ALL RIGHT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY, AND WE'RE
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET
STARTED. BUT I WOULD, UH LIKE
ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
TO DO IS SEND A LITTLE MESSAGE
TO YOUR FRIENDS AND TELL THEM WE
ARE IN NEED OF ONE MORE PERSON
TO GET STARTED ON THE VOTING. UM
WELCOME TO TODAY'S HEARING OF
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
REVENUE AND TAXATION. I WANT TO
REMIND EVERYBODY FOR THIS AND
FUTURE HEARINGS, TESTIMONY MUST
BE A PERSON AS WE ARE NO LONGER
USING A MODERATED PHONE SERVICE
FOR THE BILLS BEING TAKEN UP
TODAY, WE WILL TAKE NO MORE THAN
TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT AND TO PRIMARY WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. THESE WITNESSES
HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH TO PROVIDE
TESTIMONY. UNLESS THERE'S ONLY
ONE WITNESS THEY CAN TAKE. FOUR
MINUTES. ALL SUBSEQUENT
WITNESSES SHOULD STATE THEIR
NAME THEIR ORGANIZATION, THEIR
POSITION ON THE BILL. ONLY UH,
FINALLY, WE HAVE ONE BILL. UH
THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE ON OUR
CONSENT. CALENDAR AND IF WE CAN. YEAH THE CONSENT ITEM IS FILE
ITEM TO SP 14 96 SO AS SOON AS
WE GET. ONE MORE PERSON IN WE
WILL GET ON WITH OUR VOTING AND
UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION, I
WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE VOTING
ITEMS THAT ARE AT THE END OF THE
FILE ITEMS 10 AND 11. UM SB 12
93 SP 13 57. I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE THOSE TO THE FRONT SO WE
CAN VOTE ON THOSE ALSO ALRIGHT,
AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A
QUORUM, MISS HIGHLAND, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. IRWIN. HERE.
NGUYEN GRAY GRAYSON. LEVIN.
MAY'S MULLAN PETRIE-NORRIS.
CLERK RIVAS SEYARTO TOÀN. OF
COURSE. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
QUORUM, SO WE WILL FIRST MOVED
TO A MOTION AND A SECOND ON FILE
ITEM. TWO SB 14 96 SO MOVED.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE, UM EMOTION BY. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WORK, A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S COR
SUHARTO. UM AND CAN WE HAVE MISS
HIGHLAND? PLEASE CALL FOR THE
VOTE, IRWIN. BY IRWIN. I WIN
GRAY GRAYSON. LEVIN. LEVINE I
MAY MULLEN PETRIE-NORRIS.
PETRIE-NORRIS LIKE WORK, MARK I
REVIS SEYARTO. ALRIGHT VERY
GOOD. OUR NEXT ITEM IS FILE
ITEM. OH, I DON'T THINK THAT
COUNTS. OKAY THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS PASSED. THE R NEXT
FILE ITEM IS FILE ITEM 10. SB 12
93 BY SENATOR BRADFORD UH, WE
ARE HEARING THIS FOR VOTE ONLY.
WE ALREADY DID THE HEARING A
COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THE AUTHOR
HAS AGREED TO AMEND THE BILL TO
ALIGN THE DEFINITION OF
QUALIFIED TAXPAYER WITH RECENT
REGULATORY REFINEMENTS MADE BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS
CONTROL AND TO INCLUDE FUTURE
UPDATES BY THE DEPARTMENT. DO WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND?
DON'T MOVE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S QUIRK, A SECOND
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
PETRIE-NORRIS. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED WITH AMENDMENTS TO
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS. MISS
HIGHLAND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ON SP 12 93. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSES AMENDED TO BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS. IRWIN IRWIN, I WIN.
WHEN GRAY GRAYSON. LEVIN.
LEVINE. I MAZE. MULLEN.
PETRIE-NORRIS PETRIE-NORRIS I
WORK. QUIRK I RIVAS SEYARTO OR
NOT. UM, PUT THAT BILL ON
COLLEGE DATES STREET. ALRIGHT
WE'RE PUTTING THAT BALL BILL ON
CALL. WE ARE THREE VOTES SHORT.
AND THEN WE HAVE FILE ITEM 11.
AND THIS IS SP 13 57 BY SENATOR
ARCH LETO. DO WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A 2ND? 2ND WE HAVE A MOTION
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S NGUYEN AND A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WORK.
AND THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
MILITARY AND VETERAN AFFAIRS.
MISS HIGHLAND, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THE MOTION IS DO PASS.
MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS.
IRWIN IRWIN. I WIN WHEN I GRAY
RACING. LEVINE LEVINE, I MAZES,
MULLEN. PETRIE-NORRIS
PETRIE-NORRIS AYE QUIRK. RIVAS
SARDO THEY ARE. THAT BILL HAS
PASSED THAT BILL IS OUT, AND WE
WILL HOLD IT OPEN FOR ADDITIONAL
ADD ONS. SO UM, WE HAVE ONE MORE
BILL FOR TO VOTE ON AND THAT IS
FILE ITEM ONE, AND WE ARE
WAITING FOR UH UM. OH, AND
GRANOLA, CORNELL. CURRENT CALL,
MR GRENELL. OR ANY OTHER
SENATOR. WE'RE JUST WAITING.
SO WE WILL LIFT THE CALL ON A
LIGHT ITEM NUMBER 11 13 57.
GREAT GRACES. GRAYSON. I IT'S A
SMALL ONE. AND THEN WHAT. AS YOU
WANT TO REPLACE THEM. ONE WAY TO
VOTE. THINK THERE EXCUSE ME. 57
OUT. APOLOGIZE 10 12 93, SO
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM. 10 SP
12 93 BRADFORD. GREAT. GRAYSON.
GRAYSON. I MAY'S MOMENT. RIVAS.
PLACE THE CALL IT NEEDS. WILL
REPLACE THE CALL. IT NEEDS ONE
AND THEN AH! ALRIGHT, THAT WAS
BROADCAST. THREATENING TO START
WITH OKAY, LET'S DON'T YOU GO
AHEAD. WE HAVE TO DO 12 93.
ALRIGHT. WE WILL TRY THAT AGAIN.
WE HAVE, UH, WE'VE ALREADY VOTED
ON SP 12 93. LIFT THE CALL. GRAY
GRAYSON GRAYSON, I MAZE MULLAN
RIVAS REPLACE THE COLLEGE MEANS
ONE. WILL REPLACE THE CALL AND
THAT NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE AND
THEN SP 13 57. FOR ADOLESCENTS
FOR ADD ONS, GRAYSON GRAYSON, I
AND THEN ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 14
96 FOR ADD ONS. OH THAT WOULD BE
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 14 96.
THAT COUNTS SO WELL, YEAH,
CONSENT. GREESON. GRACE AND I
RIGHT? THAT WAS FRIDAY TO THAT
WAS ITEM TO WE STILL NEED A
PRESENTATION ON ITEM ONE. THAT
WILL BE OUR LAST VOTING ITEM.
AND THEN THE REST OF
PRESENTATION ONLY.
MR MAYS, WE ARE GOING TO GIVE
YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD ON TO
THE THREE BILLS THAT WE HAVE
DONE SO FAR. AND THEN WE'RE
GOING TO LIFT THE CALL ON SB 12
93 BRADFORD. GRAY MAZE. MIES?
AYE. MULLEN RIVAS. ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN, UH OH, OKAY. THAT BILL
IS OUT. AND THEN SB 13 57
ARCHULETTA. UM THIS IS FOR ADD
ONS. MAZE MAZE LIKE. AND THEN
ITEM TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
MAIZE MAIZE. RIGHT AND WE ARE
JUST WAITING FOR THE SENATE TO
ADJOURN.
MR STERN, SO NICE TO SEE SO NICE
TO SEE YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO WE
HAVE. ITEM NUMBER 3 12 46 THAT
IS SENATOR STERN. AND THIS ITEM
WILL BE. FOR PRESENTATION ONLY.
SENATOR YOU MAY BEGIN WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM
YOU WANT ME TO GO WITH SB? 12 46
1ST. I THINK I HAVE 22 ITEMS
BEFORE YOU OKAY, YOU HAVE THREE
AND YOU'RE DOING 12 YOU'RE
DOING, UM 12 46 1ST, OKAY? MOVE
THE BILL. THANK YOU. MEMBERS
REMEMBER, IT'S FOR PRESENTATION.
ONLY ALL THAT'S RIGHT. I'M
SORRY. I DO APPRECIATE THE NOD.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE
COMMITTEE AWARE THAT, UM I'LL BE
PREPARING AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS, RAISING THE ANALYSIS
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE
BILL AT A LATER TIME. BUT I DID
WANT TO PRESENT THIS BILL TO THE
COMMITTEE TODAY. ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT, UH, THESE DEVASTATING
WILDFIRES HAVE LONG LASTING
IMPACTS BEYOND WELL BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THEIR OWN DISASTERS,
AND SOME OF THEM SHOW UP ON OUR
TAX BILLS. UM WHEN YOU'RE
AGGRIEVED, AS MANY OF MY
CONSTITUENTS WERE BOTH IN DURING
THE THOMAS FIRE AND THE WOOLSEY
FIRE, UM AND YOU'RE SUBJECT TO A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, OR YOU
HAVE SOME OTHER RECOURSE THROUGH
LITIGATION. UM THAT'S TREATED AS
TAXABLE INCOME. AND SO THIS BILL
IS REALLY AN EFFORT TO PARALLEL
EFFORTS THAT ARE GOING ON AROUND
SOME OF THE TERRIBLE NORTHERN
FIRES OF YEARS PAST. TO TREAT
THAT INCOME, NOT AS PERSONAL
INCOME BUT AS AN EXEMPTION THERE
OF THE BILL IS SUPPORTED BY THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, CALIFORNIA
BUT IT'S HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION AS WELL AND THERE'S
NO OPPOSITION. SO WE REALLY FEEL
LIKE IN A TIME OF INFLATION, AND
ALL THESE PENDING CRISIS IS
CRITICAL THAT WE NOT TREAT
WHAT'S THERE TO ACTUALLY REMEDY
INJURIES AS SOME SORT OF FORMER
TAXABLE INCOME INSTEAD, IS WHAT
IT IS, WHICH IS PUTTING IT TO
WORK IN OUR COMMUNITY AND
REBUILDING FROM THE BOTTOM UP SO
AT AT A FUTURE DATE AFTER
CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMITTEE
, I WILL BE COMING BACK AND
HOPEFULLY ACHIEVING YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR SENATOR. SIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES WISHING TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT? AYE. YOU DO
HAVE ONE IN THE HEARING ROOM. WE
HAVE HOWARD JARVIS SCOTT COFFIN.
I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. YES, SIR.
FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
, WHILE SOME CLAIMS ALREADY
NONTAXABLE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW,
REAL PROPERTY FOR VICTIMS WHO
WERE INSURED, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
, BUSINESS LOSS AND PERSONAL
INJURY CLAIMS ARE TAXABLE
BECAUSE THEY QUALIFY AS GROSS
INCOME. SB 12 46 WOULD EXCLUDE
ALL AMOUNTS AND DEFINED
SETTLEMENTS WHEN CALCULATING
TAXPAYERS GROSS INCOME. A 2011
BILL EXEMPTED SETTLEMENTS PAID
OUT FROM P GENIE TO VICTIMS OF
SAN BRUNO EXPLOSION. A B 12 49
IS SIMILAR BILL THAT DATA
SUPPORTS AND WE DO THE SAME AS
THIS BILL FOR VICTIMS OF RECENT
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FIRES PASSED
THE ASSEMBLY 74 TO 0 AND THIS
COMMITTEE 9 TO 0. THIS IS NOT
UNPRECEDENTED. IT'S THE RIGHT
THING TO DO. THESE PEOPLE HAVE
SUFFERED ENOUGH AND AS A AS A
FORMER NATIVE OF INTERCOUNTY,
OXNARD. UH I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
WHEN THE TIME COMES. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ANOTHER
WITNESS IN SUPPORT. WAS
TRAVELING MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
LEON TRODDEN WITH TROUT AND
PRICE REPRESENTING CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA TO
COMMEND THE SENATOR FOR BRINGING
THE SPILL IN. AND, UM HOPE THAT
THE COMMITTEE AT THE PROPER TIME
CAN SUPPORT IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE COMMITTEE'S POLICIES AND A B
12 49. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR
STERN. YOU MAY CLOSE. OH, I LET
ME JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD
SAID YOU WERE INTENDING TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT THE
COMMITTEE RAISED ON THE CONCERNS
OF THE FTV. YES, ABSOLUTELY.
ALRIGHT AND THEN QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE. MR CORK
DOES NOT HAVE A QUESTION OR YOU
. SO IF YOU MAKE CLOTHES, OKAY.
VERY GOOD. UM FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION IN THE FUTURE,
THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CASE.
UM, AND WE THINK THAT COURAGEOUS
CAUSE AND IS WORTHY OF YOUR
SUPPORT. VERY MUCH SENATOR STERN
AND WE WILL SKIP AHEAD IN THE
AGENDA TO FILE ITEM A SP 14 56.
BY SENATOR STERN. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR AND BEFORE I BEGIN
HERE AS WELL. I WANT TO MAKE THE
COMMITTEE AWARE THAT I'LL BE
PREPARING AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS, RAISING THE ANALYSIS
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE
BILL AT A LATER TIME. AS WE'RE
ALL AWARE OF CALIFORNIA'S MASON
FACING A MAJOR HOUSING CRISIS AT
ALL INCOME LEVELS, THOSE MOST
IMPACTED BY THIS CRISIS OR
HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE BELOW 50% OF
THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME SO THIS
BILL IS LOOKING TO ADDRESS AN
INCONGRUITY AND CURRENT LAW THAT
IMPEDES OUR ABLITY TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF EVERY PATHWAY FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
UM WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT NON
PROFIT DEVELOPERS WHO USE PUBLIC
FUNDS TO DEVELOP AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OR AWARDED 100% PROPERTY
TAX EXEMPTION PROVIDED THAT 90%
OF THE RESIDENTS ARE LOW INCOME
AND IF THIS HAS BEEN AN
EFFECTIVE INCENTIVE UNDER
CURRENT LAW, AND WE REALLY FEEL
LIKE THAT INCENTIVE IS WORKING
AND CAN WORK BETTER. RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S A $20 MILLION CAP IN
TOTAL VALUATION, BUT THERE IS
MUCH MORE DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITY OUT THERE WITH THESE
KINDS OF PROJECTS THAT FRANKLY
MINIMIZED TAXPAYER COSTS TO ME
MAXIMIZE HOUSING OUTPUT, WHICH
WE ALL NEED TO BE LASER FOCUSED
IN ON AND HOPEFULLY WILL ACHIEVE
YOUR SUPPORT AND A FUTURE DATE.
I BILL HAS NO OPPOSITION. WE DO
HAVE ONE LEAD WITNESS HERE TODAY
RAN MARTIN WITH THE AIDS HEALTH
FOUNDATION. THERE MAY BE OTHERS.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
RANDOM MARTIN ON BEHALF OF THE H
HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, AND IT'S
HEALTHY HOUSING FOUNDATION,
WHICH IN 2017 EMBARKED ON A VERY
AMBITIOUS EFFORT TO FIND MORE OR
CREATE MORE LOW INCOME HOUSING.
FOR PEOPLE ANYWHERE IN THE
STATE, BUT PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON
CITY OF LOS ANGELES RIGHT NOW,
IN THE COURSE OF THE PAST FIVE
YEARS, THEY HAVE DEVELOPED 13
PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES. THEY CURRENTLY HAVE
ABOUT 1400 UNITS AVAILABLE TO
VERY, VERY LOW INCOME. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT EXTREMELY AND VERY
LOW INCOME PEOPLE. PEOPLE WHO
ARE BELOW 50% OF THE AREA MEDIAN
INCOME. BUT WE ARE STUCK WITH
THE DISSONANCE IN CURRENT LAW
RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY TAX
EXEMPTION, EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE
PUT INTO IT HAS BEEN PRIVATELY
RAISED, BUT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN
PRIVATELY RAISED, WE HAVE NOT
RECEIVED ANY PROPERTY TAX
EXEMPTION ACCEPT UP TO THE
CURRENT CAP OF $20 MILLION
AGGREGATE VALUE. WE WOULD BE
HOPEFUL THAT THE LEGISLATURE
WOULD SEE FIT TO PROVIDE US WITH
THE SAME PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
THAT THOSE WHO USE PUBLIC FUNDS
RECEIVE THOSE WHO USE THOSE WHO
USE PRIVATE FUNDS OR PROVIDING
SERVICES TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO HELP MEET THE
HOUSING NEDS AT NO COST TO THE
STATE OTHER THAN UNDER THIS BILL
, A REDUCTION IN THE PROPERTY
TAX UM, I APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS BY THE SENATOR, WERE WE
SUPPORT HIS DECISION TO GO
FORWARD WITH AMENDMENTS THAT
WE'VE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSING
WITH YOUR STAFF AND LOOK FORWARD
TO YOUR VOTE IN SUPPORT AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME? THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS REX W. HI. I'M ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION, ALSO ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE IN SUPPORT AND URGE
YOUR SUPPORT WHEN THE TIME IS
RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITE OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. CHAIR MEMBERS KELLY
HÀ SANCHEZ WITH CORBYN AND
KAISER ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TAX REFORM
ASSOCIATION. WHILE WE HAVEN'T
SUBMITTED OFFICIAL POSITION, WE
ARE CURRENTLY IN A POST POSITION
ON THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PORTS. UM. WELL
FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE LOOKING AT
AMENDMENT. DO YOU EXPECT TO BE
IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 41
WITH YOUR AMENDMENTS? THAT IS
THE INTENT. UM. I DON'T KNOW
WHAT FURTHER COLOR YOU'RE
LOOKING FOR ON THAT, BUT YEAH,
IT'S IN THE ANALYSIS. UM AND
THAT'S THAT'S EASY. THE MORE
DIFFICULT ONE. IS PROBABLY
GETTING THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS.
AND IN THAT TERM, I THINK YOU'RE
ON GOOD GROUNDS. IF YOU MAKE IT
APPLY TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS ONLY
BECAUSE THEN THERE IS I THINK A
GOOD REPLY GOOD. JUSTIFICATION
TO APPROPRIATIONS. WHEN YOU ADD
IN UM. A TAX DEDUCTION FOR UNITS
THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT. I
THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE VERY
DIFFICULT TO GET THROUGH
APPROPRIATIONS. UM THE
JUSTIFICATION FOR INCENTIVIZING
NEW IS, I THINK SOMETHING THAT
COULD WELL, WE NEVER KNOW WHAT
GETS THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS AS
WE ALL KNOW. BUT I THINK THAT
THAT WOULD BE A SUFFICIENT
JUSTIFICATION. BETTER USE AND OF
STATE MONEY, ETCETERA, BUT
INCLUDING THE OLDER UNITS, WHICH
I REALIZE, SEEMS UNFAIR TO THE
SPONSOR. I JUST THINK IT WOULD
BE A LOT MORE DIFFICULT TO GET
THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS, AND I
PERSONALLY WOULD FIND IT A LOT
EASIER TO VOTE FOR THE BILL IF
IT WAS JUST FOR NEW UNITS. SO
I'LL LET YOU CONSIDER ALL THAT.
THANKS. UM DO WE HAVEN'T YES,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER NORRIS. UM I
LOVE SENATOR. OKAY SO BEFORE I
ASK A QUESTION, I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS
CORRECT. SO RIGHT NOW THE $20
MILLION CAP APPLIES ONLY TO
PROJECTS WHERE THE CAPITAL IS
SOURCED FROM PRIVATE. INVESTORS
THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO IF. WE'RE DOING THESE NONPROFIT
PROJECTS WITH PRIVATE INVESTOR
PRIVATE INVESTMENT. WHAT'S THE
TYPICAL RATE OF RETURN THAT AN
INVESTOR WOULD EXPECT TO SEE ON
THAT KIND OF A PROJECT? UH, I'M
NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WHAT WHAT WE DO IS SOLICITED
PRIVATE CAPITAL. UM AND WE DON'T
WE DON'T HAVE INVESTORS. WE GO
OUT TO THE OPEN MARKET TO SECURE
FUNDS FOR THROUGH BANKS,
ETCETERA. UM BUT DON'T GO OUT
AND LOOK FOR INVESTORS TO INVEST
IN THE PROPERTY. I SEE. OKAY, SO
IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT INVESTORS PER
SE. IT'S MORE KIND OF RETAIL
BANKS, AND THEY'RE LIKE, OKAY,
ALRIGHT. THAT'S YEAH. IMPORTANT
POINT CLARIFICATION. THANKS.
RIGHT? AND UM, JUST TO FOLLOW UP
ON ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S QUIRK, UM,
LOOKING AT WHERE WE ARE GOING TO
BE LOOKING AT THIS TAX CREDIT
GOING FORWARD. UM I ASSUME WITH
THE AMENDMENTS OR AT LEAST
HOPEFULLY YOU'LL WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON THOSE AMENDMENTS
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A
SITUATION WHERE YES, YOU'VE
BUILT ALL THIS. IT SEEMS UNFAIR.
BUT THERE'S NO INCENTIVE TO
BUILD ADDITIONAL HOUSING THAT
THAT IS, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE
WANT TO DO WITH TAX CREDIT IS
INCENTIVIZED BEHAVIOR, SO
HOPEFULLY WE WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE ON THAT.
IF I IF I MIGHT MANAGER, I THINK
I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.
AND WE'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THE
STAFF INTO THE INTO THE AUTHOR
ABOUT ABOUT DOING THAT ONE THING
THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO
ALSO DO WITH WHATEVER IS
REALIZED BECAUSE OF THAT
EXEMPTION. IS MAKING SURE THAT
MONEY COULD ALSO BE USED TO HELP
OFFSET THE RENT PROVIDE RENT
RELIEF FOR LOW INCOME TENANTS.
SO CURRENTLY HF CHARGES ABOUT 4
TO $600 A MONTH AND WHICH IN THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS A SLIVER
OF WHAT RENTS ARE. WE ABSORB THE
REST, SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO
US TO KNOW THAT WE COULD USE
SOME OF THAT TO HELP OFFSET THE
COST OF COVERING THE RENT FOR
SOME OF OUR TENANTS WERE
PERFECTLY WILLING TO DISCUSS
THAT WITH YOUR STAFF AND WITH
THE CHAIR. ALRIGHTTHAT HAVEN'T
SEEN THAT AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE
HOW THAT AFFECTS THE BILL. UH
OBVIOUSLY AS A MEMBER
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S QUIRK SAID, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE
BILLS GET THROUGH
APPROPRIATIONS. AND SO WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COST IS
SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE WILLING
TO SWALLOW. SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
THANKS SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S NEWMAN. SENATOR
I DID PROMOTED YES. COULD NEVER
ASPIRED DEAL. OH THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE. WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPY
IN THIS COMMITTEE WHEN THE
SENATORS COME, THAT'S WHY NICE
TO DROP BY MADAME CHAIR, SO THE
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FILE
ITEM SEVEN SP 13 77. LIGHT
SENATOR NEWMAN WHEN YOU ARE
READY, THANK YOU AND GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY PRESENT SP 13 77
WHEN PASSED. SP 13 77 WILL
EXEMPT ATTORNEY'S FEES AWARDED
IN A CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL
SETTLEMENT FROM BEING COUNTED
AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS
ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME,
CALIFORNIA LIKE OTHER STATES
THAT RIGOROUSLY ENFORCED
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS ALLOWS
LAWYERS TO REPRESENT CLIENTS. IN
CONSUMER PROTECTION CASES
WITHOUT CHARGING THEM DIRECTLY
FOR THEIR LEGAL SERVICES UNDER A
PRACTICE CALLED THE SHIFTING ANY
pFEES ARE SHIFTED SO THAT THEY
LOSING DEFENDANT MUST PAY THE
PLAINTIFFS REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND COSTS. THESE PROVISIONS
ARE DESIGNED TO ATTRACT LAWYERS
TO PUBLIC INTEREST CASES THAT
OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT SEEM WORTH
THE INVESTMENT. IT IS THE COMMON
PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO MOST
CONSUMER PROTECTION LITIGATION
IN CALIFORNIA. THIS IS BY DESIGN
, AND IT'S WHAT ALLOWS EVERYDAY
PEOPLE TO PURSUE CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAWSUITS BY REMOVING
THE COST BARRIERS ASSOCIATED
WITH HAVING A QUALIFIED,
KNOWLEDGEABLE ATTORNEY REPRESENT
THEM IN THOSE CASES. CONSUMER
PROTECTION CASES ARISING FROM
UNLAWFUL DEBT COLLECTION ON
ETHICAL, FINANCIAL LENDING,
FAULTY CREDIT REPORTING
DEFICIENT VEHICLE SAFETY AND
OTHER INSTANCES WHERE CONSUMER
MAY HAVE INCURRED HARM OR OFTEN
TIME CONSUMING AND COSTLY,
RESULTING IN JUDGMENTS OR
SETTLEMENTS THAT INCLUDE
SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL FEES. IN
RECENT YEARS, HOWEVER, CERTAIN
COMPANIES ON THE LOSING SIDE OF
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWSUITS
HAVE MADE A PRACTICE OF ISSUING
IRS 10 99 FORMS ATTRIBUTING ALL
OR SOME OF THE ATTORNEY'S FEES
AS PERSONAL INCOME RECEIVED BY
INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWSUITS THE
SIZE OF PRO RATED LEGAL FEES
ATTRIBUTED TO A PLAINTIFF AND A
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTION. CAN
BE QUITE LARGE, EVEN THOUGH THE
PLAINTIFF WILL ACTUALLY RECEIVE
NO CASH BENEFIT FROM THEM AND,
IF ASSERTED, CAN REPRESENT A
SUBSTANTIAL TAX LIABILITY FOR
THE PLAINTIFF, IN MANY CASES,
EXCEEDING THE ACTUAL AWARD AN
INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE RECEIVED
ATTORNEY'S FEES ATTRIBUTED HIS
INCOME MAY ALSO IMPACT THE
PLAINTIFFS ELIGIBILITY FOR
IMPORTANT PROGRAMS LIKE THE
CALIFORNIA EARNED INCOME TAX
CREDIT HOUSING BENEFITS FOR
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS IN
CALIFORNIA. I WANT TO PAUSE HERE
TO STRESS. THIS POINT IS THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNMENT
CONTINUED TO NEGOTIATE THE
CURRENT BUDGET. IT IS LIKELY
THAT THERE WILL BE SOME PROGRAMS
THAT ARE EXPANDED OR OFFERED,
BASED ON SOME LEVEL OF MEANS
TESTING WITHOUT THIS BILL.
PLAINTIFFS INVOLVED IN
SUCCESSFUL CONSUMER LITIGATION
MAY BECOME INELIGIBLE FOR THE
PROGRAMS WERE NEGOTIATING THE
BUDGET RIGHT NOW TO HELP THE
MOST VULNERABLE CALIFORNIANS
ACCESS NECESSARY FINANCIAL
RELIEF AND OTHER PROGRAMS. TAKE
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CASE OF TRACY
VAN BUREN, WHO WAS PART OF A
SUCCESSFUL LEMON LAW CASE
AGAINST THE CAR MANUFACTURING
2019. MS. VAN BUREN IS A SINGLE
MOM AND AN ARMY VETERAN FROM THE
BAY AREA WHO EXPECTED TO CLAIM
THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT. IN
THE FOLLOWING TAX YEAR FOLLOWING
THE CLOSURE OF HER CASE, SHE
RESERVED A FORM 10 99 IS SIGNING
TO HER AN AMOUNT OF $58,257,
MOST OF WHICH WERE ATTRIBUTABLE
TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COURT
COSTS, EVEN THOUGH SHE RECEIVED
NO CASH BENEFIT FROM THESE FEES
AND COSTS. THE 10 99 PUSH MISS
MISS VAN BUREN INTO A HIGHER TAX
BRACKET, MAKING HER INELIGIBLE
FOR THE E I T C SHE WAS PLANNING
TO CLAIM AND FOR WHICH SHE WAS
OTHERWISE COMPLETELY ELIGIBLE.
IT WASN'T UNTIL SHE SPENT SIX
MONTHS WORKING WITH A CPA THAT
MS VAN BUREN WAS ABLE TO PLEAD
HER CASE TO THE IRS AND RECEIVE
HER REFUND. MISS VAN BUREN'S
CASES IS BY NO MEANS UNIQUE.
MANY OTHER HARDWORKING
CALIFORNIA HAVE FACED SIMILAR
CHALLENGES STEMMING FROM IMPUTED
INCOME THEY NEVER RECEIVED.
NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO RELY ON A
CPA SIMPLY FOR HAVING PURSUED
THEIR RIGHTS AS A CONSUMER WHO
MAY HAVE BEEN HARMED. MOREOVER
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
THE ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE ACTUALLY
RECEIVED THESE AWARDS ALSO
RECEIVE A FORM 10 99 FOR THE
PAYMENT OF THOSE FEES. WHICH
MAKES TOTAL SENSE, RESULTING IN
THE SAME SETTLEMENT FUNDS BEING
TAXED NOT ONCE BUT TWICE IN
SUMMARY, TREATING ATTORNEY'S
FEES AS A TAX LIABILITY, ASSIGN
ABLE TO A PLAINTIFF IN A FEE
SHIFTED CASE. UNDERMINES THE
INTENT OF CALIFORNIA'S EXISTING
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS. WHAT
MAKES THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL
SO IMPERATIVE AND TIMELY IS THE
FACT THAT THE PROSPECT THIS IS
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, AND IT'S
BEING INCREASINGLY LEVERAGED BY
CORPORATE DEFENDANTS TO
INTIMIDATE AND DISSUADE
CONSUMERS FROM MOVING FORWARD
WITH AN OTHERWISE RIGHTEOUS CASE
. SP 13 77 WILL EXTEND IT 2004
TEXT AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE AN
ABOVE THE LINE DEDUCTION. FOR
FEE AWARDS, RECOVERING CONSUMER
PROTECTION CASES SO THAT
ATTORNEY'S FEES WILL NOT COUNT
AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL'S ADJUSTED
TAXES. THIS COMMON SENSE
EXEMPTION WILL PROTECT CONSUMERS
FROM UNDUE UNJUSTIFIED FINANCIAL
BURDENS WHILE REINFORCING
PROTECTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA WHO
HAVE BEEN HARMED AS A RESULT OF
A PRODUCT DEFECT OR ILLEGAL
BUSINESS PRACTICE. I LOOK
FORWARD TO TODAY'S DISCUSSION
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE
WHEN THE BILL IS VOTED ON AND
HIS SUBSEQUENT HEARING HERE WITH
ME TO TESTIFY TODAY IN PERSON IS
ROBERT HARRELL, THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA, AND
JOE RIDE OUT A PARTNER AT NIGHT
LAW GROUP, A CONSUMER ADVOCACY
FIRM. RIGHT GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES EACH. ALRIGHT THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. ROBERT HOTEL, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA, LIKE
JUST THANK SENATOR NEWMAN FOR
HIS AUTHORSHIP OF THIS BILL WERE
ONE OF THE CO SPONSORS OF THE
BILL. I'M ALSO SPEAKING THIS
AFTERNOON ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA
WHO SUPPORT THE BILL. I'D LIKE
TO IF I COULD, MADAM CHAIR EVER
BRIEFLY TELL ANOTHER STORY THAT
ILLUMINATES WHY THIS BILL IS
NECESSARY. UM MR JACK, DEEP PIT
WALL OF 1000 OAKS, WAS SUBJECT
TO UNFAIR DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES PRACTICES THAT
VIOLATED BOTH CALIFORNIA. AND
FEDERAL LAWS. AS A RESULT, HE
SUED THE OHIO BASED LARGE DEBT
COLLECTION COMPANY, YOU KNOW,
FUND UNIFORMED, FATAL LAWSUIT
VIGOROUSLY, WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY
PROLONG THE LITIGATION. THIS
HAPPENS ALL TOO OFTEN AGAINST
CONSUMERS. I SHOULD NOTE, BUT MR
BIDWELL PREVAILED AND RECEIVED
APPROXIMATELY $24,000. THEN MR
BIDWELL ATTORNEYS HAD TO
LITIGATE THROUGH THE APPELLATE
COURT LEVEL. BEFORE THEY WERE
FINALLY AWARDED ABOUT $95,000
FOR THEIR SUCCESSFUL ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF MR BIDWELL AGAINST THE
DEBT COLLECTED COMPANY THAT IT
SHOULD BE NOTED, BROKE BOTH
FEDERAL AND STATE LAW. BID.
WALL'S ATTORNEYS PAID INCOME
TAXES ON THOSE FEES. THEN BILL
WILL RECEIVES AN IRS FORM 10 99%
FROM UNIFIED THAT UNIFORMED THAT
TREATED THE $95,000 AS HIS OWN
PERSONAL INDEPENDENT INCOME.
EVEN THOUGH HE HIMSELF NEVER GOT
THAT INCOME, AND HIS LAWYERS HAD
PAID TAXES ON THAT INCOME. HE
CONSULTED A TAX PROFESSIONAL,
WHICH MOST CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT
BE FORCED TO DO, WHO ADVISED HIM
TO PAY THE INCOME TAXES ON THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT, WHICH HE DID.
AFTER THIS, MR BIDWELL COMPUTED
. HE WAS JUST ABOUT BROKE, EVEN
AFTER ALL WAS SAID AND DONE. MR
BIDWELL RIGHTLY FEELS THAT THIS
WAS UNJUST, SINCE ALL HE DID WAS
STAND UP FOR HIS RIGHTS AND TAKE
ON A COMPANY THAT AGAIN BROKE
STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. THIS
EXAMPLE HAPPENS. UNFORTUNATELY
MORE OFTEN THAN IT SHOULD AND
LEMON LAW CASES, SOMETIMES IN
DEBT COLLECTION CASES. BUT THE
COMMON THREAD IN ALL OF THESE IS
THAT THE CONSUMER IS JUST
STANDING UP FOR HIS OR HER
RIGHTS. AND AT THE END OF THE
PROCESS FEELS PENALIZED FOR
DOING JUST THAT. IN THE LEMON
LAW AREA. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT ONLY SOME COMPANIES SLAPPED
CONSUMERS WITH A 10 99 FORM FOR
TRYING TO PENALIZE BY 10,
PENALIZING THEM ON TAX PURPOSES
. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE
AGGRESSIVE IN THIS AREA.
CORRELATES TO THE AUTO
MANUFACTURERS WHO HISTORICALLY
HAVE BEEN MOST LIKELY TO SELL
THE CONSUMER A LEMON VEHICLE IN
THE FIRST PLACE. THAT'S NOT AN
ACCIDENT. THIS MEANS THAT TAX
PROVISION IS BEING USED AS A
WEAPON AGAINST CONSUMERS. WE
WOULD ARGUE AH, INAPPROPRIATELY
DRAMATICALLY INAPPROPRIATELY.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASE
KNOWN AS PULLIAM STATED VERY
CLEARLY THAT ATTORNEY'S FEES ARE
NOT INCOME RECEIVED BY
PREVAILING CONSUMERS OR SMALL
BUSINESSES. AND I WOULD NOTE
THAT SMALL BUSINESSES ARE OFTEN
ON THE SHORT END OF THE STICK AS
WELL. TO TREAT THIS AS INCOME
FOR THE CONSUMER IS WRONG, IT
SHOULD BE STOPPED. AND THAT'S
WHY THE CONSUMER FED OF
CALIFORNIA IS A CO SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL. MADAM SHARING
MEMBERS. WE HOPE THAT AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME THE COMMITTEE
WILL PASS SB 13 77 OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR, DISTINGUISHED NUMBERS. MY
NAME IS JOE RIDOUT, TESTIFYING
ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS FOR AUTO
RELIABILITY AND SAFETY, ONE OF
THE CO SPONSORS OF THE BILL. I'D
LIKE TO START BY MENTIONING THAT
IN ADDITION TO CARS, THERE ARE
MANY OTHER NONPROFIT SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC JUSTICE GROUPS IN
SUPPORT OF SB 13 77 THAT WERE
NOT REFLECTED IN THE ANALYSIS,
INCLUDING CALPURNIA, CALIFORNIA
LOW INCOME CONSUMER COALITION.
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE. NATIONAL CONSUMER
LAW CENTER, CALIFORNIA
REINVESTMENT COALITION THAT
ZIGIC CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND ECONOMIC
RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION POLICY
CENTER. THERE ARE OVER TWO DOZEN
AUTO MANUFACTURERS THAT SELL
VEHICLES IN CALIFORNIA, BUT ONLY
TWO OF THEM TO OUR KNOWLEDGE.
EVER ISSUED 10 90 NINES TO
CONSUMERS FOR THEIR REIMBURSED
ATTORNEY FEES WHEN CONSUMERS
PREVAIL IN LEMON LAW CASES. ARE
THE GREAT MAJORITY OF AUTOMAKERS
WHO HAVE THEIR OWN TAX EXPERTS
AND CHOOSE NOT TO IMPUTE
REIMBURSED ATTORNEY FEES TO
PREVAILING CONSUMERS INCOME
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE VIOLATING
TAX LAW. THIS HARDLY SEEMS
LIKELY RATHER, WHAT WE ARE
WITNESSING IS HOW INCONSISTENCY
IN THE TAX CODE IS LEADING A
MINORITY OF MANUFACTURER
DEFENDANTS TO SELECTIVELY ISSUE
10 90 NINES, EXPLOITING THIS
AMBIGUITY IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE
FUTURE LITIGATION AGAINST THEM.
A PERFECT ILLUSTRATION OF THIS
COMES FROM THE CASE OF KIM AND
JIM LANE, WHO IN 2021 WERE EACH
SENTENCED 10 99 FOR $12,500
AFTER THEY WON THEIR LEMON LAW
CASE AGAINST FIAT CHRYSLER ONE
YEAR LATER IN EARLY 2022 FIAT,
CHRYSLER SENT THE LANES A SECOND
ROUND OF 10 90 NINES FOR OVER
$33,000 APIECE. THAT'S FOUR
SEPARATE 10 99 THE MOST RECENT
AND MOST EXPENSIVE TO COMING IN
2022, EVEN THOUGH THEIR CASE
SETTLED IN 2020. THE LANES WERE
ABLE TO HIRE A CPA WHO ADVISED
THEM TO DELUXE DEDUCT THE
REIMBURSED ATTORNEY FEES THAT
THEIR ATTORNEY ALREADY WAS
PAYING TAXES ON. HOWEVER THE IRS
RECENTLY SENT THE LANES A LETTER
SEEKING A PROPOSED AMOUNT DUE OF
$6790. THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO
PAY A CPA AGAIN AND THE FAMILY
FACES GREAT FINANCIAL
UNCERTAINTY AT A TIME WHEN MRS
LANE IS ABOUT TO UNDERGO MAJOR
SURGERY. WE HAVE SEEN OTHER
MARRIED COUPLES WHO WON THEIR
LEMON LAW CASE EACH RECEIVED A
10 99 FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF
THEIR ATTORNEY FEES, EVEN THOUGH
THERE WAS ONLY ONE CAR AND ONE
CASE IT APPEARS WRAPPING UP. WE
FEEL THE CURRENT AMBIGUITIES,
CONFUSING DEFENDANTS, AS WELL AS
THE 13 77 IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE CONSISTENCY AND CLARITY
IN ORDER TO PREVENT DEFRAUDING
CONSUMERS FROM PAYING STATE
TAXES ON MONEY THEY NEVER
RECEIVED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? TURN
MEMBERS CAROLINA SANCHEZ WITH
CORBYN AND KAISER ON BEHALF OF
OUR CLIENTS, THE CALIFORNIA LOW
INCOME CONSUMER COALITION AND
THE NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
AND SUPPORT THANK YOU ANY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WORK. IFIND IT
AMAZING THAT NO ONE ADDRESSED
THE ANALYSIS. WHICH SAYS, UH,
THAT YOU CAN DEDUCT THAT FROM
YOUR CALIFORNIA FORM. THERE
ISN'T AN EQUIVALENT ABILITY DO
THAT ON THE FEDERAL FORM, AND
THAT SHOULD BE CORRECTED. BUT ON
THE CALIFORNIA FORM, YOU CAN
DEDUCT IT. AND IF YOU'RE USING
ONE OF THESE, WHICH I DO INTUIT
TURBOTAX OR ONE OF THE OTHER
SOFTWARES IT SPECIFICALLY ASKED
FOR DEDUCTIONS LIKE THIS. SO
WHY? WHY DO WE NEED TO DO THIS?
AND I'M AGAIN? I'M SURPRISED NO
ONE BROUGHT THIS UP IN THEIR
DISCUSSIONS. BUT WE FEEL WE NEED
TO DO THIS BECAUSE THE BELOW THE
LINE DEDUCTION THAT CALIFORNIA
IS, YOU KNOW MHM, IRRESPECTIVE
OF THE T. C. J A. IT CREATES A
STATE OF AFFAIRS IN WHICH
DEFRAUDED CONSUMERS ARE ASKED TO
PAY MOST, BUT NOT ALL. OF TAXES
ON MONEY THEY NEVER RECEIVE. WE
FEEL THAT IT'S FAIR TO CONSUMERS
THAT THEY HAVE AN ABOVE THE LINE
DEDUCTION, WHICH SB 13 77
CONTEMPLATES TO MAKE SURE THEY
ARE RELIEVED ENTIRETY OF THE
BURDEN OF HAVING TO PAY MONEY
THAT NEVER PASSES THROUGH THEIR
HANDS. RATHER THAN BEING ABLE TO
DUCK A SMALL PART OF MONEY THAT
NEVER PAY. IT DOESN'T ALLOW 100%
DEDUCTION BELOW THE LINE
DEDUCTION. IT IS NOT ABOVE
WILLING DEDUCTION. THERE'S A
GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT.
AND WHAT S P 13 77 CONTEMPLATES
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. RIGHT AND
THAT IS IF YOU IF YOU ITEMIZE
YES, AND THAT'S ONLY IF YOU
ITEMIZE IT. THERE'S REPEATING
THAT THAT VERY FEW AMERICANS ARE
ITEMIZING. UM BUT SUPPOSED AND
LET ME ADD, YOU KNOW, FOR THE
KINDS OF CONSUMER LIKELY TO BE
INVOLVED IN AN ISSUE LIKE THIS,
THEY'RE VERY UNLIKELY TO ITEMIZE
, UM, YOU KNOW TO YOUR POINT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MORE OFTEN THAN
NOT. IF THEY'RE ESPECIALLY
THEY'RE USING AUTOMATED TAX.
SOFTWARE THEY REALLY THEY'RE
GOING TO TAKE THE STANDARD
DEDUCTION. AND SO THIS IS BOTH
CONFUSING AND UNFAIR. OKAY THE
OTHER THING IT JUST TALKING WITH
STAFF HERE. FOR THE
MISCELLANEOUS DEDUCTIONS. YOU
HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 2% OF
INCOME, SO IT'S POSSIBLE YOU
DON'T GET THE DEDUCTION. OR IF
YOU DO GET THE DEDUCTION THAN,
UH, AH, IT'S ONLY BECAUSE YOU
HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS TO
ADD IN. SO ALL RIGHT. I
UNDERSTAND IT NOW. BUT I WISH
YOU HAD ADDRESSED THAT. AH YOUR
TECHNICAL EXPERTS HAD ADDRESSED
THAT SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND
IT BETTER. MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT
BEING CLEARED UP FRONT. BUT OKAY
, ALL RIGHT NOW, I UNDERSTAND.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? SENATOR WOULD YOU
LIKETO CLOSE? NÓI APPRECIATE
DISCUSSION? UH AND THANK YOU TO
MY WITNESSES, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK DRIVER AND AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU. OH,
AND I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
SOMETHING.
I BELIEVE SHE CAME IN JUST PRIOR
TO OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
ARE GOING TO START. YOU. ALL
RIGHT. OKAY THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR
AGENDA IS FILE ITEM FOUR. SP 12
66 BY SENATOR BORGIAS WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. UM. GOOD MORNING OR I
SHOULD SAY GOOD AFTERNOON AT
THIS POINT, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SP 12 66
1ST. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFFER CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ME
ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. SB 12
66 SEEKS TO CREATE A 50% STATE
TAX CREDIT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A
BACKUP GENERATOR AND OR A BACKUP
BATTERY FOR RESIDENTS AND SMALL
BUSINESSES LOCATED WITHIN TIER
THREE. OF THE CPU CEASEFIRE
THREAT MAP, WHICH ARE STATES
MOST FIRE PRONE AREAS IN 2021,
CALIFORNIA'S WILDFIRE SEASON WAS
THE SECOND WORST WILDFIRE SEASON
ON RECORD BURNING MORE THAN 2.5
MILLION ACRES ACROSS THE STATE.
CALIFORNIA IS LIVING AND WORKING
IN DESIGNATED WILDFIRES OWNS
FACE SEVERAL UNCERTAINTIES
SURROUNDING NOT ONLY THE THREAT
OF WILDFIRES, BUT THE EFFECTS OF
THEM AS WELL. LAST YEAR,
INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES
ENDURED 18 MAJOR PUBLIC SAFETY
POWER SHUTOFFS OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS P. S P S EVENTS, WHICH LEFT
THEM WITHOUT POWER FOR SEVERAL
HOURS, AND IN MANY INSTANCES
MULTIPLE DAYS THROUGH NO FAULT
OF THEIR OWN INDIVIDUALS AND
BUSINESS ARE LEFT WITHOUT POWER
UNTIL IT CAN BE SAFELY BE
RESTORED. AMONG THE MANY
PROBLEMS REPORTED RESIDENTS LOST
FOOD MEDICALLY FRAGILE CUSTOMER
STRUGGLED TO ACCESS POWER FOR
LIFE SUSTAINING MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT. BUSINESSES SUFFERED
ECONOMIC LOSS. CUSTOMERS LOCKED
ACCESS TO POWER TO CHARGE
ELECTRONIC DEVICES NECESSARY TO
OBTAIN SAFETY INFORMATION IN
CELL TOWERS LACKED ADEQUATE
POWER, RAISING PUBLIC SAFETY
CONCERNS. HAVING BACKUP
GENERATION READILY AVAILABLE
HELPS MITIGATE THE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS INDIVIDUALS AND
BUSINESSES WITHIN THESE AREAS
FACE WHEN POWER IS LOST. THIS
BILL SEEKS TO RELIEVE
INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES IN
THESE EXTREME DISCRETE FIRE RISK
AREAS HAVE A PORSCHE THE
FINANCIAL BURDEN ASSOCIATED WITH
THE COST OF THE EXPENSIVE
EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE THEY CAN
MEET THEIR SPECIFIC POWER NEEDS
AND PREVENT FURTHER HARDSHIPS
FACED DURING CALIFORNIA'S
WILDFIRE SEASON WHILE IN THE
SENATE. THIS BILL HAS RECEIVED
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND HAS NOT
RECEIVED ANY NO VOTES. UM OUR
RULES IN THE SENATE ALLOW FOR
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE, BUT
APPARENTLY YOU IN THE ASSEMBLY
HAVE EVOLVED AND, UM, DISALLOWED
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES. I'M
AFRAID I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE MY
KEY WITNESS. HERE, BUT I'LL
DOUBLE CHECK. ONCE DO WE HAVE
ANY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
THEY'RE ON THE PHONE RIGHT NOW,
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T HEAR
HIM. ALL RIGHT, AND ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON K HARDMAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
. UNFORTUNATELY IN OPPOSITION
DUE TO THEIMPACT PROPOSITION,
INDEED, THANKS. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WORK. SO THE
I'M SURE YOU'VE READ THE
ANALYSIS. CONCERN HERE IS THAT
THIS WILL BE PREDOMINANTLY
REWARD, AS OPPOSED TO A IN
INCENTIVE, SO WHEN WE LOOK FOR
THE TAX LAW AND WE LOOK TO UM
YOU KNOW, GIVE. UH LOWER TAX
RATES. TYPICALLY WE LOWER TRACKS
RATES TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO
DO THINGS THIS TREMENDOUS GROWTH
EVERY YEAR AND THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO DO THIS, AND THE
MAJORITY OF THEM WOULD DO IT
ANYWAY. THIS IS CALLED THE FREE
RIDER PROBLEM. IN ECONOMICS. AND
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THE
BILL. AT MOST OF THE PEOPLE
WOULD DO THIS ANYWAY, SO IT'S A
REWARD AS OPPOSED TO AN
ETCETERA. BUT I THINK IN I THINK
YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN FOLKS,
FOLKS THAT LIVE IN TIER THREE
AREAS. IN FACT, I THINK
EVERYBODY OR JUST ABOUT
EVERYBODY IN THIS COMMITTEE HAS
TIER THREE AREAS, WHICH ARE THE
SUPER HIGH RISK, HIGH PRONE
AREAS. UM NOT EVERYBODY
NECESSARILY CAN AFFORD IF WE
LOOK AT SOME OF THE INSURANCE
ISSUES ALONE THAT FOLKS ARE
FINDING THEMSELVES IN DESPERATE
STRAITS BEING ABLE TO AFFORD
EITHER TO LIVE TO, UH TO REPAIR
OR EVEN RELOCATE. UM I THINK
BASED ON THE EXPERIENCES OF THAT
THAT I'VE HAD IN CONSULTATION
WITH FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THE
FOOTHILL MOUNTAIN TERRITORIES,
ESPECIALLY WHERE I REPRESENT
THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
COULD BE HELPFUL TO THEM. NOT
EVERYBODY WOULD LOOK UPON THIS
AS A PURCHASE OF AFFAIR
COMPLETE. I THINK THIS COULD BE
, UH, VIEWED IN MANY WAYS, ALSO
AS AN INCENTIVE BECAUSE OF THE
BATTERY COMPONENT AS WELL. MANY
FOLKS MAY JUST DECIDE TO GO FOR
GENERATORS, BUT WE'RE
INCENTIVIZING THEM TO ALSO
PURSUE BATTERY TECHNOLOGY AS
WELL, SURE, AND WE HAVE A
PROGRAM THAT IN FACT,
INCENTIVIZES SOLAR WITH
BATTERIES, AYE. BEFORE I SOLD MY
HOUSE. I WAS PARTICIPATING IN
THAT PROGRAM. AT THE POINT HERE
IS THAT THE MONEY IS GOING TO
EVERYBODY WHETHER THEY NEEDED TO
DO THE PURCHASE OR NOT. AND
PERHAPS A GRANT PROGRAM THAT'S
DIRECTED TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LOWER
AND INCOME. I WOULD BE A FAIRER
WAY TO USE, UH, FUNDS,
PARTICULARLY SINCE THE MAJORITY
OF THEM ARE REALLY
INCENTIVIZING. THEY'RE GOING TO
BE REWARDING. AND IF YOU TOOK
THAT SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AND
GAVE IT TO PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE
COULDN'T AFFORD HEM. I THINK IT
WOULD BE A BETTER USE OF THE
MONEY. THAT'S MY CONCERN. AND I
APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS IN IF
I WERE TO BE AROUND NEXT YEAR AS
A SENATOR, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE
TEAMED UP AND DONE SOMETHING IN
THIS SPACE AS WELL DECIDED NOT
TO RUN. I WAS A VICTIM OF
REDISTRICTING MIGHT SAY, WELL, I
DECIDED NOT TO RUN, TOO. BUT
ANYWAY PRIVATE CAPACITIES.
THERE'S ALWAYS THAT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? UH YES
, UM MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
CALIFORNIA'S WILDFIRES ARE ONLY
GOING TO CONTINUE. WE KNOW THAT
AND THEY WILL WORSEN IN THE PSP
. GUESS EVENTS ARE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO BE A CRITICAL TOOL
IN PREVENTING WILDFIRES. WITH
THIS IN MIND, I BELIEVE IT IS
IMPERATIVE WE CONSIDER THE
NEGATIVE IMPACTS RESIDENTS AND
BUSINESSES FACE WITHOUT ACCESS
TO POWER. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION, AND WE WILL
CONSIDER THAT AT A LATER DATE
AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO JUMP
AHEAD IN THE AGENDA TO FILE FILE
LIGHT UP SIX SP 13 74. YOU DO
MOVE QUICK HERE. WE DON'T DO
THAT IN THE SENATE WERE TALKING
IN THE SENATE THAT'S ACCURATE.
ALRIGHT ONCE AGAIN GOOD
AFTERNOON SENATE BILL 13 74
SEEKS TO PROVIDE A STATE INCOME
TAX DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
TO TUITION SAVINGS PROGRAMS,
KNOWN AS SCHOLAR SHARE 5 TO 9
ACCOUNTS FOR QUALIFIED
TAXPAYERS. FIVE TO NINE'S ARE
ACCURATE VEHICLES THAT ALLOW
INVESTMENTS TO GROW TAX FREE AND
CAN ONLY BE USED FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION PURPOSES, ALTHOUGH
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NOT CURRENTLY
DEDUCTIBLE EARNINGS IN A 5 TO 9
PLAN GROW TAX FREE FEDERALLY AND
ARE NOT TAXED WHEN THE MONEY IS
USED TO PAY FOR QUALIFIED
COLLEGE EXPENSES IN EFFORT TO
INCENTIVIZE THE BILL. MHM
PRESENTATION. ONLY MR GRAY. JUST
TRYING TO HELP THE SENATORS.
SHOULD I CONTINUE IN THE LAST
FEW PARAGRAPHS? I'LL GO FAST FOR
MY ASSEMBLY FRIEND. PLEASE
CONTINUE. AN EFFORT TO
INCENTIVIZE THIS INVESTMENT IN
HIGHER EDUCATION 34 STATES OFFER
FULL OR PARTIAL TAX DEDUCTION OR
CREDIT. CALIFORNIA HOWEVER,
REMAINS ONE OF THE FEW STATES
THAT DOES NOT. THIS
SUBSTANTIALLY. SIMILAR
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL WAS
PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED AS ABBY TO
11 IN 2019 BY THEN
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IAN CALDERON.
THE MEASURE RECEIVED BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT AND NO FORMAL OPPOSITION
. I WOULD NOTE, HOWEVER, THE
MEASURE WAS VETOED DUE TO BUDGET
CONSTRAINTS, GIVEN THE RECORD
SURPLUS REVENUE, HOWEVER, I
BELIEVE IT IS A GOOD TIME TO
REVISIT THIS MEASURE AND
ENCOURAGE TAXPAYERS TO MAKE
INVESTMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION.
THE COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION
CONTINUE TO SKYROCKET, ALLOWING
ELIGIBLE TAXPAYERS. THIS TAX
REDUCTION WILL INCREASE
AFFORDABILITY AND ACCESS TO
HIGHER EDUCATION. THAT IS AN
ISSUE. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE
UPON. THIS BILL IS SPONSORED BY
THE STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE.
AND I HAVE, UM STAND. YOUR LAST
NAME IS TAMMY ZITO. ZITO HERE TO
OFFER COMMENTS IN SUPPORT. RIGHT
THIS IS STAN ZITO FROM
SCHOLARSHIP INVESTMENT BOARD.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BILL. UM, DO
WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN
SUPPORT? SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON. JOANNE
BETANCOURT, REPRESENTING SIFMA.
THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND
FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION.
REGRETTABLY IN OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED. I'M SIFMA IS A NATIONAL
TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BROKER
DEALERS AND INVESTMENT BANKS AND
ASSET MANAGERS. MANY OF WHOM
HAVE A STRONG PRESENCE IN
CALIFORNIA. I JUST LIKE TO SAY
THAT WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH
THE GOAL OF THE BILL. TO
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO SAVE EARLY
AND OFTEN FOR EDUCATION. THROUGH
5 29 PLANS BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE
DISAGREE WITH THE APPROACH OF
THE BILL. SENATE SENATE BILL 13
74. SHOULD APPLY TO ALL
QUALIFIED FINANCIAL PLANS, NOT
JUST THE STATE'S PLAN. AND
SENATE BILL 13 74 AS DRAFTED. WE
BELIEVE LIMITS INVESTORS CHOICE
BY MAKING THE DRIVING FACTOR. TO
WHERE THE DEDUCTION IS VERSUS
WHICH PLAN B B. BORED SUITABLE
FOR THEM. WE DO BELIEVE THAT
THERE IS A PATH TO FISCAL UH,
T. WE BELIEVE THAT IN ORDER TO
INCLUDE ALL 5 29 PLANS, WE DO
SEE A FISCAL PATH NUMBER ONE.
YOU COULD LIMIT THE BENEFICIARY
DEDUCTION FROM 5000 TO 2000. YOU
CAN LIMIT THE $10,000 DEDUCTION
TO 4000. YOU COULD MAKE THE
TEXT, YOU CAN MAKE IT. PROTECTS
PAYER INSTEAD OF PER
BENEFICIARY, OR YOU CAN DO BOTH.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY SEVEN STATES
THAT OFFER PARITY. AND SO WE ARE
EXCUSE ME, RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTING PARODY. AND FOR THOSE
REASONS WE ARE OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M FRED NOWHERE
REPRESENTING AMERIPRISE
FINANCIAL, AND WE'RE IN THE SAME
PLACE AS MY WE THINK THESE
DEDUCTION SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED
BY THOSE PLANS IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR. NOT JUST THE STATE
PROGRAM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HI KATIE HARDMAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
, UNFORTUNATELY OPPOSED DUE TO
THE OVERALL COSTS TO REVENUES
AND PROPOSITION, 98. WE
UNDERSTAND WELL INTENDED, BUT
YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER WAYS
TO INCENTIVIZE IS THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WORK. I AM THE
COMMITTEE. TODAY ALONG WITH ADAM
GRAY AND CHAD MAYES. UM GOOD TO
BE HERE. UM. SO I HAVE A COUPLE
OF CONCERNS. FIRST OF ALL. HALF
OF CALIFORNIANS DON'T PAY ANY
STATE TAX AND THOSE, OF COURSE,
ARE PEOPLE OF LOWER INCOME SO
THEY GET NO BENEFIT. MOST PEOPLE
PAY A FAIRLY SMALL AMOUNT. IT'S
ABOVE A CERTAIN INCOME A FEW
PERCENT. PEOPLE HAVE REALLY
BENEFIT FROM THERE SO THAT
PEOPLE MAKING A MILLION DOLLARS
A YEAR WHO HAVE TWO WOULD GET
13% BACK. BY MAKING THIS THEY
THEY REALLY BENEFIT FROM THIS,
WHEREAS MOST POPLE WOULDN'T AND
GIVEN THAT IT PRIMARILY
PROMOTES. PRIMARILY REWARD VERY
HIGH INCOME PEOPLE. I THINK THE
MONEY, AS IT SAYS IN THE
ANALYSIS WOULD BE BETTER SPENT
ON SCHOLARSHIPS FOR PEOPLE WHO
CAN'T AFFORD TO GO. SO THAT'S
THAT'S MY CONCERN. YES, OF
COURSE, AND ALL HAVE STAND ALSO
FOR TECHNICAL PURPOSES. NORMALLY
I THINK YOUR INSTINCT IS CORRECT
. UM EXCEPT THAT THE WAY THAT
THIS BILL IS DRAFTED IS THAT IT
HAS A, UM, EARNING CAP. AND THE
EARNING CAP IS FOR QUALIFIED
TAXPAYER WHO'S HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
OR SURVIVING OR MARRIED THAT
THEY ARE INELIGIBLE FOR THIS IF
THEY EARN MORE THAN 200,000. AND
WE ALSO HAVE IT FOR QUALIFIED
TAXPAYERS IN OTHER CATEGORIES AT
100,000, SO THIS IS REALLY
HELPING A LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN
ONE MIGHT EXPECT, AND IT'S
CERTAINLY DEPRIVES. ANY UNDUE
BENEFIT FROM THOSE THAT MIGHT BE
IN THE HIGH INCOME CATEGORIES.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PURPOSE OF
THIS BILL IS. OKAY I SHOULD HAVE
READ IT MORE CLOSELY. THANK YOU.
I THINK YOUR INSTINCTS ARE RIGHT
TO HONE IN WHO'S GETTING THE
BENEFIT. RIGHT THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS? SENATOR WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? CERTAINLY. UM
13 74 PROVIDES A TAX INCENTIVE
FOR INVESTMENTS TO A 5 29
SCHOLARS SHARE PROGRAM BY
ALLOWING THIS DEDUCTION TO
QUALIFY TAXPAYERS AND I
UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION.
WISHING FOR PARODY TO EXIST. THE
REASON WE WERE ABLE TO BRING THE
COST DOWN IN SUCH A WAY TO EARN
THE SUPPORT OF THE TREASURER'S
OFFICE AND HOPEFULLY, OF COURSE
FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
SHOULD WE PASS THROUGH THE
ASSEMBLY. PROCESS IS THAT. IT
DOES NOT BLOW UP THE BUDGET, AND
IT IS PRIMARILY WARRANT TOWARD
CALIFORNIANS, SO INDIVIDUALS
LIVING OUTSIDE THE STATE WHO
WOULD NORMALLY CONDUCT PAPER
INSTRUMENTS. UPON WHICH THE
ENTIRE INDUSTRY IS BASED BY THE
FOLKS IN OPPOSITION. UM THIS IS
DESIGNED TO HELP CALIFORNIANS
SPECIFICALLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION. QUÊ. NEXT UP AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WE
HAVE SENATOR GROVE FILE ITEM.
NINE SB 14 84. WELCOME, SENATOR
. THANK YOU. I TOOK MY CUE FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GRAY AND I
EDITED OUT QUITE A FEW
PARAGRAPHS IN MY PRESENTATION.
SO THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SB 11
. EXCUSE ME, 14 84 WILL PROVIDE
PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES A TAX
CREDIT MODELED AFTER THE FEDERAL
WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR
HIRING AN INDIVIDUAL WHO'S A
FOSTER YOUTH OR FORMER FOSTER
YOUTH. THE BILL ESTABLISHES A
MAXIMUM CREDIT OF $2400 FOR
QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES. WE ALL KNOW
THAT CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE
STRUGGLE EARLY ON IN LIFE DUE TO
TRAUMATIC LOSS, NEGLECT OR ABUSE
. WHEN THEY EXIT FOSTER CARE,
MANY OF THEM LACK THE NECESSARY
NETWORKS OR RESOURCES, LEAVING
THEM WITH A LITTLE SUPPORT. AS A
BUSINESS OWNER IN THIS STATE. I
REALLY TRULY FEEL THAT THE BEST
SOLUTION OF POVERTY IS A JOB.
THIS TAX CREDIT HAS BEEN, UM,
VERY WIDELY USED ON INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE EITHER UNEMPLOYED UNITED
STATES MILITARY VETERANS, EX
FELONS OR SECOND CHANCERS LIKE I
LIKE TO CALL THEM. OR COW WORKS.
RECIPIENTS IN THIS BILL WOULD
SIMPLY EXTEND IT TO FOSTER
YOUTH. WITH ME HERE TO TESTIFY.
TODAY IS. MICHELLE CUP CAP. OH
SORRY. I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE.
MICHELE COBB CASH FROM A LOCAL
NONPROFIT HERE IN SACRAMENTO.
THANK YOU, SENATOR GROVE AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH YOU
TODAY. MY NAME IS MICHELLE COP
CASH AND I'M THE AREA NEEDS
DIRECTOR FOR THE ALLIANCE.
DEFENDING THE CAUSE OF KIDS AND
FAMILIES WERE AN ALLIANCE
SUPPORTS OVER 50 NON PROFITS AND
THE GREATER SACAMENTO REGION
WHO ARE DEDICATED TO PROTECTING
VULNERABLE CHILDREN. AND
STRENGTHENING FAMILIES. SO HOW
MANY OF YOU HERE TODAY? NEEDED
THE SUPPORT OF OTHERS TO GET
WHERE YOU'RE AT. HOW MANY OF YOU
HAVE EVER GIVEN A JOB
RECOMMENDATION TO SOMEBODY
WITHIN YOUR INNER CIRCLE TO GIVE
THEM AN EDGE. YET IN AMERICA.
DID YOU KNOW THAT 70% 76% OF
YOUNG ADULTS ARE STILL
FINANCIALLY INTO, UH,
FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT ON THEIR
PARENTS AT THE AGE OF 22? SO 76.
AT 22 YEARS OLD ARE STILL
DEPENDENT ON THEIR PARENTS. YET.
MEANWHILE IN CALIFORNIA, THERE
ARE 60,000 FOSTER YOUTH WHO LACK
CONNECTIONS, MEANING THAT FOR
THEM THERE WITHOUT THE CIRCLE OF
SUPPORT, JOB RECOMMENDATIONS AND
PADDING TO FALL BACK ON. AND OF
THE 60,000 YOUTH AROUND 4000
WILL AGE OUT OF THIS SYSTEM
ANNUALLY IN CALIFORNIA. LAST
YEAR, THERE WERE OVER 32,000
SCHOOL AGED FOSTER YOUTH
ENROLLED IN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
SYSTEM AND TO GIVE YOU A VISUAL
, THAT'S ENOUGH TO FILL ABOUT
52, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
ONLY ABOUT HALF OF ALL FOSTER
YOUTH WILL GRADUATE FROM HIGH
SCHOOL ON TIME, AND ONLY ABOUT
3% WILL GRADUATE WITH A COLLEGE
DEGREE. DURING THEIR SCHOOL
YEARS. THE AVERAGE FOSTER YOUTH
WILL MOVE TO BETWEEN 3 TO 5
DIFFERENT PLACEMENT HOMES, WHICH
MEANS THAT ANY MOVE THAT THEY
MAKE ANY SEMBLANCE OF STABILITY
OR SUPPORT SYSTEMS THAT THEY'VE
MANAGED TO BUILD WILL BE BROKEN
ONCE AGAIN. AND THESE ARE THE
FAILINGS THAT YOU ARE ALL CALLED
TO HELP FIX. DURING THEIR
TRANSITION AGE SCHOOL YEARS OF
18 TO 21. MANY WILL MOVE INTO
UNFURNISHED HOMES OR APARTMENTS
, AND THEY'LL GET HELP FROM
NONPROFITS LIKE MINE THAT
FURNISH THEIR SPACES SO THAT
THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN BUYING A CAN OPENER AND
THE CAN OR THE TOILET PAPER AND
THE SILVERWARE. THEY LACK THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT AND
HOUSING CONNECTIONS. THEY LACK A
GREAT DEAL OF LIFE SKILLS AND
CONFIDENCE THAT THEIR NON FOSTER
CARE PEERS HAVE ACQUIRED THE
STABILITY OF CARING PEOPLE IN
THEIR LIVES. WE INVEST SO LITTLE
IN THEM RELATION, ALY AND YET
EXPECT SO MUCH OF THEM BY THE
AGE OF 21 WHEN THEY AGE OUT. AND
IT'S NO WONDER THAT A TEEN OR
YOUNG ADULT WHO AGES OUT OF THE
FOSTER CARE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA
50% OF THEM WILL BE WITHOUT A
JOB IN FOUR YEARS. 25% OF THEM
WILL BE INCARCERATED AND OVER
ONE IN FOUR OR ABOUT 30% OF
TRANSITION AGED FOSTER YOUTH
WILL EXPERIENCE HOMELESSNESS. IN
THE SACRAMENTO REGION. ABOUT ONE
THIRD OF HOMELESS PEOPLE
REPORTED THAT THEY HAD BEEN IN
FOSTER CARE. 2000 AND 19 STUDY
ASKED SACRAMENTO'S HOMELESS
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH WHAT TWO
THINGS COULD SACRAMENTO DO
BETTER TO HELP PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS? 48%
OF THE HOMELESS YOUTH ANSWERED,
PROVIDE MORE JOBS IN TRAINING,
FOLLOWED BY 44, WHO ANSWERED
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS
BILL CAN HELP PROVIDE MORE JOB
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CURRENT AND
FORMER FOSTER YOUTH BY
SUPPORTING THE BUSINESSES. THAT
ARE WANTING TO COME ALONGSIDE
THEM. EMPLOYERS WHO WANT TO
SPEND TIME TO SUPPORT THEM AS
THEY LEARNED JOB AND RELATIONAL
SKILLS WILL HELP MOVE THE NEEDLE
FOR THIS VULNERABLE POPULATION,
ASSUMING THAT THE BUSINESS HAS
THE TIME AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES
TO INVEST IN AT RISK YOUTH THIS
BILL CAN INCENTIVIZE THE
EMPLOYERS COMMITMENT TO THESE
YOUTH, WHICH WILL GIVE THE
FOSTER YOUTH A BETTER CHANCE OF
MOVING TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE
EMPLOYMENT. AND I DO HOPE THAT
YOU WILL AGREE THAT THIS
VULNERABLE POPULATION NEEDS YOUR
SUPPORT. IN THIS IMPORTANT PIECE
OF THE PUZZLE. THERE ARE MANY
PIECES. THIS IS ONE THAT IS VERY
IMPORTANT THAT I HOPE YOU'LL
ADDRESS MADAM CHAIR. I KNOW THIS
IS REALLY AN ORTHODOX AND I DO
APOLOGIZE. UM, I HAVE THE
MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER FROM THE
SENATE ON THE PHONE, DEMANDING
THAT I RETURNED TO THE SENATE TO
TAKE A VOTE ON THIS BILL. THIS
IS SO IMPORTANT TO INDIVIDUALS
LIKE MISS KEPT CASH, WHO SUPPORT
FOSTER YOUTH AND, UM WOULD YOU
PLEASE GIVE ME A BRIEF RECESS TO
RUN AND VOTE AND COME RIGHT BACK
? YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE THAT AS
YOUR CLOTHES AND JUST
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR AN I VOTE
AND I AND I DO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE
I KNOW SHE WORKS SO HARD WITH
FOSTER YOUTH TO TRY TO BECOME
SUCCESSFUL. AND THEY ARE. PLEASE
DON'T AND I RETURN PRESENT THIS
IS FOR PRESENTATIONAL WERE NOT
ALLOWED TO ADD ON LIKE WE WERE
IN THE ASSEMBLY. NÓI APPRECIATE
NO PROBLEM AT ALL. AND BUT IF
YOUR WITNESS CAN STAY FOR ANY
QUESTIONS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT
AND YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY,
SO THANK YOU KNOW, DON'T DON'T
WORRY ABOUT THAT. R RIGHT. UM,
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? D!I I'M SORRY
OPPOSITION AND ANYBODY ELSE IN
SUPPORT? AND THEN ANY
OPPOSITION. TURN MEMBERS
CATALINA SANCHEZ WITH CORBYN AND
KAISER ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TAX REFORM
ASSOCIATION. UNFORTUNATELY IN IN
A POST UNLESS AMENDED POSITION
DUE TO THE GENERAL FRANK
CONSTRAINTS OF UP TO $4.9
MILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE
YEARS. THANK YOU. K HARDMAN,
WITH THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, ALSO AN OPPOSITION
DUE TO THE GENERAL BAND IMPACT
IMPACT ON PROPER 98. WE URGE
YOUR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER
WAY TO HELP THESE FASTER YOUTH
BESIDES TAKING FUNDING AWAY FROM
OUR SCHOOLS THAT SERVE THESE
SAME STUDENTS. TO PAY FOR IT. SO
THANK YOU. QUÊ AH, QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WORK. AH!
MADAME EXPERT. YOUR NAME AGAIN
WAS MICHELLE. LAST NAME.
SCULPTOR. OKAY? MISS COP CASH.
SO THE PROBLEM THE QUESTIONS
RAISED IN THE ANALYSIS DEALT
WITH. IS THIS THE BEST WAY TO
USE THIS MONEY? UH, IT BRINGS UP
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE OTHER
PROGRAMS. IN PARTICULAR. UM THE
NEW EMPLOYMENT CREDIT, THE
HOMELESS, HIRING CREDIT AND ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT DISCUSSED
HERE IS THAT MANY OF THE. OF THE
FOSTER YOUTH DO END UP BEING
HOMELESS. UM AND THEN THEY ALSO
BRING UP THAT WITH THE LABOR
SHORTAGE, WHICH IS QUITE REAL
HERE. AH THAT SOME OF THIS IS
GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, AND
THAT'S KNOWN AS THE FREE RIDER
PROBLEMS. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU
INCENTIVIZING, AS OPPOSED TO
REWARDING BEHAVIOR, WHICH MIGHT
NOT BE A BAD THING IN THIS CASE.
SO THOSE ARE SORT OF THE
QUESTIONS. IS THIS THE BEST
FRIEND THE BEST USE OF THIS
MONEY THAT WE WOULD BE PUTTING
FORWARD? SHOULD WE GIVE THIS TAX
BREAK? THERE ARE OTHER PROGRAMS
OR THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT
BETTER, WHICH IS THE QUESTION
ASKED, UM SO I'M NOT A TAX
EXPERT. UM I JUST I WORK EVERY
DAY WITH FOSTER YOUTH. I DON'T
THINK THIS IS AN EITHER OR
SITUATION FOR THIS POPULATION. I
THINK THAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER
AN AND BOTH. THIS POPULATION HAS
UNDERGONE MORE TRAUMA. UM MORE
NEGLECT OR ABUSE MORE HARDSHIP
THAN HOMELESS PEOPLE,
THEMSELVES. UM THERE ARE. WHEN
IT COMES TO COMPARING HOMELESS
PERSON, UM IN FOSTER CARE VERSUS
OUT OF FOSTER CARE. IT SAID THAT
60% WELL, LET'S SEE. WHERE ARE
WE? LET'S SEE. I'M SO SORRY. I
HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF FACTS. UM
ABSOLUTELY WILL WILL TAKE THEM
AS GIVEN. THIS IS NOT A
PRIVILEGE THAT THIS IS AN AND
SITUATION AND OTHER POLICIES
NEED TO BE ADOPTED AND MORE
MONEY NEEDS TO GO TOWARDS MANY
OTHER PROGRAMS FOR FOSTER YOUTH.
JOBS COLLEGE SUPPORT FOR KINSHIP
. THERE ARE THERE IS IT THERE
NEEDS TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE
PACKAGE, BUT THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT PIECE BEFORE THEY
BECOME HOMELESS. OKAY THINGS
THAT I DO SEE, AND I WORK EVERY
SINGLE DAY WITH WOMEN WHO ARE
BECOMING HOMELESS WITH TEEN MOMS
OUT OF THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM.
IS THAT THEY THEY WANT HELP. AND
THEY ARE DESPERATE FOR HIGHER
PAYING JOBS. UM. AND THEY'RE NOT
GETTING THE HELP IN TIME AND SO
JOBS LIKE THIS CAN INCENTIVIZE
THE EMPLOYERS WHO DO HAVE THE
HEART TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF
THE TRAUMA BACKGROUNDS AND GIVE
THEM HIGHER. PAYING MORE STABLE
JOBS. UM TO HELP PREVENT THE
HOMELESSNESS. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I'M
SORRY THAT THE SENATOR HAD TO
LEAVE REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE
WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING. WE HAVE,
UM UH, COST PACIFICA IN VENTURA
COUNTY. THEY DO INCREDIBLE WORK
FOR FOSTER YOUTH. AND THERE ARE
SO MANY SEPARATE ISSUES THAT
YOU'RE DEALING WITH. I THINK IT
WAS VERY BENEFICIAL THAT WE MOVE
THE AGE UP FROM 18 TO 22 FOR
EIGHT, BUT THEIR HOUSING ISSUES
AND EDUCATION ISSUES A WHOLE
SLEW OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE
DEALT WITH. AND I KNOW YOU HAVE
TO HAVE A VERY BIG HEART TO, UM
STICK WITH IT BECAUSE IT CAN BE
VERY DIFFICULT. UM THE QUESTION
AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WOULD BE
ABLE TO ANSWER ORNOT, BUT WE
DID HAVE A BILL A FEW, PROBABLY
A MONTH AGO OR SO THAT WAS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BRYANT. THAT
HAD OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN THE
ASSEMBLY AND THEN UNFORTUNATELY
, APPROPRIATIONS, UM ENDED UP.
UH UM, NOT PASSING THAT BILL OUT
OF COMMITTEE. SO WAS THEIR WORK
BY THE SENATOR TO MAKE CHANGES
TO KIND OF ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
OF APPROPRIATIONS. ON THIS BILL,
DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY IDEA
YEAH, I THINK ONE OF THEM. DAVID
PROBABLY YES TO THAT YET. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS. LEGISLATIVE DAVID
MONTEREY LEGISLATIVE AIDE FOR
SENATOR GROVE. UM AT THIS TIME,
NO, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC
CONVERSATIONS ON ON THAT
SPECIFIC QUESTION. I JUST WANTED
TO CHECK THAT. UH REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION AND
WE'RE NOT TAKING A VOTE TODAY,
BUT WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS, UH,
WITH THE COMMITTEE IN A FEW
WEEKS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ALRIGHT. AND THEN
DO WE HAVE MR GRENELL HERE?
RIGHT. AND THIS IS OUR LAST BILL
FOR VOTE. AND I WE WERE HOPING
THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE ON
CONSENT. BUT SO THIS IS, UH. SB
14 94. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH
SENATE GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. MY
NAME IS COLIN GRENELL. I'M WITH
THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND
FINANCE. SENATOR CABALLERO.
THANKS YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT ON HER BEHALF TODAY.
SENATE BILL 14 94 IS THE
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
COMMITTEE'S ANNUAL DIVISION, ONE
OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE
OMNIBUS BILL CONTAINS SEVERAL
CHANGES TO PROPERTY TAX
ADMINISTRATION LAW. SUGGESTED BY
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
TREASURE AND TAX COLLECTORS. I
AM HAPPY TO GO INTO THE
SPECIFICS OF THE BILL,
PRINCIPALLY MEASURE INCREASES
THE CAP ON THE FEES THAT CAN BE
CHARGED BY COUNTY TAX COLLECTORS
WHEN PREPARING DELINQUENT TAX
RECORDS AND NOTICES. THE CURRENT
CAP IN LAW IS $10, BUT MOST THAT
THE BILL INCREASES THIS AMOUNT
TO UP TO $55, REGARDLESS OF THE
ACTUAL AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE AND
MUST REFLECT THE TAX COLLECTORS
ACTUAL COSTS. AND THERE IS
PROVISION IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE
THAT ALLOW FOR AUDITS OF ACTUAL
COSTS. IN THESE CASES OF THESE
FEARS. THE LAST TIME THE SPEED
CAP WAS INCREASED WAS 1982. THE
MEASURE ALSO CHANGES TO SECTIONS
OF PROPERTY TAX LAW TO ALLOW TAX
COLLECTORS TO OFFER PROPERTY AND
ATTACKS SALE TO THE SECOND
HIGHEST BIDDER AT THEIR BID
PRICE IF THE HIGHEST BIDDER DOES
NOT COMPLETE THE SALE IN THE
PERIOD SPECIFIED BY THE TAX
COLLECTOR. THIS WILL HOPEFULLY
CHANGE A INCREASING TREND WHERE
TAX COLLECTORS ARE NOT ABLE TO
COMPLETE TAX SALES BECAUSE THE
HIGHEST BIDDER NO LONGER
COMPLETES THE SALE. AFTER THE
TAX SALE, TAX SALES CAN BE VERY
COSTLY AND BURDENSOME FOR TAX
COLLECTORS. AND SO THIS WOULD
ALLOW THEM TO OFFER THAT
PROPERTY TO THE SECOND HIGHEST
BIDDER AT THAT PRICE MEASURE
ALSO ALLOWS TAX COLLECTORS TO
SEND LEGALLY REQUIRED NOTICES OF
TAX SALE. TO OTHER GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES AND NON PROFIT AGENCIES
ELECTRONICALLY. THE LAST
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THE BILL
MAKES IS IT CLARIFIES THAT THE
90 DAY DEADLINE CURRENTLY IN LAW
FOR PARTIES OF INTEREST TO FILE
AN ACTION OR PROCEEDING TO
REVIEW THE DISTRIBUTION OF
EXCESS. PROCEEDS FROM A TAX SALE
ALSO APPLIES WHEN THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AVAILS THEMSELVES
PROVISIONS AND EXISTING LAW
WHERE THEY CAN DELEGATE THAT
FUNCTION TO THE TAX COLLECTOR.
THIS IS JUST MERELY CLARIFIES AN
AMBIGUITY AND CURRENT LAW THAT
WILL HELP WITH TAX
ADMINISTRATION. THE MEASURE ALSO
MAKES ANOTHER CHANGE SUGGESTED
BY THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
DOES IT THAT REFLECTS THE
CHANGING DUTIES FROM THE WARD TO
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX
AND FEE ADMINISTRATION. I HAVE
KAREN LANG WITH CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY TREASURER
TAX COLLECTORS HERE IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL AND HAPPY TO FIELD
ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I
THINK THE BILL THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS KARIN LANG ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY TREASURERS
AND TAX COLLECTORS. MR GRENELL
LAID IT OUT PERFECTLY. I WOULD
WANT TO OBSERVE TO THE $55 IF IT
DOES, IF THAT IS OF CONCERN. WE
DID A SURVEY PRIOR TO BRINGING
THE BILL FORWARD, AND NEARLY
EVERY COUNTY WAS REALLY IN THE
TWENTIES THAT THEY HAD RESET IT
. SOME COUNTY COUNCILS OPINE
THAT THE ARE LIMITED BY THE $10
IN STATUTE. OTHERS SAY THAT YOU
CAN GO THROUGH THE FEE SETTING
AUTHORITY. THAT'S LENT TO
COUNTIES IN 54 9 85 OF THE
GOVERNMENT CODE, AND SO SOME
COUNTIES. ONE COUNTY IN
PARTICULAR WAS AT 55 NOW, AND
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT. WE WORKED
OUT WITH THE REALTORS WHO HAD
RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT IT BEING
TOO HIGH. BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE
ANYBODY WHO DOES RESET IT
LOCALLY WOULD HAVE TO DO IT
THROUGH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO
JUSTIFY THE COST OF THE FEE AND
, UM, WHEN THE FEWEST SAID, I
THINK THE CERTIFIED MAILING WAS
MAYBE A FEW CENTS NOW, JUST THE
ACT OF GOING TO GET THIS
CERTIFIED PIECE OF MAILIS $3.50
. I THINK IT WILL GO UP AGAIN
NEXT YEAR, SO THERE ARE HARD
COSTS THE TAX COLLECTORS CANNOT
AVOID, AND THEY DON'T HAVE.
FRANKLY, FRANKING PRIVILEGES
LIKE CONGRESS DOES SO EVERYTHING
THAT THEY HAVE TO DO FOR
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN
THEY ARE DEFAULTED, COST THEM
MONEY AND THEY'RE JUST SIMPLY
TRYING TO RECOVER THEIR COSTS.
THEY CAN'T MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT.
IT'S JUST COST RECOVERY SO
URGENT. I VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, AND WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT IT'S VANESSA CHAVEZ WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE
AN OFFICIAL SUPPORT POSITION ON
THE BILL, WE ARE ENCOURAGED BY
THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY CONTAINED
IN THE BILL AND WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE AND THEIR
STAFF ARE CRAFTING THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. AND WE ASKED FOR
YOUR I VOTE ON THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, ANY WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT, UH,
WOULD YOU? OH YES, QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. NO QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. WE JUST NEED A
SECOND. IS THAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
ARE ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE MOTION
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S QUIRK AND A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PETRIE-NORRIS AND EMOTIONS DO
PASS TO THE FLOOR. MISS
HIGHLAND. CAN YOU PLEASE DO THE
ROLL CALL? THE 14 90 FOR THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS. IRWIN I WIN.
I WIN GRAY. GRAY EYE, GRAYSON.
LIVING. MAZE. I'M MULLEN MULLEN.
I PETRIE-NORRIS PETRIE-NORRIS
IKE WORK. I RIVAS, SARAH D
ZERO ALRIGHT. THAT BILL HAS
PASSED 60 BEFORE YOU MR MAYS DID
YOU WANT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE
CAN GO THROUGH THE HAVE YOU GONE
THROUGH ALL YOUR OTHER VOTES,
OKAY. UH UM YES. YES. THAT WAS.
ALL RIGHT, THEN WHY DON'T WE GO
THROUGH THE BILLS FOR MR MULLEN?
MR MULLEN ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. MULLEN. AYE. ON SP 12
93 BRADFORD. THAT BILL HAS
PASSED MULLEN MULLEN. AYE. ON SB
13 57 ARCHULETTA THAT BILL HAS
PASSED MULLEN WELL, AND I MR
GRAY. MR GRAY. I LOVE THE CHECK.
MR GRAY ON 12 93 BRADFORD. GOT
FOR AYE. ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, MR QUÊ. MR GRAY. I.
ALRIGHT THOSE WE JUST HAVE ONE
MORE PRESENTATION, BUT ALL THE
BILLS THAT WE NEEDED TO VOTE ON
OUR OUT. FIRST STEP. AND I WOULD
PRESENT THANK YOU. IS THAT OKAY?
WE CAN WE HAVE SENT A LETTER.
CAN WE ASK THEM TO BRING A LOT
OF ISSUES? SURE. NO I THINK IT'S
KIND OF STOPS IN THE LETTER
SAYING. TECHNICAL.
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE THAT BILL
HAS PASSED. SEYARTO. TEXT A
FAULTED PROPERTIES. YOU MIGHT
WANT TO TALK TO JULIE.
SENATOR. THANK YOU FOR SEYARTO.
AYE. UH PLEASE START WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. FIRST OFF.
APOLOGIES. IF YOU KEPT ANYONE
WAITING, THEY WERE NOT TRY NOT
TO LET US LEAVE BEFORE BECAUSE
WE HAD THE A C A UP TODAY. UM
THIS BILL CREATES MANUFACTURING
TAX CREDIT FOR CLEAN ENERGY
MANUFACTURING. EQUAL TO 10% OF
COSTS INCURRED FOR NEWLY
INSTALLED MANUFACTURING CLEAN
ENERGY EQUIPMENT. IT WOULD APPLY
AND ALLOW FOR CALIFORNIA BUILD
UP MORE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND
STORAGE PARTS, CARS AND CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ZERO MISSION
HOME APPLIANCES. CALIFORNIA
ALREADY SUPPORTS. IN STATE
MANUFACTURING THROUGH THE SALES
AND USE TAX EXCLUSION. THIS TAX
CREDIT FOR THE SPECIFIC
TECHNOLOGIES. WOULD HELP US MEET
OUR DECARBONIZATION GOALS. IT'S
MORE EXPANSIVE, MORE DIRECTED AT
CLEANENERGY AND A CERTAIN OTHER
ATTRIBUTES, AND I'M SURE WE'LL
TALK ABOUT IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT
CAPPED LIKE THE CURRENT ONE. AND
MEET INEVITABLE FUTURE DEMAND.
WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE F T B
AND ARE OPEN AND WORKING TO
INCLUDE ALL OF THEIR
IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS AND ARE
PLANNING ON ADDING AMENDMENTS,
WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE CREDIT TO
IN STATE USED AND PRODUCED
EQUIPMENT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
ANY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS DAN
JACOBSON WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA. IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. THAT REALLY
INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY ON THIS CLIMATE
CHANGE ACTION BY GIVING THEM
THIS TAX CREDIT. WE THINK IT'S A
GREAT IDEA. IT'S A CRITICAL STEP
IN WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE MEET NOT ONLY 100% GOALS
BUT STAVE OFF THE WORST IMPACTS
OF CLIMATE CHANGE. RESPECTFULLY.
ASPIRIN I VOTE. THANK YOU ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MOIRA TOP HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS
COUNCIL AND SUPPORT THANK YOU
AND THE WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
I HATED HARDMAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
. UNFORTUNATELY OPPOSITION DUE
TO THE IMPACT ON GENERAL FUND
REVENUES AND PROPOSITION I NEED
THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WORK. SO. WE
ALREADY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL
BENEFITS. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR SOLAR
, UH, ROOFTOPS. THEY GET THE
HIGHEST POSSIBLE PRICE AND THERE
BY AND LARGE PRODUCING ENERGY AT
THE TIME. WE DON'T NEED IT. UM
AND THE. WE ALREADY HAVE
INCENTIVES FOR PURCHASING
VEHICLES. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
BUSINESSES BESIDES
MANUFACTURING, WHICH HAVE HAVE
GOOD SALARIES. SO WHY
MANUFACTURING IN PARTICULAR? AND
WHY ADDITIONAL SENT IBS FOR
GREEN WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE QUITE
A BIT I THINK YOUR POINT ON
SOLAR. I THINK ONE OF THE REAL
ISSUES IN ONE OF THE SLOWDOWNS
THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE US TO MISS
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL,
AMONG MANY THAT WILL CAUSE US TO
MR 2030 GOALS IS WE DON'T MAKE
MOSES. SO WE'RE HERE, RIGHT? WE
DON'T ACTUALLY DO THE
MANUFACTURING. AND THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
BRING BACK. AND BRING THAT
SUPPLY CHAIN BACK HERE. SO, YES,
WE DO INSTALLATION AND WE HAVE
INCENTIVES FOR THAT. BUT WE
DON'T ACTUALLY DO THE
MANUFACTURING. SO WHEN YOU LOOK
AT THAT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT HEAT
PUMPS, UM IN TALKING TO MY
COLLEAGUES INTO ADMINISTRATION
THERE'S YOU KNOW INTEREST IN
GETTING A MILLION HEAT PUMPS. I
JUST PUT ONE IN MY HOUSE. UM AND
THERE'S INDICATIONS THAT IF WE
DO HAVE ENOUGH, UM, POLICY
SUPPORT THAT PEOPLE WILL BUILD
MANUFACTURING PLANTS HERE, BUT
CERTAINLY IF WE HAVE YEAH. TAX
CREDITS FOR MANUFACTURING.
THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO DO SO. SO
THIS IS REALLY GOOD SPECIFICALLY
ON THE MANUFACTURING SIDE. OKAY?
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT
. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS. YOU DID MENTION THAT
THE F T. B HAS, UH, IDENTIFIED A
WHOLE RANGE OF IMPLEMENTATION
ISSUES AND, UM, FOR THIS
COMMITTEE. ALSO WE LOOK AT THE
TOTAL COST TO THE GENERAL FUND.
WE HAVE SITA HERE TODAY THAT HAS
TOLD US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
KEEP IN MIND WHAT THE IMPACT IS
ON THE GENERAL FUND, SO WE'LL
LOOK AT ALL THE BILLS THAT HAVE
BEEN PRESENTED BY THE SENATE. UH
ON, UH, ON THESE DIFFERENT
ISSUES AND THEN PRIORITIZE WHICH
ONES SHOULD BE SENT UP TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SO JUST WANTED
TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND
THE PROCESS AND WE REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION. I
THANK YOU. AND THANKS AGAIN FOR
YOUR PATIENTS TODAY. WE KNOW HOW
IT'S HOW IT WORKS ON MONDAYS.
GREECE. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING
TO HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 10 MINUTES FOR
MEMBERS THAT WANT TO ADD ON
THANK YOU. PERFECT TIMING, MISS
RIVAS. HIGHLAND. ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. RIVAS REVIS? AYE. ON
SB 14 94 THAT BILL HAS PASSED
RIVAS REVIS? AYE. ON SP 12 93
THAT BILL HAS PASSED RIVAS
REVIS? AYE. AND ON SB 13 57.
THAT BILL HAS PASSED. RIVAS
RIVAS. AYE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S NOW BACK TO
YOUR COMMITTEE. RIGHT SO WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE 10 10 MINUTES?
YES.
WITH THAT WE WILL ADJOIN. THE
MEETING ADJOURNED, ADJOURNED THE
MEETING. HAVE A GOOD EVENING.