ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON AND
WELCOME TO THE FINAL HEARING OF
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
REVENUE AND TAXATION FOR
ASSEMBLY BILLS. AS ALWAYS,
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR POSITION
LETTERS AT LEAST ONE WEEK PRIOR
TO THE COMMITTEE HEARING IN
ORDER FOR THEM TO BE REFLECTED
IN THE BILLS ANALYSIS.
ADDITIONALLY PURSUANT TO OUR
COMMITTEE RULES BILLS WITH THE
FISCAL IMPACT OF PLUS OR
-150,000 WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE
FOR A VOTE IMMEDIATELY AFTER
THEIR PRESENTATION, WE WILL BE
TAKING UP ALL THE REMAINING
BILLS ON OUR SUSPENSE FILE,
INCLUDING BILLS THAT WERE HEARD
AND MOVED TO SUSPENSE DURING THE
FIRST PORTION OF TODAY'S
HEARING. WE WILL START BY TAKING
UP BILLS UNDER THE REGULAR ORDER
OF BUSINESS BEFORE TAKING UP THE
SUSPENSE FILE. WITH THIS IN
MIND, TWO ITEMS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR A
VOTE DURING THE REGULAR ORDER OF
BUSINESS. FILE ITEM ONE AB 2979
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER FONG AND FILE
ITEM FIVE AB 3259 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON. ADDITIONALLY,
FILE ITEM THREE AB 2506 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL HAS
BEEN PULLED BY THE AUTHOR AND WE
WILL BE STARTING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE WITH, ITEM FILE
ITEM ONE AB 2979 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FONG, I SHOULD SAY MIKE
FONG, JUST TO MAKE SURE,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WHENEVER YOU
ARE READY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY BILL
TWO 979 CLARIFIES THAT PAYMENTS
RECEIVED FROM THE CALIFORNIA
VICTIM COMPENSATION BOARD ARE
NOT CONSIDERED GROSS INCOME FOR
STATE TAX PURPOSES. LAST JANUARY
THREE, A MASS SHOOTING IN MY
DISTRICT KILLED 11 INDIVIDUALS
AND INJURED NINE OTHERS, WITH
THE HELP OF THE VICTIMS
COMPENSATION BOARD, MY OFFICE
ASSISTED SURVIVORS AND VICTIMS
FAMILIES AND APPLYING FOR A
VICTIM COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE.
THESE FUND HELPED PAY FOR THESE
HELPED THESE FUNDS HELPED PAY
FOR UNCOVERED MEDICAL BILLS,
FUNERAL EXPENSES, LOST WAGES AND
OTHER NEEDS FROM THE RESTITUTION
FUND RECIPIENTS, REPORTED
CONCERNS AND CONFUSION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF THESE
FUNDS WERE REQUIRE REQUIRED
REPORTING. THE PAYMENTS FOR
STATE TAX PURPOSES. AS NOTED IN
THE ANALYSIS, FEDERAL POLICY
EXEMPTS VICTIM COMPENSATED FUNDS
FOR FEDERAL TAX PURPOSES. THIS
BILL SIMPLY MAKES IT CLEAR THAT
THESE PAYMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM
STATE TAXES, CONSISTENT WITH
FEDERAL PRACTICE. HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS FAITHFULLY
WITH ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING
JUSTICE. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AN
ORGANIZATION THAT TOOK ACTION
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTING
TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS
IN MY COMMUNITY. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR. MY
NAME IS FAITH LEE. I AM THE
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR AT ASIAN
AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ADJACENT
CHAU, ALSO KNOWN AS AJ SOCAL, AJ
SOCAL, IS A DIRECT SERVICE
PROVIDER, ALSO A LEGAL SOCIAL
JUSTICE ORGANIZATION THAT
REACHES 16,000 CLIENTS AND
COMMUNITY MEMBERS ANNUALLY. I'M
HONORED TO BE HERE. TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2979 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MIKE FONG. WE
SUPPORT AB 2979 THAT WILL
CLARIFY CURRENT STATUTES ABOUT
WHETHER THE RESTITUTION FUND
ISSUED BY THE CALIFORNIA VICTIM
COMPENSATION BOARD WOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERED GROSS INCOME FOR
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MIKE FONG SAID,
WE HAD A DIFFICULT SITUATION IN
FOLLOWING THE 2023 MONTEREY PARK
SHOOTING, AS AJ, SOCAL AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS SET UP A GOFUNDME
TO CROWDSOURCE DONATIONS FOR
VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES,
FINDING A CLEAR ANSWER FOR THE
TAXABILITY OF THOSE FUNDS PROVED
DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX. OUR
ATTORNEYS AND STAFF WENT THROUGH
SEVERAL MONTHS OF RESEARCH AND
WORKING WITH VARIOUS TAX
ATTORNEYS AND EXPERTS, AND STILL
COULDN'T FIND A STRAIGHTFORWARD
ANSWER. OUR EXPERIENCE SHOWS
THAT WHEN A PERSON IS SEEKING
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM
CALIFORNIA VIA VCB, IT IS OFTEN
AFTER A TRAGEDY OR A TRAUMATIC
EVENT. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES,
THERE IS NO TIME FOR UNCERTAINTY
IN OUR STATE LAW. WE APPRECIATE
ASSEMBLYMAN MIKE FONG AND HIS
TEAM IN RECOGNIZING THE
IMPORTANCE OF CLEANING UP OUR
STATUTES SO SURVIVORS OF CRIME
CAN OBTAIN TIMELY ASSISTANCE,
AND THAT THERE'S NO DELAY IN
FUNDING FOR OUR SURVIVORS. FOR
THESE SURVIVORS. AND I ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION,
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE, WE
ARE, GOING TO FIRST ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. ERWIN HERE. ERWIN HERE
TO HERE TO HERE. BAYNES HERE.
BAYNES HERE. GIBSON. GRAYSON.
GRAYSON HERE. JIM. PATTERSON
JIM. PATTERSON HERE. THREE OF US
. WE HAVE A QUORUM. ALL RIGHT,
WE HAVE A QUORUM. WELL, AS AS
MANY OF US KNOW, THESE MASS
SHOOTINGS ARE ABSOLUTELY
DEVASTATING FOR A COMMUNITY, THE
STORIES COMING OUT OF MONTEREY
PARK ARE, ARE TRULY, SAD. AND I
KNOW BECAUSE WE HAD A MASS
SHOOTING IN OUR DISTRICT ALSO,
IT REVERBERATES THROUGHOUT THE
ENTIRE COMMUNITY. SO IF WE CAN
DO SOMETHING TO GIVE A LITTLE
BIT OF CERTAINTY TO THE FAMILIES
AND OF THE VICTIMS, WE SHOULD
CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO DO THAT
THROUGH LEGISLATION. THÀNH SO
WITH THAT FEEL FREE TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
AND AS YOU MENTIONED, SADLY, THE
SHOOTING AT MONTEREY PARK WAS
NOT THE ONLY SITE OF A MASS
SHOOTING. THIS BILL WILL PROVIDE
CLARITY FOR VICTIMS AND HALF
MOON BAY, TRABUCO CANYON AND
MANY OTHER AREAS. AND I WOULD
LIKE TO ALSO THANK YOUR CHIEF
CONSULTANT FOR ALL HIS HELP AND
GUIDANCE IN THIS PROCESS, AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. I
VOTE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND? SECOND,
THAT BILL HAS BEEN MOVED BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON AND
SECONDED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO.
AND THE MOTION IS Dð PASS TO
APPROACH APPROPRIATIONS. MISS
HIGHLAND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON ITEM NUMBER ONE, AB 2979. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN I. IRWIN
EYE TO EYE TO EYE. EXCUSE ME.
BAINES. BAINES I GIBSON. GRAYSON
A GRAYSON I JIM PATTERSON. JIM
PATTERSON I THREE OF US. THAT
BILL IS OUT 5 TO 0. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. IT
LOOKS LIKE, NEXT UP WE HAVE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PAPPIN.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, IT'S
NICE TO BE WITH YOU, SO I AM
HERE TODAY TO PRESENT AB 2829 OR
THE LIKES. BILL, AS WE CALL IT,
WHICH STANDS FOR LONG TERM
INVESTMENT FOR OUR KIDS.
EMOTIONAL SUPPORT. GET IT? LIKES
WE THINK WE'RE VERY CLEVER. IN
MY OFFICE, THE INTERNET HAS
COMPLETELY RESHAPED THE 21ST
CENTURY. OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS,
THE ONLINE WORLD HAS GROWN
TREMENDOUSLY, AND WITH IT HAS
BEEN THE GROWTH OF PLATFORMS,
WHICH HAVE DRAMATICALLY
INCREASED OUR USE OF TECH IN OUR
DAY TO DAY LIVES. AS THE
TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD HAS GROWN,
SO HAS OUR KNOWLEDGE THAT THE
USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND OUR MENTAL
HEALTH ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED.
THE DATA IS QUITE CLEAR ON HOW
DIGITAL CONSUMPTION IS IMPACTING
MENTAL HEALTH AMONGST OUR YOUTH.
CORRESPONDING WITH THE RISE OF
TECH, WE HAVE SEEN INCREASE
INCREASING RATES OF ANXIETY,
DEPRESSION AND LONELINESS. THESE
MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES LEAD TO
EVERYTHING FROM DISORDERED
EATING TO HEALTH TO SELF-HARM
AND EVEN SUICIDE. YET THE DEMAND
FOR SERVICES HAS RAPIDLY
OUTPACED SUPPLY, LEAVING
FAMILIES WITH WITHOUT ADEQUATE
RESOURCES TO OVERCOME THE
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY.
IN FACT, THERE'S BEEN A
REPORTING THAT IN THE NEXT FIVE
YEARS, THE DEMAND FOR MENTAL
HEALTH PROVIDERS WILL BE 40%
MORE THAN THOSE AVAILABLE. WHILE
THE LACK OF RESOURCES IS DRIVEN
PRIMARILY BY THE LACK OF FUNDING
AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS THE CRISIS,
AND NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT'S ONLY
BEEN EXACERBATED BY OUR CURRENT
BUDGET SITUATION. SO WE HAVE
THESE LARGE COMPANIES WHO HAVE
CAUSED THE PROBLEM BUT ARE NOT
CONTRIBUTING TO THE SOLUTION.
AND IN THE PROCESS, THEY'VE BEEN
ABLE TO MAKE SUPERNORMAL
PROFITS. LOOKING AT THE
CHALLENGES IN REGULATING CONTENT
AND THE HARM BEING CAUSED BY
TECH, I THINK THIS POLICY IS A
PRACTICAL COMPROMISE AND IT
PROVIDES A TREMENDOUS
OPPORTUNITY FOR TECH TO BE A
PART OF THE SOLUTION. THAT'S
RIGHT. REGULATING CONTENT IS
DIFFICULT. GETTING TECH TO BE A
PART OF THE SOLUTION MAY BE NOT
SO DIFFICULT. ABA 2829 WILL
IMPOSE A TAX OF 5% ON THE
ADVERTISING REVENUES GENERATED
IN CALIFORNIA BY COMPANIES THAT
GENERATE MORE THAN $100 MILLION
IN ANNUAL GROSS REVENUES
WORLDWIDE, AND DIRECT THOSE
FUNDS TO MENTAL HEALTH YOUTH.
EXCUSE ME? YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES. FOR DECADES, WE'VE
TAXED GOODS THAT IMPOSE GREATER
COSTS ON SOCIETY THAN THEIR
PRICE REFLECTS. SO WHILE THIS
IDEA MAY BE NEW AS IT RELATES TO
DIGITAL ADVERTISING SERVICES, IT
ISN'T A NOVEL IDEA. OTHER STATES
SUCH AS MARYLAND, INDIANA, NEW
YORK, CONNECTICUT AND NEBRASKA,
IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION, I MIGHT
ADD, HAVE CONSIDERED SIMILAR
BILLS. WE ARE IN A NEW POLICY
AREA AS IT RELATES TO THE
DIGITAL WORLD. CURRENT LAW WAS
NOT STRUCTURED FOR THE DIGITAL
ECONOMY AND WE'RE BEGINNING TO
SEE A DESIRE FROM STATES TO
ADDRESS THE GAPS IN OUR LAWS.
THE SUPREME COURT'S RECENT
WAYFAIR DECISION HIGHLIGHTS HOW
A SMALL STATE LIKE SOUTH DAKOTA
COULD GO ALL THE WAY TO THE
SUPREME COURT TO EFFECT CHANGE
AS IT RELATES TO THE INTERNET,
AND THAT DECISION HAS OPENED THE
DOORS FOR THIS POLICY. I SEE
THIS POLICY AS DOING TWO THINGS.
FIRST, IT IS AKIN TO OTHER
SYNTAXES IN THAT IT SEEKS TO
MITIGATE THE HARM CAUSED BY THE
PRODUCT. THIS IS A COMMON TAX
PRACTICE WHEN PRODUCT
RESTRICTION IS REALLY NOT
TERRIBLY FEASIBLE. SECOND, THE
DIGITAL ECONOMY HAS CREATED TAX
CHALLENGES LEADING TO UNTAXED
CONSUMPTION, WHICH THIS BILL
WOULD ALSO ADDRESS. YOU WILL
HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT FROM MY
WITNESS, PROFESSOR DARIAN
CHANSKY. THE QUESTION I WANT TO
LEAVE YOU WITH BEFORE I TURN IT
OVER TO MY WITNESSES IS AS
FOLLOWS. SHOULD TECH, GIVEN THE
OUTSIZED ROLE THAT THEY HAVE HAD
IN THE DETERIORATION OF OUR
CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH, BE A
PART OF THE SOLUTION. I HOPE YOU
ANSWER IT WITH A RESOUNDING YES!
WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY IS
REBECCA PARISEAU, A SEVENTH
GRADE MATH TEACHER AND A TEACH
PLUS CALIFORNIA POLICY FELLOW
AND UC DAVIS LAW PROFESSOR
DARIAN CHANSKY. I'LL FIRST TURN
IT OVER TO MISS PARISEAU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
REBECCA PARISEAU. I AM A SEVENTH
GRADE MATH TEACHER IN OXNARD, A
TEACH PLUS POLICY FELLOW, AND A
MOTHER. I GOT THE CALL FROM
JOHN'S MIDDLE SCHOOL ON A MONDAY
AFTERNOON. MISS PARISEAU, YOUR
CHILD HAS EXPRESSED THOUGHTS OF
SUICIDE AND HAS BEEN CUTTING
THEMSELVES FOR THE LAST TWO
YEARS. I FROZE IN DISBELIEF,
LIKE, HOW COULD THIS HAVE
HAPPENED WHEN I FINALLY WE
TALKED TO JOHN, HE TOLD ME HE
REACHED OUT TO HIS SCHOOL
COUNSELOR TWO YEARS PRIOR AND
SHOWED HER THE CUTS, BUT THE
COUNSELOR DID NOTHING TO HELP MY
FOURTH GRADER. THE SYSTEM I HAD
SO HIGHLY REGARDED AND TRUSTED
MASSIVELY FAILED MY FAMILY. MY
SON IS NOT THE ONLY ONE. ONCE
DURING ONE OF MY MATH LESSONS, I
GLANCED UNDER THE DESKTOP OF MY
STUDENT JESSICA AND SAW A SIX
INCH BOX CUTTER. THEN IN A
MOMENT THAT FELT FROZEN IN TIME,
I SAW JESSICA CUT HER WRIST. I
CALLED THE FRONT OFFICE FOR
ASSISTANCE AND WE REACHED OUT TO
THE COUNSELORS, AND LUCKILY WE
WERE ABLE TO CONTACT HER PARENTS
TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF GETTING
HER HELP. THE MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS AMONG OUR YOUNG PEOPLE IS
WELL DOCUMENTED AND IT DIRECTLY
IMPACTS OUR STUDENTS ABILITY TO
LEARN, CONCENTRATE, AND PERFORM
ACADEMIC Kò WITH UNEVEN AND
UNPREDICTABLE EDUCATIONAL
FUNDING. CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS ARE
LEFT WITH TOUGH DECISIONS ON
WHETHER TO SUPPLEMENT THESE
COSTS OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
OR SPEND THE MONEY ON TEACHERS
AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS. OUR
STUDENTS NEED. I BELIEVE THAT A
STATEWIDE INVESTMENT IN MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES AND INVESTMENT
IN OUR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION,
BECAUSE OUR STUDENTS MENTAL
HEALTH CONCERNS WOULD ENSURE
THAT THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO
ENGAGE IN STUDIES, PARTICIPATE
IN CLASS, AND ACHIEVE BETTER
ACADEMIC OUTCOMES. THIS IS WHY I
URGE YOU TO SUPPORT AB 2829,
WHICH WOULD BRING ESSENTIAL
RESOURCES TO INVEST IN THE
WELL-BEING OF OUR CHILDREN. EVEN
AFTER SIX YEARS OF INTENSE
THERAPY AND COUNSELING, JOHN
TOLD ME THAT HE FINALLY FELT
HAPPY. HE I FEEL BEAUTIFUL IN MY
SKIN, HE SAID. I'M THANKFUL THAT
OUR FAMILY HAS A HAPPY ENDING.
CALIFORNIA MUST ENSURE THAT
EVERY CHILD'S STORY ENDS THE
SAME WAY. PLEASE VOTE YES ON AB
2829. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI,
I'M DARIAN CHANSKY. I'M A
PROFESSOR OF LAW AT UC DAVIS.
I'VE WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON THE
POLICY AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATING
TO DIGITAL TAXATION. AB 2829
ADDRESSES THE CHALLENGING
QUESTION OF HOW TO TAX TWO SIDED
DIGITAL PLATFORMS. PLATFORMS
THAT MAKE UP AN INCREASING SHARE
OF OUR ECONOMY. THESE PLATFORMS
ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF BARTERING
SERVICES FOR DATA AND ATTENTION,
AND THESE BORDERS SHOULD BE
SUBJECT TO SALES TAX, DIGITAL AD
TAXES LIKE AB 2829 HAVE BEEN
IMPLEMENTED AROUND THE WORLD. 12
COUNTRIES IN ONE STATE CURRENTLY
HAVE DIGITAL TAXES, ROUGHLY LIKE
THE ONE PROPOSED HERE. AS FAR AS
I KNOW, THE UK IS THE ONLY
JURISDICTION TO HAVE PUBLICLY
REPORTED ON ITS EXPERIENCE. THE
EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN GOOD WITH
IMPLEMENTATION EASIER THAN
EXPECTED AND REVENUES HIGHER
THAN EXPECTED. I MEAN, HOW OFTEN
DO YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT IN A TAX,
IT IS THEREFORE EXTREMELY
SENSIBLE FOR CALIFORNIA TO
CONSIDER SUCH A TAX. THE LEGAL
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE TAX
PROCEED FROM A THROUGH THE
LOOKING GLASS ANALYSIS OF
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. WHEN
A STATE IMPOSES A TAX, IT IS NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS CLEARLY
FORBIDDEN. THE OPPONENTS SEEM TO
THINK THAT THE TAX MUST RATHER
BE CLEARLY PERMITTED, BECAUSE
THIS TAX IS NOT CLEARLY
FORBIDDEN, NOT BY A LONG SHOT.
IT IS PERMITTED IN THE END. I
THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT
MARYLAND'S VERSION OF THIS TAX
WILL BE UPHELD, THOUGH I SHOULD
ACKNOWLEDGE, OF COURSE, THAT THE
COURTS DO MAKE MISTAKES. I WILL
NOW QUICKLY TURN TO SOME KEY
POLICY AND LEGAL ISSUES.
CALIFORNIA, LIKE MOST
JURISDICTIONS AROUND THE WORLD,
IS OPPOSITE. HAS OPTED TO TAX
CONSUMPTION SOUND TAX POLICY
REQUIRES THAT ALL CONSUMPTION BE
SUBJECT TO THE SAME TAX. THUS,
IF I BUY A BOOK OF GOOGLE OF
MAPS, I PAY SALES TAX, AND IF I
EXCHANGE MY DATA FOR GOOGLE
MAPS, I SHOULD PAY SALES TAX. IT
CANNOT BE THAT ONE EVADES TAXES
THROUGH BARTERING, OR THIS WOULD
CREATE A PERVERSE INCENTIVE FOR
TAXPAYERS TO DISTORT THEIR
ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR. THE BUSINESS
MODEL OF CERTAIN ONLINE
PLATFORMS DOES NOT INVOLVE A
SMALL AMOUNT OF BARTERING. IF
THERE WERE A SMALL AMOUNT, THAT
MAYBE WOULDN'T BE WORTH THE
HASSLE. NOT TAXING THESE BARTERS
CREATES A LARGE GAP. I SHOULD
NOTE HERE THAT CALIFORNIA SHOULD
TAX TRADITIONAL DIGITAL
DOWNLOADS AS WELL. MANY STATES
ARE DOING THIS. CALIFORNIA
DOESN'T DO IT. THIS WOULD BE A
GOOD TIME TO FIX THAT AS WELL.
IN THE FIELD OF TAXATION, IT IS
VERY COMMON TO USE REASONABLE
PROXIES AND A QUITE REASONABLE
AND ADMINISTRABLE PROXY FOR THE
VALUE OF THE BARTERS. CURRENTLY
AVOIDING TAX IS THE GROSS
RECEIPTS GENERATED BY THE ADS
SOLD BY THE VERY SAME PLATFORMS.
THE LOGIC IS THE FOLLOWING. IF
THE GROSS RECEIPTS GENERATED
FROM ALL THE ADS DID NOT ROUGHLY
PAY FOR ALL THE SO-CALLED FREE
SERVICES, THEN WHY WOULD THE
PLATFORMS OFFER THOSE SERVICES?
IN CASE IT IS HELPFUL, I HAVE
INCLUDED AN ILLUSTRATED SLIDE
WITH MY TESTIMONY TO SHOW HOW
THIS BARTER IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
THERE ARE OTHER COMPLEMENTARY
REASONS TO IMPOSE A DIGITAL AD
TAX LIKE THIS, AND I'M HAPPY TO
DISCUSS THEM IN PARTICULAR, SUCH
TAXES TAX SUPERNORMAL RETURNS,
WHICH REPRESENT AN EFFICIENT AND
PROGRESSIVE TAX BASE. AND I'M
GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU TO WRAP
IT UP. OKAY AS TO THE LEGAL
ANALYSIS, THE MAIN CLAIM IS THAT
THESE TAXES DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
HOWEVER, IF THEY SIMPLY TAX
CURRENTLY UNTAXED CONSUMPTION,
THAT SHOULD OTHERWISE BE TAXED,
THERE'S NO DISCRIMINATION
BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST SUBJECTING
THESE TRANSACTIONS TO THE SAME
TAX THAT OTHER TRANSACTIONS
SHOULD BE PAID ON. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
IN THE ROOM? ARE YOU HERE IN
SUPPORT? OKAY. NICOLE MORALES,
ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN NOW IN
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT, WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. IT'S THREE MINUTES.
TWO MINUTES, AND YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR MEMBERS. PETER BLOCHER
WITH THE CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS ON
BEHALF OF A BROAD COALITION IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2829, FIRST,
I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT
ALTHOUGH THE DISCUSSION TODAY
HAS BEEN ON THE TAX PAID BY
LARGE COMPANIES, CORPORATIONS,
THAT THIS WILL SURELY THE COST
OF THIS WILL SURELY FALL ON A
SMALL BUSINESSES AND ON
CONSUMERS, BECAUSE THE TAX WILL
TAX INCREASE, THE COST OF THE
TAX INCREASE WILL BE PASSED ON
THROUGH HIGHER PRICES. THAT'S
ONLY TRUE IF THE BILL SURVIVES
THE INEVITABLE LEGAL CHALLENGES
IT WILL FACE. AB 2829 IS NEARLY
IDENTICAL TO THE DIGITAL AD TAX
PASSED IN MARYLAND IN 2020,
WHICH IS STILL MIRED IN
LITIGATION AS A RESULT OF
MULTIPLE LAWSUITS, THE SAME
LAWSUITS THAT THIS BILL WILL
FACE SHOULD HAVE BECOME LAW. THE
LEGALITY OF MARYLAND'S TAX HAS
BEEN CHALLENGED BOTH FEDERAL AND
STATE COURT. UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, COMMERCE AND EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE US
CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS RUNNING
AFOUL OF THE INTERNET TAX
FREEDOM ACT, WHICH BARS STATES
FROM PASSING TAXES THAT UNFAIRLY
TARGET ONLINE COMMERCE. WITH SO
MUCH LEGAL UNCERTAINTY, WE DO
NOT THINK THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
CONSIDER THE TAX UNTIL THOSE
ISSUES ARE RESOLVED. WE POSED
THIS FOR A MYRIAD OF REASONS. WE
THINK IT WILL HARM THE STATE'S
BUSINESS CLIMATE. WE THINK IT
WILL MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES TO OPERATE, AND
IT'S A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW
JUST TO NAME A FEW. HOWEVER,
EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH US ON
THESE POINTS AND YOU SUPPORT
THIS TAX, THE TIME CONSUMING AND
COSTLY PROCESS OF
IMPLEMENTATION, DEVELOPMENT OF
REGULATIONS WHICH WILL BE
SUBSTANTIAL. AS THE ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT, THE BILL LACKS
SOURCING RULES, NUMEROUS LEGAL
CHALLENGES, THE POTENTIAL
REFUNDS WHICH WOULD BE OWED WITH
INTEREST. WE BELIEVE THAT SHOULD
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE SHOULD
WAIT TO EVEN CONSIDER THIS UNTIL
THE LITIGATION IN MARYLAND HAS
CONCLUDED, ESPECIALLY IF
CALIFORNIA IS EXPERIENCING A
BUDGET DEFICIT. AND FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE URGE A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND MEMBERS
ANNA LEE AUGUSTINE HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, WE'RE
A NONPROFIT DEDICATED TO HELPING
CALIFORNIA'S 1.4 MILLION FAMILY
OWNED BUSINESSES SURVIVE AND
THRIVE IN OUR STATE. WE ECHO THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY MY COLLEAGUE
AND ARE GREATLY CONCERNED WITH
THE EFFECTS THAT THIS COULD HAVE
ON SMALLER BUSINESSES WHO RELY
ON PURCHASING DIGITAL
ADVERTISING FROM THOSE LARGER
COMPANIES TO PROMOTE THEIR
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. MANY
SMALLER BUSINESSES USE THIS
DIGITAL ADVERTISING AS A COST
EFFICIENT AND ENVIRONMENTALLY
CONSCIOUS METHOD OF ADVERTISING
TO THEIR COMMUNITIES. RISING
COSTS AND ONE MORE AREA OF
OPERATION FOR MANY SMALL
BUSINESSES COULD BE DETRIMENTAL
OR RAISE PRICES FOR CONSUMERS,
WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT
BUSINESSES REALLY DO NOT WANT TO
DO. THERE'S NO ADEQUATE
PROTECTION HERE INCLUDED, TO
ENSURE THAT THE 5% TAX DOES NOT
GET PASSED DOWN TO THOSE
BUSINESSES. WE DO SINCERELY
APPRECIATE THE INTENT HERE AND
EFFORTS TO MITIGATE THE MENTAL
HEALTH CHALLENGES FACED BY OUR
YOUTH. WE DO FEEL, THOUGH, THAT
THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE MORE
APPROPRIATE IN THE IN THE BUDGET
CONTEXT OR THE RECENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECENTLY
PASSED MENTAL HEALTH BOND OR
GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S MASTER PLAN
FOR KIDS MENTAL HEALTH, WHICH
WAS $4.7 BILLION OF FUNDING
ANNOUNCED IN 2022. ADDITIONALLY,
COMPLIANCE WOULD BE DIFFICULT
HERE, AS IT REMAINS UNCLEAR HOW
COMPANIES WILL BE EXPECTED TO
CALCULATE REVENUES DERIVED FROM
DIGITAL ADVERTISEMENTS. AS
DIGITAL MEDIUMS AND INTERFACES
CONTINUE TO CHANGE. FOR THESE
REASONS AND CONCERNS WITH THE
EFFECTS ON FAMILY OWNED
BUSINESSES, WE MUST RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
AND WE HAVE OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, STEVE CARLSON FOR THE
ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL
ADVERTISERS FOR CTIA, THE
WIRELESS TRADE ASSOCIATION. AND
AS MISS VALDERRAMA COULDN'T BE
HERE TODAY, SHE HAS ASKED ME TO
EXPRESS THE OPPOSITION OF CAL
BROADBAND. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
PRESTON YOUNG FROM THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
HERE TODAY IN OPPOSITION.
STEPHANIE ESTRADA WITH CRUZ
STRATEGIES ON BEHALF OF THE
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION AND
THE STREAMING, STREAMING
ALLIANCE, STREAMING INNOVATION
ALLIANCE IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. HI, NATALIE. ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE, IN OPPOSITION.
HELLO, SABRINA LOCKHART, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTRACTIONS AND PARKS
ASSOCIATION, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS JOSE
TORRES CASILLAS WITH TECHNET IN
OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. DO WE
HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE? I REALLY
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO. OBVIOUSLY CHILDREN'S MENTAL
HEALTH IS THE BIG ISSUE. AND I
HAD WORKED ON WAS ONE OF THE
COAUTHORS OF PROP ONE. WE SEE IT
WITH THESE YOUNG FOLKS
EVERYWHERE. BUT I, I JUST WANT
TO SEE IF I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE
OF YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMMENT
ON WHY WOULD THIS BILL HAVE A
DIFFERENT PATH THAN, THE
MARYLAND BILL, WHICH IS RIGHT
NOW, STUCK IN LITIGATION, AND
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO
PROFESSOR CHOMSKY. BUT LET ME
JUST MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS ON
THE MARYLAND, FIRST OF ALL, THIS
BILL IS A FLAT RATE. IT IS NOT A
SLIDING SCALE BASED UPON YOUR
INTERNATIONAL SALES. AND THEN
MARYLAND'S PORTION OF THOSE
INTERNATIONAL SALES. AND ONE OF
THE ARGUMENTS THEY'RE MAKING IN
MARYLAND IS THAT, WELL,
WORLDWIDE SALES COULD GO UP, BUT
MAYBE MARYLAND SALES DON'T GO
UP. SO THE NEXUS TO THE ACTIVITY
WITHIN THE STATE ISN'T AS STRONG
AS THE WAY THAT WE HAVE CRAFTED
THE BILL. SO THAT DOES SET US
APART FROM MARYLAND. BUT I'LL
LEAVE IT TO PROFESSOR CHANSKY TO
PERHAPS SIGN IT AND CHIME IN AS
WELL, SURE. SO FIRST I'LL SAY I
THINK MARYLAND IS GOING TO WIN.
IF YOU HAVE DEEP ENOUGH POCKETS,
YOU CAN CREATE A LOT OF
LITIGATION AND A LOT OF COURTS
AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT THEORIES.
AND THE REASON THEY KEEP LOSING
IS BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE NOT
PLAUSIBLE. THEIR MOST PLAUSIBLE
ARGUMENT IS ABOUT THE INTERNET
TAX FREEDOM ACT, WHICH IS A BILL
THAT HAS NOT BEEN HIGHLY
LITIGATED. BUT IN THE END, I
THINK THEY WILL WIN. AND I THINK
AS A MATTER OF SOUND POLICY,
SHYING AWAY FROM LITIGATION, IS
INAPPROPRIATE WHEN THE STATE HAS
A REALLY GOOD CASE, WHICH IT
DOES HERE, FURTHERMORE, I AGREE
WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER PAPPIN THAT
THERE ARE WAYS IN WHICH THIS
BILL CAN BE, CHANGED OR THAT
THIS PROPOSAL IS SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT FROM MARYLAND'S. THAT
WOULD MAKE IT MORE ROBUST.
AGAIN, TO BE CLEAR, NOT THAT
MARYLAND, I THINK MARYLAND IS
PROBLEMATIC, BUT THERE'S NO
REASON YOU CAN'T MAKE IT CLEARER
FOR FALLIBLE JUDGES, THE RIGHT
WAY TO GO. AND SO I THINK
THERE'S LOTS OF REASONS TO THINK
THAT A BILL THAT MAKES A FEW
MINOR CHANGES WITH CLEAR
FINDINGS AS TO HOW IT'S GOING
SUPPOSED TO WORK, THAT IT'S
SUPPOSED TO BE A COMPLIMENTARY
BARTER TAX, WILL ULTIMATELY FARE
WELL, THOUGH IT WOULD, OF COURSE
, BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. PEPIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I WOULD THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, I THINK IT'S
DIFFICULT TO ADOPT TAXES. I'M
NOT GOING TO LIE, BUT I THINK
THAT THIS ONE IS SO UNIQUE AND
SO REASONABLY TAILORED TO THE
PROBLEM AT HAND. I WOULD
STRONGLY RECOMMEND OR STRONGLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. IT'S
UNIQUE. IT'S BALANCED. I DO WANT
TO ADDRESS, IF I MAY, THE IDEA
THAT IT'S GOING TO HURT SMALL
BUSINESSES. ACTUALLY INTERNET
DIGITAL ADS ARE CHEAPER THAN
PRINT ADS. THEY'RE MORE
REASONABLY TAILORED. SO WE WOULD
ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO
HAVE A HUGE EFFECT ON SMALL
BUSINESSES. WE DO HAVE A NO
PASS-THROUGH CLAUSE, IN ANY
EVENT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO
PROTECT SMALL BUSINESSES EVEN
THOUGH WE DON'T REALLY SEE THAT
THERE'S A HUGE GOING TO BE A
HUGE IMPACT ON THEM, I WOULD
ALSO ARGUE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE
HAVE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT AND, I THINK IT'S
LEGISLATURES. LEGISLATURES ARE
LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY, AND
IT'S OKAY TO PUT OURSELVES OUT
AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN DO
THIS. WE SEE STATE AFTER STATE
TRYING IT, AND I THINK
CALIFORNIA SHOULD REALLY BE AT
THE FOREFRONT OF IT. SO, I THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT TODAY. I THANK YOU
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND
ONWARD WE GO. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PATTON AND PAPPIN. AND WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THIS BILL WILL BE
REFERRED TO OUR SUSPENSE FILE.
THANK YOU, NEXT UP, ITEM NUMBER
TWO, ASSEMBLY MEMBER GABRIEL.
WHAT CHAIR, MR. GABRIEL Ó. IF
THAT'S OKAY, IT'S FINE WITH ME.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE MOVING TO, FILE ITEM FIVE,
AB 3259. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON,
WHENEVER YOU ARE READY. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE
TO BEGIN BY THANKING THE CHAIR
AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS MEASURE. AND
BY COMMITTING TO ADOPT THE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS LISTED IN
COMMENTS D AND E THROUGH Â OF
THE D AND E OF THE COMMITTEE'S
ANALYSIS. MEMBERS, I AM PLEASED
TO PRESENT AB 3259, A DISTRICT
BILL THAT WOULD PROVIDE NEEDED
FLEXIBILITY FOR RESIDENTS IN
SOLANO COUNTY TO VOTE ON LOCAL
REVENUE MEASURES TO PROTECT
ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND IMPROVE
CRITICAL TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE. SPECIFICALLY,
THIS BILL WOULD RAISE THE
STATUTORY TRANSACTION USE TAX
LIMIT ABOVE THE 2% CAP TO ALLOW
CITIES WITHIN SOLANO COUNTY TO
VOTE ON MEASURES THAT RAISE
LOCAL REVENUE AT A RATE NOT TO
EXCEED 0.5. WITH A SUNSET IN
2029. CURRENTLY, A CITIZENS
INITIATIVE PUT ON THE BALLOT BY
THE RESIDENTS IN THE CITY OF
BENICIA WOULD, IF APPROVED BY
VOTERS, PUT THE CITY ABOVE ITS
CAP. EARLIER THIS YEAR, VOTERS
IN THE CITY OF BENICIA
OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVED A THREE
QUARTER CENT GENERAL PURPOSE
SALES TAX INCREASE TO SUPPORT
PUBLIC SAFETY AND ESSENTIAL
SERVICES. AT THE SAME TIME,
RESIDENTS OF BENICIA HAD FORMED
A COALITION TO DRAFT THE
CITIZENS INITIATIVE FOR THE
NOVEMBER BALLOT FOR THE SPECIFIC
PURPOSE OF INCREASING REVENUE TO
IMPROVE ROAD CONDITIONS. HOWEVER
WITH THE RECENT SALES TAX
INITIATIVE APPROVED BY THE
VOTERS, IF THE NOVEMBER CITIZEN
BALLOT INITIATIVE WERE TO PASS,
IT WOULD THEN PUT THE CITY ABOVE
THE 2% COUNTY CAP. THIS BILL
DOES NOT RAISE OR ENACT ANY NEW
TAXES. IT SIMPLY EMPOWERS VOTERS
WITHIN SOLANO COUNTY BY ALLOWING
THEM TO DECIDE WHETHER TO
APPROVE LOCAL REVENUES, MEASURES
THAT WOULD EXCEED THE 2% CAP
UNTIL 2029. I HAD THE DISTINCT
PLEASURE OF HAVING, MY MAYOR OF
THE CITY OF BENICIA, STEVE
YOUNG, AND ALSO THE CITY
MANAGER, PROVIDE WITNESS
TESTIMONY AT LAST COMMITTEE.
THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE
WITH ME TODAY, SO WE DON'T HAVE
ANY WITNESSES, TESTIMONY AND
SUPPORT, BUT LOOK FORWARD TO ANY
THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION AND ANY
DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMITTEE.
I'M SURE THEY'RE STILL IN
SUPPORT. THEY ARE. DO WE HAVE
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
IN THE AUDIENCE? ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? ANY COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMENTS? QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? AND I WILL JUST
REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE HAVE
APPROVED THESE A NUMBER OF
TIMES. THIS REALLY SHOULD BE
DECIDED BY THE LOCAL VOTERS
WHETHER THEY WANT TO, TAX
THEMSELVES, AT LEAST IN MY
HUMBLE OPINION. SO WITH THAT,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND I WILL USE
THAT AS A CLOSE TO THE MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. AND DO I HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND? SECOND, A
MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER GRACE
AND A SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GIBSON. AND THAT MOTION IS DUE,
PASSED, AS AMENDED, TO THE FLOOR
WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE
AUTHORITY FOR BOTH SPECIAL AS
WELL AS GENERAL TAXES. AND
NUMBER TWO, TO PROVIDE AUTHORITY
FOR DISTRICT TAXES, IS PROPOSED
VIA CITIZENS INITIATIVE. MISS
HIGHLAND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB 3259. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED.
ERWIN I ERWIN I TO NØ TO NÓ
BAINES. BAINES I GIBSON. EXCUSE
ME. GIBSON I GRAYSON I GRAYSON I
JIM PATTERSON. JIM PATTERSON NOT
VOTING THREE OF US I THREE OF US
I12345 PASSES 5 TO 1. THAT BILL
IS OUT 5 TO 1. THANK YOU.
CONGRATULATIONS. ALL RIGHT. ON
TO ITEM, FILE ITEM TWO, ASSEMBLY
BILL 3160 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GABRIEL. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I WAS,
SWEET TALKED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON, AS MANY OF US HAVE BEEN
BEFORE. SO SO, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO
START BY THANKING THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR, THOUGHTFUL
FEEDBACK ON THE BILL. AND I'M
PLEASED TODAY TO PRESENT AB
3160, WHICH WILL PRESERVE THE
EXISTING 500 MILLION IN ENHANCED
STATE HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR AN
ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS, HELPING
TO BUILD TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES. IN 2019,
CALIFORNIA BEGAN ISSUING
ENHANCED STATE HOUSING CREDITS
TO ADDRESS FINANCING GAPS
ASSOCIATED WITH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND BETTER
LEVERAGE MATCHING FUNDS.
CALIFORNIA'S ENHANCED CREDITS
HAVE HELPED TO BUILD TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS
FOR LOW, VERY LOW AND EXTREMELY
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
ADDITIONALLY THESE CREDITS HAVE
ENABLED CALIFORNIA TO DRAW DOWN
BILLIONS IN FEDERAL HOUSING
CREDITS, LEVERAGING EXISTING
FEDERAL, LOCAL, AND PRIVATE
FUNDING AT A RATIO GREATER THAN
5 TO 1. DEMAND FOR THESE
ENHANCED CREDITS HAS ALSO BEEN
DRAMATICALLY OVER SCRIBED SINCE
THEIR CREATION. EXCUSE ME, AB
3160 WILL ENSURE THAT THE 500
MILLION IN ENHANCED CREDITS
CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE,
PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS WITH ESSENTIAL
CLARITY WHEN PLANNING TO BUILD
NEW UNITS. THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS
THESE CREDITS WILL HELP TO
CREATE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW
UNITS OF DESPERATELY NEEDED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS BILL IS
SUPPORTED BY A COALITION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS
AND HAS NO KNOWN OPPOSITION WITH
ME TODAY TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL IS MARK STIVERS,
DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY AT THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP.
THANK YOU. AND I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS AGAIN, MARK STIVERS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP. I'LL JUST GIVE A
FEW SPECIFICS TO THE TESTIMONY
OF THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER IN THE
LAST FOUR YEARS. THESE ENHANCED
STATE CREDITS HAVE CREATED OVER
25,000 NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR
VERY LOW, LOW AND EXTREMELY LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THEY'VE
LEVERAGED $5.3 BILLION IN
FEDERAL TAX CREDITS THAT WE
OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE LEFT ON THE
TABLE UNCLAIMED, AND, THEY'VE
HAD AN OVERALL LEVERAGE OF NON
STATE RESOURCES AT A RATIO OF 5
TO 1. SO THAT INCLUDES THE
FEDERAL CREDITS. AND PRIVATE
BANK FINANCING, AND THEN I'LL
JUST MAKE FIVE QUICK
OBSERVATIONS. NUMBER ONE THE
STATE HOUSING CREDIT IS THE MOST
EFFICIENT WAY TO FINANCE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE
THERE'S ONLY A SINGLE THERE'S
ONE COMPETITION TO MAKE IT ALL
AVAILABLE. NUMBER TWO, THESE
CREDITS HAVE BEEN OVERSUBSCRIBED
AT LEAST 2 TO 1 EVERY YEAR.
OCCASIONS 3 TO 1, NUMBER THREE,
HAVING SOME CERTAINTY FOR FIVE
YEARS, ENSURES THAT DEVELOPERS
CAN PLAN THEIR PIPELINE. IT
TAKES MANY YEARS TO PUT AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
TOGETHER. THEY WILL KNOW
RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE WHEN
THEY GET THERE. NUMBER FOUR,
THIS PROGRAM HAS ALWAYS HAD
GREAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. AND
NUMBER FIVE, THIS BILL HAS
ACTUALLY HAS NO IMPACT ON THIS
YEAR'S BUDGET, AS THESE CREDITS
WON'T BE CLAIMED UNTIL
CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE FOR ANY
PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN
THEY'RE CLAIMED OVER A FOUR YEAR
PERIOD. SO THE IMPACT OF THIS
BILL IS 2 TO 6 YEARS OUT. WE
THINK WE HEARD YOUR SUPPORT ON
SUSPENSE. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT? YOU'RE SO GOOD. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS.
CATHERINE CHARLES HERE ON BEHALF
OF HOUSING CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT
. GOOD AFTERNOON. GRACIELA
CASTILLO KRINGS HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM. MARY ELLEN SHEA,
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL
HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES AND
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS GALEN DOBBINS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
RURAL HOUSING. STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? I DO HAVE ONE
QUESTION. OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE THE
BUDGET CHAIR AND ARE YOU
CONCERNED ABOUT LOCKING IN
SPENDING AT THIS LEVEL, WHEN YOU
SEE THE BUDGET ISSUES WE'RE
HAVING AND WILL HAVE OVER THE
NEXT FEW YEARS, I THINK IT'S A
VERY FAIR AND APPROPRIATE
QUESTION, AND ONE I THOUGHT A
LOT ABOUT BEFORE I INTRODUCED
THIS BILL, YOU KNOW, PART OF IT
IS I THINK THIS IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION TO HAVE
ALSO THROUGH THE POLICY PROCESS
ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THESE
CREDITS ARE, HOW EFFECTIVE
THEY'VE PROVEN, AND PARTICULARLY
FOR FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND HOW HOW
MUCH THEY ALLOW US TO LEVERAGE
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF FUNDING
OUTSIDE OF OUR STATE BUDGET.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT REALLY
JUMPED OUT TO ME. AND CERTAINLY
AS WE CONSIDER AS A CAUCUS AND
AS A LEGISLATURE, OUR STATE
BUDGET TO REALLY RAISE AWARENESS
OF THE REALLY INCREDIBLE
EFFICACY OF THESE CREDITS AND
ALSO HOW THEY ALLOW US TO, TO,
AS I MENTIONED, LEVERAGE THOSE
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF FUNDING.
SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES. AND
THE LONGER ANSWER IS, I THOUGHT
IT WAS AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION
TO HAVE THROUGH THE POLICY
PROCESS AS WELL. YEAH AND I
THINK, YOU MENTIONED THE
CERTAINTY, I THINK, FOR
DEVELOPERS TO KNOW THAT THIS IS
OUT THERE IS IMPORTANT. SO,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER GABRIEL, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, JUST, THANK
YOU FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR. I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. AND WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THIS BILL WILL BE
REFERRED TO OUR SUSPENSE FILE.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO DO
ADD ONS NOW. AND WE'LL START
WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE. ON ITEM
NUMBER ONE AB 2979, THE MOTION
WAS TO PASS TO APPROPRIATE. THE
BILL HAS PASSED CALLING
ABSENTEES GIBSON GIBSON. I RIVAS
THREE OF US I THAT'S IT OKAY.
THAT'S IT PASSED OUT THIS
CALENDAR. ALL RIGHT. AND WE ARE
GOING TO BE TAKING UP OUR BILLS
ON THE SUSPENSE FILE. MISS
HIGHLAND IS PASSING OUT ALL THE
BILLS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
LOOKING AT. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU.
YEAH OKAY. OKAY, SO DOES IT SAY
WHERE IT GOES? OKAY. IT'S RIGHT
THERE. OKAY ALL RIGHT. I ASSUME
EVERYBODY IS READY. SO WE'RE
GOING TO BE STARTING WITH FILE
ITEM TWO AB 3160. GABRIEL, THE
CHAIR IS RECOMMENDING AN AYE
VOTE AND THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. DO YOU HAVE A
MOTION? AND A SECOND. SO MOVED.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON AND A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER RIVAS,
MISS HIGHLAND, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON ITEM NUMBER TWO, AB
3160. THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN. IRWIN. I
TO I BAINES. BAINES I GIBSON.
GIBSON I GRAYSON I GRAYSON I JIM
PATTERSON JIM PATTERSON. NOT
VOTING THREE OF US THREE OF US I
THAT BILLS OUT 602. YES OKAY.
GOT IT OKAY. THAT BILL IS OUT
SIX TWO. NEXT WE ARE ON FILE
ITEM FOUR AB 2829. PAPIN THAT
BILL IS HELD IN COMMITTEE, FILE
ITEM SIX AB 1860 BAUER-KAHAN,
THE CHAIR IS RECOMMENDING AN AYE
VOTE, AND THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. OKAY SO
I HAVE A MOTION FROM BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER GIBSON, A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GRAYSON. MISS
HIGHLAND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 1860. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN I IRWIN I
TO I TO I BAINES. BAINES I
GIBSON A GIBSON I GRAYSON I
GRAYSON I JIM PATTERSON JIM
PATTERSON I THREE OF US THREE OF
US I THAT BILL PASSES SEVEN ZERO
THAT BILL IS OUT. THE VOTE IS 7
TO 0. NEXT ITEM IS FILE ITEM
SEVEN AB 1865. JIM PATTERSON,
THE CHAIR IS RECOMMENDING AN AYE
VOTE AND THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. DO YOU HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND? I MOVE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON MOVES
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON
SECONDS. MISS HIGHLAND, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON. ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN AB 1865, THE MOTION IS TO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN. I
IRWIN, EYE TO EYE TO EYE. BAINS
I BAINES I GIBSON. GIBSON. I
GRAYSON. GRAYSON. I JIM.
PATTERSON JIM. PATTERSON I THREE
OF US THREE OF US I THAT PASSES
SEVEN ZERO AB 1865 PASSES 7 TO 0
FILE ITEM EIGHT AB 1867. THAT
WAS 1865. I'M SORRY. HOPEFULLY I
DID I SAY THAT CORRECTLY 1865
PASSES, FILE ITEM EIGHT ÁP, AB
1867 SANCHEZ IS HELD IN
COMMITTEE FILE ITEM NINE AB 1973
LACKEY. THE CHAIR IS
RECOMMENDING AN AYE VOTE AND THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SECOND. SO WE
HAVE A MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GIBSON. A SECOND BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER RIVAS. MISS HYLAND,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ITEM
NUMBER NINE AB 1973. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
IRWIN I IRWIN I TO A TO I
BAINES. BAINES. I GIBSON A
GIBSON I GRAYSON. GRAYSON I JIM
PATTERSON. JIM PATTERSON I THREE
OF US THREE OF US. I THINK IT'S
SEVEN ZERO. THE VOTE IS 7 TO 0
AB 1973 PASSES. FILE ITEM TEN AB
2006 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER. MATHIS
IS HELD IN COMMITTEE. NEXT IS
FILE ITEM 11 AB 2061 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON. THE CHAIR IS
RECOMMENDING AN AYE VOTE. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATION WITH AMENDMENTS
TO MAKE THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT TO
AVAILABLE INFORMATION. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON
AND A SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RIVAS MISS HYLAND. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER 11 AB 2061.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN
IRWIN. EYE TO EYE TO EYE. BEANS.
I BAINES I GIBSON A, GIBSON I,
GRAYSON A GRAYSON I JIM
PATTERSON, JIM PATTERSON I THREE
OF US THREE OF US I700 TO 7 TO 0
AB 2061 PASSES FILE ITEM 12 AB
2128 BY VICE CHAIR TO THE CHAIR
IS RECOMMENDING AN AYE VOTE AND
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS WITH
AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND THE
OPERATIVE AND SUNSET DATES OF
THE CREDIT BY ONE YEAR. DO WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? SO
MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON, A SECOND
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER RIVAS. MISS
HYLAND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
ITEM NUMBER 12 AB 2128. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN IRWIN I
TO A TO I BAINES. BAINES. NOT
VOTING GIBSON. GIBSON I GRAYSON.
GRAYSON I JIM PATTERSON. JIM
PATTERSON I THREE OF US THREE OF
US I THAT BILL PASSES SIX ZERO
THE VOTE IS 6 TO 0 AB 2128
PASSES. THE NEXT ITEM IS FILE
ITEM 13 AB 2219 BY WALLACE. THAT
BILL IS HELD IN COMMITTEE, FILE
ITEM 14 AB 2312 BY WALLACE. THE
CHAIR IS RECOMMENDING AN AYE
VOTE, AND THE MOTION IS TO PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
WITH TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS AND
AMENDMENTS THAT IMPOSE A MAXIMUM
DEDUCTION OF $5,000. DO WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND? SO MOVED.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GRAYSON AND A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO,
MISS HYLAND. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON ITEM NUMBER 14 AB 2312.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN
Ã IRWIN. EYE TO EYE TO EYE.
BAINS I, BAINES I, GIBSON A,
GIBSON I GRAYSON. GRAYSON I JIM
PATTERSON, JIM. PATTERSON I,
THREE OF US 7 TO 0. IT'S PASSED
AB 2312 PASSES WITH A 7 TO 0
VOTE. FILE ITEM 15 AB 2400 VÌ
ASSEMBLY MEMBER THREE OF US. THE
CHAIR IS RECOMMENDING AN AYE
VOTE AND THE MOTION IS TO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. DO I HAVE A
MOTION IN A SECOND MOTION,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAINES MOVES
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GRAYSON SECONDS.
MISS HYLAND, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON. ITEM NUMBER 15, AB
2400. THE MOTION IS Dð. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN. A IRWIN,
EYE TO EYE TO EYE. BAINS BAINES,
A GIBSON GIBSON. EYE GRAYSON.
GRAYSON. EYE. JIM. PATTERSON
JIM. PATTERSON. EYE. THREE OF
US. THREE OF US EYE SEVEN ZERO.
PASSES. THAT VOTE IS 7 TO 0. AB
2400 PASSES. THE NEXT ITEM IS
FILE ITEM 16 AB 2524. CHAIR IS
RECOMMENDING AN AYE VOTE. THE
MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS WITH TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND MOVE SECOND. ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON. A SECOND
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER TOM IS HYLAND
. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON ITEM
NUMBER 16 AB 2524. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN Ã IRWIN.
EYE TO EYE TO EYE. BAINES.
BAINES. EYE. GIBSON EYE. GIBSON.
EYE. GRAYSON. GRAYSON EYE. JIM.
PATTERSON, JIM. PATTERSON. EYE.
THREE OF US THREE OF US EYE 7 TO
0. THE VOTE IS 7 TO 0, AB 2524
PASSES. FILE ITEM 17 AB 2555 BY
QUIRK-SILVA. THE CHAIR IS
RECOMMENDING AN EYE VOTE AND THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. DO I HAVE A
MOTION? AND A SECOND. SO MOVED
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TOM MOVES.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON SECONDS,
PLEASE, MISS HYLAND, CALL THE
ROLL ON AB 17, ITEM NUMBER 17 AB
2555. THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN I IRWIN I
TO I BAINES. BAINES I GIBSON I
GIBSON I GRAYSON. GRAYSON I JIM
PATTERSON JIM PATTERSON I THREE
OF US THREE OF US SEVEN ZERO
PASS. THE VOTE IS SEVEN ZERO AB
TWO 2555 PASSES. FILE ITEM 18 AB
2861 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WALLACE
IS HELD IN COMMITTEE. FILE ITEM
19 AB 3141 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GIBSON. THE CHAIR IS
RECOMMENDING AN AYE VOTE. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. SO MOVED BY. WELL,
HE WAS TOO LATE, UNFORTUNATELY,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER RIVAS, MOTIONS
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER TOSS SECONDS
. MISS HYLAND, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON ITEM NUMBER 19, AB 3141.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. IRWIN I. IRWIN I
TO I BAINES BAINES I GIBSON.
GIBSON I GRAYSON I GRAYSON I JIM
PATTERSON JIM PATTERSON I THREE
OF US I THREE OF US I THAT
PASSES SEVEN ZERO AB 3141 PASSES
SEVEN ZERO AND WE ARE DONE WITH
ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA. I
WANT TO OF COURSE, THANK ALL OUR
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THEIR HARD
WORK, THE COMMITTEE STAFF, WHICH
IS THE BEST STAFF IN THE ENTIRE
BUILDING. DON'T LET ANYBODY ELSE
HEAR THAT. AND OF COURSE, ALL OF
YOU THAT HAVE YOUR PERSONAL
STAFF WORKING WITH YOU, WE
REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK
THAT THEY'VE DONE AND THE
SERGEANTS WHO ARE ALWAYS HERE TO
KEEP US HONEST. WITH THAT, THIS
MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU