2662? CNN, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. The Department of Justice anticipates general fund costs of $723,000 in five positions in 26-27, $8.1 million in 33 positions in 27-28, and $7.7 million in 33 positions in 28-29 and ongoing to establish and support the Working Group on Civil Rights Accountability.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2662 will move to this Suspense file. AB 2721 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Carrillo has a way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2721? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2721? Seeing none, seeing no committee members that have questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2721 will move to the suspense file. AB 1744 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Addis' way of presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have anyone wishing to testify in support to AB 1744?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the Eco Club of C.K. McClatchy High School, located here right in Sacramento. This bill was created by a creative group of young students, so we're really hoping for this bill to continue to move forward. I do appreciate, they appreciate the analysis pointing out that there is cost, but also pointing out that some of the higher costs identified are unlikely due to the nature of the bill. So we really appreciate your support. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 1744? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1744, we'll move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2254 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Addis has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2254? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2254? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on this measure?
Yes. Finance is opposed to this bill because it creates general fund costs not included in the 2026 Budget Act. Specifically, the Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates a $1.5 million general fund and one position in 2027-2028 and a $1.5 million general fund in 2028-2029 and ongoing to implement the bill's provisions. The Coastal Commission estimates $230,000 general fund in one position in 2027-2028 and annually for four years. Finance further notes that 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 for which they might not be able to levy fees.
Thank you. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2254 will move to the suspense file. AB 2393 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Addis has away a presentation. We will directly lead to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? To AB 2393. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2393? Seeing none. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2393. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2486 is a suspense file candidate, Assemblymember Addis' way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 2486? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2486? Seeing none, Department of
Finance, do you have a file on the measure? Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the Department of Health Care Services anticipates a fiscal impact of of which is from General Fund in 27 of which is from the General Fund in 28 and ongoing for one permanent position to provide ongoing administrative and analytical assistance related to the California Children's Services Advisory Group meetings and to support the advisory group on workload and deliverables related to the legislative reporting requirement.
Thank you. See you no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2486 will move to the suspense file. AB 2704 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Addis has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2704? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2704? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2704 will move to the suspense file. AB 1746 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Davies has a way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1746? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1746? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but it estimates that it would result in a one-time state operation cost of $900,000 general fund in 27-28 for the Department of Social Services and $250,000 general fund in 28-29 and an ongoing for updates to the California Statewide Automated Welfare System, updates to the Child Care Request Form, benefits Cal Application Program Interface updates, printing rendering costs. This bill is estimated to result in general fund costs between $1 million and $5 million per year for ongoing county administration. Additionally, this bill could result in increased local assistant costs to the extent the increased awareness of eligibility to receive paid child care services increases caseload for CalWORKs child care programs.
Seeing no questions and comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1746 will move to the suspense file. AB 1816 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Davies has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1816? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1816? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to the bill. To the extent this bill adds to trial court's caseload, court backlogs may increase and create pressure on the general fund to handle the increased caseload. However, courts do not typically receive funding on the workload basis. Therefore, unless this particular caseload becomes significant and can be documented, it is likely to be absorbed. This bill could lead to costs for county probation departments if a probation period is extended. Since it is at the discretion of a probation department to file a petition for an extension, this bill is not likely to impose a state reimbursable mandate. By potentially imposing longer probation terms and increasing charges for a violation of probation, this bill could also increase the local jail and state prison populations. New laws that impose additional criminal sanctions strain the local criminal justice system by imposing additional fiscal pressure on county public safety resources. Moreover, California has successfully remained below the court-ordered population cap and has made strides towards closing prisons resulting in hundreds of millions in annual savings. However, increases to the population threaten the state's ability to continue making progress in rights-based in California's prison system. The annual cost associated with increasing the prison population by one individual can range with tens of thousands of dollars, depending on various factors.
Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. With that objection, AB 1816 will move to the suspense file. AB 2242 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Davies has a way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2242? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2242? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes. The Department of Finance opposes this bill because it may create a state reimbursable mandate in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars Proposition 98 General Fund. Additionally, this bill creates ongoing non-Proposition 98 General Fund costs in the tens of thousands of dollars to support increased staffing needs at the Department for increased workload.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2242 will move to the suspense file. AB 1749 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Dixon has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1749? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1749? Seeing none, I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1749 will move to the suspense file. AB 2261 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Dixon has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2261? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2261? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the bill expands the definition of a crime and could lead to additional cases entering the court system, increase the statewide adult jail population, and impact the ability of counties to manage their offender population because certain lower-level offenders now serve their sentences in county jails and are supervised by county probation departments. New laws that impose additional criminal sanctions strain the local criminal justice system by imposing additional fiscal pressure on the county public safety resources.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2261 will move to the suspense file. AB 1770 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Garcia has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1770? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 701770? Seeing none. Seeing no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. AB 1770 will move to the suspense file without objection. AB 2142 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Garcia has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to Assembly Bill 2142? Any witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 2142. Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill and notes that it estimates ongoing Prop 98 general fund cost pressures in the hundreds of millions of dollars statewide as a result of school districts and community college districts retaining employees they no longer need and legal costs associated with rebutting the presumption regarding classified positions. The exact cost would depend on the number of short-term positions that districts are required to place in the
classified service. Seeing no questions or comments from members this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2142 will move to the suspense file AB 2149 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Garcia has weighed presentation and we will go directly to witness testimony Do we any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2149 Anyone who would like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 2149 Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2149 will move to the suspense file. AB 1784 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pellerin has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1784? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1784? Seeing none, see no questions from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1784 will move to the suspense file. So, AB 1853 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pellerin has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1853? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 1853? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1853 will move to the suspense file. AB 1902 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pellerin has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? To AB 1902. Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition? To AB 1902. Seeing none, Department of Finance, Do you have a file on the measure?
Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to 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 this particular caseload becomes significant and can be documented, it is likely to be absorbed. The Office of Youth and Community Restoration indicates that any costs resulting from this bill are minor and absorbable within existing resources. The responsibilities for housing and rehabilitating youth were realigned to the counties in 2011 as part of the 2011 public safety realignment. Pursuant to Proposition 30, which was approved by the voters in November of 2012, legislation enacted after September 30th of 2012 that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by 2011 realignment applies to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Local agencies are not obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation above the level for which funding is provided. Extending detention for youths in secure youth treatment facilities could result in unknown general fund local assistance costs by creating Prop 90 mandate.
Thank you. So no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1902. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2650 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Pellerin has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2650? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 2650? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that Cal Savers retirement savings programs estimates net revenues of approximately 1.6 million dollars of the Cal Savers retirement savings trust administration fund in 27-28 as a result of the bill. These revenues are expected to decline incrementally as a total number of penalties collected as a result of this bill decrease year over year, lessening to $475,000 in the CRSTAF in 2036. And the Department of Finance notes that the 2026 Budget Act maintains the existing provisional language granting authority to finance to transfer up to $2 million as a loan from the General Fund to support the implementation and administrative costs of CalSavers. While CalSavers notes the administrative costs to implement the provisions of this bill are minor and absorbable, CalSavers has been utilizing the $2 million General Fund loan in 2425 and 2526 to cover administrative costs. The Franchise Tax Board currently collects penalties levied for an employer's failure to allow an employee to participate in CalSavers. Insofar that the bill only increases the penalty amount FTB already collects, any costs FTB
incurs will be absorbable within existing resources. Thank you.
So you have questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2650 will move to the suspense file. AB 2785 is a suspense file candidate. This is an elections bill. We will see if we have any support witnesses here for AB 2785. Anyone in opposition for AB 2785? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. With that objection, AB 2785 will move to the suspense file. AB 1850 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wicks has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any individuals wishing to testify in support? To AB 1815. Any witnesses in opposition? To AB 1815. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1815. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 1856 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wicks his way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1856? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1856? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1856 will move to the suspense file. AB 1946 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wicks has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1946?
My name is Kevin Netshu. I'm in favor on that bill to improve the time of reporting and help our children to be safer. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 1946? Seeing none, we will turn to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes. The Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the DOJ anticipates minor and absorbable costs to implement this bill, and notes that if a number of bills similarly identified as having minor and absorbable costs are chaptered, additional resources may be needed to address the total increase in workload for the department.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file. Candidate, AB-1946. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2015 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wicks is way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support for AB 2015? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2015? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from the members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2015 will move to the suspense file. AB 2023 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Wicks his way presentation We go directly to witness testimony Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2023 Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2023 Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2023 will move to the suspense file. AB 2051 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wicks has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2051? Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 2051? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill. However, it notes that the total fiscal impact identified by departments that are required to be represented on the working group or the Coastal Resilience Permit Advisory Group is estimated to be approximately $8.9 million in 27-28, $8.2 million in 28-29, $7.5 million ongoing. Specific departments included in this estimate include CNRA, Cal EPA, the Department of Transportation, the California Coastal Commission, the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Lands Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy, the California Department of Park and Recreation, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Finance notes that this bill will become operative effective January 1st of 2027, and the working group will have only one year to develop the roadmap by January 1st, 2028. Funding can only be provided as early as July 1st, 2027, which will require departments to absorb any costs associated with this bill until that time.
Thank you. So you know questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2051 will move to the suspense file. AB 2246 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wicks has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? To AB 2246. Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? To AB 2246. Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2246 will move to the suspense file. AB 1818 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ortega has a wave presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1818? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1818? Seeing none, seeing no questions from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1818 will move to the suspense file. AB 1859 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ortega has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1859? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1859? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to the bill as it would result in additional workload for the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement's Public Works Unit to receive and resolve to joint labor management committees, public works complaints, and appeals. The Department of Industrial Relations estimates a fiscal impact of $2.4 million in 2016-2017, $4.7 million in 2017-2018, and $4.5 million in 2018-2019 and ongoing from the State Public Works Enforcement Fund. The Department of Finance notes that the SPWE fund is in a structural deficit, with expenditures expected to exceed revenues by approximately $2 million in 2627. Existing law authorizes DIR beginning July 1 2026 to adjust fees for the SPWE fund To the extent that this bill adds pressure to the fund there may also be pressure to increase fees I see no questions or comments from members This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection Assembly Bill 1859 will move to the suspense file
AB 1929 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Ortega has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1929? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1929. Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1929 will move to the suspense file. AB 2321 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Ortega has away presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do you have any witnesses in support to AB 2321? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2321? Seeing none, the Department of Finance, Do you have a file on this measure?
Yes. The Department of Finance is opposed to the bill. The IRR estimates a fiscal impact of $295,000 in 2627, $566,000 in 2728, and $542,000 in 2829 and ongoing from the Occupational Safety and Health Fund to promulgate regulations and to provide technical and legal support to specified district attorney offices and administrative support. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local entities for increased costs associated with any new program or higher level of service imposed by the state or on local entities in the commission if the commission of state mandates determines that the new program or higher level of service is reimbursable and a state mandate. The Department of Finance notes to the extent the legislature appropriates funding that is later determined to be insufficient for the activities identified in the bill. This bill may create a state reimbursable mandate because it realigns complete or partial responsibility for a required program for which the state currently has complete or partial financial responsibility to select local agencies. Additionally, Finance notes that this bill will expand the allowable use of the Labor and Workforce Development Fund by permitting expenditure by the Alameda County District Attorney and the Santa Clara County District Attorney upon appropriation of funds. Finance notes by authorizing funds to be used for this purpose, this bill will drive potentially significant LWDF cost pressures to fund the specific district attorney's offices and may drive potentially significant future cost pressures to fund other district attorney's offices going forward.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2321 will move to the suspense file. AB 2465 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ortega has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2465? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2465? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes. The Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the Franchise Tax Board, according to the Franchise Tax Board, it is difficult to predict the magnitude of the potential revenue impact of the bill, as a number of entities no longer eligible for tax credits and the amount of tax credits is unknown. FTB provides an indicative calculation that for every $1 million in tax credits claimed by qualified taxpayers who would become ineligible under this bill, the estimated revenue gain would be up to $1 million of tax returns. The Department of Finance notes that it may not be possible to estimate revenue gains from this bill as taxpayers who are ineligible to claim tax credits pursuant to this bill may not report the tax credits on their state tax return. FTB estimates its administrative costs to be $153,026,000, $384,000, and $27,28,000, unknown but potentially significant administrative costs to state agencies and administer grant or loan programs to screen applicants and recipients.
Thank you. So you have no questions or comments on the bill. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2465 will move to the suspense file AB 2575 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Ortega has made presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2575 is a suspense file candidate Assembly member Ortega has way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2575 Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2575 Seeing none seeing no questions or comments from members this bill is a suspense file candidate Without objection AB 2575 will move to the suspense file AB 1825 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Krell has away presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1825? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1825? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes. The Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation anticipates minor and observable costs to coordinate the more robust exit planning and the Department's existing administrative processes. The Department of State Hospitals eliminates annual costs of up to $10 million, tens of millions of dollars, excuse me, general fund, to activate additional beds to treat the increased offender with a mental health disorder population. Department of State Hospitals further notes that it has limited available capacity to activate beds for this purpose. Finance notes that to the extent this bill's new requirements result in greater number of individuals eligible for CalAIM and Medi-Cal, this bill may result in ongoing general fund costs above levels, including the 2026 Budget Act. Lastly, this bill may impose a reimbursable state mandate as to be determined by the Commission on State Mandates by potentially requiring new duties for counties relating to Medi-Cal eligibility and exit planning with CDCR.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1825 will move to the suspense file. AB 1845 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Corral has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses in support to AB 1845? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1845? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1845 will move to the suspense file. AB 1854 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Corral has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 1854? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1854? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the The Department of Justice anticipates minor and absorbable costs to implement the bill. Finance notes that if multiple bills similarly identified as having minor and absorbable costs are enacted, additional resources may be needed to address the cumulative increase in workload. Any request for additional resources will be evaluated as part of the annual development process. At the time of the analysis, the Judicial Council had not provided a fiscal analysis. 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.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1854 will move to the suspense file. AB 1927 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Crowell has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 1927? Anyone in opposition to AB 1927? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill and notes that although the California Department of Insurance was unable to provide a fiscal estimate at the time of the analysis. CDI indicated that this bill would result in a fiscal impact to the insurance fund. Finance notes that if enough bills with negative fiscal impacts on the insurance fund are chapter, they may contribute to the insolvency of the fund. The Department of Justice estimates no cost to implement this bill, and I would just refer to my previous comments made about the trial courts and related to the caseload backlog.
Thank you. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1927. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2598 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Correll has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2598? Anyone in opposition to AB 2598? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2598. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2646 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Krell has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support of AB 2646? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2646? See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2646 will move to the suspense file. AB 1827 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Chen has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1827? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1827? Seeing none, bringing it back to the Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance opposes this bill as the Judicial Council estimates an unknown, likely significant impact on small claims calendars and an unknown impact on court revenues related to the bill's increase in the small claims ceiling. As more parties will be able to file in small claims court and pay the much lower filing fee, the courts will see lower revenue amounts from the associated filings that may have paid the higher filing fee under the current limits. Courts have serious concerns about the impact these new limits may have on small claim calendars and the additional staffing needs that may not be covered by the modest small claims filing fee. Small claims calendars are already heavily utilized, and additional filings and a potentially significant amount would cause further delays and impact access to justice.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1827. We'll move to the suspense file. AB-2009 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Chen has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 20-09? Anyone in opposition to AB-2009? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB-2009 will move to the suspense file. AB 2744 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Bill 2477 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Chen has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2477? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2477? Seeing none and seeing no questions from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2477. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2537 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Chen has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who would like to testify in support to AB 2537? Anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2537? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, we do. The Department of Finance opposes this bill. DCC estimates this bill will create cost of million Cannabis Control Fund in 2027 which includes for information technology modifications and in 2028 and ongoing for 3 attorney positions to develop the required enforcement framework revise existing inspection and investigation procedures and disciplinary guidance, and address increases in administrative appeals and litigation. Any requests for additional resources are subject to review and approval through the annual budget process.
Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2537 will move to the suspense file. AB 1868 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hadwick has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses in support to AB 1868? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1868? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1868 will move to the suspense file. AB 2207 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hedwick has waived presentation. Will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2207? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2207? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2207 will move to the suspense file. AB 2667 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hedwick has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have anyone in support for AB 2667? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2667? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2667 will move to the suspense file. AB 2679 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hedewick has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2679? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2679? Please approach.
Good afternoon. My name is Patricia Orr, and I'm a year-round resident at Kings Beach, Tahoe, speaking on my individual capacity. I submitted an oppose-unless-amend position because this bill needs stronger sequencing, fiscal accountability, and protection for the Tahoe communities that will carry its consequences. Today's analysis shows that the bill could authorize substantial project operating and maintenance costs without even knowing if parking fee revenue could sustain them. I also learned from the author's office today that Caltrans would still need to identify locations, estimate costs and revenue, and determine whether the approach is actually even feasible, but only after the bill gives Caltrans the authority to proceed focusing on safe recreation access. My request was to place that sequencing directly into the bill. That could fit within the first ask of mine, not to only require Caltrans to determine feasibility, locations, and cost and revenue, but also require Caltrans to establish current Tahoe conditions, identify what communities and public systems are already carrying, and define how any resulting changes will be measured and evaluated. My second ask would prevent any major commitments or adding capacity until Caltrans publicly shows that proposal is feasible, financially supportable and consistent with Tahoe practical carrying capacity Without those gates California could authorize substantial spending and continuing obligations before it understands current conditions, available revenue, or whether Tahoe communities can support the results. In my view, that is fiscally irresponsible. Safe recreation access for visitors should not be advanced without also protecting safe access, community capacity, and emergency mobility for the people like me who live there. That is why a current Tahoe baseline must come first. Please do not advance AB 2679 unless amended. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Danielle Hughes and I'm speaking on behalf of Tahoe Spark and we oppose this bill as written. We have drafted some amendments that we would support it, including a carrying capacity plan first, ensuring that there is a by-state oversight committee because we do have a Nevada legislative oversight committee. I actually helped draft this bill in Nevada, and unfortunately, now the state of Nevada is taking our revenue and subsidizing NHP and Nevada state parks. I, as a resident of a declining low-income community that actually lives in that area, is not being served by this parking and this revenue. It's actually going back to the state budget. You've amended it that the legislature approves this instead of it being supported for a community. We need a community resilience committee and we need to balance the capacity of Lake Tahoe. We cannot serve 11 million visitors in the month of July. And we cannot serve parking lots that are only visited three months out of the year. That is expensive and that's a high cost to our community. and the infrastructure costs of visitation to state lands is actually impacting us. And you are not offsetting your carbon emissions. We're not included in those models. I'm being asked to electrify million-dollar boats and million-dollar cars and multimillion-dollar homes of people that don't live there while the state is actually drawing those people to us. It would be great if we could work together on a solution and have carrying capacity, have a community resilience committee, and actually have coordination across the bi-state. We have a bi-state compact for a reason. It is time for California to have a legislative oversight committee and balance the demand and make sure we're ensuring that our communities are safe. Thank you.
Thank you. Bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments on the measure. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2679 will move to the suspense file. AB 1882 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ellis has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1882? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1882? We will take it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to the bill and notes that the Department of Health Care Access and Information, or H-Chi, is unable to fully estimate the fiscal impact of this bill. This bill would authorize H-Chi to award up to $5 million per hospital per year, subject to appropriation by the legislature. Finance notes that this bill does not specify a fund source or mechanism for implementing these provisions so any cost would likely be borne by the general fund In addition because this bill does not identify an appropriation amount the total program costs are unknown but could be substantial at least in the tens of millions of dollars or more annually for the general fund depending on the number of eligible hospitals and a number of daily births at each hospital. Insufficient program funding could result in general fund cost pressures of a similar magnitude. In addition, HKI estimates state operation costs of $750,000 general fund in 26-27 and ongoing for two positions to manage this program. These positions would establish and administer the program, including workload associated with eligibility determinations, reimbursement methodology, data reporting, program oversight, and maintenance and operations of systems. HKI also estimates an additional $600,000 general fund one time in 2627 for vendor support costs related to initial setup, data enhancements, workflow configuration, and associated implementation activities. Finance does not anticipate a fiscal impact for a Medi-Cal program as a result of this bill. Additionally, this bill may significantly increase general fund cost pressures for the state to fund hospital standby capacity for other types of health care services.
See no questions or comments on this measure from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1882 will move to the suspense file. AB 2410 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ellis is way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2410? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2410?
Hello, Tara Thornton, Freedom Angels and Protect Tahoe, opposing AB 2410 unless amended. California is facing ongoing budget deficits. This is not the time to increase long-term liabilities for taxpayers. AB 2410 doesn't eliminate costs. It shifts more of them into the future. It promises to streamline wildfire fuels reduction projects while increasing the state's long-term fiscal exposure. CEQA isn't just environmental policy. It is also fiscal risk management. It helps identify and avoid costly problems before taxpayers pay for them. The fiscal risk isn't fast-tracking wildfire fuels reduction projects. the fiscal risk is extending the CEQA exemption to projects that use conventional herbicides, including glyphosate. That increases the state's long-term fiscal exposure by reducing opportunities to avoid costly environmental impacts before they occur. The July 9 amendments left the bill's greatest long-term fiscal risk untouched. They failed to close the conventional herbicide loophole, and projects using conventional herbicides, including glyphosate, still qualify for a CEQA exemption. That's a fiscal risk that is only growing. The public is just beginning to learn that glyphosate is being sprayed in the forests and wildlands, and the reaction has been shock and outrage. DPR pesticide use data show forced herbicide use has increased substantially in recent years. As awareness grows, so will legal challenges and costly disputes over water quality, wildlife, endangered species, and community health. Our amendment is fiscally neutral. It closes the conventional herbicide loophole while preserving the wildfire fuels reduction benefits the bill is intended to achieve. The state should not be creating a fiscal incentive for the use of glyphosate and other conventional herbicides, one of the most controversial practices in wildfire management. If the conventional herbicide loophole is not closed, then this bill has not adequately addressed its greatest understanding resolve long-term fiscal risk and should not move forward in its current form. Thank you.
Thank you to our witnesses. We will move to committee members so you know questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2410. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2711 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Ellis is way of presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do you have any witnesses in support to Assembly Bill 2711? Any witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 2711? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, Finance is opposed to the bill because it creates additional cost pressures on and exacerbates the structural deficit of the Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Administrative Fund, which is structurally in balance with expenditures exceeding revenues by approximately $2.4 million in 2627. Additionally, Finance notes that CalGEM anticipates this bill's required 30-day timeline for issuing a written determination to either commence drilling or abandoning a well is unachievable, particularly when CalGEM is acting as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act.
See no questions or comments from members at this time. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2711 will move to the suspense file. AB 1939 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Flora has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB1939?
Good evening, Chair and members. Jerry Desmond with the Professional Fiduciary Association of California. In support of the bill that is passed of both the judiciary and business and professions committees in each house without any opposition, as it comes to committee today, the fiscal impact is identified ongoing, unabsorbable of $358,000 per year. And we believe that's addressed in the bill by an authorization for the licensing bureau to establish a fee to cover the cost of at least $1,000 per entity. So we believe that provision does actually provide for the cost, and we think that is also understood by the Department of Consumer Affairs. And then secondly, that $358,000 could diminish if there are less registrants because some of those costs are per entity estimate. So we believe $358, even as a cap, would be covered by the fees that would be generated by the authorization for the Bureau to set the fee by regulation at a minimum of $1,000 and without a cap. And so we hope while the bill is on suspense that this can lead to the bill being taken up favorably when the suspense file is taken up. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 1939? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments. Assembly Bill 1939 is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, the bill will move to the suspense file. AB 2129 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Flora has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support? To Assembly Bill 2129. Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? To Assembly Bill 2129. Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2129 will move to the suspense file. AB 1959 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to present in support of AB 1959? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 1959 Seeing none bringing it back to the committee Department of Finance to have a file on the measure Yes the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill but notes that California has successfully remained below the court population cap and has made
strides towards reducing capacity by closing prisons and deactivating housing units and facilities, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savings. However, increases to the population threaten the state's ability to continue making progress in right-sizing California's prison system, the state strives to have a balanced system that preserves public safety while remaining fiscally responsible. Finance is not able to estimate how many additional individuals will be transferred from adult court to juvenile court or have their sentencing length changed or not changed by potential juvenile court resentencing as a result of this bill. However, the annual costs associated with increasing the prison population by one individual can range within the tens of thousands of dollars, depending on various factors. I see no questions or comments from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1959 will move to the suspense file. AB 2008 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patel has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to 2008? Any witnesses in opposition to 2008? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2008 will move to the suspense file. AB 2225 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patel has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2225? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2225? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
No file.
Thank you. 25. 22. Excuse me. Thank you. Okay. We will have no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. 22.25. We'll move to the suspense file. 23.43 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patel has way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to present in support to Assembly Bill 2343? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2343? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2343 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2468 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patel has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2468? Any witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 2468? Seeing none, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2468, we'll move to the suspense file. AB 2555 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patel has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support of Assembly Bill 2555? Do we have anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2555? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it results in significant general fund impacts not included in the 2026 Budget Act. Specifically this bill could create one Prop 98 general fund cost pressures in the hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars to appropriate resources to county office of education to contract for the development of rubrics pupil work and complete an evaluation This bill could create $3.2 million ongoing non-Prop 98 general fund costs for the Department of Education to implement the bill, and this bill could create a reimbursable state mandate in the hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars. Prop 98 general fund for local education agencies to update existing and implement new processes related to the reclassification of pupils as English language proficient.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2555 will move to the suspense file. AB 2037 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patterson has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2037? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2037? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2037 will move to the suspense file. AB 2141 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patterson has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to Assembly Bill 2141? Anyone in opposition to AB 2141? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, we do. The Department of Finance has no position on this bill. However, the State Board of Pharmacy estimates this bill will result in an insorbable cost of $143,000 in 2026-2027 and $276,000 in 2027-2028, an ongoing for an attorney to help with approximately 90 cases per year. Furthermore, the Board notes that this bill would shift the legal workload from the Attorney General to the Department of Consumer Affairs Legal Division.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2141 will move to the suspense file. AB 2232 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Patterson has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2232? Anyone in opposition to AB 2232? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but no CDCR estimates ongoing general fund costs in the low hundreds of thousands to collect, analyze, and publish the required data. If existing information technology systems are insufficient to capture and report the required information, one-time costs may be incurred to modify systems or develop new data tracking and reporting functionality. Any requests for additional resources will be evaluated as part of the annual budget development process.
Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2232 will move to the suspense file. AB 2135 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Calra has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2135? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2135? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance does not have a position on the bill, but notes that the Department of Public Health estimates ongoing licensing and certification fund costs of approximately $218,000 beginning in 27-28 to support one position to investigate complaints and implement the bill's additional enforcement activities. A fiscal estimate was not available from the Department of Health Care Services at the time of this analysis. The Department of Justice estimates no fiscal impact from the bill.
I see no questions or comments from members This bill is a suspense file candidate Without objection Assembly Bill 2135 will move to the suspense file Assembly Bill 2218 is a suspense file candidate Assembly Member Calra has a way of presentation We will go directly to witnesses Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2218? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2218? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it results in significant general fund costs, upwards of $10 million annually, that were not included in the 2026 Budget Act. This estimate includes estimates from the Water Board, LCI, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Water Resources, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the Delta Stewardship Council.
See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense-filed candidate. Without objection, Assembly Bill 2218 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2367 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Cogra has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2367? Any witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 2367? Seeing none, Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. as CDCR estimates, costs in the low millions of dollars annually beginning in 2627 for additional staffing and associated workload. The magnitude of costs will depend on whether the bill's reporting requirements are limited to health care staff or also includes custody staff assigned to health care settings. An inclusion of custody staff would increase workload and associated costs. The Department of Developmental Services anticipates needing 5.5 or 5.5 additional positions, totaling $542,000, of which $434,000 is general fund and $108,000 is federal fund in 2526, $1.1 million, of which $867,000 general fund and $217,000 of federal fund in 2627 and annually ongoing. CalVet anticipates one-time cost of $6.8 million general fund, approximately $3.7 million of which is ongoing annually to develop and implement and maintain a new IT system to facilitate the collection and reporting of required data and hire additional staff. The Department of State Hospital indicates that each of its hospitals collects data separately, and with the exception of a specialized system related to nursing, currently does so manually. The bill would require Department of State Hospitals to create a unit at each hospital dedicated to data collection and reporting, which would require 25 additional positions at a cost of $3.7 million general fund annually. The Department of Human Resources notes no direct fiscal impact. However, as a statewide representative of the employer, CalHR is concerned about the significant staff time and resources departments would need to dedicate to developing new tracking processes and making system changes without additional funding.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2367 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2495 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Khara has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Is there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2495?
Good evening again. My name is Kevin Natchou. I'm in favor of that bill because I believe no employer should use the immigration status of the employees to deny their basic rights.
Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 2495? Seeing none, I'm bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2495 will move to the suspense file. AB 2534 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Calra has away presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2534? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2534? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2534 will move to the suspense file. That's okay. I'm going to turn to the Department of Finance on AB 2495.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to add on here. So in relation to AB 2495, the Department of Finance is opposed to the bill. The provisions of this bill will result in additional workload for the Retaliation Claims Investigations Unit within the Labor Commissioner's Office to review and resolve an increase in immigration-related retaliation claims. DIR estimates a fiscal impact of between $450,000 and $750,000 in 2627, between $850,000 and $1.4 million in 2728, and between $800,000 and $1.3 million in 2728 ongoing from the Labor Enforcement Compliance Fund. To the extent 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. Thank you.
Seeing no comments or questions from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, as mentioned, AB 2495 will move to the suspense file. AB 2158 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hoover has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2158? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2158? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2158 will move to the suspense file. AB 2316 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Hoover has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2316? See none. Any witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 2316? See none. See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2316 will move to the suspense file. AB 2160 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Celeste Rodriguez has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses in support for AB 2160? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2160? Seeing none. Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2160 will move to the suspense file. AB 2428 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2428? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to AB 2428? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2428, we'll move to the suspense file. AB 2567 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2567? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to AB 2567? Seeing none, going to the Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes Madam Chair The Department of Finance does not have a specific position on the bill but notes that the Department of Social Services estimates that this bill will result in unknown but likely annual local assistance costs in the tens of millions based on caseload Specifically, DSS estimates the annual cost to be $2,480 per family served at 100 families. This would be approximately $2.5 million annually, and for 1,000 families, this would be $24.8 million annually. This bill will also result in one-time costs of approximately half a million or $500,000 for required system automation. Finance notes that the available federal block grant funding for CalWORKs program is fully allocated, so costs originating from this bill will require general fund. Additionally, as the bill results in a higher level of service from county welfare departments, it likely constitutes a reimbursable state mandate.
I see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, Assembly Bill 2567 will move to the suspense file. AB 2635 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Celestia Rodriguez has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2635? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2635? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2635. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2167 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Macedo has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses in support of AB 2167? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2167? Seeing none. No questions from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2167 will move to the suspense file. AB 2174 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Johnson has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses in support to Assembly Bill 2174? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2174? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2174 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2189 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Nguyen has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to Assembly Bill 2189? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 2189? Seeing none, seeing no questions from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2189 will move to the suspense file. AB 2414 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember DeWin has a wave presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2414? Seeing none, any in opposition of AB 2414? Seeing none, no questions from members. At this time, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, Assembly Bill 2414 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2507 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Nguyen has waived presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to Assembly Bill 2507? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to 2507? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2507, we'll move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2684 is a suspense file candidate Assemblymember Nguyen has a wave presentation We go directly to witness testimony Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2684 Seeing none anyone in opposition to AB 2684 Seeing none bringing it back to the committee no questions or comments This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2684 will move to the suspense file. AB 2727 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Nguyen has a wave presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Is there anyone in support of AB 2727? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to AB 2727? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2727 will move to the suspense file. AB 2201 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Berner has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have anyone who would like to testify in support for Assembly Bill 2201? See none. Anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2201? See none. Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill as it contains provisions that are already included in Chapter 27, Statutes of 2026, SB 164, and contains provisions that exceed the policy framework finalized between the administration and the legislature in the 2026 Budget Act.
Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2201 will move to the suspense file. AB 2253 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Burner has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support for AB 2253? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to AB 2253? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2253 will move to the suspense file. AB 2790 is a committee bill. We will go directly to testifying in support for AB 2790. Seeing no testimony, we will open it up for opposition testimony. Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. AB 2790 will be moved to the suspense file without objection. AB 2203 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Tangipa has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses to testify in support to AB 2203? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to AB 2203? Seeing none, no questions or comments from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, Assembly Bill 2203 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2247 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Elowari has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses in support to AB 2247? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to AB 2247? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2247 will move to the suspense file. AB 2318 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Elowari has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support of AB 2318? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2318? Seeing none. Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2318, we'll move to the suspense file. AB 2403 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Elowari has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses in support to AB 2403? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to AB 2403?
Seeing none Department of Finance do you have a file on the measure Yes the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill as the Franchise Tax Board estimates that this bill reduces general fund revenues by million in 2016 and million ongoing through the duration of the program The California Film Commission estimates its administrative cost at $672,000 in 2016-2017 through 2034-35 for five positions to implement and administer the program. The Film Commission notes that the allocated tax credits may continue to be awarded for multiple years after the January 1st, 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 for members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2403 will move to the suspense file. AB 2483 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Elowari has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2483? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to AB 2483? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, no questions. Turning to the Department of Finance, do you have a file on the measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance has no position on this bill. However, CAL FIRE estimates that this bill requires $670,000 general fund in fiscal year 2026-2027 and $568,000 general fund annually thereafter. CDCR expects the cost for this bill to be minor and absorbable unless CDCR is required to provide additional training or licensing to meet the minimum requirements for the firefighter, one or foresty technician's classifications.
This bill is a suspense file of candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2483. We'll move to the suspense file. Thank you. AB 2551 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Elowari has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have any witnesses who would like to testify in support to AB 2551? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to AB 2551? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2551 will move to the suspense file. AB 2593 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Elowari has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2593? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to AB 2593? Seeing none, bringing it back to the Department of Finance, do you have a file on measure?
Yes, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill as it could result in costs not including the 2026 Budget Act and could conflict with existing court-ordered processes. CDCR indicates unknown but likely substantial general fund costs to implement this bill. The bill could increase the department's litigation risk and cost by creating a new standard of liability related to interference with prescribed health care. Additionally, the bill could conflict with existing court-order processes under the Potta v. Newsom case, including utilization management, quality assurance activities, and prioritization based on clinical urgency.
See no questions or comments from committee members. Assembly bill. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2593. We'll move to the suspense file. AB 2335 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Valencia has weighed presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2335? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 2335? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Assembly Bill 2335 will move to the suspense file. Assembly Bill 2352 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly Member Valencia has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to Assembly Bill 2352? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to Assembly Bill 2352? Seeing none, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2352 will move to the suspense file. AB 2490 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Valencia has a way presentation. We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2490? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to AB 2490? Seeing none, let's take it to the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?
No file, Madam Chair.
Excellent. Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, Assembly Bill 2490 will move to the suspense file.
I'd like to thank every single person for participating in today's very long hearing. We have now concluded the agenda. This meeting of the Senate Committee on Appropriations is now adjourned.
Thank you.