Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
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
Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Sadly, the data confirms this. Sixty two percent of Americans do not know that lung cancer screening exists, and only around one percent of people in California who are eligible have undergone recommended screening. As a comparison, nearly seventy percent of California women at risk of breast cancer have undergone their screening mammogram in the past two years. This is especially striking as the plurality of patients are diagnosed with lung cancer at stage four when it cannot be cured. When caught early, lung cancer is highly treatable and patients often go on to live long healthy lives.
Speaker 16
After their surgeries, many of our patients tell our team that they would have never known about streaming if it wasn't for the fact that they came to our local fairs. It weighs heavily on me that so many others who may never attend a health fair, including those in rural and underserved communities, are not being reached and will die of lung cancer simply because they've never heard of lung cancer screening. That is why I urge you to vote yes on SB eleven twenty four, as this is a simple life saving policy that would require information about lung cancer screening to be posted wherever tobacco is sold. California already mandates notices about legal age of purchasing tobacco products, but nothing about education on lung cancer screening. Adding a notice about lung cancer screening is a low cost, actual addition that would reach millions of high risk citizens in the most underserved communities, undoubtedly and save thousands of lives.
Speaker 3
Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak today and for considering SB eleven twenty four.
Speaker 1
Thank you, doctor, for your testimony. Are there any other primary witnesses? No. Are there any other, witnesses in the public that wish to support this bill? Please state your name and your support.
Speaker 4
Natalie Pita on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians in support.
Speaker 1
Any other witnesses in support of the bill? Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? You can sit at this table if you prefer.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jack Yannis on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, representing the majority of small and independent gas stations, convenience stores here in the state of California. Want to start off with a concerned position on the bill. Want to thank the author and his staff for their willingness to engage.
Speaker 5
I certainly understand the intent of the bill. We do have some concerns, those really on the implementation side, and they kind of fall into two buckets, I would say. The first one is around the signage requirements themselves. Some of our operators have very small footprints, so ensuring that the signage is able to fit in their stores and is also provided to them, that's a really important concern for us. The second, I would say, is really on the notification side of the bill to ensure our members before they're assessed a penalty for not having a sign up, know their obligations under the law, and are they, therefore, able to follow it.
So at this time, we do have a concerned position, but appreciate the willingness of the author and the chair to engage. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I think thank you, gentlemen. Are there any other witnesses in opposition that wish to voice that opposition? Please oppose the microphone. Give your name and your opposition.
Speaker 22
Good morning. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association. Also echo my colleagues' concerns, as well, you to the staff. We also share the same concerns, and we will continue working with the author's office. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Any other witnesses in opposition? With that we'll move to the committee for comments, questions, anyone from the committee? The vice chair is recognized.
Speaker 7
Thank you so much Senator Archuleta for presenting this bill and for expanding on the work of the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act or the STAKE Act. I've seen the work of this legislature to ensure that our young people are protected and have education around their choices, particularly around tobacco products. My question is really about the penalties. I think under the STAKE Act we have implemented anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500 for of penalty for the first offense and then up to $20,000 for five offenses over five years. I'm a little concerned that this bill is equating not having a sign as the same penalty as selling tobacco products to minors.
Can you speak a little bit to the penalty and your flexibility there?
Speaker 2
You've got to remember, we try to do everything we can to save lives with signs. We stop tragedies with signs. We have signs in the freeways. Why? Because we're trying to save lives.
And if we save lives, we're doing our work as protecting society. But when you think of people who have smoked for a number of years or will smoke, as you mentioned, the young kids, they've got to know that there's danger up ahead. And if we can go ahead and influence them to understand, even to tell their parents and grandparents that, hey, take a look. You need to go to the doctor and see if you have a problem. In reference to the signage, there's going to be a period of time where the merchant can, once he's notified that he's not conforming, to go ahead and have a period of time to go ahead and fix it.
So we have it's it's not punitive because they're going to be told. We want to help the merchant put the sign up and if we save one life per gas station, one life per store, one life across the state at every merchant stop. Imagine what we're going to do to stop lung cancer. So with that, I strongly urge your I vote.
Speaker 1
I would also add that the author has agreed to reduce the penalty in the next committee.
Speaker 7
Great, Thank you. The question for the witness? So lung cancer screening, can you talk a little bit about what type of preventative screening is available, access and then cost to the consumer?
Speaker 3
Yes, thank you for the question. So lung cancer screening in general is just a low dose CT scan of the chest. It's a pretty quick procedure. There's no IV contrast needed, so it would take about the scan itself probably a minute or so. I think the longest part is waiting in the waiting lobby room.
Most places, you know, in most major cities, they'll have a CT scanner that patients can go to. In terms of cost wise, it is you are eligible for lung cancer screening, it's generally covered by all insurances.
Speaker 7
Okay. So in terms of being eligible for lung cancer screening, would it be someone who is at risk because they use tobacco products, or like someone like me that doesn't smoke, could I ask for a lung screening, how is it set up right now through the medical system so that we can have preventative screenings?
Speaker 3
Thank you for the question. Currently, right now, there's some pretty kind of stringent guidelines for lung cancer screening. It's mostly directed at people who are high risk, so that would include anyone between the ages of 50 and 80 who've smacked who've smoked around twenty pack years, meaning packs per day multiplied by a number of years, and who either currently smoke or quit within the last fifteen years. That's indicated that's designated as a high risk individual who would benefit from lung cancer screening.
Speaker 7
Thank you. So to the author, I really support what the STAKE Act is doing, and of course we want to save lives. I'm not going to be able to support this bill today, but I'm going continue to watch it. I think one of my concerns is that we are setting a precedent for screening for individuals that's not accessible, something like cervical cancer screening or skin cancer screening that's very readily accessible for all ages, I want to make sure that we have a system in place that would not only educate around potential lung cancer screenings, but also have the infrastructure in place. And I just don't think we have that right now in California.
Perhaps that's something that the California Department of Public Health will create within their signage so I look forward to seeing your bill developed. Unfortunately I'll just going to be able to lay off today but continue to watch the work that you're doing and thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 1
With that, I was going to ask about the accessibility of screening, lung cancer screening, but you already took that question, so I thank the vice chair for that. Senator, thank you for bringing this forward. I know that you care a lot about public health and this is going to be a step in the right direction. If the bill passes this afternoon, it's going to go to the committee, the health committee this afternoon. Yes.
I understand that you're working on the health committee to address concerns about the penalty which was already brought up and the procedure for retailers to obtain signage. Thank you for working with the committee here and the health committee. With your commitment to resolve these problems, I am happy to support your bill today. Senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 2
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your comments, Senator. We're faced with technology that it it just moves us right along. But we don't think about our seniors. I think of the veterans who in the military who was, hey, you got one?
Light them up. If you need one, bum one. Can you imagine standing around people and you were encouraged to smoke? That's your grandfather. That's maybe your father.
And, well, we've curtailed that in the military. And, so now it's it's a more healthy military because we realize the cost of lives, the cost of cancer. And this bill just brings awareness. That's it, awareness. So imagine if, again, if somebody walks in, sees a sign, maybe not for them, but for their loved one, and go back and ask for the screening.
That's basically it, awareness. And as we develop the bill, we'll go ahead and make some adjustments where we have to in reference the penalties, which is a logical step, no doubt. But we must keep that sign up one way or the other. And I would think logically, if there isn't much of a window, then the sign would probably be smaller because it can't absorb the entire window for the merchant. So everything will be adjusted.
But the important thing is to go forward and bring awareness. Imagine the life we're gonna save and to be able to do it early enough. And as the doctor mentioned, if it's detected early enough, they could add another twenty years of life. So let's try and do that. And with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
I thank the senator. Before, we move to a vote, I would like to establish a quorum. Will the secretary please call the roll?
Speaker 1
We have a quorum, so we can proceed as a committee. And with that, I will ask these is there a motion on this bill?
Speaker 4
Motion is due passed to the committee on health. Senators McNerney? McNurney aye. Alverto Gill. Ashby, Becker, Grayson?
Speaker 1
Next, we will have file item seven, SB thirteen fifty two, Senator Valadais. And I understand Senator Allen is also going to be helping in the presentation. Senator Valadais, Please proceed when ready. Thank
Speaker 7
you, Mr. Chair and Vice Chair and members for the opportunity to present Senate Bill thirteen fifty two. Following major wildfires, including the LA fires last year, state and local governments often adopt policies to give fire victims some flexibility when rebuilding. These policies typically allow homeowners to rebuild up to 110% of the original structure size to accommodate updated building standards and resiliency improvements. Under current law, fire victims may retain their original base year property tax value if the reconstructed home is substantially equivalent to the original.
However, it is unclear whether this standard permits modest increase in size. SB thirteen fifty two provides that clarity by explicitly allowing up to 10% increase in size ensuring that wildfire victims are not subject to reassessment and higher property taxes. This bill only applies to homes destroyed due to a disaster for which the governor has proclaimed a state of emergency and sunsets in 2036. Also here co presenting with me is senator Ben Allen.
Speaker 9
Well, thank you. Thank you, mister chair, for this opportunity. Thank you to, senator Valladares, for authoring this bill. I'm a proud joint author of SB thirteen fifty two, because I I've been so aware of how much these issues are impact fire victims all throughout the state, certainly in my district, that are currently navigating the rebuild process. And I want to thank our county assessor who's been working so hard on this issue on the ground, making sure that we're trying to reduce some barriers for these poor folks who've lost so much.
As Senator Valladares mentioned, under current law, a home must be constructed substantially equivalent to the original home to be able to transfer the base tax year to the new construction. The problem is that the standard's unclear, and it's led to some confusion as people planned their rebuilds. Additionally, for older homes, like so many of the ones that were destroyed, both in the Palisades and also in Altadena, substantially equivalent might not encompass adopting modern building standards, including door heights or hallway widths. It isn't also clear as to how the additional cost for installing expensive fire mitigation measures in a rebuild could be substantially equivalent. So, you know, this bill seeks to provide clarity and flexibility.
I thank my colleague for bringing the measure forward. I thank the assessor for working so closely with us, and I just really urge my colleagues to support this important effort.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair of Senators, and thank you, Senator Valderas, for your support on this bill. I'm proud that LA County is the sponsor of this bill. It's going to provide much needed clarity and certainty for Californians rebuilding their homes and communities following devastating disasters. Senate Bill thirteen fifty two addresses a critical gap in current property tax law, clearly defining what is known as substantially equivalent for purposes of rebuilding damaged or destroyed properties due to a misfortune and calamity.
Speaker 10
Specifically, the bill allows a reconstructed improvement to be up to 110% of its original size without triggering a reassessment as new construction for properties damaged or destroyed on or after 01/01/2025. Under Proposition 13, homeowners are prohibited are protected from reassessment when they rebuild after a disaster, so as long as the replacement property is substantially equivalent to what was lost. The protection is essential. It ensures that families are not burdened with higher property taxes at the very moment they are trying to recover and rebuild their lives. However, current law does not clearly define what substantially equivalent means.
Is creating uncertainty for property owners navigating the rebuilding process. This ambiguity has become essentially problematic in the wake of the recent fires, including Eaton fire and the Palisades fire. In response, the governor issued a disaster declaration allowing governments to adopt expedited building policies, allowing modest increases in structure size up to 110% of the original footprint to accommodate building codes and safety improvements. Yet despite these approvals, homeowners have faced uncertainty about whether that additional 10% will result in a reassessment. SB thirteen fifty two provides clear and practical solution by expressly stating that rebuilding up to 110% of the original size qualifies as substantially equivalent.
This bill aligns the building code standards with the assessment standards for these fire victims. Just as importantly, Senate Bill thirteen fifty two promotes consistency across counties. It strengthens taxpayer protection statewide. It provides assessors with clear statutory guidance, reduces disputes, and ensures uniform application of the law so that disaster survivors are treated fairly regardless of where they live. At its core, this bill is about stability, fairness, and recovery.
It recognizes the realities of modern rebuilding while upholding California's longstanding commitment to taxpayer protections. For families recovering from disaster, certainty matters, and SB1352 delivers that certainty. I did want to emphasize that the California Assessor's Association also has endorsed this bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony. Any other primary witnesses in support of the bill? Any public members of the public wish to voice their support? Please just state your name and your support.
Speaker 11
Sure. Good morning. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors in strong support of the measure.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to voice their support? Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, are there any members of the public that wish to voice opposition to the bill? Seeing none, we will now ask some members of the committee for their comments and questions.
Seeing none, senators, thank you for advancing this bill. Those affected by the Los Angeles County Fires have been through tremendous hardships. Mayor Bass and many others deserve tremendous credit for their leadership during a very, very difficult time. I hope that the bill grants sufficient flexibility to help Los Angelones, Los Los Angeles, places like that they can rebuild quickly. Are you accepting committee amendments?
Speaker 4
Motion is due to pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators McNerney. Aye. McNerney. Aye.
Alvarado Gill. Aye. Aldagill. Aye. Ashby, Becker, Grayson.
Speaker 1
The vote is three to zero. The bill is now on hold. Thank you for your presentation.
Speaker 9
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm also joint authoring a bill with Senator Dolly, and she's not present. I'm going to be presenting her bill, SB thirteen forty three.
Speaker 1
Bill, so that'll be a file item three of 1343? Yes. Okay. Senator, please proceed when ready.
Speaker 9
Thank you so much, mister chair. I really appreciate it. And and I I do, on behalf of the senator and myself, we're we're joint authoring the bill together. Wanna thank the committee staff for their work on the bill. We are accepting the committee's amendments on behalf of, you know, we are accepting the committee's amendments.
Okay. So California, as you know, is facing ever increasing devastation challenges from wildfire with the deadliest, largest, most destructive fires in state history occurring in the last decade. And both Senator Dolly and I, you know, were brought together like so many of us. All of us have fire zones. And we've heard firsthand from constituents, friends, family about the overwhelming financial burden of rebuilding their homes, following the Carr, Camp, and Dixie fires in Senator Dolly's district, the Palisades, And Eaton Fires in Los Angeles, Woolsey.
I mean, the list goes on and on. Together, all of these fires have destroyed thousands of homes. They've displaced tens of thousands of people. And to this day, many people are still living in temporary housing as they navigate the rebuild process. Fire victims need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in some in most cases to rebuild their homes and replace their lost personal belongings.
The state and local governments are still collecting revenue through sales tax on the goods that would never have been purchased if not for one of the most destructive wildfires in state history. So let's just, you know, remember this, right? These are expenditures that they have to effectuate. But this is not a remodel. This is not someone, you know, trying to do some luxury, you know, improvement to their property.
Speaker 11
This is rebuilding their homes that were flattened, destroyed, because we all failed each other in these fires. So with the community's amendments, this bill will provide some relief to disaster victims that are rebuilding their homes and want return to their communities. It would provide an income tax credit of $4,000 per disaster for the portion of sales tax paid on furniture and appliances that are purchased to furnish a home for up to three years post disaster. It also includes a carryover period of five years for claimants to receive the remainder of the credit in future years if their annual tax bill does not amount to $4,000 in a single year. The credit is limited to individuals rebuilding primary residences so that, you know, we avoid subsidizing luxury purchases by limiting the credit to items with a price less than $3,500 We don't have any witnesses here to support this morning, but I know there are thousands of fire victims who would benefit from this bill, and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
So I heard the author or the substitute author say there's no primary witnesses.
Speaker 1
Are there any members of the public that wish to support the bill? Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any witnesses of the public in opposition? Please state your name, your organization, and your opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no more public witnesses, we will now turn to members of the committee for comments or questions. Seeing none, senators, thank you for your presentation this morning and thank you for standing in. I share your concern that the cost of rebuilding after losing one's home and belongings in a natural disaster can leave residents and families with impossible decisions. This is especially true for lower income families and instances where insurance claims were denied, which is unthinkable.
This bill would help families recover costs to replace important household items. However, I'm concerned that the bill would benefit higher income households and be difficult to administer. That is a concern that the chair feels. And I see that you are accepting committee amendments. With that, I will be in support of SB thirteen forty three.
Do I have a motion? Senator Becker moves the bill. Would you please call the roll? Again, does the author wish to close before the roll?
Speaker 9
Yeah, appreciate the comments of the chair. I just remind people, these are not new builds. These are people that lost everything in a fire. And so they are struggling to get back on the ground and get themselves up and running. And we need them to get back up and running for revenue, for recovery, for regenerating communities.
And it just it seems right that we would provide them some tax relief associated with the direct rebuild of their homes after they lost everything. And with that, I respectfully ask her and I vote.
Speaker 1
I thank the senator for the closing remarks. Will the secretary please call the roll?
Speaker 4
Motion is due to pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators McNerney?
Speaker 1
with a four, zero vote. We have another author in the House, Senator Hurtado, file item six, SB eleven seventy two. Senator, please proceed when ready.
Speaker 16
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present SB eleven seventy two, the local tax savings act. SB eleven seventy two is about fairness, accountability, and protecting the communities that can least afford to lose. And it is about protecting every local tax dollar as well.
Across California, local governments rely on tax sharing agreements as a tool to attract economic development. But when those agreements are structured without clear guardrails, they can end up doing the opposite, diverting critical tax dollars away from the very communities they are meant to support. In the city of Shafter, a small Central Valley community in my district, local leaders worked in good faith many, many years ago to bring in economic opportunity to boost local revenue. But instead of seeing the full benefit of that growth, significant portions of their local tax revenue were redirected through consultant agreements that lack transparency and reasonable limits. For a community like Shafter, where every dollar matters, that means fewer resources for public safety, infrastructure, and basic services.
It means residents who already feel like they've gotten the short end of the stick are left wondering whether the system is really working for them. What happened in Shafter also happened in Dinuba and should never happen anywhere else. SB eleven seventy two takes a balanced and responsible approach. It does not eliminate tax return agreements or local control. Instead, it puts in place reasonable caps on consultant compensation and requires full transparency so that the decisions are made in the open and with accountability.
By aligning incentives with genuine economic development, we ensure that public dollars are actually reinvested back into the communities that generate them. With this bill, we are making sure that small and rural communities have confidence that their government is safeguarding their taxpayer dollars, not allowing them to be quietly siphoned away. SB eleven seventy two ensures that economic development works for our communities, not against them. And with me today, I have Chris, McKaylee, representing the City of Shafter.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, Chris McKaylee, on behalf of the sponsor of the bill. We thank the author for carrying the measure. As the author, so eloquently put forward, these local tax sharing agreements do have some beneficial use, no doubt.
However, we believe that prospective regulation of them, particularly when it comes to consultant compensation, the total amount and the length of time that they can be compensated on that, deserve some reasonable guardrails, and that's what this bill does. Again, it does not affect any existing ones. It's on a going forward basis because we want to ensure, first, local control, but also more importantly, that these revenues primarily stay within that jurisdiction. So we hope that you will support this bill as it went unanimously out of the Senate Local Government Committee last week. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Speaker 1
I want to thank Mr. McKeowney for your testimony. If there are any other witnesses of the public that wish to voice their support, please state your name, organization, and support level.
Speaker 6
Thank you. Hi, good morning. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association, also in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. No other witnesses in support. Are there any other are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any members of the public that wish to voice opposition? Seeing none, I will ask the members of the committee for comments and questions.
The Vice Chair is recognized.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Senator Otto. I can certainly empathize as you and I both represent rural areas of California, particularly up some of the main highways, you know, local economic growth, job development. We're always looking for investments in our rural communities. I'm struggling with this bill for a few reasons. One is I do believe that this does infringe on local control.
I do believe that by us legislating from Sacramento we're taking away the ability for local cities to kind of build those scaffolding for these. I certainly do not believe any brokers or consultants should be enriching themselves on tax dollars. So I agree with you very strongly on that. Where I struggle with is that the local control part. I do like that this has been proposed by the City of Shafter and has the support from some of the associations that look out for our small cities.
I just I wonder about if we take this away or we limit it, I should say, not take it away, but limit it, where is the incentive for the competition for our small rural cities to say, yes, you know,
Speaker 7
this economic driver to my city versus bringing it to somewhere else. So if it's capped at 250,000, you know, where else can they have incentives to drive the business and drive the jobs to their cities. And so this is a philosophical question, not asking you directly. So this is where I'm struggling. What I'd like to do is lay off of it, keep watching your bill move through.
I think crafty solution to a problem that we can all recognize and say we need to do more because again our responsibility is to safeguard taxpayer dollars. I'm just reluctant because of the local control issue right now. But I'm not going to oppose it. Just lay Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would like to hear the response of the author of the bill, especially on local control coming from local government. And I noticed that, you already went through local gov, with, six-zero vote, and that the League of Cities are in support of the bill. So how does this impact local control, which is important to me?
Speaker 16
Well, what I would say is that it doesn't take local control away. If anything, it's a safeguard put in place to protect communities across the state of California, not just the city of Shafter, But I'll also allow Chris to see if he wants to add anything to that as well, if alone.
Speaker 19
With your permission, Mr. Chairman? Yes, thank you. Through the Chair, I think that the unfortunate history of these, as your Chief Consultant knows very well, a lot of local jurisdictions have been leveraged, unfortunately, by some of these consultants who have been paid an exorbitant amount of money, as has been set forth in your analysis. And so, we believe that having those guardrails in statute will enable the local governments to work collaboratively with each other without getting leveraged by those consultants by having the backstop of these limitations in statute.
Speaker 14
If I may add, Mr. Chair. So part of the reason why I brought this measure forward to begin with is because maybe almost two decades ago or a little over a decade ago there was a tax sharing agreement that was done with the City of Shafter, and it was a significant portion, or percentage of that agreement, I think almost the entire thing, that it took, you know, instead of it going to the community, it ended up all going to the consultants. So, and I don't have the exact percentage with me at the moment, maybe Chris knows, but it was pretty significant where that shouldn't be happening anywhere. So, you know, I understand where some of the concerns may be coming from, but at the same time, I think there needs to be some sort of balance and protection of our communities across the state, because that was just absurd, the level of the percentage that these consultants got away with.
Speaker 15
just want to thank the author, and I understand some of the concerns, but, you know, I I see this as just a good government, responsible government bill, and I appreciate your leadership here, trying to be a good steward of dollars. You know, again, I see this as a good government bill, and I'll be supporting the bill. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1
No other comments from members of the committee. I thank you for presentation, Senator, and thank you, Chris, for your presentation, and I understand you're accepting committee amendments.
Speaker 1
You're a great advocate for economic development for the cities in your district, which is always appreciated. I'm happy to support your bill today, and Senator Grayson, I think you've already moved the bill. Senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Thank you for that succinct closure. The secretary, would you please call the roll?
Speaker 4
Motion is due, pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators McNerney. Aye. McNerney, aye. Alvaro Gill.
Ashby, Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Grayson? Aye.
Grayson, aye. Three zero.
Speaker 1
The bill is on call with three zero vote. Are there any other authors present? No. No other authors are present at this time. We might as well do the consent calendar.
Thank you for that. Senator Grayson? The consent calendar has now been moved. I'd like to identify the bills, File item one, SB ten seventy two, housing committee. File item five, SB eleven sixty five by Caballero.
File item 10, SB fourteen thirty five by rev and tax committee. File item S 11, SB fourteen thirty six, also by this committee. And file item 12, SB fourteen thirty seven, again, by this committee. And we have a motion. Would the secretary call the roll?
Speaker 4
McNerney, aye. Over Ottego? Aye. Over Ottego, aye. Ashby Becker?
Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Three, zero.
Speaker 1
The vote is three, zero. The consent calendar is on call. The committee will not go in recess until we get additional authors. Committee will now come back to order, and we will look forward to hearing, final item nine, s b 14 o eight by senator Arguin. Senator, as soon as you are ready, please proceed.
Speaker 20
Well, thank you, mister chair members. It's my pleasure to present s b ten fourteen oh eight, which is a district specific bill to address the transportation needs for the County Of Contra Costa. So I just ran over from the capital. This bill would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to place a countywide sales tax measure of up to 1% on the ballot to continue funding transportation programs in the county. To provide context, CCTA is already receiving funding from a prior sales tax measure that was approved in November 2004 that is set to expire in 2034, and that measure was the result of a stakeholder process to develop a countywide transportation expenditure plan.
Speaker 19
This bill will allow CCTA to place a similar tax measure on the ballot. Want to clarify, all this does is gives the voters the ability to put that measure on the ballot, let the voters decide if this is the right thing for them to invest in to fund critical transportation improvements in the county. And I'm honored to represent Contra Costa County with my colleague, Senator Grayson, as well as Senator Cabaldum. It's anticipated that revenues generated with a new sales tax will continue to fund highway construction upgrades, local road maintenance and improvements, biking and pedestrian infrastructure, public transit, and mobility expansion programs. With me to testify in support is Darlene Gee, the chair of the board of CCTA, and Tim Hales, executive director.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm Darlene Gee. I'm the chair of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and also the vice mayor of the city of Arinda.
Senate Bill fourteen oh eight, it's a vital tool for us that builds upon our history of success with our approved measures C and J, and through these half cent sales taxes, CCTA has consistently delivered projects that boost our local economy and we see the direct impact of this. I see it in my own city in Orinda. For example, Measure J funds helped pave the way for a lot of our infrastructure including very important large projects such as the Caldecott 4th Bore Tunnel. We use it and see it a lot in our even our local paving projects in the city of Orinda, major arterials, and a program that's incredibly important to us locally, our school bus program. However, despite these successes, our county wide challenges continue, According to a San Francisco Chronicle article this past week, four of the top 10 worst bottlenecks in the entire Bay Area are in Contra Costa County, not a list we wanted to be on.
But with Westbound Highway 4 ranking as the second most congested corridor in the region. SB fourteen oh eight authorizes CCTA to seek the voter approved funding necessary to continue to tackle these challenges. The legislation is also essential for strengthening the backbone of our public transit network and increasing access across communities. While Contra Costa is home to Bart's yellow line, the busiest and most popular line, many residents, particularly seniors, students, and low income residents still lack reliable first and last mile options to use transit. We have already approved the value of localized transit investments in Orinda where Measure J supported our ADA ramp grades and better pedestrian lighting to access our BART station and downtown.
Speaker 21
Ultimately fourteen oh eight is about maintaining flexibility to solve our county's unique transportation challenges, and the bill recognizes that state funding limits can constrain our local solutions. A voter approved measure can provide the fiscal flexibility that we need while maintaining accountability to our taxpayers. Thank you very much. We hope that you will give this great consideration. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Senator Aragine, good morning, members and the chair, Mr. Chair. My name is Tim Hale. I'm the executive director of Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and CCTA is a public agency that was formed in 1988 to really manage the overall countywide transportation sales tax as well as our system in Contra Costa County. We plan, fund, and deliver really important critical projects.
Speaker 21
Our motto is promises made, promises kept, and through our voter approved, absent sales tax measure J, we've invested in major projects and programs as some of the ones that Chair G had mentioned, and SB fourteen oh eight authorizes CCTA to really seek voter approval to continue those investments in Contra Costa County, really building on the foundation of the prior measures. These investments will include continued investment in our highways, I mentioned those bottlenecks, local roads and maintenance, potholes, bike and pedestrian, public transit and mobility programs. Many of those who live in Contra Costa County face and continue to face challenges getting where they need to go in Contra Costa County, and SB fourteen oh eight is a critical step in ensuring continued investment to address these issues, and I respectfully urge the committee to support SB fourteen oh eight, and this legislation will lead to investments to a safer, more connected, and more accessible transportation system in Contra Costa County. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 1
Well, I thank you for your brief testimony. Are there any witnesses in the public that wish to voice their support? Please state your name and your organization.
Speaker 18
Mr. Chair, Brendan Rapickey, on behalf of County Connection and Francisco Bay Ferry, in support. Good morning, Chair and members. Chris Lee, on behalf of the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, want to thank the author and sponsor, and we're in support.
Speaker 15
Good morning, Paul Olson, on behalf of the California Special Districts Association, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Jeff Neal representing the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor is also in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any members of the public, any additional members of the public wish to support their voice or opposition?
Speaker 12
Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in opposition and also on behalf of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association also in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to voice opposition? Now, I will ask members of the committee if they have comments or questions. Mr. Grayson?
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this effort to put this on the ballot before the voters is a really common sense where the rubber meets the road, paves the pathway forward, plans absolutely intended, to make sure that transportation is exactly what it what you have achieved in the past, CCTA has proven as an agency to deliver, and not just take a single dollar from the tax revenue, but to take that dollar and and leverage it to be able to produce multiplicity, be able to multiply it beyond exponentially, beyond what most people would imagine. So it's a trustworthy agency. They deliver.
Speaker 8
And this is something that the voter deserves to be able to vote on. We are not actually voting on the tax itself. We're actually voting to let the voter be the ones to decide for themselves. And so, I appreciate what the author has done in giving the voters of Contra Costa County the opportunity to continue moving forward with the transportation agency to create economic growth, connectivity, and just good transit in Contra Costa County. Thank you for your good effort.
Mr. Chair, I'll move the bill when it's appropriate.
Speaker 1
Thanks, Senator. Any other members of the committee wish to voice opinions or questions? Well, with that, I thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I have worked closely with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority over years. I've seen the quality of their work and appreciate the effect it has had on the community.
Now this bill again gives the voters the right to decide. Not everybody likes taxes, and voters will be able to choose will be able to show if they think that work is quality enough to warrant a tax raise, and that's the that says it should be. So with that, this is a self help measure, and again, I appreciate self help counties, the work they've done in the past, and I'm supporting the bill. Senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 19
Well, I think you and Senator Racine made my close for me. I'll just say that the proof is in the projects, and the work that's been done over several decades to improve mobility in Contra Costa County, from highway improvements, investing in transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and to relieve congestion, as the Chair talked about, some of the most congested corridors in the Bay Area are in Contra Costa County, and there's more work that needs to be done. That's evidence why this bill is so essential, Giving the voters the opportunity to make the decision to invest in these critical transportation projects in Contra Costa County, respectfully ask her and I vote.
Speaker 1
So you can continue. We don't have another witness, so I don't know if you missed. Okay. That was that was Sarah. Oh.
Any rate, I think, senator, we have a motion with the secretary. Please call the roll.
Speaker 4
Motion is due passed. Senators McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Alvarado Gil?
No. Alvarado Gil? No. Ashby? Becker?
Speaker 1
The vote is three to one. The bill is on call. I thank the author. And again, we are we'll be waiting for an additional author, and the committee will go into recess. Item eight, SB fourteen oh four.
Please catch your breath and proceed when ready.
Speaker 6
Yes, I apologize for keeping you all waiting. Need to clone myself on days like this, but look, we are bringing this measure here today to try to address both ongoing wildfire risks that we face in my community and throughout the state of California, but also to manage a fee that was suspended about a decade ago, that has since been backfilled by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The state responsibility areas, the fee that is associated with the CAL FIRE ongoing firefighting needs, and fire mitigation needs prevention and suppression in these areas, is not going away. In fact, it's increasing, and yet, at this moment, we are no longer requiring people like I've represented my whole life, in places I grew up in, like in Malibu, or Marin, or places where, you know, like I don't want throw my parents under the bus in the middle of this hearing, but I've gone in for a quick second, where they could probably pay $115 to make sure that their firefighters have the ability to save their house, where the mountain fire came, you know, right across the street, and yet the greenhouse gas reduction fund is offsetting that bill.
Speaker 22
I know not only can they pay it, but they would be happy to do so, as would many other people. We recognize that there are challenges around the state, the SRA fee, both administratively and from an equity perspective, and I appreciate my conversations with RCRC and CSAC, as well as the realtors on those who say live in fixed incomes in these areas. These are my neighbors too, my high school nurse. She's, you know, she doesn't have any money, and her house just burned down, as did my entire neighborhood in the Palisades fire. So, I'm intimately familiar with all these issues.
We're trying to find ways going forward, both working with your committee and also with some of the opposition, I think, that remains on the bill, if there are ways to tailor the current subsidy from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to those areas, or to those particular individuals who might have hardship, or ongoing, you know, fixed incomes where they're unable to pay that $115 a year, but we also recognize that, as the committee analysis points out, and as your staff has worked with us on, that historically has been a bit of a clunky fee to administer for CDTFA, and so, a few ideas that we're putting out there. I know we're not accepting any committee amendments in the, bill today, but at least to outline for the sake of this committee where we hope to head is to ensure that the program is administered more cost effectively in the future. Whether or not, I think the analysis points out that historically it's been about a 10%, 10% of the fees have essentially gone to administering the fees. We think there's a much more cost effective way to do so, and in fact, be open to say capping those administrative fees, or finding other ways to challenge the agency to get that cost down, say to 5% rather than 10%.
I recognize we haven't sort of figured out the mechanics of that yet, but I want to express my willingness to work with the chair and this committee on mechanics that could do so. So, I realize it's tough stuff. I'm sure some of you all have fire communities too, but we believe that by folks having skin in the game and being able to be part of this solution with a modest fee that it's not as if we're going to be cutting wildfire funding anytime soon, but we need everything we can get. So we think this is a really important part of that process to have buy in from our local communities, as well as the subsidy from the state, whether it's Prop four, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and more. We're looking for insurance buy in, we're going to look to the utility sector for more, We know we need more, so this bill hopefully just brings those folks to the table and sets us on a path where we stop burning down our houses every few years.
Don't follow real estate advice from me, by the way, if you want to, because that's two in a row, 2016 and then just now, and it's a lot. It's a lot to handle, and so of all the authors to bring this bill before you, you'd think I'm the one who would say Bail us out, and I'm not saying that. I'm saying we can do this, too, and we can step up and be part of the solution. So, with that, I respectfully ask for vote. Sorry, I'll turn to my lead witness, Jo Gardias with NRDC.
Thanks.
Speaker 25
Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Jo Guardias with NRDC, testifying in support of SB fourteen oh four that would restore a fee on property owners within areas where CAL FIRE is responsible for fire management. As climate change has accelerated wildfire risk, progressive sources of spending have not kept up. As a consequence of that, within time periods between 2017 and present day, electricity rates have risen 80%, making ratepayers the number one spending source for wildfire prevention in the state. Low income customers pay a disproportionate share of these costs, and it also discourages switching away from fossil fuels.
Speaker 23
Budget spending on suppression has risen 89%. Home insurance premiums have risen 25%. And wildfire acres burned damages haven't abated in terms of their rate. SB fourteen oh four grows the total pool of investment options for counteracting these costs while maintaining critical investments in the SRA areas. Thank you, and I welcome any questions.
Speaker 1
I thank the witness. Are there any other primary is there another primary witness? I think
Speaker 5
Brandon Ebeck on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric. We did not spend a letter. We were kind of a late support tweener position. We support the concept of additional funding as NRDC mentioned. PG and E, we spent about $2,000,000,000 a year trimming trees on other property owners' lands.
Speaker 24
We would, in general, our average customer pays about $400 to $500 a year in tree trimming, vegetation management. So the more the state does, the more we can take off of the utility bill. So we support any additional incremental funding from the state to help us all out of the situation. But for that, we are supporting concept.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to voice support for the bill? Please state your name and organization.
Speaker 4
Morning, chair and members. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of Climate Resolve. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Any other witnesses in support? Are there any witnesses are there primary witnesses in opposition?
Speaker 11
Good morning, morning. Chair and members of the committee. Stacey Heaton with the rural county representatives of California. We represent 40 rural counties statewide. We respectfully remain in opposition to this bill, and, we appreciate the Senator's conversations that we've had and his willingness to work with us on this.
We hope to continue those conversations going forward. However, we do remain opposed. Funding for resilience for in wildfire prone areas was actually deprioritized in last year's cap and trade reauthorization. It was moved next to the bottom on the list of priorities. We have repeatedly said that climate change is the cause of our state's wildfire problem, So, do believe that GGRF is the absolute appropriate place to backfill this, because we always want polluters to pay, and we're asking in this feed people that didn't cause this problem to pay for it.
Speaker 3
We've had we have approximately 4,000,000 Californians living in the wildland urban interface, many of which are low income, socioeconomically disadvantaged on fixed incomes, particularly in our rural communities. These residents are already grappling with affordability issues to obtain insurance and to keep it, sometimes paying four to five times as much for coverage if they can get it at all. We're asking them to spend thousands of dollars on home retrofits. People are going into debt to fully retrofit their homes, to make them fully fire safe. They are also experiencing about 14 to 17% of their monthly utility bills going to the utilities for their wildfire mitigation activities.
Speaker 11
So, they're already paying into that process. And finally, many cities and counties pay CAL FIRE for fire mitigation and suppression services already through various types of contracts. And this is taken from county budget coffers to pay these contracts, and those are funded by residents already. So, people are going to get double charged, and that was a main issue with this fee in the first place. Beyond the financial burden, this is levied on a narrow portion of Californians, where all Californians benefit from mitigations and high wildfire areas from fire risk.
And it improves the water, it improves air quality, it improves habitat. This fee was largely considered an illegal tax, and I'll let my friend here talk about that in a minute, by many residents in the WUI who paid double for benefits. Reinstating this fee will cost California many of the Cal Fire employees that were set to or that were administering this program back when it was still active have been deployed to other things. So they'll have to be either moved or new staff hired. And then we've already heard about the CDTFA and their cost issues with implementing and maintaining this program.
So this has a lot of issues for us. We will remain opposed and continue to work with the author going forward. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Scott Kauffman, Howard Jarvis, Taxpayers Association. Our opposition remains the same as it was when the FIRE Fee originally came about, and I'll just keep it real brief. You know, our opposition is well known. It's just that we do not believe the state has or can satisfy its constitutional burden approving that the fee does not does no more than recover costs resulting from the payer's burdens on or benefits from the state's fire prevention activities. Rather, as a result, the fire prevention fee is a tax, and it needs a twothree vote of the legislature to become law.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
I thank the witnesses. Are there any other members of the public? Please state your name and organization.
Speaker 18
Mr. Chair, Brendan Erpicke, on behalf of Butte County, in opposition. You.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, I will ask members of the committee to voice their opinions and ask questions. Vice Senator Alvarado Gill, you are recognized.
Speaker 24
Thank you. I can really empathize and thank you for bringing your personal story to this because I think, you know, in the decisions we make, not only do we bring the impact that it has on our constituents, but sometimes we walk in those same shoes and you certainly have had your fill of natural disasters here in California Respectfully, I am with the opposition on this one and reason being is that we've looked to address the issue of deprioritizing funding for CAL FIRE year after year and I think that we're close. This bill, I believe rolls us back. It proposes a new and now a permanent fee on rural homeowners and those of us who live in the WUI. And I'll say, you know, the WUI wildfire urban interface has expanded outside of rural communities now.
Speaker 7
So it absolutely has grown to a large portion of our state. I really do believe that the state has a funding plan through Cap and Invest. I think that both sides of the aisle, we looked at the pros and cons. We had a Senate bill, what was that? SB eight eight forty.
49. Eight forty that went through that was set to allot money for this issue. I just I really feel like shifting costs on a specific group of Californians due to our budget choices is not the right way to go for many of the reasons that the opposition already stated increases in utility rates, increases in homeowners insurance and really continuing to squeeze those who live throughout California that have been impacted by wildfire. I also want to point out that both nonpartisan, both sides of the legislature have wanted to prioritize funding for CAL FIRE men and women, those who are working on the front lines. Assembly Bill thirteen oh nine asked the state to pay CAL FIRE rank and file firefighters within 15% of the average salary for comparable positions across 20 specified local fire departments.
And so there is a will of this legislature to close the gap on funding. I just don't think this is the way. So I'm going to oppose it today. I do think that there's an opportunity for us to continue to support bills like AB thirteen oh nine for firefighter pay and retention. I think there's a way for us to continue to support the GGRF revenues and ensure that that percentage of the revenues comes back to CAL FIRE.
I think we're looking also at the twenty twenty six-twenty twenty seven expenditure plan. The Governor has proposed to allocate a total of $1,600,000,000 in discretionary activity, including $1,250,000,000 to backfill CAL FIRE costs. I'd love to see some of those pieces work. I'd love to see prioritized funding at the executive level of California work. I'd like to see that 15% increase for our CAL FIRE men and women work.
I'd like to see those pieces come together before we're coming back to residents asking them to further squeeze from a very tight budget already. So thank you.
Speaker 1
Chair? Any other room? David Opinions and questions? Senator Gresham, you recognize.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and pardon my absence during your testimony, but glad to be back in just in time. Thank you, the author, for what you're trying to accomplish here and work at. I totally get where you're trying to go. And I know that, in past, there's been an agreement that was made, and moving forward, trying to figure out a better way for more funding.
And so I get that because we're facing a crisis that is exponential beyond what anybody thought would ever be as far as wildfire, climate change, and everything else. So having said that, I think for us right now, affordability remains top of mind for everybody. You know, when it's just a $5 or a $50 or a $100 here and there, that's that's doable. But when you start stacking them one on top of another, that's what makes it undoable. And so if there's any way to possibly look at and and figure out as this bill moves forward if it was to move out of this committee.
If there's a way to consider that as this bill moves forward, I would greatly appreciate that. And I know that some information was already requested and asked. I, as well, would be interested in that information as well.
Speaker 8
With that, Arthur, I I I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I wanna see you continue to work on it. So my vote today in support is going to be for you to continue to work on it. That'll be my vote for today. So with that, when the time's appropriate, I'll make the motion.
Speaker 7
Thank you for that clarification, Senator Grayson. Senator Stern, I am and I voiced this concern to you that the cost of collecting is too high for this in the past, and we'd like to see that improved. And I know that you're aware of that and sensitive to that. We can all agree that nobody likes paying taxes or fees, but they should be transparent and simple for the taxpayers to comply with. If this bill moves forward, and I request that you work with the committee to improve it so that we can have something more perfect move to completion.
Speaker 22
Yeah, thank you. I just want to appreciate the thoughtful comments from the committee. I from your vice chair and Senator Grayson, and this is just a it's a deeply unsatisfying and almost sometimes feels like an impossible problem to solve. You're right about the stack, your insurance bill, utility bill. Incidentally, the greenhouse gas fund isn't free money, right?
And right now, there's a decision sitting before the air board in terms of implementing what we hoped would be there from SB eight forty, but the current proposal is actually because sensitivities around gasoline bills that are spiking from under this war, that somehow we're going to try to offset that by giving about $4,000,000,000 back to hopefully make the oil and gas side, the oil sector lower those costs for drivers, so that they're not, the drivers aren't footing the bill for the fire, you know, aren't footing our firefighting bill. It's a closed system here in some ways. There's no free money. There's no easy way out of this puzzle, especially when FEMA's not here. I mean, we're short over $100,000,000,000 from the federal government right now.
It's not just us, it's, you know, Governor Huckabee Sanders and a number of others. The pie, as it stands right now, is too small, just inherently, to deal with the problems we've got. I guess the thesis of this bill is we've got to try to do some uncomfortable things to grow that pie to address wildfire risk. So I want be very clear on my commitments. First of as an author of thirteen oh nine, I had another good senator here, is the man when it comes to protecting our firefighters.
So we can pay our firefighters the wages they deserve and take care of those budgets and have zero cuts. I want to see, let's be clear, zero cuts and actually increases to Cal Fire's budget. So that I think you said 1.6, it's like yeah, depending on how you do the math, 1.2 or 1.6. The goal here is not to undercut those funds in any way. It's actually to try to find a way for the people in those areas who love their Cal Fire firefighters so much, you know, people throw money in the boot where I'm from, right?
Like, that there is a will. They have to trust us that when they, like, when you throw money in the boot and it's for your firefighter, like, you know it's going to them and you feel good about it. When you pay for a fee, which is why our friends from Howard Jarvis are here, they don't always trust that the government's going to do the right thing with it. And in fact, you can be clunky in collecting it, you can be costly, you can administer those funds inappropriately in a way that doesn't directly benefit that person, which is why they argue about the tax point, but I think I would like to use this bill and fulfill the challenge from Senator Grayson here to put in that effort this year to try to make these mechanics work. I don't even know if I'm going to be able to satisfy Howard Jarvis, but to make this truly the fee that it's supposed to be, and not a general tax, and not trying to be something, you know, sort of a shell game here, but actually benefit the people that I serve.
To the realtors and some of the concerns from our rurals, I want to drill down further if this bill moves forward, try to get to that data set. Let's look at those rural communities. Let's look at those areas where it's not going to work for them to pay $115 and I appreciate your concerns about, say, double counting. I think the current design is if your county is paying in, do get a deduction in the fee, but you might say that's not enough. You might say, okay, it's 150, it drops down to 115, what it really should drop down to is 75, or I think it's the important part is, at a policy level, I think there are statewide impacts to wildfire.
These state responsibility areas are our duty to uphold and defend, and so I feel like there has to be something that's connected to people who live in there getting the benefits from that. So, that's why I'm putting this tough bill forward, that's why I'm taking grief back home from even trying to tackle this and I just appreciate if you guys give me the grace to keep working on it. We're going to try to make good on it and if in the end the mechanics don't work, we won't, we're not going to just plow ahead blindly here. That is not the plan. So I appreciate a little bit of grace on it.
I know this is hard stuff, and I would just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thanks for indulging me here, my long winded
Speaker 22
Stuff gets personal, too, to your Vice Chair's point, you know. It's like, it's close to home, so.
Speaker 1
I'll thank the senator for your presentation. Yeah. We have a motion? Yeah. Secretary, we call the roll.
Speaker 4
The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Senators McNerney.
Speaker 1
The vote is three to one. The bill is on call. Thank you, witnesses. Our last witness is here. This is file item two, s b 11 o two.
Senator Dolly, please present present when ready.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Chair and members. Thank you for the committee staff working with my office. I accept the committee amendments. Today, I'm going to present Senate Bill eleven oh two. The bill supports rural health care workers.
Rural hospitals can face staffing challenges. Rural hospitals struggle to find nurses. When the nurses leave rural areas, care is impacted. Trust me. I have the firsthand knowledge that nurses saved lives.
Speaker 12
XP11-two offers a simple tool: 2,000 track credit for front line nurses working in rural hospitals. This will, this will, this helps retention and patient giving timely care. This is a moderate tax symptom, but it will make a real difference. With me today, Joe Campbell from Hill Country Clinic.
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair and members. My name is Joe Campbell, and I am the CEO of Hill Country Community Clinic. Our story begins in 1985, when four community members saw that rural mountain towns had no local access to healthcare. They built a clinic from the ground up, raising money through community dinners, using donated land and equipment, and even working without pay, because they believe their community deserved care. That spirit is why we are still here today serving the mountain communities East Of Reading, and caring for patients who often have nowhere else to go.
Speaker 25
We provide medical, dental, and behavioral health services, and for many, we are their only point of access. But like many rural providers, including our hospitals, we are struggling, especially when it comes to nurses. We struggle to recruit them, we struggle to retain them, and when we lose even one nurse, care is delayed, services are reduced, and patients are forced to travel long distances for care they should be able to receive close to home. SB eleven oh two will not solve every challenge we face, but it is a necessary step. It provides meaningful incentives for frontline nurses working in rural healthcare facilities.
If we want healthcare workers in rural communities, we must support them in tangible ways. This is not a partisan issue. We are facing a statewide healthcare workforce crisis, especially in rural areas. And no matter where we live, we all rely on the same system. We all end up in the same emergency rooms.
SB eleven oh two offers a simple tax credit to support rural nurses. It's not everything, but it helps. It supports retention. It supports stability. It supports access to care.
Because clinics like ours depend on people, and if we can't keep staff, we cannot keep our doors open. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Well, I thank the witness for your testimony. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak in favor, voice, or support for the bill? Seeing none, any opposition main witnesses? Seeing none, any member of the public wish to voice their opposition to this bill. Please state your name and your organization.
Speaker 14
Michelle Warshaw, on behalf of the California Teachers Association, in respectful opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to voice their opposition? Well, in that case, I will turn to members of the committee to ask questions and state opinions.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a question about opposition, because I understand this to be a tax credit
Speaker 8
To the author? Yeah. Yes. A tax credit, if I may, if I understand it correctly again, and this is for me to be educated a little bit, a tax credit is an expenditure on the general fund and not extracted from prop 98. Is that correct?
Would that may I ask of the teachers or anybody that might have the right answer to that? It's important to me because I have another bill that Yeah. Has implications as well, so this is education for me.
Speaker 14
So, for all tax credits, tax deductions, anything like that that is reducing from the general fund, it then would reduce the amount that goes to Proposition 98.
Speaker 8
Okay. That helps me a little bit, I think. I thought there was a difference between that's the whole difference between an exemption, which decreases it, whereas a credit would be treated no different than any other expenditure of the general fund.
Speaker 15
So when there's still a tax credit, then that is still reducing the amount that is with the general fund.
Speaker 8
Okay, okay. And I appreciate that. I Thank you so very just want to state this, that, there's been a lot of action around telehealth here of late, the past several years, and we thought that that was going to be the panacea, and that was going to fix everything, and doing everything virtually. And that's just not possible. It's impossible.
They say, and I can stand to be corrected, but they say 70% of all communication is nonverbal. And so when you're in the virtual world, you're missing out on a lot, and especially in our rural communities who are in dire, dire need. I mean, some of them would love to have a nurse, let alone a doctor. Yeah. And so just having a nurse present, and anything that we can do to help facilitate that, I think this is a well measured bill.
And thank you to the committee for the amendments. When the time comes and it's appropriate, I'll move the bill.
Speaker 13
Yeah, actually, I have a fair amount of experience with kind of working in the area of the board of a company that's sort of about training nurses and, you know, I just saw about the nurse shortage in California generally and nationally, and I'm sure it's much more extreme in the rural areas. So, I appreciate the thought going into here and the importance of the issue, and I do plan to support this today.
Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
To be recognized? Seeing none. Well, Senator, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. You've been very cooperative and compromising, and I really appreciate that. It's really kind of a tough sell to make sure that we give enough relief to the nurses, but not give it to the wrong people.
We want to make sure it's used properly, and I think we've gotten pretty close to that, so I appreciate your working with the committee on that. California does have the highest projected shortage of nurses in the That's a problem. We don't want that to persist, and this credit demonstrates that the legislature is committed to tackling that shortage, and I, again, I appreciate you accepting the committee amendments. I will be supporting this bill, and I thank you for working with the committee and the working families. We have a motion.
Senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 4
Motion is due, pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators McNerney. Aye. McNerney. Aye.
Alvarado Gill.
Speaker 1
The vote is five, zero. The bill is out. You. And now we will call on the bills that are on call. Secretary, would you please proceed when you're ready?
Speaker 8
Starting with the consent calendar, this is file item number one, SB ten seventy two by the committee on housing, file item number five, SB eleven sixty five by Senator Caballero, and file items 10 through 12, which are the committee bills for revenue and taxation. Current vote is three to zero. Chair and vice chair voting, aye. Senators Ashby? Aye.
Speaker 1
Five zero. The bill is out. Will we do the consent calendar? That was good. That was it?
Okay, sorry.
Speaker 4
This is file item number three, SB thirteen forty three by Senator Dalley. Motion is due, pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Current vote is four zero. Chair and vice chair voting, aye. Senator Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Five zero.
Speaker 4
This is file item number four, SB eleven twenty four by Senator Archuleta. Motion is due passed to the committee on health. Current vote is two to zero. Chair voting aye. Senators Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye.
Four zero.
Speaker 4
This is filing on number six, SB eleven seventy two by Senator Hertado. Motion is due passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. Chair voting, aye. Senator Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Four, zero.
Speaker 4
This is file item number seven, SB thirteen fifty two by Senator Valadez. Motion is due, pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. Chair and vice chair voting, aye. Senators Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker?
Speaker 4
This is file item number eight SB fourteen oh four by Senator Stern. Motion is due passed the committee on appropriations. Current vote is three to one. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no.
Senator Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Four to one?
Speaker 4
This is file item number nine SB fourteen oh eight by Senator Aragine. Motion is due pass. Current vote is three to one. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no.
Senator Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Four to one?
Speaker 1
The vote is four to one. The bill is out. And that concludes our bill count. And that will conclude this hearing. I'm sorry.
Did I vote on consent already?
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.