Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, Monday, April 20, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
California has made a statement that we value the experience of our immigrant families. To put it in context of education, half of all California children live in immigrant families. And so why should any company that provides jeopardy or harm to them be able to experience financial benefit and receive money from the state of California? This bill says no. Not a loan, not a grant, not a tax credit, no investment of any kind.
We're grateful for, the author for bringing forward, this measure. When you put it in context, California companies have made nearly $3,000,000,000 in profit from ICE contracts. And so we know that it's time for action and it's time for urgency. I respectfully ask for your I vote on a b twenty four sixty five. And as I know you'll be hearing a b sixteen thirty three, a a similar bill with a similar message that I am also sponsoring, I also ask for your I vote there.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, mister superintendent. Thank you for appearing before this committee. Next witness, two minutes, please.
Speaker 4
Yes. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Ximing Chiu with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We're proud to cosponsor a b twenty four sixty five because it ensures that our state's fiscal policies are consistent with other laws that protect California's resources from being used to support unlawful and immoral immigration enforcement and detention.
AB twenty four sixty five uses the state's decision making power on grants, loans, and tax credits to hold businesses accountable for profiteering off mass detentions and deportations. As an Angelino, I've seen firsthand the widespread damage from unchecked, violent immigration enforcement. Over one in four Californians are immigrants, totaling about 11,000,000 people who are family members, neighbors, friends, and business owners. Mass raze and deportations have detrimental effects on families, communities, and the state's entire economy, including on key industries such as construction, agriculture, and caregiving. Corporations are profiting en masse from the suffering of our communities yet continue to receive state benefits.
As shared, they're profiting in the billions, and just over last year, their profits increased by 2,000,000,000 because more people are being held in detention centers. These are detention centers that have been well documented, including by the state attorney general, as having dangerous living conditions, lacking medicate medical care, and having inadequate food and water. We know that budgets are moral documents that reflect the government's values and choices. They go beyond words to show what our true priorities are. So similarly, preventing our taxpayer dollars from being used to support companies that profit from separating families and detaining Californians shows that California is defending immigrant communities and actions, not just words.
I urge you to ensure that our stats our state taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize business practices that conflict with California's values. I urge you to support a b twenty four sixty five with your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of twenty four sixty five, would you please give me your name, your organization, and this is support only.
Speaker 5
Thank you, mister chair. Rene Bayardo representing Pico, California, also a proud cosponsor.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon, chair members. Elmer Lazada with the California Federation of Labor Unions in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon, chair members. JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good afternoon, team members. Cameras aside with the California Immigrant Policy Center, proud cosponsor of the bill, also pushing support for California Coalition for for for women prisoners, California California's United for Responsible Budget Curb, Secure Justice, A New Path, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Good afternoon. I'm Kimberly Will, a community organizer from Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network in support of a b twenty four sixty five, also registering support for South Bay People Power, Working Partnerships USA, Friends Committee on Legislation California, and California Community Foundation. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Good afternoon. Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and also on behalf of End Child Poverty California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Good afternoon. Christopher Sanchez with, Inclusive Action for the City of Strong Support.
Speaker 25
Good afternoon, chair Gibson and members. My name is Dusky Wanamaker. I am here today representing, LA Voice, and I'm also treasurer of Northridge Indivisible and lead organizer for Raising Cain's movement to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And I'm in strong support of AB twenty four sixty five. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Hi. My name is Fernando Sandoval. I'm from LA Boys, and I'm in support twenty four sixty five.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Noah Wright, and I am from Sacramento Act, and I am strong support of twenty four sixty five. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon, Maribel Arise Mendez, community community organizer with Sacramento Act, and I strongly support twenty four sixty five.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon. My name is Aurora Solis, and I'm here to represent PACT, people acting in community together from Santa Clara County and I am here to support AB twenty four sixty five.
Speaker 26
Good afternoon. My name is Luan Dian of PACT San Jose. I support families and children and also Pat, excuse me, 20 four a b, excuse me, AB2465.
Speaker 27
Beatriz Sandovan, the LA boys, from Los Angeles County and from Pathway Park. And show support is B no. AB oh my god. 2467 65.
Speaker 11
K. Good afternoon. My name is Mercedes Lopez, and I'm I'm represent LA Voice. And I'm strongly here to support a B2465. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon. My name is Theresa Silva, and I am from PACT in San Jose, and I support a B2465. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Saul. I actually come from People Acting Committee Together, which is in Santa Clara County, and I'm in strong support of AB2465. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Hello. My name is Alicia Dean, and I'm here representing Sacramento area congregations together in strong support of a B2465.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, any primary opposition, we invite you to come and take a seat at the table. You have two minutes. Thank
Speaker 22
you, chair and members. Alexis Rodriguez with the Cal Chamber here in regrettable opposition to a v twenty four sixty five. First, we wanna be clear. We do not oppose this bill out of any support for ICE or any troubles that the federal enforcement has caused California's communities. Our opposition here is based on practical concerns with the breadth of the bill and its implications on for businesses in California, particularly those with no involvement with detention centers.
The bill applies broadly and forbids any company from contracting with any agency engaging in immigrant enforcement, but the bill does not provide any clear off limit agencies. For any companies who contract with this undefined list of agencies, the bill would then deny that company any state provided benefit subsidy grant or loan or any tax credit from the state of California, but only if that service was provided for the purpose of aiding and furthering immigrant enforcement. As noted in the prior committee analysis, the bill doesn't clearly define, what contracts would make a business ineligible for state provided benefits. Specifically, it isn't clear what contracts would be considered for the purposes of aiding or furthering immigrant enforcement. For example, if a company offers IT services to DHCS, as we read it, this would this would, apply to the bill.
In short, we have member companies who provide services to federal government pursuant to long contracts, and we are concerned about the ambiguity about the contracts that would apply to this bill. Without clarification, we believe the terms of this bill would punish each business or even businesses with non problematic contracts and would make it difficult for businesses to know if they are in violation or not. So we we are opposed to eight b twenty four sixty five, and we urge to no vote should this come off with the suspense file. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to twenty four sixty five, would you please line up? Give me your name, your organization, and this is in opposition to this measure.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon. Matt Easley on behalf of the California chapters of the Associated General Contractors in opposition.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon. Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association in opposition.
Speaker 24
Good afternoon. Nick Chappie on behalf of the California Trucking Association in a respectful opposition.
Speaker 25
the SFP Alliance on behalf of the 6,000,000 California voters who voted for in the aggressive immigration enforcement in the November. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Scott Gove on behalf of the Construction Employers Association in opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else wishing to express opposition in this measure, bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions of this author, wanna thank, both, both of you for your leadership and your willingness to address some of the, concerns, administrative issues that was raised, in this bill. To the author, if you have any closing remarks, you may deliver them now.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, this bill, is will and will be referred to our suspense file. And thank you and your your your witness for coming here. Thank you very much, mister superintendent, for coming and speaking in support. And that's it.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
So we go. We it. We see mister Lee here. So mister Lee, we invite you to to come. Item number file line number 2AB1675.
Speaker 12
Well, thank you, mister chair and members. Today, I'm presenting a b sixteen seventy five, which is a very simple bill, very much similar to the concept we talked about earlier today, which is if you are a corporation that does business with ICE, you will lose your California tax breaks. These companies can do the right thing and side with the American people, which most have already seen that the kidnapping and killing of American citizens and residents is more than heinous enough to say they should be abolished. This is a very simple choice is that these companies can stop doing contracts and stop doing business with ICE, and then they can keep their California tax breaks, or they continue to cherish these tax, continue to cherish these contracts and lose those said tax breaks. We've talked a bit about the private prison industry, which is expected to generate an additional $50,000,000 of revenue just from deportation flights alone.
Speaker 27
But a data firm like Palantir, for instance, has a $30,000,000 contract to develop software tracking for immigrants and a California based company for a full body restraint that Bloomberg Law has already identified has at least 41 incidents where a person has died in law enforcement incidences using these devices. At a time when California is facing a structural deficit, these tax breaks are tax subsidizations by the average California taxpayer. We should not be subsidizing a single cent of any business that enables the paramilitary force that is ICE. That is Trump's personal army that is conducting these raids, deportations, and assaults and murders on Americans. That is why this bill is so important and very clear.
So it's very clear that if a company wants to continue to keep those tax breaks that are afforded by California taxpayers, they can simply cancel their ICE contracts and continue with their business with California. This bill also would redirect those excess funds towards immigrant legal aid, which we need more and more during this process. And this is about aligning our tax code with our values. I'm respectfully asking for your I vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, mister Lee. Anyone in the in the room wishing to speak in support of a b sixteen seventy five, would you please line up to the microphone. I see some movement. I don't know if they're moving towards the microphone. Okay.
We have one person.
Speaker 4
Hi. Good afternoon. Shimming Chair with the California Immigrant Policy Center in support of this bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Primary opposition to assembly bill sixteen seventy five, would you please come and take a seat at the table? And you have two minutes.
Speaker 22
Thank you, chairman members. Alexis Rodriguez with the California Chamber of Commerce here in opposition to a b sixteen seventy five. Again, we'd like to be clear, we do not oppose this out of any support for ICE, or for the harm and disruption that the federal enforcement has caused, California's communities. Our opposition is based on practical concerns with the breadth of the bill and its implications on businesses. This bill, is not limited to companies that are directly, directly related with ICE.
Instead, the bill applies broadly and prohibits any company with contracting with the US Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and the management directorate,
Speaker 32
bill does not provide clear list of unapplicable agencies. Based on our read of the bill, any company who contracts with ICE and any of its subagencies, would be denied any tax expenditure as defined. For context, it's worth noting that DHS performs many critical, noncontroversial duties in various contracts supporting these duties would be subject to the bill. For example, DHS oversees the Federal Emergency, Management Agency, FEMA, and its life saving life saving, direct response. A contract to provide blankets with FEMA would seem to qualify as the contract with ICE and therefore trigger a loss of any tax expenditure.
Speaker 22
In summary, because we we believe the terms of this bill are overly broad and will make it difficult for businesses to know whether they are in violation or not, we are opposed to a b sixteen seventy five and urge de novo at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to sixteen seventy five, would you please line up, state your name, your organization, and this is in opposition to this measure.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon. Matt Easley on behalf of the California chapters of the Associated General Contractors in opposition to a b six seventy five.
Speaker 26
Scott Governor Baff with the Construction Employers Association in opposition.
Speaker 24
Nick Chappie with the California Trucking Association in respectful opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Wanna bring it back to the committee. Seeing no one wishes to speak, on this measure, this bill raises a number of administrative questions as currently drafted. Are you willing to work with the committees and staff to on the amendments to clarify the provision, mister Lee?
Speaker 27
Yes, mister chair. We've had some productive conversations with the committee staff about clarifying and making it even more enforceable with FTV. So I look forward to seeing those amendments in print later in the process with this committee.
Speaker 1
Great. And that's that's good to hear. There's just some issues that's that's been raised.
Speaker 1
Your willingness to work with the committee moving forward, that would certainly help. With that, mister Lee, you are invited to close if you wish.
Speaker 27
Yes. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you for the committee for working with my office and staff on this bill. We really do wanna make it the most enforceable enforceable bill as possible. Of course, companies today can already opt out of their contracts with Department of Homeland Security and ICE and preserve their California tax breaks. Now I just wanna clarify something that came up in the opposition is that defined in the bill in print today, it is depart the the agency's related department of homeland security targeted with this is the United States Customs and Border Protection, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the management directorate as well.
It does not exclude FEMA. Now it is beyond me why FEMA had to be put into Department of Homeland Security, which is a different issue altogether, but, does not target FEMA whatsoever. It is about specifically ICE and its accompanying agencies or agencies that work in the deportation machine. Now this bill, again, is very simple. It's about canceling the tax breaks, which are tax expenditures that you and I, we all pay for, that would be subsidizing corporations that enable the paramilitary force that is ICE.
Without the software from Palantir, without the weapons provided from private contractors or even the drones, they would not be able to go out there in their unmarked vans and kidnap people. And that's why it's very important that we let corporate America decide. Should they be on the peep on the side of the people or on the side of the deportation machine? And with that, we'll certainly ask your Ivo at the at the appropriate time, and I look forward to working with the committee on, future amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. This bill will refer to our suspense file, and thank you very much for appearing for this committee once we have a quorum. Thank you very much. So we're gonna move to file item number three a b twenty eighty nine by Ward. We understand we have a staff person here to present on behalf of mister Ward.
Speaker 28
Of course. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. My name is Silberio Risoyamas. And on behalf of assembly member Chris Ward, I am pleased to present a b twenty eighty nine.
A b twenty eighty nine supports affordable housing projects by ensuring continuity of the welfare exemption during ownership transitions and by promoting an efficient transparent application and recertification process. The property tax welfare exemption improves project feasibility for eligible affordable housing providers supporting long term affordability and financial stability for low income Californians. Affordable housing projects lose crucial and extremely limited affordable housing dollars by paying for property taxes up front straining their limited resources. AB twenty eighty nine would reduce the cost of sustaining affordable housing by allowing eligible organizations to withhold relevant tax payments without penalty during periods of ownership transition. This bill would also ensure adequate time to complete recertification including the labor intensive process of verifying tenant's income.
Speaker 31
And by and by authorizing verified electronic signatures, a b twenty eighty nine would modernize and streamline the recertification process. For witnesses in support, I have Paul Schaefer, public policy manager with the California Council for Affordable Housing, and Justine Marcus, state and local policy director for Enterprise Community Partners of Northern California.
Speaker 33
Thank you. Good afternoon, shared members. My name is Paul Schafer, and I'm the public policy manager with the California Council for Affordable Housing. CCH represents the full continuum of the affordable housing industry from tax credit investors and lenders to developers and long term property managers working in communities across the state. AB twenty eighty nine makes targeted common sense improvements to the welfare property tax exemption process, an exemption that is foundational to the financial feasibility of affordable housing.
Speaker 29
When an exemption of this importance becomes administratively inefficient, this strain ultimately falls on our nonprofit providers and the residents they serve. Each year, between January 1 and February 15, nonprofit housing organizations devote the equivalent of more than a full workday every day to maintaining this exemption, often working nights and weekends to meet to meet the statutory deadline. One of the most burdensome requirements is collecting tenant signatures on affidavits that cannot be distributed until counties mail forms after January 1. This creates a compressed timeline in which thousands of tenants must complete paperwork, leaving little room for correction or delay. For large nonprofit operators serving tens of thousands of residents, this is not a minor inconvenience.
This is a significant operational nightmare. AB twenty eighty nine addresses this directly by allowing earlier release of forms and verified electronic signatures. These changes would dramatically reduce administrative burden potentially by half while still fully preserving program integrity and accountability. This bill also brings needed relief to the nonprofit partners during ownership transitions. Under current law, property tax relief during exemption review is limited to projects under construction.
AB twenty eighty nine makes reasonable extensions to this protection to changes in ownership or control, preventing unnecessary financial strain during restructuring that are often required to ensure long term affordability. In short, this bill modernizes an essential process, improves efficiency, protects nonprofit resources, and ultimately supports affordable housing sustainability. For these reasons, CCH respectfully asked for your I vote on a b twenty eighty nine.
Speaker 30
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Justine Marcus. I'm the state and local policy director for Enterprise Community Partners. We're a national nonprofit affordable housing organization that delivers technical assistance and capacity building, advocates for policies, and provides financing to produce and preserve affordable homes.
The welfare tax exemption plays a critical role in the financial feasibility of affordable housing production and preservations to keep rents affordable and costs low. Affordable housing operates on very thin margins, and the cost savings associated with the welfare tax exemption are a key factor in whether or not a project will be feasible or not. The welfare tax exemption, however, suffers from outdated and difficult to navigate systems. And as a result, the initial application and annual recertifications can be time consuming and often cause significant costs for affordable housing providers. These delays and complexity, sometimes can require that housing providers engage consultants to even just navigate the exemption process.
As such, the welfare tax exemption space is ripe for modernization and more efficiency. The changes proposed in a b twenty eighty nine make this critical state benefit more efficient, more streamlined, and more transparent. For example, clearly specifying the documentation needed for an exemption is critical. Although the State Board of Equalization provides detailed guidance to county assessor's offices regarding procedures for granting exemptions, annual, recertifications. Affordable housing providers must also abide by locally imposed requirements, which may vary from county to county.
Speaker 2
We've seen this be an acute challenge for city and county funded projects. Additional requirements, backup documentation are not standardized across counties and can change from year to year without notice. This lack of transparency can prolong the process. With longer processing times, affordable housing groups may need to pay higher taxes for one or two years or more, ultimately jeopardizing their sustainability. We believe a b twenty eighty nine would increase transparency, decrease exemption processing times, and we look forward to continuing the discussion with the assessors and the tax collectors to ensure that we're achieving our shared goals in an effective and implementable manner.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. That's good. Anyone in the room wishes to speak in support of this measure twenty eighty nine, would you please come forward in your name, your organization, and this is support.
Speaker 31
Graciela Castillo Cranes here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium and strong support.
Speaker 32
Taisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership, proud cosponsor and also doing support for, Housing California.
Speaker 1
You. Primary opposition, would you please come forward if there be any? We invite you to have a seat at the table. This is primary opposition? Yes.
Speaker 11
Good good afternoon, mister chairman and members. My name is Jeff Prang. I'm the LA County Assessor and immediate past president of the California Assessor's Association who I am representing here today. We appreciate the intent of a b two zero eight nine to modernize processes and improve transparency. However, we must respectfully oppose the bill unless amended.
First, in electronics electronic signatures. Assessors are already moving in this direction under existing law authored by the chairman. Revenue and taxation code section one sixty eight point one provides a secure and workable framework, creating a separate standard for welfare exemptions forms unnecessary complexity and risks inconsistency across counties at different stages of implementation. Second, the seven day posting requirement is, operationally unrealistic for most assessors. As noted in the committee analysis, assessors, often cannot confirm all required documentation until after reviewing a claim.
Speaker 7
A rigid deadline could reduce flexibility and create compliance challenges without improving outcomes. Third, the requirement to release forms by November 15 is unclear, particularly since those forms are developed by the State Board of Equalization. Counties should not be placed in a position where compliance depends on timelines outside of their control. From a large county perspective, such as LA County, the welfare exemption program operates at a very high volume with complex eligibility reviews. Even modest procedural changes can translate into thousands of additional administrative actions, increasing workload, and compliance risk if timelines are rigid and unclear.
Speaker 11
We remain committed to working with the author to refine the bill so it achieves its goals without creating unintended administrative burdens for assessors.
Speaker 19
Thank you, mister chair and members. Karen Lang on behalf of the California Association of County Treasures and Tax Collectors, the counterpart to mister Prang's operations. Once they receive the application, we have workload on our end as well to make sure that we're not collecting on the taxes where this we where these properties have been verified to be eligible. The concerns that our association has, for starters is that when the original bill was going through, we were emphatic with the sponsors that while we did not take a position, the reason we were not taking a position is that it did not mandate new investments in systems that we cannot afford. It's gonna get worse with HR one.
Counties don't have the money to pay for us to build into the systems the ability to do this automatically. So everything that was gonna happen was gonna have to happen in a in a paper log. And for your home county, mister chair, that's gonna be a lot of manual work that they were gonna have to do to make sure they don't try to go collect on the tax bill for these properties. And the bill does require new mandated systems that we don't have the money for, which our assessor counterparts don't have money for. The second piece of this, which we're very uncomfortable with, is the exemption for properties that are changing hands.
Speaker 23
My own client was sort of begrudgingly neutral because of the intent of the original bill, which was to get as many units of housing built, and we didn't wanna monopolize the capital to pay taxes that were ultimately gonna be refunded if that instead meant we could get one or two more affordable housing units built instead. That's why they stayed neutral on the bill. This is a whole new concept of of buying completed buildings, and we really wanna have a very close look at making sure we don't have folks taking advantage of this new program that has only gone through one tax cycle and make sure that we're not losing tax dollars that would be due, to the counties. So that's where our concerns are coming from, workload, new concepts that we're really not sure, are, have merit. And then finally, on our end, and again, the assessors have to see this stuff first, we haven't seen any anything come through from any county assessor's office in any of the large urban counties that we would suspect would be the most likely to see these applications.
Speaker 19
I've surveyed all of our largest counties in the association and no one has seen an application come through on our end yet. And so it's and that's been two tax cycles at this point. So for all of those reasons, we are opposed to the measure, and thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to this measure? Twenty eighty nine, would you please line up your name, organization, and this is opposition. Hearing and seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any members wishing to ask any questions?
Hearing and seeing none. Can't ask that question. Okay. We'll give you the opportunity to close on behalf of mister Ward. We will we will say this.
There was, of course, significant questions raised by the opposition, we would certainly ask that you take this back to the author. This is in fact a suspense candidate, so there's time excuse me one moment. I've been informed that this is a suspense candidate. It will go on suspense file, but we will be taking it up today. So it won't be an opportunity to have any kind of conversation to try to reach an agreement.
So we'll be it will go into suspense file and then we'll be act upon once we get a quorum. So well, thank you very much. Once we get in a quorum today, we'll be acting upon it. We have enough? One, two, three, four.
Okay. So we're gonna pause for a moment. We're gonna ask the we're gonna ask our secretary to please call the road to establish a quorum.
Speaker 33
Gibson here. Sanchez? Here. Sanchez here. Carrillo?
Demile? Here. Demile here. McKinnon? Here.
McKinnon here. Quirk Silva? Here. Quirk Silva here. Michelle Rodriguez?
We have a corner. I have a list.
Speaker 1
So we wanna invite you to see if you have any closing comments on behalf of mister Ward. And we invite you to close if you would like.
Speaker 28
Yes. Of course. I guess, all I'll say is, we're definitely, intend to work collaboratively with the committee, consultants, and all stakeholders to address concerns with this bill. And, just wanna say thank you, and on behalf of assembly member Chris Ward, and when appropriate to do so, I respectfully ask for
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. So this bill will be referred to our suspense file.
Speaker 1
Okay. So file item number 2AB1675Lee is will be moved to our suspense file. File item number 7AB2465 Ortega. That item will be moved to our suspense file since we have a quorum. So we we have author.
We have fallout number 1AB1633. Mister Haney, we'll thank you very much. If you have any witnesses, your witnesses can come and join you. Yep. They're here.
And you may proceed when ready.
Speaker 34
Thank you, mister chair members. I'm proud to present a b sixteen thirty three, which imposes a 50% gross receipts tax on corporations operating for profit private detention facilities in California. There are seven, private immigration detention facilities operated by for profit corporations in our state. They have a long and well documented record of dangerous conditions, including inadequate medical care, health and safety violations, and inhumane living conditions. Despite prior efforts to increase oversight and accountability, serious concerns continue.
Following inspections of a newly opened private detention facility in Kern County in 2025, the attorney general reported dangerous living conditions and a lack of adequate medical care, including insufficient medical staff, hygiene products, and inadequate food and water. At the same time, private detention corporations generate billions of dollars through government contracts, while Californians and immigrant families bear the human and community cost of detention. AB sixteen thirty three is rooted in a simple principle. California should not reward private corporations from profiting from this sort of detention. This bill does not regulate federal immigration policy.
Speaker 35
Instead, it uses California's long standing taxing authority to assess business activity taking place in our state. California already applies industry specific taxes and fees where sectors create significant public costs, including in health care, tobacco, and oil extraction. And a b sixteen thirty three will follow the same principle of accountability. Revenue generated by this bill will be reinvested into the due process for all fund to provide immigration related services and support communities impacted by detention enforcement activities. Here at me to to to testify today is Xu Ming Cheer, deputy director at the California Immigration Immigrant Policy Center, and Kimberly Wu, community organizer for services, immigrant rights, and education network.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Ximing Chiu with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We're a proud cosponsor of a b sixteen thirty three because it holds private detention operators accountable for profiteering off the labor and lives of Californians in custody. Taxing private detention facility operators is well within California's authority to tax.
California already imposes specific taxes and fees on industries such as oil, lithium extraction, and tobacco. Private detention facilities are just as harmful as those industries. We see that when workers are detained and unable to support their families and pay rent, this has a significant negative economic impact on the state. Private companies, as mentioned, are generating hundreds of millions in revenue from detaining Californians. Just last year, at in the midst of the Trump administration's ramped up militaristic immigration raids, ICE awarded private prison operator CoreCivic a major new contract to operate California's largest immigration detention facility.
Speaker 5
The contract for the 2,000 plus beds at the California City Immigration Detention Facility is expected to generate a 130,000,000 in revenue for the company. Compare this 130,000,000 in revenue to the conditions inside, which people detained and their families have described as inhumane and the California attorney general has reported as dangerous living conditions. Unfortunately, the situation at California City is not unique. Each year, private detention facilities detain tens of thousands of people across California in inhumane conditions with little to no accountability, threatening the health, safety, and constitutional rights of Californians. Tragically, six people have already died in California's private detention facilities since September 2025 causing irreparable harm to the people and state of California.
Speaker 4
Private companies operating private detention facilities are incentivized to maximize profits by cutting corners in health and safety. The tax that a b sixteen thirty three proposes is an accountability mechanism the state of California has the authority to impose on companies that subject us to inhumane conditions, medical neglect, and even death. AB sixteen thirty three addresses this urgent issue in an innovative way that is fully within the purview of the state's control. Over 25 immigrant justice, labor, faith based, and community groups across California have signed on in support of AB sixteen thirty three, and I urge you to also support it. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Good afternoon. I'm Kimberly Wu, and I'm a community organizer for Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network, also known as CYREN. Our organization serves our immigrant and refugee communities around the Bay Area and Central Valley. And we are a proud cosponsor for a b sixteen thirty three, which would impose a 50% tax on corporations operating private detention facilities that profit off the suffering of our loved ones while violating their human rights. I have loved ones who sought permanent residency for over twenty years.
When they got to their final interview, ICE agents handcuffed their hands and feet and forcibly shipped one of them to this state's largest lawless immigration detention facility in California City. Words cannot describe the visceral pain of seeing your elder relative who immigrated to this country to build a better life for our family break down crying behind a glass screen window where it's impossible to hug them and hold their hand. There are not enough words to comfort a loved one after they're shipped from their personal belongings, their clothes, their medical needs, and their freedom. No one deserves to experience the inhumane pain, suffering, and loneliness that my loved ones felt every day in that prison. Yet private companies like Geo Group and CoreCivic profit from caging people.
Speaker 1
People like my elderly relatives who never spent a single night apart in decades until they were detained, fiancees weeks away from their wedding, children separated from their mother, and lifelong friends separated from the cold isolating bars of detention. I know these stories because they were in the room with me, waiting hours for a chance of a one hour glimpse of their loved ones. Private detention facilities hold thousands of people across California in inhumane conditions with little to no accountability, causing irreparable harm to our communities. After the CEO of CoreCivic, one of the largest for profit detention corporations, reported $7,500,000 in annual compensation, the CEO noted that the recent rise in immigration sweeps was, quote unquote, truly one of the most exciting periods of my career with the company. This is who California's in bed with, private for profit companies who fighting who find it, quote unquote, exciting to make millions of the suffering from our loved ones.
Speaker 9
California cannot keep seeing our valuable resources and money on this violence that currently detains and separates over 6,500 6,400 Californians from their loved ones. We strongly urge your I vote on a b sixteen thirty three because California must hold pro for profit private companies accountable for profiteering off the backs of our loved ones in custody and boldly stand up for the safety, due process, and dignity for all Californians. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishes to speak in support of sixteen thirty three, would you please line up your name, organization, and this is support.
Speaker 19
Karen Lang again on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. Campus aside with the California Public and Policy Center, proud cosponsor of the bill. Also here, representing End Child Poverty California, Buen Vaccino, Inland Region Reentry Collaborative, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, and California Work and Family Coalition all in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Hi, Jessica Marcus. On behalf of state superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurman, also cosponsor in support.
Speaker 13
Fernando Sanoac from LA Boys Los Angeles and Loving Park in support of sixteen thirty three. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Aurora Solis from act people acting in community together, Santa Clara County in favor of a b sixteen thirty three.
Speaker 14
Maribel Arismendez from Sacramento Area Congregations Together, support 1633.
Speaker 21
Alicia, Jean, Stelzer, Sacramento Area Congregations together in strong support of a b sixteen thirty three.
Speaker 18
My name is Mercedes, and I'm from LA Boys, and I'm support sixteen thirty three.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Noah Wright, strong support of 1633 from Sacramento Act. Thank you.
Speaker 12
It's me again, Dusky Wanamaker. I'm representing today LA Voice, and I'm also organizer for Raising Cane's Movement to Protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and treasurer of Northridge Indivisible in strong support of a b sixteen thirty three.
Speaker 5
Good afternoon, mister chair members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association support.
Speaker 16
Good afternoon. My name is Lundin Peck San Jose. I would like to support a b sixteen thirty three.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else, anyone in our primary opposition to this measure, please have a seat at the table. This is opposition to sixteen sixty sixteen thirty three.
Speaker 25
That is correct, madam chair sir chair. Excuse me. I apologize for that. That was not a fraudulently. My name is David Bolag with the SF
Speaker 25
My name is David Bolag with the SFE Alliance, in opposition to this. I submitted my letter this morning. I apologize for the lateness of it, and I do wanna correct something that I did say about, actually, there being lawsuits against this. I did a quick search when I got here this this afternoon and saw that there's the supreme court has not ruled in favor of any, what you call, punitive punitive taxes like this one will be. So that won't happen.
Speaker 14
But what could happen if this passes is that the federal government can buy these institutions and hire all the people that are working there. That's one. Number two, they could actually just close down facilities here in California that are holding detent, that are holding people that are being detained for immigration due process hearings. That's the reason why they're being held because they're being granted the due process rights before they are found to either stay here in The United States or be deported back to their home country. What could happen though is those they could close those downs, and those that are representing them, legal rights, family, friends, loved ones, and advocates will now be further away from them if they are moved to another state, and their lawyers will and if their lawyers are based in California, they're gonna have to travel, will increase costs for these people that are representing that are being represented.
Speaker 25
They could also be in a continuous being transferred around the country. So if you do really care about immigrants, I would really consider you to take those facts into consideration before voting for this. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to sixteen thirty three, should you please line up? Hearing and seeing none, wanna bring it back to the committee. Mister DeMio, you did wanna be recognized? Okay.
Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 39
First, I wanna thank the author for making the legislature more efficient today because I I can combine my comments on your bill with similar bills, a b, sixteen seventy five and twenty four sixty five. All three of these bills are designed to make it almost impossible for ICE to do their job of enforcing immigration laws. Let's not let's not beat around the bush. Let's be clear about what the goal is. When you impose a 50% gross receipts tax, which is what the bill would do, it's a gross receipts tax.
Speaker 6
Any revenues that come in, not profit. We're not talking about profit. It's a gross receipts tax. Know how the advocates are trying to dress it up as, oh, we're going after a profit. No.
You literally are trying to shut down all of these facilities. So to the author, since your your bill will in a in effect shut down ICE detention facilities where these people are here unlawfully, they're being held, a a massive percentage of them have criminal records and and should not be on the streets, where would you house them? Where would you suggest the federal government house all of these detainees? Should we release them onto the streets?
Speaker 34
These are these are folks. Being silly to detain. They have not been charged with a crime, and they're being put into the hands of a private for profit corporations who are holding them in really deplorable conditions, and that has a huge cost and and it causes harm. I think there's a reason why this bill, which we just learned, has brought together the ACLU and the Riverside sheriff, who I think would probably disagree with you that this would end immigration enforcement in our state. What it would what it would and your bill allow
Speaker 6
these these these facilities to remain open? Because it's not answering the question. I'm trying get you the question.
Speaker 34
be their decision. They if they continue to operate any further revenue they would get, they would be required to pay 50% gross receipts tax. Certainly, there are other ways to have immigration detention facilities now partnered in with private corporations in
Speaker 1
but Mister DeMaio. If there were other DeMaio, would you please let him finish?
Speaker 6
trying to get my my my question answered. Okay? He can handle himself. If you said that there are other ways Sure. What are the other alternatives to these facilities?
Because your Sure. I can answer the question. Supporting your bill don't like private prisons. They've made it quite clear. Okay?
So I'm just taking them at their word that they don't like private
Speaker 34
house all these people? Where do we have publicly run facilities for every other type of detention that we have in our state. If there were to be detention facilities that operated, immigration or otherwise, they would then be publicly run ones. It's not that complicated. That's how we do our own.
We don't have any private detention facilities in in in California anymore that are nonimmigration. So the same principle would apply. If these were to close and no longer be private detention facilities, which is the bill doesn't require doesn't require them to close. If they did decide to operate differently, they could either close or if they had detention, they could be publicly run and operate operate just like our state facilities.
Speaker 6
Would you support the state of California publicly running these detention facilities?
Speaker 6
So would you fully support the Bureau of Prisons, which began a policy in, February 2025 of housing at BOP facilities, Bureau of Prison facilities, and this gets to the opponent's point of view that you shut down the private facilities, what's gonna happen? The BOP, Bureau of Prisons, will come in, probably just simply subcontract, in some way, shape, or form, or take over the facilities. Would you support the Bureau of Prisons just simply taking over the operation?
Speaker 34
That isn't that has nothing to do with this bill and is not my decision. That's that would be up to the federal government. What we are what this bill is about is private companies doing business in our state. Their business model is detaining people in deplorable conditions and making huge profits of off of it in our state. And if they're gonna do that, they should pay for the harm that they're causing.
That's what this bill does.
Speaker 6
So as long as what they what what whether they continue As long as they pay, they can harm the people in custody? Is that
Speaker 34
because they can pay they can pay for the harm that they're causing if they're doing business in our state just like a lot of other different types of industries that operate in our state. And if this tax makes it impossible for them to operate their facilities, then they can close them down. That's up to them. That's not my decision.
Speaker 6
I sometimes am criticized for being blunt, but you know exactly what I stand for. And, sir, I'd respect you a lot more if you owned your intent. Your intent is to shut down the ICE detention facilities. Your intent is to It's defund ICE and get rid of ICE. Your intent is not to have as secure of a border and immigration enforcement system.
At least be
Speaker 1
Mister DeMaio, I think he At least I think he has I think he said what his intent is. I think the bill is very clear what his intent is.
Speaker 1
But I think that he can also address in his close further what his intent is. So at this time, if you have any additional questions, if not, we're gonna have the author Sure. Close. Mister I'm sorry. No.
Let me let me do this. Mister Demaya, you have any further questions of the author before I go to miss McKenna?
Speaker 6
Look. I remember the debate on sanctuary state, which was s b 54. And at that time, the folks that lined up, many of the same folks sitting here today, said, look. If we don't participate in enforcement of immigration, the federal government is welcome to come in and do that. We're just saying they need to do it, not us.
That's what you said in 2018, 2017. That's not what you actually were desiring. You desired to eliminate the enforcement. And so today, with that policy now in place, because we did not get honesty on intent of the bill, we now have a situation where state policymakers are telling the federal government, no. You cannot come in and do the job.
And it's my job to make sure that at least no matter where you sit on the issue, at least our elected officials honestly state what's behind their bill. And I believe the intent behind this bill is not to derive more revenue. It's not to charge some of these prisons for the damage they're committing. I find that position even worse. If you truly believe that there's heinous crimes and heinous treatment going on in these facilities, Getting a 50% gross receipts tax is not acceptable.
It's stopping the the violations.
Speaker 6
That being said, own your policy. If you wanna shut down the prisons, then state that, and then let us know what is your plan for detaining the people, or is it that we're just gonna release them back on the streets? And including my colleague did mention that the criminal records, that these people did not have criminal records. It was just a civil matter. Forty two percent forty two percent of individuals in ICE detention facilities in the state of California have a criminal background.
And so and some of them have pending charges. That is an issue that I think the public needs to know that those people would be roaming the street if this bill were to be passed. I cannot support this bill or the other two. I appreciate mister Haney for making the process more efficient today. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I'm not sure where I came from. Miss McKenna, you may you have the floor.
Speaker 36
Yes. Good afternoon. Just to address, just the the I don't know who the colleague was that said whatever you were saying. But, everybody or half of the people that are detained are not does not have criminal backgrounds. As we saw, ICE will shoot people in the face that doesn't have a criminal record or they just want mad that day and they wanna shoot people.
And so we know what's happening on our streets because we've seen it on live television. We don't have to get it from me or we don't have to get it from my colleague. We saw it for ourselves. And so with that and so I have a couple of question for the opposition. Opponents argue companies may leave if a business model cannot operate without high profits from detention.
Is that a model we should be protecting?
Speaker 25
I did not write that. I apologize. Can you repeat it? Maybe I can give you an answer.
Speaker 22
I said, the business model of these detention centers, they they gain very, very high profits from detention. Are these middle business models that California should be protecting? Do you think that's the business model we should be protecting?
Speaker 25
I think we should follow law. I think we should follow the federal law, and it is the federal law of what ICE is doing. Do they need to be protected like any business? They should be treated fairly like any business does. So objection, I wouldn't say nobody should be treated anymore or less.
Speaker 36
I'll let I'll let you know that it's true it's isn't it true that California has already taken steps, my colleague from San Diego area, I think. We've already taken steps to phase out private detention. So I'll say it. Do we wanna phase them out? Yes.
We've been we wanted to phase them out a long time ago. Why? Because it's deplorable. It's places where they treat people horribly when they detained our little kids. When the last time this guy was in president was the president he detained our little children, it was horrible.
So we never wanted. We've been trying to phase out these private detention centers because we don't think people should make profit on locking people up, and so I'll say it. And so with that, assembly member Haney, I support your bill and would love to be a coauthor.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Let me also say this that, mister Haney, I I think I appreciate what you're trying to do with this bill as a chair. Also appreciate the spirit and the intent. I, for one, have seen and heard from my from my residents who have been detained and still have been detained and the deplorable conditions in which these facilities are in are deplorable. We've had members of congress trying to just check on individuals.
I've had a constituent, whose, significant other who have died in one of these facilities. Not only that, but also medical medical medical attention has not been provided. A gentleman's stomach blew up three times his size and waiting for medical attention that never never got there and he he passed away due to the lack of facility. 60 men, one pitcher of water for 60 men to pass around. These are the examples of these private detention facilities.
So certainly, this chair support your bill, and I'm not sure, what the intent was of my colleague and his questioning. You may close.
Speaker 34
Thank you. And I I think both of you said said this well. We wanted to we want to and we wanted to ban all private prisons and jails in California. We attempted to do that. It was before I was here in the legislature, a b 32, assembly member then Bonta, now attorney general, authored a bill that would have banned the use of private prisons or detention facilities in the state of California entirely for all of the reasons that we're talking about here for any of us.
If it was our loved one, it was our mother, grandfather, our child, we would not that want them turned over to a private company with no oversight, accountability, transparency, and these these these systemic abuses, health and safety violations, we wouldn't want that. We don't want that in our state. And so we've been very clear about that. Because the court said that we couldn't do that for the purposes of federal immigration detention, we are going this route of, fulfilling our responsibility to regulate those who are doing business in our state and making sure we tax them accordingly, to the impacts that they're having. And that's what this bill would do.
And with that, I respectfully ask
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. This bill will be referred to our suspense file. I wanna thank your witnesses, for appearing before this committee, and thank you very much for your leadership in this space. Thank you. Thank you.
Next, follow on number four, AB2250, Aguilar Curry. We see the author. You may please approach and have a seat with your witnesses. We want to let your witnesses know they have two minutes each. You may proceed when ready.
Speaker 16
Alright. Good afternoon. Thank you, mister chair and members. AB twenty two fifty is a straightforward cleanup bill to help our hemp enforcement laws work as intended. Last year, I ran AB eight to prepare to better regulate hemp derived products and address the rise of intoxicating products in the unregulated market.
Speaker 37
That law gave c d CDTFA additional enforcement tools, but a few technical fixes are needed to ensure the law is fully effective. The existing gaps in language could create enforcement challenges or cause uncertainty for businesses trying to follow the law. AB twenty two fifty makes targeted clarifications to close those gaps. It makes the law clear and enforceable so illegal products can be removed. It ensures products are treated consistently under state law, and it protects public health while giving businesses clear rules to follow.
The bill does not change the underlying policy of a a b eight. It simply ensures the framework that the legislature passed last year can work as intended. With me today, I have Amy o Gorman Jenkins on behalf of the
Speaker 38
California Cannabis Operators Association. Hello, mister chairman and members. Amy o Gorman Jenkins on behalf of
Speaker 38
We represent 500 licensees across California and very proud to have cosponsored a b eight last year in strong support for the current bill twenty two fifty. Prior to the enactment of a b eight, intoxicating hemp products flooded the California market, sold openly in gas stations, liquor stores, and elsewhere, and this legislature was very proactive in passing that bill. Unfortunately, when you're looking at something as comprehensive as a v eight, we did anticipate some cleanup, and so this is obviously that particular vehicle. There may be more going forward. But this bill would tighten and clarify key provisions related to how cannabinoid products are treated under California cannabis tax law, refine CDTFA seizure authority so that it could be applied consistently and reinforce prohibitions on the sale of intoxicating products outside the cannabis supply chain.
For years, California operated under two parallel markets selling functionally identical THC products under entirely different rules, one tax tested and regulated, the the other one not. This disparity was indefensible, so we appreciate and applaud the work of this author and the legislature and urge your passage of 2250, will advance our comprehensive framework that provides fairness and parity and public health security for the state. Thank you so much, and happy four twenty.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of assembly bill twenty two fifty, would you please line up? And this is support. Don't see anyone running to the microphone. Okay.
Any primary opposition? We wanna invite you to them to come and join us at the table. Primary opposition to seeing none. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee.
Seeing none. Okay. Miss Aguilara Curry, you may close if you wish.
Speaker 37
You know, I I pride myself on the bills we do, but always you have to make sure after you try to get them implemented if there's any loopholes or things we have to tighten up, and this is exactly what this bill does. So I respectfully ask for a vote for a b twenty two fifty.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. This bill will be referred to our suspense. Paul, thank you very much for coming to the committee.
Speaker 1
Select takes care of that. We're gonna ask the sergeant Warms if you please call the offices for a B 2403, El Dewari, A B2319, Schultz.
Speaker 33
I have her stuff if you wanna do yours. Oh. Can be on call. We've got a quorum.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, madam chair and member. Thank you for allowing me to present assembly bill twenty one seventy two. Assembly bill twenty one seventy two allow counties on a temporary basis to utilize a single member assessment appeals commissioner to hear a complex property tax appeal. Existing law requires property tax assessment appeals to be heard by a multi member board which can create a scheduling, contentious, administrative, insufficient, and delays in counties which high appeal volumes.
This structure is designed to promote a balanced decision making and transparency in the appeal process. However, multi day appeals involve properties like hotels, stadiums, and possessory interests are often difficult to schedule under the current multi member system leading to backlogs. These cases often requires extensive testimonies, a detailing financial and analysis and multi days of hearings, coordinating schedules among board members, parties, and legal councils frequently leading to delays, slow down resolutions for taxpayers and counties. The data from the past three fiscal years show that many assessment appeals take longer than six months and often over a year's to resolve, indicating a backlog in the system. AB 2,172 addresses the challenges by allowing counties to use a single qualified commissioner as a neutral decision making in a complex case while allowing the option to request in a traditional multi member board, ensuring statewide transparency.
This streamlines approach help move cases forward more efficiently while maintaining fair hearings, consistent procedures, and and a due process that safeguards for the taxpayers. Here with me to provide supporting testimony is Los Angeles County assessor Jeffrey Prang and Robert Miss Roberts, do we have another question? Just me. Oh, our our Los Angeles County assessor, mister Jeffrey Prang, who will speak in support of assembly bill twenty one seventy two.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much, mister chairman, madam chair, members. It's great to be with you today, and I'm I'm proud to be a sponsor of this legislation aimed at modernizing and professionalizing the assessment appeals process in Los Angeles County and larger counties. In California, a board of supervisors serves as the local board of equalization. Since the nineteen sixties, larger counties such as Los Angeles have been authorized to appoint an assessment appeals board to hear property assessment disputes. While the structure once met the local needs, it is no longer sufficient for the scale and complexities that we face today.
LA County has currently more than 20,000 pending appeals awaiting hearing, and these are not just numbers. They represent homeowners, small businesses, major employers seeking timely and fair resolution to their disputes. Unfortunately, the current system is not equipped to deliver that. Assessment appeal wars appeals board members are part time appointees. They're required required to be highly qualified professionals such as attorneys, CPAs, and appraisers, and real estate brokers.
Yet the role itself demands equivalent of full time commitment. Many board members understandably can only dedicate limited and intermittent time due to their primary professional responsibilities. As a result, cases are delayed, workflows are fragmented, and the consistency in decision making is often difficult to achieve. The inefficiencies of the current system are not just operational. They are costly for property owners.
Disputed taxes can remain unresolved for extended period of times, sometimes years, creating financial uncertainty and strain. Many are forced to hire professional or legal assistance or appraisal professionals to navigate the process, adding a significant expense to simply exercise their right to appeal. For complex commercial properties, these costs can be substantial. For the county, the burden is equally real. Significant public resources must be dedicated to managing a backlog that the current structure simply cannot efficiently process.
In cases where taxpayers prevail, the county is required to pay interest on overpaid taxes, now totals into the millions of dollars annually. These are avoidable costs driven by delay, not by policy. This legislation proposes a straightforward but transformative solution. It would authorize the board of supervisors to appoint a full time hearing commissioner to oversee and adjudicate assessment appeals replacing the part time structure. This individual be which be selected from a pool of highly qualified candidates and would serve in a dedicated professional capacity.
A full time commissioner would also bring continuity, expertise, and accountability to the process. They would have the ability to actively manage the docket, prioritizing cases that are ready for hearings and ensure that decisions are thoughtful, consistent, and timely. Additionally, this reform addresses a structural imbalance in the subject matter expertise. While many current board members are highly capable, the composition tends to be heavily weighted toward residential real estate experience. Whereas in Los Angeles County, we have we have stadiums, we have oil refineries, we have major office towers, which require levels of expertise.
This proposal is about fairness, efficiency, and restoring confidence in the appeals process, and property owners deserve timely resolutions. Local governments depend on predictable revenue, and the system itself must be equipped to handle the realities of a modern economy. Thank you very much.
Speaker 31
any additional people in the room wishing to speak in support? K. Seeing none, do we have any, primary witnesses in opposition?
Speaker 31
And questions and comments from committee? Assembly member Gibson, chair, would you like to close?
Speaker 30
Moved by assembly member, I apologize. Rodriguez. I'm so sorry. Rodriguez, second by assembly member McKinnon. The motion is due passes as amended to the assembly committee on appropriations.
Speaker 31
The amendments provide an appellant, an opt out option rather than opt in, and consolidate the provision into a new section for the sake of simplicity. Miss Hyland, please call the roll.
Speaker 33
Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Garillo, DeMille, McKinnar?
Aye. McKinnar, aye. Quirk Silva? Michelle Rodriguez,
Speaker 1
Thank you. Wanna thank the vice chair for sharing the meeting while I present the bill. We see our next author. Wanna invite member Schultz. File item number five, a b twenty three nineteen.
You may approach. And if you have any witnesses, they're welcome to have a seat as well. To your witnesses, you have two minutes each, and you may proceed when ready. Economist.
Speaker 35
Thank you very much, mister chair and colleague. Sorry to keep you waiting. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill twenty three nineteen today. California remains the center of the global film and television industry, but post production work, including editorial, sound, scoring, visual effects, and finishing, is increasingly being performed in other jurisdictions that do offer targeted incentives. Current law limits eligibility for the California Motion Picture Tax Credit primarily to projects that complete their principal photography in the state of California.
As a result, postproduction work is often moved to competing jurisdictions that offer standalone or more flexible incentives for postproduction activity. I'd like to note that states and countries, including New York, New Jersey, Canada, The United Kingdom, and Australia, among others, offer incentives that allow productions filmed elsewhere to complete post production locally while still qualifying for tax credits. These policies have led to the migration of high wage jobs, vendor spending, and related economic activity out of the state of California. Major post production editorial facilities, including but not limited to scoring stages operated by Sony, Fox, Warner Brothers, and Skywalker Sound are generating substantially less revenue than in prior years and face the risk of closure. Economic analysis demonstrates that postproduction incentives generate significant returns on public investment through increased taxable wages, local vendor spending, and broader ancillary economic activity.
Speaker 36
Without a targeted postproduction incentive, California risks losing a critical segment of the entertainment industry supply chain even when creative leadership remains based in our state. AB twenty three nineteen, if approved, would create the California postproduction tax credit, a targeted incentive for qualified post production expenditures performed in California regardless of where principal photography photography occurred, subject to program requirements and oversight. This post production tax credit, I will note, is not tied to the $750,000,000 budget of the motion picture tax credit that was passed last year. I've submitted a pending budget request to establish the separate funding for this post production tax credit. To be eligible for the post production credit, the project either needs to be filmed outside of California or via project that was filmed in California but did not receive the motion picture tax credit.
Speaker 35
A project, simply put, cannot double dip and receive both credits. I'd like to close, mister chair, with with just acknowledging the obvious. This bill before you today is a work in progress. If it gets out of this committee, you have my full commitment to work with the studios, labor unions, and other stakeholders to ensure that future amendments will ensure that this post production tax credit provides benefits to workers in our state, in our communities, while attracting more post production work to come back to the state of California. With me today to speak in favor of the bill is Adam Fowler, an economist with the California Post Alliance, and f Hudson Miller, president of the Motion Picture Editors Guild, IACI Local seven hundred.
Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon. My name is f Hudson Miller. I'm the president, and I'm proud of the Motion Picture Editor's Guild, and I proudly represent 8,000 members. We are the world's preeminent labor union in post production of post production professionals. Our members work the magic that transforms raw footage into the stories that transfix the world.
We have more than 6,200 members in California, the historic heart of our industry, but our heart is ailing. You will hear the statistics, but they aren't just numbers to us. They're our union sisters, brothers, and kin. Too many of them, talented artists and craftspersons, and, yes, California taxpayers, are no longer confident they can support themselves and their families doing their work that they love in the state that they love. That's why we should follow the lead of other states and establish a stand alone postproduction tax credit.
Our California members need it. We loudly and proudly back the concept of this bill, but we need to get it right. Whenever California invests in job creation, the state needs to know the jobs being incentivized are good jobs, the kind of jobs that can support a family, the kind of jobs that provide health insurance and retirement benefits. These are the kind of jobs our guild has fought for over the course for over the course of ninety years. We are having productive talks with the author and other stakeholders to add language ensuring the employers who receive California credits will be held to the highest standards.
Speaker 3
We're confident these talks can improve the bill. Our members are talking too. I bring more than 1,800 letters they've sent to this committee. Their collective message is amend first and then pass a b twenty three nineteen. In our business, there's a saying, when something isn't quite right with the script or didn't go perfectly in production, let's fix it in post.
Speaker 37
Chair Gibson and members, thank you. My name is Adam Fowler, and I'm a founding partner and economist at Civil Economics. An economic consulting firm that works at the intersection of the creative economy and regional economic development here in California. I wanna take the few limited minutes I have and frame my remarks around the economy of 2026 because that is what a b twenty three nineteen is really responding to. This bill does not ask the state to build a new economic cluster from scratch.
Speaker 41
It asks the state to update its regulatory and fiscal framework to the economy of 2026 and to move past a policy posture that still assumes California is the untouchable global powerhouse of film and television production. Post production work has shifted materially and rapidly out of California. Will the state collect revenue at a different rate than when we were the global center of film and television if this bill passes? Yes. And frankly, we already are.
Read the credits of any of this year's tops top box office films closely, and you can see where the work is being done and downstream of that where the fiscal taxes on personal income, sales tax, etcetera are happening. Do I wish as a Californian that we were still the undisputed center of the universe in film and television production? Absolutely. I wish that a lot. The fact is that we were once the top of the ecosystem.
And candidly, that's part of what has made this conversation harder than it needs to be. A great deal of analysis on this bill is anchored in a world of analysis that no longer matches the competitive landscape. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of, this measure, a b twenty three nineteen, would you please line up? Your name, your, organization, and support only.
Speaker 18
Mariela Bowser, president of the California Post Lines and sponsor of the bill and representing Signature Post in strong support of bill a b twenty three nineteen.
Speaker 21
Hello. Austin Scott, unemployed union picture editor from Altadena. Since the fire, I've turned to creating art for my family, including designing this pin that we're all wearing that says post crowd in California. I strongly support this bill with amended language. Thank you so much.
Speaker 37
Lillian Benson, veteran film editor, a longtime union member, I support this bill.
Speaker 15
Hello. I'm Elisa Cohen. I'm an unemployed editor and a thirty year member of Local seven hundred. I support a b twenty three nineteen, if amended, to include labor standard language. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Hi. My name is Karen Baker Landers. I am vice president of the California Post Alliance and one of the sponsors of the bill. And this bill is a lifeline to post production workers, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 3
Mister chair members, Andrew Antwee, Wichai Yoder, Antwee Schmelzer, and Lang here today on behalf of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass in support and Californians for the arts.
Speaker 5
Good afternoon. Matt Tubins, founding member of Kappa and COO of Formosa Group, in strong support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 7
board member of the California Post Alliance and a big supporter of this bill. Thank you for
Speaker 3
AJ Cataline, twenty five year union motion picture editor, strongly support this bill if amended to create good union jobs for middle class workers in scripted and unscripted television to bring our post jobs back California.
Speaker 9
Dan Schmidt. I'm a visual effects supervisor and founder of a twenty five year visual effects company working in film and television. We have suffered decades of runaway post production in California. Companies like mine support this bill.
Speaker 42
Apologies. I would like to make a verification. I believe I said Glendale. I actually meant the city of Burbank. Sorry about that.
Speaker 20
Walt Disney Company, the parent company of Industrial Light and Magic, is the birthplace of visual effects. Look forward to this bill moving forward so we can continue to work on language that works for
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Any primary opposition to twenty three nineteen, we wanna invite you up to take a seat at the table. Hearing and seeing none, anyone in the room wishing to express opposition to this measure, you have the same right. Hearing and seeing none, wanna bring it back to the committee.
Anyone wishing to ask any questions of this author? Hearing and seeing none, to the author, the annual credit cap is currently unspecified in this bill. Do you have any sense of how much annual credit authorization you want to provide?
Speaker 35
Excellent question, mister chair. That is something that we are in active negotiation with many of the stakeholders here on from folks like Skywalker Productions to the guild as well. So I don't have a firm answer for you today, but that is something we're hoping to to land should it get out of committee.
Speaker 35
Well, thank you very much, mister chair. I'll be brief. Colleagues, there's there's just two points I'd leave you with. There was a lot of consternation about why this bill was brought forward this year and not at a later time, and I just wanna leave you with the economic picture. Between 2012 and 2025, this is what California's lost in terms of postproduction.
We've lost more than 4,400 jobs, more than $507,000,000 in wages, and in terms of total economic output in our state, 1,630,000,000. This is tied to postproduction, not the entertainment industry at large, postproduction. I agree with mister Miller. I don't think the bill is in perfect shape yet, but as he said so perfectly, let's fix it in post. So at the appropriate time, mister chair, I ask that the committee, allow the bill to come off the suspense file, and I respectfully ask for your I vote on Thursday when the matter is taken up.
Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, and thank you to your witnesses. This bill will be taken up to date, mister Schultz.
Speaker 1
We're still waiting for one more author, our last author. Two. Two. Which two? So we need at least rep no.
Edewari and also at least someone for miss Rodriguez Celeste Rodriguez. So we're gonna go we're gonna start file item number six a b twenty four, miss Elduwari. Thank you very much and you may proceed. See you after witnesses. You may proceed when ready.
Speaker 32
Apologies for my delay, and thank you all so much for your patience. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I am proud to present a b twenty four zero three, a bill focused on keeping commercial production jobs here in California for our workers, our businesses, and our local economies. California has long been a hub for commercial production. We have the crews, the infrastructure, and the talent that built this industry, but we're losing that work.
Over the past decade, California's share of nationally aired commercials has dropped from about 50% to only 25%. In Los Angeles alone, production has declined by 35% in just five years. That decline has real consequences. It means fewer jobs for skilled workers, fewer opportunities for people trying to get their foot in the door, and less investment in our local communities. Commercial production is highly mobile.
And right now, other states are actively competing for this work and winning because they are offering targeted incentives. At the same time, California remains one of the only major production states without a dedicated commercial production tax credit. This bill is supported by labor organizations representing the very workers who power this industry every day. It protects good paying middle class jobs and the workers who depend on them. Our labor partners know that when productions leave, careers leave with it.
AB twenty four zero three is about closing that gap. With me today is David Michael Gonzalez, vice president of labor labor relations and external affairs association external affairs, for the association of independent commercial producers and
Speaker 32
Oh, Rudy Reyes, set lighting technician and restorative justice director at the restorative academic mentorship program. I have Ruby, so I know it wasn't Ruby. I was like, thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. You have two minutes each, gentlemen. Whoever wants to go first, please proceed.
Speaker 47
Thank you, mister chair. Members, I'm David Michael Gonzalez with AICP, the Association of Independent Commercial Producers representing over 300 companies that specialize in the production and post production of television commercials. Advertising is, of course, the lifeblood of our economy. As the overall media landscape continues to evolve, advertisers today have more opportunities than ever to engage consumers across broadcast, Internet, mobile, streaming, social media, and more. Therefore, there's a constant demand for commercials.
Although the production processes of commercials parallels that of film and TV, it is creatively controlled by advertisers and ad agencies, making this a distinct segment of our industry. Commercials are short, fast moving, and highly mobile productions. Decisions about where to film are often made in a matter of days. A single project may shoot for just one or two days. Because of that speed and flexibility, commercial production is uniquely sensitive to cost and logistics.
Unlike long form productions that may be rooted in a single location for weeks or months, commercials can move easily to wherever conditions are most favorable. If California is not competitive, these projects simply go elsewhere, and that's what's been happening. Over the past several years, California has seen this deep decline in commercial production as work goes to other states that offer targeted incentives. Today, 29 states include commercials and their filming incentives, while California does not. Commercials are often described as the bread and butter of local film economies.
Speaker 13
While in the individual projects may be short, they are more frequent and consistent in more geographically diverse areas and longer form projects. Commercials shoot in urban centers, suburbs, and rural communities alike. It brings steady work to crews, vendors, and small businesses across the entire state, not just in traditional production hubs. When the commercial shoots in the community, the economic impact is immediate and tangible for local hotels, restaurants, caterers, equipment rental houses, transportation providers, location services, and others, small, locally owned businesses benefit directly. But because commercials are so mobile that spending can leave just as quickly as it arrives, when a project shoots in another state, California doesn't just lose the production.
Speaker 47
It loses all of the downstream economic activity that comes with it. AB twenty four zero three recognizes that commercial production is unique and requires a tailored approach. By making California competitive for this segment of the industry, the bill will help bring back projects that are currently being lost to other states and countries. California remains the best place in the world to make content. The workforce, infrastructure, and creative talent are already here.
But without a competitive framework, we're simply pricing ourselves out of a market that we once dominated. AB twenty four zero three is an opportunity to course correct. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chair and members of the assembly. My name is Rudy Reyes. I'm a member of local seven twenty eight set lighting technicians union, and I serve as a restorative justice director for the restorative academic mentorship program, RAMP, in Los Angeles, and I'm a member of the Antirecitizen Coalition. Every day, work with young people who are fighting for a second chance, and I stand before you today to talk about an opportunity that connects economic policy with public safety, workforce development, and human potential. I'm here representing the thousands of skilled workers who rely on commercial production to make a living.
California has long been the global leader in film and television production. Through legislation like AB eleven thirty eight, this body made a powerful statement that we were committed to keeping production and the jobs that come with it here at home, but there is a gap in that vision. Commercial production, advertising, branded content, short form media is quietly leaving California at a rapid pace. These are not small projects. They are high frequency, fast moving productions that generate consistent jobs for crew members, electricians, grips, drivers, caterers, stylists, and countless entry level positions.
Yet unlike film and television, they often do not qualify for meaningful tax incentives. I remember a time when I would do two to three Super Bowl commercials per year. Then in 2024 and 2025, I did no Super Bowl commercials. As a result, they go elsewhere to states and countries that often that offer even modest financial advantages. Californian's share of commercial production has dropped from 50 to 25% over the last decade.
In Los Angeles alone, production is roughly down 35 to 40% in release recent years. Through ramp, we work with justice impacted youth who are ready to work, ready to learn, and ready to contribute. What we need is access. Commercial production is uniquely positioned to provide that access. It offers shorter project cycles, more frequent hiring opportunities, and entry points that do not always require years of experience.
Speaker 28
In 2017, after spending twenty eight years in the juvenile and adult systems, I was paroled to Los Angeles where I joined Manifest Works, a nonprofit workforce development that takes each student through the commercial film production from the beginning, the bidding process with the client agency to the physical film production, and to the final post production process. I made my way and built my career as a production assistant from the ground up without any family, father, uncle, brother to give me a leg up. I eventually earned my sets, lighting technician union days, and commercials through hard work, sweat, sticky socks, and God's grace. When we talk about expanding tax credits, we should not only be thinking about major studios, we should be thinking about workforce pipelines and smaller production houses that specialize in commercials. Smuggler, Biscuit, and Purdy Bird to name a few.
Speaker 7
Shout out to Rodney Anderson, Michelle Lawrence, Sonam Naser, producers, Adam Chambers, Gaffer, Kevin Brady, DGA. An expansion of California's tax credit program to include commercial production would do three critical things. First, it would keep jobs in California by makings
Speaker 7
The bill is about protecting middle class and union jobs, keeping California competitive. Without action, we will continue to lose work, talent, and economic activity. I respectfully ask for your eyeball on a b 2403. Thank you for your time and your leadership.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of Assembly Bill twenty four zero three, would you please step to the microphone? I need your name, your organization, and this is support for this measure.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon, chair members. Connor Gasson on behalf of Teamsters California in support.
Speaker 39
Good evening, mister chairman members. Missy Johnson here on behalf of the Directors Guild of America. I've also been asked to express support on behalf of the Entertainment Union Coalition, DGA is a member, as well as the California IOC Council, all in support.
Speaker 26
Mister chair and members, Adam Kaglan on behalf of California LULAC and the National Action Network in support. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Mister chair and members, Espan Nunez on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition and AICP in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Primary witness in opposition to this measure, twenty four zero three, to please come forward. Hearing and seeing, no one wishing to speak in opposition. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition of this measure, You have the same right hearing and seeing none. Wanna bring it back to the committee.
Any members wishing to speak? Okay. Great. To the to the author, do you intend to incorporate any workforce training requirements, similar to the motion picture tax credit program?
Speaker 32
That's a really good question. I, I'm open to, incorporating that and definitely would wanna talk to the team of sponsors as well as the unions to see what we can do to make that happen.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. Cool. Thank you very much for considering that because that's what was in the previous iteration of the film tax credit that we had, before. So with that, to the author, you may close.
Speaker 32
I I just wanna point, to the story shared by, mister Rudy Reyes and just recognizing the pathways that are created. Oftentimes, when we think of film and TV, and these huge amazing productions and the jobs that can come, commercials are really the first step, especially for folks who are coming home, from incarceration who are open and and wanna be a part of this, particular industry. And so respectfully, ask for your eye vote, of, once you all have the suspense hearing.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. This bill will be referred to our suspense, file, and thank you very much to both you as well as your witness for coming and before this committee. Thank you very much. Thank you. And so you have another bill you want to present on behalf of miss Rodriguez, Celeste?
Speaker 1
Sure. If we could also please have mister, Correo and mister DeMio please report to Room 126, the revenue and taxation committee because as soon as miss El Dwari finished presenting on behalf of miss Celeste Rodriguez, we're going to open up and dispense with our suspense file. So members, can sit tight. We're gonna move rather quickly on our suspense file. So with that being said, the floor is yours.
Speaker 32
Good afternoon, chair Gibson and members. I am proud to present a b two six seven two on behalf of assembly member Celeste Rodriguez, which establishes a childcare contribution credit to incentivize private investment in California's early care and education system. And on her behalf, we'd like to accept the committee's amendments. I also wanted to thank Wesley, who is one of the committee consultants on behalf of assembly member Rodriguez for the thoughtful analysis. California's child care system is severely underfunded with demand far exceeding supply.
Families are facing high costs and limited access to reliable care. In some cases, spending up to 25% of their income on infant care. At the same time, providers are operating on thin margins, and childcare professionals are often underpaid, leading to workforce instability and ongoing challenges in recruitment and retention. These challenges don't just affect families. They impact the broader economy.
Speaker 34
When families cannot access reliable care, parents, particularly mothers, are forced to reduce hours or leave the workforce altogether, creating ripple effects for employers and the state. AB two six seven three takes a targeted approach to addressing these challenges. By encouraging private contributions to child care providers, the bill helps bring additional resources into a system that is already stretched thin. These contributions can be used to support wages, training, and operations, helping stabilize providers and expand access to care. This also helps support workforce stability by ensuring more parents are able to remain employed and engaged.
Speaker 32
Importantly, this bill does not replace existing public investments. It complements them by leveraging private dollars. And with me today, we have Alexis Rodriguez with Cal Chamber to provide testimony.
Speaker 22
Thank you, chair and members. Alexis Rodriguez with the California Chamber of Commerce here in support of a v twenty six seventy three. We recognize the importance for families to access affordable and reliable childcare and how it directly impacts an employee's ability to feel successful at work. When we're working parents that can find consistent childcare, they may or when they can't find, consistent track childcare, they are more likely to make difficult decisions between their jobs and their families. This challenge disproportionately impacts women who make up nearly half of California's workforce, but but continue to shoulder the majority of caregiving responsibilities.
Studies show that mothers are significantly more likely to reduce their hours or leave jobs due to childcare barriers. The pandemic underscored this trend with women accounting for a large share of the workforce, exiting tied to caregiving. AB twenty six seventy three offers a practical way for employers to be part of the solution by encouraging businesses to invest in childcare options, whether that's supporting local facilities, helping their employees directly, or partnering with local programs to expand access in their communities. When working families are supported, employees are more stable, engaged, and productive, and that benefits everyone. For these reasons, we respectfully urge an I vote on a b twenty six seventy three should the bill move off the sets.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of assembly bill twenty six seventy three, would you please line up? Seeing none. Any primary opposition to this measure twenty six seventy three? Seeing none.
Anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition to twenty six seventy three?
Speaker 1
I wanna bring it back to the committee. We just wanna cut right through it. Anyone in the dais wishing to speak? K. Miss El Duwari, thank you very much for presenting, this measure.
On behalf of, miss Rodriguez, you may close on her behalf.
Speaker 32
On behalf of my assembly bestie, we respectfully ask for your eye vote once it's off the suspense file.
Speaker 1
This bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you very much to you and your witness for coming. Okay. Thank you very much. We're gonna ask our secretary to please open the roll on a b, twenty one seventy three, file item number nine for the 2172.
2172, file item number nine for the absent members.
Speaker 33
twenty one seventy two as add on. And the motion is due pass as amended to approves. Demile, aye. Quirksilva? Quirksilva, aye.
Speaker 8
Oh, mister Carrillo, on item number 9AB2172, that bill is passed. On item number nine, a b twenty one seventy two, that bill has passed. The motion is due passed as amended to appropriation. Calling absentees Carrillo Carrillo, aye.
Speaker 1
K. That bill is out. Having dealt with all the items under regular order of business portion of this hearing, We will now take up bills on the suspense file order. File item number file item number three, a b twenty eighty nine Ward. We will start with excuse me.
We will start with file item number three, a b twenty eighty nine by assembly member Ward. The chair is recommending an I vote with amendments to make the electronic signature requirement, permissive, hold, counties harmless for not publishing, forms that have not been that have not yet, been published by the BOE and remove provisions that prohibit collecting certain property tax and requires posting documentation on the assessor's website. Do we have a motion and a second? Second.
Speaker 1
Carrillo. The motion is due passed as amended to the committee on appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 10
Sherry, I have a quick question. I'm not sure if I do that now or after, but I've not had a moment to review these. Can I have a motion so I can just have an hour to look these over and read them as to all the amends? Because I know we haven't opposed in support on some amendments.
Speaker 24
We're gonna recess for ten minutes while We yeah, we're gonna recess recess for ten minutes. We're back on. We will start with file item number three a b twenty eighty nine by asylum member Ward. The chair is recommending an I vote with amendments to make electronic signatures required permissive, hold counties harmless for not publishing forms that have not yet been published by the BOE, remove provisions that prohibit collecting certain property tax and require posting documentation at the assessors on the assessors website. Do we have a motion and a second?
Speaker 1
It's been moved by McKenna and second by, miss Rodriguez. The motions do pass as amended to the committee on appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 33
Sanchez, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Demile?
Aye. Demile, aye. McKinnor? Aye. McKinnor, aye.
Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Michelle Rodriguez. Right.
That bill passes seven zero.
Speaker 1
That bill is out seven zero. Next file, item number four, a b twenty two fifty. Aguirre Curry. Next bill, file item number four, a b twenty two fifty by Aguirre Curry. The chair is recommending a aye vote.
Do we have a motion?
Speaker 1
Been moved by second. I mean, moved by McKenna, second by Carrero, a member of Carrero Carrero. Do, this motion is due passed to, a committee on appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 33
Carrillo, aye. Demile? Aye. Demile, aye. McKinnon?
Aye. McKinnon, aye. Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva, I, Michelle Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, I. That bill is passed seven zero.
Speaker 1
That bill is out seven zero. File item number 5, AB2319 by member Schultz. The the chair is recommending a aye vote. Do I have a motion?
Speaker 33
Actually, I thought it weren't you the motion? It was moved by miss Rodriguez and second by miss McKenna.
Speaker 1
Stand corrected. It's been moved by miss Rodriguez, second by miss McKenna. The motion is due passed to appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 33
Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Carrillo?
Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMio? No. McKinnor?
Aye. McKinnor, I. Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva, I. Rodriguez, Rodriguez, I.
That bill passes six to one.
Speaker 1
That bill is out past six to one. Next, file item number seven, a b twenty four sixty five, Ortega. The chair is recommending a I vote. Do have a motion?
Speaker 1
The motions do pass to the to the committee on appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 33
Gibson? Aye. Gibson, aye. Sanchez? No.
Sanchez, no. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. DeMio?
DeMille? No. McKinnar? Aye. McKinnar, I.
Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva, I. Michelle Rodriguez? Michelle Rodriguez, I. That bill passes five to two.
Speaker 1
That bill passes five to two. For anyone following along, we will now complete actions on the on the bills that were referred to the suspense to the suspense during the first portions of today's hearing. We will now move to items that were referred to the suspense at our prior hearing. Again, these measures are not tax levies or urgency measures. We will take up these remaining suspense items, that are tax levies at our next hearing on April 27.
File item number 10AB1690 by Aaron's. The chair is recommending an aye vote. Do I have a second? Do I have a motion? Move the bill.
It's been moved by miss Carrero. It's been second by Miss Rodriguez. The motion, the motion is due passed to the committee on appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 33
Carrillo, aye. Demile? Demile, no. McKinnar? Uh-huh.
McKinnar, aye. Crooksilva? Crooksilva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Aye.
Michelle Rodriguez, aye. That bill passes five to two.
Speaker 1
is file item number 11 a B1971. Mister Bennett, the chair is recommending an aye vote. The motions do pass to the appropriation committee. The The amendments, the amendments replaced the list to the eligible improvement, with a cross reference to the improvements contained in the, wild land urban interface codes and clarifies the BOE treatment of these improvements. Do pass no.
Excuse me. May I have a motion?
Speaker 1
It's been moved by miss Carrillo. It's been second by miss Quirk Silver. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 33
Gibson, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Carrillo?
Aye. Carrillo, I. Demile? Aye. Demile, I.
McKinnor?
Speaker 33
McKinnor, I. Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva, I. Michelle Rodriguez? Aye.
Michelle Rodriguez, I. That bill passes seven zero.
Speaker 1
That bill is out seven zero. Aye. Aye. Aye. File item number 12AB2222, Ward.
Speaker 1
Okay. Finally, our last bill. The chair is recommending an aye vote, and the motions do pass as amended to clarify that the credits are for the California based journalism, and makes other technical changes. It's been moved by miss McKenna. It's been second by miss Quirk Silber.
And it's due passed as amended to the appropriation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 33
Carrillo, aye. DeMio? Aye. DeMio, no. McKinnar?
Aye. McKinnar, aye. Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva, aye. Michelle Rodriguez?
Aye. Michelle Rodriguez, aye. That bill's out five to two.
Speaker 1
We're gonna just double check, make sure we didn't miss anything. Wesley, do we have anything?
Speaker 1
Thank you much, committee. The Revenue and Taxation Committee stands at adjourned. Thank you very much for your patience and your time.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.