GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. WELCOME
TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
REVENUE AND TAXATION. WE HAVE A
TEN BILLS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.
FILE ITEM EIGHT, SB 1327 HAS
BEEN PULLED BY THE AUTHOR. WE
HAVE TWO BILLS ON CONSENT. FILE
ITEM TEN AND 11. I KNOW WE HAVE
AUTHORS HERE IN THE ROOM. THANK
YOU FOR BEING HERE ON TIME, THE
CUSTOM OF THE SENATE IS TO HAVE
AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER
PRESENT TO BEGIN AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO
INVITE COLLEAGUES WHO ARE HERE
IN THE BUILDING TO COME DOWN TO
ROOM 1200. SO WE CAN BEGIN OUR
BUSINESS AS WE HAVE TWO AUTHORS
IN THE ROOM READY TO GO. AND
THERE WE HAVE A. SO WE DON'T
HAVE A QUORUM HERE YET, BUT WE
DO. WE WILL BEGIN AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. SHE'S NOT. NOW, WE
HAVE THREE AUTHORS IN THE ROOM.
I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF
COMMITTEES MEETING AT THE SAME
TIME. WE COULD, OFFER SOME BONUS
TESTIMONY HERE THIS MORNING ON
THE A'S COMING TO SACRAMENTO. IF
ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME UP TO
THE MICROPHONE. I GUESS THAT'S
NOT. NOT ON THE AGENDA. NOT
AGENDA. SO WE CAN'T DO THAT, ALL
RIGHT, SO WE'LL PAUSE AS WE WAIT
FOR ANOTHER COMMITTEE MEMBER TO
JOIN
.
ALL RIGHT. THE COMMITTEE ON
REVENUE AND TAX WILL COME BACK
TO ORDER. WE DO HAVE, ANOTHER
MEMBER PRESENT SO WE CAN BEGIN
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. SO WE'RE
GOING TO BEGIN WITH FILE ITEM
NUMBER ONE, SB 964 BY SENATOR
CIERTO. SIR, PLEASE COME FORWARD
WITH YOUR WITNESSES AND WE CAN
BEGIN.
ARE WE READY? WE ARE SIR. OKAY
WELL, THANK YOU, HONORABLE
CHAIR. AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT
SB 964. AND THANK YOU, SENATOR
BRADFORD, FOR GETTING TO THE
MEETING THIS MORNING SO WE CAN
GET STARTED, FIRST, I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK
WITH MY STAFF ON THIS IMPORTANT
MEASURE, AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, SB 964
IS A VERY IMPORTANT BILL IN
RESPONSE TO TWO RECENT SUPREME
COURT RULINGS THAT HAVE DRAWN
OUR STATE'S CURRENT GUIDELINES
FOR THE SALE OF TAX DEFAULTED
PROPERTIES INTO CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION WITH ME HERE TODAY TO
BEST EXPLAIN THE IMPORTANT ISSUE
IS ENSIGN MASON, WHO IS A
TREASURER TAX COLLECTOR FOR SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, TO EXPLAIN
THE TECHNICAL ISSUES FACING
COUNTIES. AND THEN I ALSO HAVE
JIM MANLEY, WHO IS THE LEGAL
COUNSEL FROM THE PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION, TO EXPLAIN THE LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT RULINGS. THANK YOU SIR. SO
OUR PRACTICE HERE IN THE
COMMITTEE IS TWO WITNESSES, TWO
MINUTES EACH AS PRIMARY
WITNESSES. SO YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN
YOU'RE READY. GOOD MORNING. AM I
WORKING HERE, TO TOUCH THAT
THING. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU,
MY NAME IS ENSIGN MASON. I AM
THE AUDITOR, CONTROLLER,
TREASURER, TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. I WANT
TO START OUT BY SAYING I
REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT MY
ASSOCIATION. AND I'M HERE TO
SUPPORT NINE SB 964. I AM STUCK
BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.
ON THE ONE SIDE, WE HAVE THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS, YOU
CANNOT TAKE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY
WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. AND
THAT'S BACKED BY A RECENT
SUPREME COURT RULING. HENNEPIN
COUNTY, WHERE THE JUSTICES SAID
NINE ZERO VERY STRONGLY THAT,
YES, THIS DOES APPLY TO TAX
DEFAULTED PROPERTY. ON THE OTHER
HAND, I HAVE STATE LAW THAT SAYS
THAT, WELL, IF WE HAVE AN
AUCTION PROCESS, THAT'S HOW WE
COMPLY. THAT'S HOW WE'RE WE'RE
SURE THAT WE ARE PAYING FAIR
VALUE. AND IT WORKS. PEOPLE GET
THEIR EQUITY AND THE PROCESS
WORKS. BUT HOWEVER WE HAVE THIS
THING IN STATE LAW THAT SAYS
THAT IF A NONPROFIT OR A
GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBJECTS, WE
MUST WE SHALL PULL THAT PROPERTY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING IT TO
THEM, USUALLY AT FAR BELOW
MARKET VALUE. SOMETIMES,
OFTENTIMES, THE HOMEOWNER GETS
NOTHING. IT IS IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE
SCOTUS RULING. SO WHICH LAW AM I
SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW? I HAVE TWO
SIDES THAT SAY, YOU KNOW,
OPPOSING THINGS. I NEED A I NEED
SOME KIND OF LEGISLATION
LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION TO THIS. WE
ALSO HAVE SOMETHING THAT
CONCERNS ME. WE HAVE CLASS
ACTION LAWSUITS POPPING UP
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. RECENTLY,
THERE WAS $108 MILLION
SETTLEMENT IN MINNESOTA, THERE'S
TWO MORE GOING ON IN OREGON AND
NEW JERSEY, YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA
IS MUCH, MUCH BIGGER THAN
MINNESOTA. SO THIS COULD BE A
MUCH, MUCH BIGGER DEAL, WE NEED
TO FIX THIS. SO THAT WE AT
LEAST, ARE DOING THINGS
CORRECTLY FROM HERE ON OUT. I'M
NOT SURE IF WE COULD STOP THE
LAWSUIT. WHAT'S PROBABLY GOING
TO SHOW UP SOONER OR LATER, BUT
BUT WE NEED TO FIX THIS, SO AT
LEAST WE HAVE, MITIGATED THE
DAMAGES GOING FORWARD. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. SIR. NEXT
WITNESS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I'M
JIM MANLEY. I'M THE STATE LEGAL
POLICY DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION. PLF
WAS FOUNDED 50 YEARS AGO, RIGHT
HERE IN SACRAMENTO. WE HAVE 18
WINS AT THE SUPREME COURT,
INCLUDING TYLER VERSUS HENNEPIN
COUNTY. THE CASE THAT THAT
BRINGS US HERE TODAY. AND THE
SIMPLE MESSAGE FROM THE COURT IN
THAT CASE WAS GOVERNMENTS CANNOT
TAKE MORE THAN IS OWED WHEN
THEY'RE COLLECTING A PROPERTY
TAX DEBT. AND SO REFORMING
CALIFORNIA'S CHAPTER EIGHT
PROCESS IS NOT OPTIONAL. IT IS
REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
REQUIRED BY THE SUPREME COURT'S
RULING. AS ENSIGN SUGGESTS. IT
IS JUST GOOD PUBLIC POLICY
BECAUSE IT IS ULTIMATELY GOING
TO COST THE STATE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN CLAIMS IF IT'S NOT
REFORMED, THE WHILE CALIFORNIA
LAW GENERALLY PREVENTS THE
GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING MORE THAN
IS OWED, THE CHAPTER EIGHT
PROCESS CREATES THIS PROBLEM
BECAUSE THE SALE HAPPENS OFF
MARKET, ONE COUNTY TRANSFERRED
FOR UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL
PROPERTIES TO ANOTHER GOVERNMENT
FOR LESS THAN THE ASSESSED VALUE
OF JUST ONE OF THOSE PARCELS.
THERE ARE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
CLAIMS OUTSTANDING. REGARDLESS
OF THE REASON COUNTIES CANNOT
TRANSFER PROPERTY UNDER CHAPTER
EIGHT FOR LESS THAN FAIR MARKET
VALUE. IF THEY DO, THEY FACE
CLAIMS UNDER TYLER FOR TAKING
PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
AT THIS BILL GIVES COUNTIES THE
INFORMATION THEY NEED TO SET THE
PRICE OF A PROPERTY IN CHAPTER
EIGHT SALE AT FAIR MARKET VALUE,
AT LEAST IF THE PROPERTY IS
WORTH MORE THAN THE TAX DEBT AND
THE FEES AND PENALTIES, THEN IT
SHOULD REALLY GO TO A PUBLIC
AUCTION AND THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD GET THE MOST MONEY FOR
IT. BUT IF IT DOES GO TO A
CHAPTER EIGHT SALE, IT SHOULD AT
LEAST BE SOLD FOR THE AMOUNT
THAT THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY
WORTH AND NOT A SEVERELY
DISCOUNTED PRICE. THAT THAT
DEPRIVES THE PROPERTY OWNER OF
THEIR EQUITY IN THEIR PROPERTY.
THANK YOU SIR. OKAY, WE'RE GOING
TO NOW HAVE THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE
MEASURE TO DO A ME TOO. WE CALL
IT HERE IN COMMITTEE, WHERE YOU
COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND
GIVE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. SO
THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD ON
NOW, THIS IS THE MOMENT TO COME
TO THE MICROPHONE. HUFFMAN
HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION, ALONG WITH THE
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, THE
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER PROTECTION
COMMITTEE, CENTRAL COAST
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, CENTRAL
VALLEY BIZ FED, CENTRAL VALLEY
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, GLENDORA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE LÀ
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, MONTEREY
COUNTY FARM BUREAU, NISEI
FARMERS LEAGUE, ORANGE COUNTY
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, PLACER
COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION,
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, COUNTY FARM
BUREAU, SOLANO COUNTY, SOLANO
COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION,
AND THE WEST WESTERN
MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. TOBIAS WILKEN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY
ELSE HERE IN THE HEARING ROOM
WANT TO INDICATE THEIR SUPPORT?
SEEING NONE WILL GO TO
OPPOSITION. THERE ARE OPPONENTS
TO THE MEASURE THAT WOULD LIKE
TO COME FORWARD, PROVIDE THE
SAME OPPORTUNITY. TWO MINUTES
FOR TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. STAY
AVAILABLE. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. KAREN LANG, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTY TREASURER TAX COLLECTORS,
THE OTHER 58, I WANT TO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE ANALYSIS
THAT OUTLINES THE ISSUE BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE THIS MORNING, IT
REALLY HELPED LAY OUT THE ISSUES
VERY NICELY AS NOTED, THE TAX
COLLECTORS DO RELY ON PUBLISHED
GUIDANCE FROM THE STATE
COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE WHEN THEY
EXECUTE TAX SALES AND WHEN TYLER
VERSUS HENNEPIN WAS DECIDED LAST
SUMMER, I REACHED OUT TO THE
COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE TO FIND OUT
WHAT IF ANYTHING, WOULD NEED TO
CHANGE SO THAT WE COULD GET
AHEAD OF IT. WE DIDN'T WANT TO
BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND WE WERE
ADVISED AT THAT TIME BY THE
LEGAL TEAM AT THE COMPTROLLER'S
OFFICE THAT NO CHANGES NEEDED TO
BE MADE BECAUSE THE CHAPTER
SEVEN SALE PROCESS PROVIDES FOR
EXCESS PROCEEDS IN A YEAR TO
CLAIM THEM. AND WE WERE NOT
ADVISED OF ANY CHANGES. SO WHEN
THE AUTHOR DECIDED TO INTRODUCE
THIS BILL AGAIN, I SHARED THE
LETTERS WE HAD PRODUCED FOR THE
PREVIOUS TWO PIECES OF
LEGISLATION ON THIS ISSUE, AND
ALSO ENCOURAGED THEM TO CONSULT
WITH THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE,
SINCE THAT'S WHAT WE RELY ON AS
THE CHAPTER SEVEN AND CHAPTER
EIGHT TAX SALE PROCEDURES THAT
ARE PUBLISHED BY THE
COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE. THAT'S HOW
MY CLIENT EXECUTES THE SALES,
UNFORTUNATELY, THE BILL IS
PREMISED ON THE FACT THAT MY
CLIENT IS STEALING EQUITY FROM
HOMEOWNERS. THE REALITY IS THAT
EVEN THOUGH THE BILL SAYS IT'S
THE HOME EQUITY THEFT PREVENTION
ACT OR A VERSION OF THAT, THE
ACTUAL REALITY OF WHAT CHAPTER
EIGHT IS USED FOR IS, IS GOING
TO BE VERY PROBLEMATIC.
PROPERTIES VACANT PROPERTIES,
PROPERTIES THAT ARE BROWN ACT OR
EXCUSE ME, BROWNFIELDS THAT NEED
TO BE CLEANED UP. I DON'T THINK
THAT THERE'S BEEN AN EXAMPLE YET
THAT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED WHERE
MY CLIENT HAS TAKEN AN OCCUPIED
RESIDENTIAL HOME TO A TAX SALE
AND SOLD IT FOR LESS THAN IT WAS
WORTH. THEY'RE JUST THERE JUST
AREN'T EXAMPLES OF THAT HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, THIS IS THE THIRD
TIME THE BILL HAS BEEN,
ATTEMPTED AND WE HAVEN'T. AGAIN,
LIKE I SAID, WE HAVEN'T FOUND
ANY EXAMPLES, AND IF THE IF THE
COMMITTEE PASSES THE BILL THE
WAY IT IS, IT DOESN'T JUST
AFFECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES,
IT AFFECTS, UNDEVELOPED, PARCELS
, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AND
THEY'LL HAVE TO GO TO THE BOE
FOR EVERY PARCEL THAT THEY NEED
TO DISPOSE OF. AND THAT COULD
INCLUDE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS
OF PARCELS THAT ARE SOMETIMES
BUNCHED TOGETHER. FOR EXAMPLE,
IMPERIAL COUNTY HAS HUNDREDS
THAT THEY NEED TO DISPOSE OF.
THEY GROUP THEM TOGETHER IN 15
AND DO A CHAPTER EIGHT SALE. SO
WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT
THIS WILL DO BECAUSE IT GOES TOO
FAR. AND WE WOULD URGE AN AYE
VOTE OR OR EXCUSE ME, A NO VOTE
OR AN ABSTENTION. AND I WANT TO
PASS IT OFF TO PATRICK SULLIVAN
FROM LAKE COUNTY. THE TREASURE
TAX LECTURE THERE, WHO IS
DEALING WITH 12,000 PARCELS.
HE'S UNDER COURT ORDER TO SELL.
THANK YOU, PATRICK SULLIVAN,
TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR FOR LAKE
COUNTY, Þ PATRICK SULLIVAN,
TREASURER, TAX COLLECTOR FOR
LAKE COUNTY, THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HERE TODAY, I JUST WANT TO
SHARE SOME DETAILS ABOUT THE
SITUATION IN LAKE COUNTY. THE
MAJORITY OF OUR STANDARD PARCELS
SELL IN CHAPTER SEVEN AUCTIONS
WITHOUT ANY ISSUE, BUT THESE ARE
NOT THE MAJORITY OF OUR TAX
DEFAULTED PARCELS. THE MAJORITY
HAVE AN ASSESSED VALUE LESS THAN
$10,000. MOST OF THEM LESS THAN
$5,000. OUR AVERAGE TAX BILL IS
JUST $32 ON A LOT OF THESE
PARCELS, AND WE HAVE 12,000
PAPER LOTS, LOTS THAT WERE
CREATED BY LAND SPECULATORS OVER
A CENTURY AGO. THREE, YOU KNOW,
3500 OF THEM ARE ALREADY
AUCTIONED, ELIGIBLE, WE HAVE
DONE AUCTIONS OF 1000 PARCELS IN
THE PAST FOR THE MORE VALUABLE
PARCELS, THIS IS NEARLY BROKEN.
OUR OFFICE. WE'RE A SMALL
OFFICE. THE RESOURCES INVOLVED
ARE ENORMOUS TO GO THROUGH THESE
SALES, MOSTLY THEY RECEIVE NO
BIDS. ALMOST 80% OF THEM, ONCE
WE GO TO THE PAPER PARCELS
COMPLETELY, WE WOULD EXPECT NO
BIDS. IT COSTS 5 TO $700 IN
GENERAL FUND PER PARCEL. SO IN
ORDER TO GO THROUGH THOSE 12,000
PARCELS, ULTIMATELY WE ARE
TALKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
ADDITIONAL STAFF RESOURCES
NEEDED TO GO THROUGH CHAPTER
SEVEN TO THEN GO TO CHAPTER
EIGHT, I GUESS THE PARCELS ARE
UNDEVELOPABLE IN MOST CASES,
THEY'RE GEOGRAPHICALLY OR
GEOLOGICALLY UNSTABLE. THERE'S
NO ROADS, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE
IN THE PAST, ONE WOULD SELL TO
AN UNSUSPECTING BUYER WHO WOULD
THEN CONTACT THE COUNTY. WE'VE
HAD PEOPLE WISH TO DONATE THEM.
WE'VE HAD PEOPLE THAT HAVE
BOUGHT THEM. AFTER A MORE
PREDATORY BUYER BOUGHT ONE AT
AUCTION AND FLIPPED THEM. SO
THIS IS A MAJOR BURDEN FOR OUR
OFFICE, AND THAT IS THE MAJORITY
OF WHAT WE HAVE. WE'RE NOT
GENERALLY DEALING WITH, CHAPTER
EIGHT'S FOR OCCUPIED HOMES, FOR
INSTANCE. ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE
HAVE ABOUT THE SUGGESTION THAT
THE BOE CAN DO THIS IS THE
TIMELINE. 45 DAYS, WHETHER
THAT'S REALLY VIABLE, IT RESULTS
IN ADDITIONAL DELAYS GOING
THROUGH CHAPTER SEVEN. WE HAVE
TO DUPLICATE THE CHAPTER SEVEN
AND CHAPTER EIGHT PROCESS. SPEND
THAT MONEY TWICE, AND I'D JUST
SAY CHAPTER EIGHT SALES ARE
ERRATIC IN TIME AND FREQUENCY.
THE VOLUME OF PROPERTIES COULD
VARY SIGNIFICANTLY. A THOUSAND
OF THESE PAPER LOTS VERSUS A MIX
OF RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL OR
VACANT BLIGHTED LOTS, THAT'S
OFTEN WHAT WE DEAL WITH. WE DID
HAVE FOUR. I DON'T KNOW IF THE
REFERENCE EARLIER WAS TO OUR
COUNTY SOME UP, PLEASE, BUT YEAH
, OFTEN ASSESSED VALUES ARE
LOWER, THERE ARE ISSUES WITH
THESE LOTS, THESE LOW VALUE
PARCELS ARE AN ISSUE FOR US. AND
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS
THEM. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO
NOW DO ME TWOS FOR THOSE IN
OPPOSITION TO COME TO THE
MICROPHONE, MARK STIVERS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP SINCE THE CHAPTER
EIGHT PROCESS HAS CREATED A LOT
OF LOTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. I'M ERIC LARA, SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
AND THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS,
GENE HEARST HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. JEFF NEEL, REPRESENTING THE
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY AND LAKE COUNTY,
ALSO IN OPPOSITION. GREAT.
ANYBODY ELSE HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM? IN OPPOSITION. LAST CHANCE
TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE. OKAY.
CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF OUR
HEARING. BRING THE MATTER BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SENATOR, DO YOU WANT
TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT THE OPPONENTS HAVE RAISED?
SURE, I CAN DO THAT, AND I'LL DO
IT MORE ON A KIND OF AN
OVERVIEW, METHOD. I CAN GET INTO
THE WEEDS WITH EACH OF THE
PARCELS THAT THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT. MANY OF THE PARCELS THAT
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT
AFFECTED BY THIS AT ALL. WHAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE PARCELS.
AND WHILE THE OPPONENT STATED
THAT THEY HAD NEVER SEEN ONE OF
THESE, I'VE SEEN TWO ON MY BLOCK
AND THESE WERE THESE WERE
PEOPLE, THEY LOST THEIR HOME AND
THEY LOST THE EQUITY THAT THEY
HAD IN THEIR HOME. AND THEY GOT
TO BE HOMELESS, THAT'S WHAT
BROUGHT IT TO ME. I'M NOT
BRAINWASHED BY THE BY THE HOWARD
JARVIS PEOPLE OR ANYBODY ELSE.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT I SEE IN
REAL LIFE, MY WIFE IS A TAX
PROFESSIONAL, AND SHE DEALS WITH
PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFECTED LIKE
THIS. SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT AFFECTS SOME OF THESE,
THESE LARGER PARCELS THAT HAVE
NO VALUE, THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PROTECT
PEOPLE. BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES
BEHIND THESE, THESE THESE, THESE
PROPERTIES ARE A FAMILY OR A Ã
OR PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE EQUITY
OTHERWISE, BUT THEY JUST DON'T
HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO CONTINUE
TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO MAINTAIN
AND OWN THEIR PROPERTY. AND, AND
SO WHEN IT GOES TO FORECLOSURE,
WHATEVER, WE SHOULDN'T BE
COMPOUNDING THEIR ISSUES, BY
TAKING WHAT LITTLE EQUITY THEY
HAVE AND GIVING IT AWAY. IN
OTHER WORDS, IT IS NOT THEIR
MONEY TO GIVE AWAY. IT IS THE
PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTY. IF
THERE'S EQUITY IN IT, IT SHOULD
GO BACK TO THOSE PEOPLE. AND IT
SHOULDN'T BE THAT HARD OF A
PROCESS. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD
ASK FOR YOUR, YOUR I VOTE CLOSES
JUST THE FIRST QUESTION. OH,
OKAY. THAT COULD BE A CLOSE.
OKAY. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR
RECOGNITION OF WHAT YOU'RE THE
HEART OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO, WHICH IS TO FOCUS ON
RESIDENTIAL. I'VE HEARD THE
TESTIMONY THAT IN THE CASE OF
LAKE COUNTY, MANY OF THESE ARE
NOT RESIDENTIAL PARCELS. RIGHT.
AND I THINK THE OTHER WITNESS
TALKED ABOUT PROBLEMATIC
PROPERTIES, WHICH COULD BE
ALLEYS AND ROADWAYS AND THE
REST. SO ARE YOU OPEN TO TRYING
TO NARROW YOUR BILL TO JUST
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THEN?
WELL, WELL, IT DEPENDS BECAUSE
SOME COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE
ALSO OWNED BY A FAMILY OR
SOMEBODY ELSE THAT MAY BE IN THE
SAME SITUATION. AND SO SOME
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. YES. BUT
THE PROPERTIES THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT ARE BLIGHTED PROPERTIES
THAT HAVE NO VALUE PRETTY MUCH.
AND THEY'VE BEEN EITHER DEVALUED
BY THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON
AROUND THEM, BUT I WILL BE MORE
THAN HAPPY TO WORK WITH ANYBODY
TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE
PROTECTED IN THIS CASE, AND THAT
THE MONEY THAT IS RIGHTFULLY
THEIRS STAYS THEIRS AND ALLOWS
THEM THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO,
AFTER THIS CATASTROPHIC EVENT IN
THEIR LIVES, BE ABLE TO TAKE
THAT MONEY AND, AND AT LEAST TRY
TO REBUILD THEIR LIVES OFF OF,
OFF OF THE MONEY THAT THEIR
FAMILY OR THEMSELVES HAVE, HAVE
IN EQUITY. AND INSTEAD OF HAVING
IT TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM, AS YOU
KNOW, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
BASIC THRUST OF THE BILL AND THE
AMENDMENTS YOU'VE TAKEN, TO ME,
SATISFY AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE
THAT IF THERE'S VALUE IN THE
PROPERTY, IT GOES BACK TO THE
PROPERTY OWNER. BUT I DO THINK
THESE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED ARE ARE DIFFERENT THAN
THE HEART OF WHAT YOUR BILL IS
PROPOSING TO DO. AND I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU, IF THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD TODAY TO TAKE SERIOUSLY
THOSE THERE, THERE ARE EASY
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOU IN THIS
BILL TO CARVE OUT THE YES, THESE
THESE EXAMPLES THAT WE HEARD
THIS MORNING. YES, WE'D BE MORE
THAN HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THE BILL IF IT GOES FORWARD,
BUT LIKE I SAID, THE MAIN THRUST
OF THIS BILL IS TO PROTECT
PEOPLE FROM LOSING AND
COMPOUNDING THE ISSUES THAT
THEY'VE HAD. AND BECAUSE THEY'RE
THEY THEY'VE LOST ENOUGH, MAYBE
DUE TO THEIR OWN INABILITY TO
MANAGE THEIR LIVES, BUT IF
THERE'S EQUITY FOR THEM TO BE
HAD, IT BELONGS TO THEM, NOT TO
EVERYONE ELSE WHO WANTS THAT
PIECE OF PROPERTY, I GET IT,
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE CHALLENGE OF
MAKING A LAW FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IS THAT, YOU KNOW,
YOU HAVE A MILLION PARCELS. AND
THERE'S ALL KINDS OF EXAMPLES
THAT UNIQUE EXAMPLES. AND SO
IT'S A PART OF OUR CHALLENGE IN
THE LAW MAKING SIDE TO MAKE SURE
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES ARE WHAT WE WATCH
FOR MORE THAN THE HEART OF A
NUMBER OF THE POLICY PROPOSALS,
BECAUSE IT'S EASY TO NOT
UNDERSTAND ALL THOSE
COMPLEXITIES AND THOSE ELEMENTS.
AND, AND I DO THINK THE
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION HAVE
RAISED SOME GOOD EXAMPLES THAT
SEEM DON'T INTERFERE WITH THE
HEART. THE THRUST OF WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO. AND SO WHILE
THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE
AMENDMENTS TODAY, I DO THINK
THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
OH, ABSOLUTELY. WE TAKE
EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS SERIOUSLY
AND ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH
ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO WORK WITH
US ON MAKING THE BILL BETTER,
BUT BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS
ALREADY RULED IS VERY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
WHEN THOSE ISSUES ARE CHALLENGED
AND WE LOSE, IT'S NOT NOT THEM
LOSING, IT'S THE TAXPAYERS THAT
ARE LOSING. SO THAT WITH THAT,
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS,
I DON'T KNOW, I'M GOING TO ASK
OKAY. GO AHEAD. OKAY. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS HERE FROM MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. ALL RIGHT. WELL,
I'M I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT YOUR
BILL TODAY. I APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'VE TAKEN,
AND I DO THINK THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT, FROM MY POINT OF
VIEW, THAT YOU WORK WITH SOME OF
THE OPPONENTS AND THEIR UNIQUE
SITUATIONS SO THAT WHILE WE'RE
TRYING TO CREATE A BILL THAT
AFFECTS EVERYBODY, THAT WE TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THESE MORE
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER WHO
UNFORTUNATELY HAS NOT PAID THEIR
TAXES AND IS IN DEFAULT, AND YOU
WANT TO PROTECT THEIR VALUE,
WHICH I AGREE WITH. BUT THERE'S
SO MANY OTHER EXAMPLES THAT I
THINK YOU CAN YOU CAN WORK ON.
IF THE BILL MOVES FORWARD TODAY,
THAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
KNOW THAT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT
BEFORE COULD BE MY CLOSING, JUST
APPRECIATE AND I VOTE WHEN, WHEN
YOU GET THE WHEN WE DO HAVE A
QUORUM, WE WILL, ENTERTAIN A
MOTION ON YOUR MEASURE. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE ON
THIS. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, NEXT
UP IS, FILE ITEM. WE HAVE AN
AUTHOR HERE, SENATOR WIENER.
WHERE IS HE? OH, THERE HE IS.
OH, OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO
FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO. THIS IS SB
1031 BY SENATOR WIENER. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE THIS
MORNING, SENATOR WIENER. DID YOU
WANT TO TAKE THAT ONE FIRST OR
YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR YOUR KHÓ? I
DON'T I DON'T THINK SHE'LL BE
HERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE
WILL BEGIN WITH FILE ITEM TWO,
SB 1031. SENATOR WIENER, THE
FLOOR IS YOURS, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT SENATE BILL 1031 THAT
CONNECT BAY AREA ACT, MY
LEGISLATIVE PARTNER IN THIS BILL
IS SENATOR WAHAB, WHO
UNFORTUNATELY HAS A CONFLICT.
AND SHE VERY MUCH WISHES THAT
SHE COULD BE THERE. AND I WANT
TO THANK SENATOR WAHAB FOR
WORKING VERY CLOSELY AND
COLLABORATIVELY WITH US ON THIS
BILL, SO AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
DEEP ENGAGEMENT ALONG WITH
SENATOR CORTEZ, THE CHAIR OF
TRANSPORTATION. WE'VE SPENT A
LOT OF TIME TOGETHER, WORKING
AMONGST OURSELVES AND WITH,
DIVERSE STAKEHOLDERS. AND
YESTERDAY IN TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE, WE COMMITTED TO A
SERIES OF, OF AMENDMENTS THAT
WILL BE, TAKING AND PRESUMABLY
IN THE APPROPRIATIONS,
COMMITTEE. I CAN READ THOSE NOW,
IF THE CHAIR WOULD, LIKE, I
THINK THAT SET THE STAGE RIGHT
FOR THOSE WHO ARE HERE,
POTENTIALLY OFFERING. OKAY, I'LL
DO I'LL DO THE PERHAPS AT THE
END OF MY OPENING REMARKS. SO,
COLLEAGUES, TRANSPORTATION,
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS PART OF
THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE BAY AREA,
EVEN POST PANDEMIC, A HUGE
NUMBER OF BAY AREA RESIDENTS
RELY ON TRANSIT TO GET AROUND,
WHETHER IT'S EVERY DAY OR ONCE A
WEEK, AND, THESE SYSTEMS ARE
CRITICAL TO OUR ECONOMY, TO OUR
QUALITY OF LIFE, TO TRYING TO
CONTROL CONGESTION ON OUR
FREEWAYS, WHICH WOULD SPIKE
WITHOUT TRANSIT, AND, OF COURSE,
HELPING US MEET OUR CLIMATE
GOALS. WE NEED MORE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION, NOT LESS, EVEN
BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, OUR PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS WERE
STRUGGLING WITH STRUCTURAL
OPERATING PROBLEMS. FRANKLY, WE
UNLIKE EVERY PRETTY MUCH EVERY
OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS ROBUST
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, WE
PROVIDE REMARKABLY LITTLE TAX
SUPPORT FOR THESE SYSTEMS,
PARTICULARLY PARTICULARLY THE
MULTI-COUNTY, SYSTEMS THAT ARE
NOT NESTED WITHIN ONE COUNTY
THAT SUPPORTS THEM. SO, BART AC
TRANSIT, CALTRANS, ETC, THE
PANDEMIC MADE THE PROBLEM MUCH
WORSE. RIDERSHIP IS RECOVERING,
BUT IT'S NOT RECOVERING QUICKLY
ENOUGH. AND SO THE GOAL OF THIS
MEASURE IS WHAT IT WILL DO IS
AUTHORIZE THE BAY AREA, EITHER
VIA THE MTC OR VIA A VOTER
INITIATIVE, TO PLACE A REGIONAL,
BALLOT MEASURE ON THE BALLOT TO
PROVIDE LONG TERME, SUSTAINABLE
OPERATING SUPPORT FOR THESE
SYSTEMS TO STABILIZE THE
SITUATION ONCE AND FOR ALL, AND
ALSO TO MAKE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
BOTH IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
AND IN ROADS. IT AUTHORIZES
VARIOUS OPTIONS, FOR THE FUNDING
SOURCES AND IT ALSO, THIS
MEASURE DOES NOT SIMPLY PUT MORE
MONEY IN, BUT REQUIRES ACTUAL
REFORM OF HOW WE DO PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION IN THE BAY AREA.
MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, IT WILL
REQUIRE A STRONG NETWORK
MANAGER, NETWORK MANAGEMENT IS
ABOUT INTEGRATING OUR SYSTEMS.
WE HAVE 27 TRANSIT OPERATORS IN
THE BAY AREA. THERE ARE TWO
DISJOINTED, AND THERE'S BEEN
WORK OVER TIME TO BRING THEM
INTO BETTER INTEGRATION. AND WE
NEED TO BE MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE
ABOUT THAT. SO THE BILL WILL
REQUIRE STRONG NETWORK
MANAGEMENT AND STRONG AND
ENFORCEABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT,
SO THAT FOR THE RIDER, THE
EXPERIENCE IMPROVES AND IT
BECOMES MORE AND MORE SEAMLESS
TO, TO TRAVEL ON VARIOUS SYSTEMS
, THE BILL ALSO CONTAINS A
PROVISION WHICH SENATOR WAHAB
HAS CHAMPIONED, TO REQUIRE A
STUDY FOR THE FIRST TIME AROUND
CONSOLIDATION, WE HAVE 27
AGENCIES, WHILE WE DON'T WANT TO
PRESUPPOSE WHAT THE RESULT WILL
BE, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION OF A
LONG TIME IN THE BAY AREA ABOUT
WHETHER WE SHOULD CONSIDER SOME
FORM OF CONSOLIDATION THÀNH. AND
THIS WILL REQUIRE A ROBUST STUDY
TO ACTUALLY REPORT BACK. AND SO
THAT WE CAN HAVE THE ACTUAL
FACTS, THE, THE BILL, I WANT TO
JUST NOTE THAT, I'VE LEARNED
OVER MANY YEARS AND SENATOR DODD
AND I LEARNED THIS WHEN WE
SERVED ON THE MTC TOGETHER, THAT
THERE ARE FEW FORMS OF POLITICS
QUITE LIKE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, POLITICS
, AND IT IS ALWAYS ROUGH AND
ALWAYS A BACK AND FORTH. AND I
WANTED TO STRESS THAT I AM
KEENLY AWARE THAT THIS BILL IS A
WORK IN PROGRESS. THIS IS GOING
TO REQUIRE TO HAVE ANY HOPE OF
PASSING SOMETHING REGIONALLY.
IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE BROAD
SUPPORT, AMONG OUR COLLEAGUES IN
BOTH HOUSES IN THE BAY AREA,
DELEGATION AMONG THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY AND LABOR AND TRANSIT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE TO
HAVE, YOU KNOW, AS BROAD
CONSENSUS AS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A
REAL SHOT AT PASSING THIS. WE'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT
BROAD OUTREACH. AND YOU'LL AS
YOU'LL HEAR TODAY, THERE'S A LOT
OF OPINIONS ABOUT WHERE WE
SHOULD BE GOING, AND WE'RE GOING
TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT WORK. AND
THEN, OF COURSE, IF WE ARE
SUCCESSFUL IN THE LEGISLATURE,
THAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE REGIONAL
LEVEL, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE
COMMITTED TO DO YESTERDAY, I
WILL JUST NOTE, ONE OF THEM,
WHAT WE COMMITTED TO IS THAT THE
MTC'S AUTHORITY TO PUT A MEASURE
TO VOTERS WILL EXPIRE IN 2040,
THE TAX MEASURE, MAY NOT HAVE A
DURATION LONGER THAN 30 YEARS,
THE GOAL WILL BE TO RAISE 1.5
BILLION ANNUALLY. SALES? ANY
SALES TAX WILL BE CAPPED AT ONE
HALF CENT. WE'RE KEEPING
PLACEHOLDER LANGUAGE FOR THE NEW
TRANSIT PASS PROPOSAL IN THE
BILL, THE MTC CAN ONLY BOND
AGAINST REVENUES RAISED BY THE
TAXES AUTHORIZED BY THIS BILL,
AND THEY ARE RETAINED BY MTC AND
THAT ARE RETAINED BY MTC. BONDS
CAN ONLY BE USED FOR CAPITAL
INVESTMENTS. MTC AS NETWORK
MANAGER WILL HAVE AUTHORITY TO
CONDITION EXISTING ESTÁ FUNDS ON
NETWORK MANAGEMENT POLICIES
SUBJECT TO PRESCRIBED GUARDRAILS
IN THE BILL. OTHER FUNDING
STREAMS THAT EXIST TODAY WILL
NOT BE CHANGED IN TERMS OF BEING
ABLE TO BE CONDITIONED. THE LAW
WILL REMAIN THE SAME FOR THOSE
OTHER OTHER FUNDING STREAMS. AND
THEN ON THE ISSUE OF RETURN TO
SOURCE, WE AM VERY COMMITTED TO
CONTINUING THAT CONVERSATION
REGIONALLY, AND SO THAT'S WHAT
WE AGREED TO, YESTERDAY, SO WITH
THAT, I BELIEVE THAT, THAT THAT
TIME SHEETS BEEN SHARED WITH
MEMBERS. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR,
THAT. AND SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AND THANK THE CHAIR AGAIN AND
WITH ME TODAY. TESTIFY IS
GEORGIA DORMAN, THE DIRECTOR OF
LEGISLATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
AT THE MTC. AND DANIELLE AND
DANIELLE SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR OF
CAPITAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
AT THE NAPA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. THANK
YOU, SENATOR WIENER. BEFORE
HEARING FROM YOUR WITNESSES, WE
HAVE A QUORUM. WE'RE GOING TO
ESTABLISH THE QUORUM. SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE, THE SENATOR
GLAZER HERE. GLAZER. PRESENT.
DOLLY. DOLLY. PRESENT ASHBY.
BRADFORD. BRADFORD. PRESENT.
DODD DODD. PRESENT. PADILLA.
SKINNER. DO YOU HAVE A QUORUM?
OKAY, A QUORUM IS PRESENT. SO
WE'LL LOOK TO YOUR TWO
WITNESSES. WE HAVE, TWO OF THEM.
PRIMARY, TWO MINUTES EACH.
PLEASE BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
GOOD MORNING. OR YEAH. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR GLAZER. VICE
CHAIR DOLLY AND MEMBERS. I'M
GEORGE AGAIN. DORMAN. I AM THE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
LEGISLATION AND RESEARCH AT THE
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION, WE ARE THE PLANNING,
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING,
FINANCING AND COORDINATING
AGENCY FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA. I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO
THANK SENATOR WIENER, SENATOR
WAHAB, FOR THEIR REALLY BOLD
LEADERSHIP IN LEADING THIS BILL.
I ALSO WANTED TO THANK THE CHAIR
AND SENATOR, THE CHAIR, SENATOR
CORTEZ AND THE PRO TEM, FOR ALL
THEIR REALLY CLOSE COORDINATION
AND WORK ON THIS AS WELL. SO SB
1031 IS ADMITTEDLY A VERY
AMBITIOUS UNDERTAKING, IT
RECOGNIZES THAT IN THIS
POST-COVID WORLD, WE CANNOT HAVE
THE WORLD CLASS TRANSPORTATION
THÀNH SYSTEM THAT BAY AREA
RESIDENTS WANT AND DESERVE
WITHOUT TWO NEW THINGS. SO
FIRST, SIGNIFICANT, MORE
DEDICATED RESOURCES FOR TRANSIT
AND OTHER, TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS AND THEN TWO,
GREATER OVERSIGHT AND
COORDINATION OF THE REGION'S 27
DIFFERENT TRANSIT OPERATORS. MTC
IS SPONSORING SB TEN, SB 1031 TO
DELIVER ON THESE GOALS BECAUSE
WE BELIEVE OUR REGION'S FUTURE,
AS WELL AS THE STATE'S CLIMATE
EQUITY AND ECONOMIC GOALS,
REALLY DEPEND ON IT. THE BAY
AREA CANNOT THRIVE ECONOMICALLY,
SOCIALLY OR ENVIRONMENTALLY
WITHOUT A RELIABLE, CONVENIENT
AND BETTER COORDINATED PUBLIC
TRANSIT SYSTEM. BUT THIS IS NOT
JUST A BILL ABOUT TRANSIT. IT IS
ESSENTIAL TO ENSURE RESIDENTS
PAYING INTO THE MEASURE RECEIVE
BENEFIT REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY
CHOOSE TO TRAVEL. IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT FOR MANY OF OUR
BUSINESS AND LABOR PARTNERS THAT
THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT FUNDS
TO DELIVER ON CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND SO THAT IS WHY
ONE QUARTER OF THE SB 1031 FUNDS
ARE PROPOSED TO MAKE LOCAL
STREETS SAFER FOR ALL USERS, AND
THERE'S ANOTHER 15% DEDICATED TO
MULTIMODAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM THAT WOULD BE ALIGNED
WITH COUNTY PRIORITIES. AND
CONSISTENT WITH OUR LONG RANGE
PLAN AND THE STATE MANDATED
CLIMATE GOALS. BOTH OF THESE
PROGRAMS ARE FORMULA BASED, WITH
COUNTIES GUARANTEED TO BENEFIT
IN PROPORTION TO THEIR
CONTRIBUTION TO THE TAX. I ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE TODAY SO THAT
BAY AREA VOTERS WILL HAVE THEIR
OWN CHANCE IN 2026 TO VOTE FOR A
TRULY CONNECTED BAY AREA. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS.
GOOD MORNING. IS THAT WORKING?
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR GLAZIER AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M
DANIELLE SCHMITZ WITH THE NAPA
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AND THE VINE TRANSIT SYSTEM. AND
I'M HERE TODAY TO VOICE SUPPORT
FOR 1031. AND VTA HOLDS A UNIQUE
POSITION BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ONLY
A CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
BUT WE'RE ALSO THE SOLE TRANSIT
OPERATOR FOR NAPA VALLEY, LIKE
MANY TRANSIT AGENCIES ACROSS THE
UNITED STATES, THE VINE TRANSIT
SYSTEM IS STILL RECOVERING FROM
THE EFFECTS OF THE PANDEMIC. AND
WHILE RIDERSHIP IS RECOVERING
SLOWLY, ADDITIONAL REVENUES ARE
NEEDED TO INCREASE FREQUENCY AND
EXPAND SERVICE HOURS AND IMPROVE
CONNECTION TO THE CENTRAL BAY
AREA, WHICH IS CRITICAL FOR OUR
LABOR MARKET TO PROVIDE A ROBUST
TRANSIT EXPERIENCE FOR THE 4
MILLION PLUS VISITORS NAPA
COUNTY HOSTS EACH YEAR, 1031 IS
A BALANCED BILL THAT HAS TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT FEEDBACK FROM
TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONALS AS
IT WORKS TO MODERNIZE AND
IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY TO THE BAY
AREA FOR RESIDENTS AND WORKERS,
REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY TRAVEL.
MTC AND A WIDE RANGE OF BAY AREA
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING NVTA AND
OTHER TRANSIT OPERATORS, COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES,
BUSINESS AND LABOR, AND ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN
CONVENING SINCE 2022 TO ENSURE
1031 ADDRESSES THE BAY AREA'S
TOP NEEDS AND PRIORITIES. AS SB
1031 COMPLEMENTS THE WORK BEING
DONE BY MTC AS MISS GANN HAS
POINTED OUT, MTC'S REGIONAL
NETWORK MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
ESTABLISHES GUARDRAILS TO ENSURE
MTC'S NETWORK ACTIONS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATORS
INTENT TO IMPROVE THE TRANSIT
RIDERS EXPERIENCE AND INCREASE
BAY AREA TRANSIT RIDERSHIP.
THEREFORE, I'M HERE TO EXPRESS
NVTA SUPPORT OF THIS BILL AND
URGE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO
VOTE AYE TODAY. THANK YOU.
GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO
BOTH OF YOU. WE'RE GOING TO NOW
OPEN THE MICROPHONE UP FOR THOSE
WHO WANT TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR
THE MEASURE WITH JUST TO ME TO
YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION, IF ANY
AND SUPPORT FOR THE BILL PLEASE
COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE NOW.
GOOD MORNING SEBASTIAN PETIT
WITH SPUR. WE SUPPORT AND SEEK
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. JONATHAN
COLE WITH CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA. WE SUPPORT AND SEEK
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. JIM
LITES, ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT
DISTRICT, ALSO SUPPORT IF
AMENDED. BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO
REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS FROM
LAST NIGHT AND MOVING TO FULL
SUPPORT VERY SOON. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
FRANCISCO MORALES HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE HOUSING ACTION COALITION
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. JEANNIE WALLER,
REPRESENTING TRANSFORM, MEMBER
OF THE VOICES FOR PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COALITION. EXCUSE ME. WE
SUPPORT, IF AMENDED, WE'D LIKE
TO SEE ADDITIONAL PROGRESSIVE
MECHANISMS INCLUDED IN THE BILL,
SUCH AS THE INCOME TAX. WE ALSO
ASK YOU THE HIGHWAY. IT'S AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO. BUT
YOU'RE WELCOME TO SUBMIT
TESTIMONY. AND I KNOW WE'VE MET.
THANK YOU OFFLINE ALREADY. AND
APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS ON THE
DESK RAMOS WITH PUBLIC
ADVOCATES, ALSO MEMBERS OF THE
VOICES FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
, VOICES FOR PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION COALITION IN
SUPPORT, IF AMENDED FOR THE SAME
REASONS. THANK TERRIFIC. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM TESTIFY IN SUPPORT.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. IS THERE ANYONE IN
THE HEARING ROOM IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS MEASURE? I SEE A HAND.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE
MICROPHONE. WE'LL PROVIDE YOU
WITH A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO
EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION WILL
STAY THE NIGHT IF THEY GO HOME.
THANK YOU, CHAIR GLAZER. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE FIRST WOULD
LIKE TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION
TO YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES.
SENATOR CORTEZ, SENATOR WAHAB,
SENATOR WIENER, FOR THEIR
ASSISTANCE IN TRYING TO PUT
SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT WORKS.
AS I MENTIONED TO YOU, SENATOR,
OUR OUR OBJECTION, OUR BOARD HAS
TAKEN A POSITION OF TO OBJECT
UNLESS AMENDED. WE ARE
APPRECIATIVE OF THE CURRENT
AMENDMENTS. BUT OUR POSITION IS,
AS YOU KNOW, IS THAT SALES TAX
ARE THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE SANTA
CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY'S OPERATIONAL FUNDING.
AND THIS BILL, AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN, WOULD ENDANGER THAT
THAT OPPORTUNITY. THEREFORE WE
CONTINUE TO BE IN OPPOSITION.
AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH
SENATOR WIENER, ADMIRE HIS HIS
LEADERSHIP IN TRANSIT AND
TRANSPORTATION, WE, LIKE HIM,
BELIEVE COOPERATION AND
COORDINATION IS IMPERATIVE IN
ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL. WE ALSO
HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING THE
ABILITY OF THE NOW ADJUSTED
ABILITY OF MTC TO WITHHOLD
FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH
OPERATIONS. WE THINK THAT SETS A
BAD PRECEDENT ACROSS THE STATE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
EXPRESS OUR OUR BOARDS POSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, TOBIAS,
WELCOME TO THE CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, SB 1031
WOULD PROVIDE THE UNELECTED
MEMBERS OF THE MTC WITH
UNPRECEDENTED TAXING AUTHORITY
OVER THE BAY AREA'S NEARLY 8
MILLION RESIDENTS ACROSS NINE
COUNTIES, INCREASING THE COST OF
LIVING AND DOING BUSINESS IN THE
AREA. THE BAY AREA HAS
CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOUND TO HAVE
SOME OF THE HIGHEST BUSINESS
OPERATING COSTS IN THE NATION,
INCLUDING THE COST OF LABOR,
COMMERCIAL LEASES AND TAX
LIABILITY. SB 1031 WOULD
EXACERBATE THIS PROBLEM BY
AUTHORIZING THE MTC TO IMPOSE
SALES TAXES, PARCEL TAXES,
VEHICLE REGISTRATION SURCHARGES,
AND PAYROLL TAXES ON BUSINESSES
AND RESIDENTS IN THE BAY AREA.
IT SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTATED
THAT NO OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICT
IN CALIFORNIA HOLDS THIS BROAD
AND EXPANSIVE, TAXING AUTHORITY.
THESE TAXES WOULD BURDEN WORKING
FAMILIES, PENALIZED LOCAL
BUSINESSES, AND HARM THE
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY OF THE
REGION. ADDITIONALLY, SB 1031
LACKS THE TYPE OF GUARDRAILS
THAT ARE NEEDED TO PROTECT
RESIDENTS FROM RUNAWAY TAXES. SB
1031 DOES NOT SPECIFY WHAT
ELECTIONS THESE COULD BE
SUBMITTED TO VOTERS, AND DOES
NOT REQUIRE THAT THESE TAXES BE
APPROVED BY THE CONSTITUTIONALLY
REQUIRED TWO THIRDS VOTE.
MOREOVER, THIS BILL WOULD RESULT
IN THE UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF
TAX REVENUE BETWEEN THE REGION'S
NINE COUNTIES IF RESIDENTS
CHOOSE TO TAX THEMSELVES. WE
BELIEVE THAT THOSE TAX REVENUES
SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THE
COMMUNITY. SB 1031 MOVES THE BAY
AREA IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
THIS UNPRECEDENTED NEW LOCAL
TAXING AUTHORITY, CREATED BY
1031 WOULD RESULT IN FEWER
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CALIFORNIANS, DEPRESSED WAGES
AND HIGHER HOUSING COSTS, AND
WOULD DISCOURAGE COMPANIES FROM
EXPANDING THEIR OPERATIONS IN
THE AREA. AND FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WE'LL
HAVE TWO OPPORTUNITIES. NOW.
COME ON FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR
NAME AND AFFILIATION. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MATT ROBINSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE SAN MATEO CITY
COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS, WE HAVE AN OPPOSING
LESS AMENDED POSITION AND A
LETTER ON THE RECORD LAYING OUT
THOSE CONCERNS. WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR TO
RESOLVE THEM. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SIR. GOOD MORNING. I'M
MICHAELA PETRICK WITH SAMTRANS.
WE HAVE AN OPPOSING, UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION. OUR LETTER IS
IN THE FILE. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE SPONSORS AND
WITH THE AUTHOR. THANKS. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, JASON BAKER.
WITH CALTRAIN WE HAVE AN
OPPOSING. UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, GRACE KOPLAN. ON BEHALF
OF THE BAY AREA COUNCIL, WE ALSO
HAVE AN OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. LOOKING FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. VANESSA CHÁVEZ
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, GOOD MORNING, STEVE
WALLACH, ON BEHALF OF THE
ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT
DISTRICT, AC TRANSIT HAS NOT
TAKEN A POSITION YET. THEY HAVE
IDENTIFIED SOME AREAS OF CONCERN
THAT THEY'VE INFORMED THE
WORKING GROUP AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH SENATOR
WIENER AND SENATOR WAHAB ON
RESOLVING THINGS. THANK YOU SIR.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. PRESTON
YOUNG FROM THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HERE TODAY
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MANNY
LEÓN, CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR
JOBS. OPPOSE. UNLESS AMENDED.
THANK YOU, CHRIS LEE, ON BEHALF
OF THE SONOMA COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
REGIONAL CLIMATE PROTECTION
AUTHORITY HAD AN OPPOSING, LESS
AMENDED POSITION ON THE PRIOR
VERSION OF THE BILL, REVIEWING
THE AMENDMENTS IN THE TERMS
SHEET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WANT TO INDICATE
THEIR OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING THE
MATTER BACK TO THE COMMITTEE,
WELL, LET ME BEGIN BY THANKING
SENATOR WIENER. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS AREA,
AND OF COURSE, SENATOR WAHAB AS
WELL, I ENJOYED THE OPPORTUNITY
TO GET TO KNOW YOUR WORLD OVER
THE LAST THREE WEEKS, WHICH HAS
MEANT MEETING WITH MANY OF THESE
STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE COME UP
HERE IN SUPPORT WITH SOME
SUGGESTIONS IN IN OPPOSITION
WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS. AND I
KNOW FROM OUR CONVERSATION THAT
THIS THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS
AS YOU TRY TO FIND THAT,
CONSENSUS, WHICH IS SO DIFFICULT
IN THIS SPACE, AS YOU AND
SENATOR DODD AND OTHERS AND
OTHERS KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE
TERMS SHEET, WHICH IS SOME,
MATTERS IN WHICH YOU'VE FOUND
SOME, AGREEMENT WITH SENATOR
CORTESE WHEN IT WENT THROUGH
TRANSPORTATION. THÀNH YOU HAVE
HEARD FROM ME DIRECTLY, AND I'LL
REPEAT IT ON THE RECORD THAT,
WHILE THIS BILL HAS MANY FINE
COMPONENTS OF IT IN ITS CURRENT
FORM, I KNOW THAT YOU'VE
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH ME, WITH SENATOR CORTESE,
WITH OUR OUR COLLEAGUES HERE IN
THE SENATE, AND OF COURSE, A
FUTURE WORK WITH THE MEMBERS OF
THE ASSEMBLY AND TRYING TO CRAFT
THAT THAT FINAL PACKAGE WHICH
WHICH I KNOW YOU HOPE TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS YEAR. AND I KNOW
THAT YOU'VE YOU'VE COMMITTED TO
IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT THAT
THAT I SEE AS THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD, THAT YOU WOULD WELCOME
THAT MATTER COMING BACK TO THIS
COMMITTEE FOR THAT REVIEW AT ANY
APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE PROCESS.
AND SO WITH THAT, I'M REALLY
VERY PLEASED TO SUPPORT YOUR
BILL TODAY. I WANT TO INVITE ANY
COLLEAGUES, IF THERE'S ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
OKAY. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION
ON THIS MEASURE. SENATOR DODD
HAS MOVED THE MEASURE. THIS IS
Dð PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
OH, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. THANK
YOU. SENATOR WIENER, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. VERY
GOOD. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. SENATOR. GLASER. GLASER.
AYE. DOLLY DOLLY. NO. ASHBY.
BRADFORD BRADFORD. AYE. DODD.
DODD. AYE. PADILLA SKINNER. 3 TO
1. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL PUT THAT
BILL ON CALL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
AND, SENATOR WIENER, WE WISH YOU
WELL ON YOUR FOR YOUR WORK AHEAD
ON THIS WITH WITH A WONDERFUL
PARTNERS HERE IN THE SENATE. SO
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
NEXT TO FILE ITEM NUMBER THREE.
THIS IS SB 1227. SENATOR WIENER
THE FLOOR IS YOURS. AYE LET'S
WAIT FOR THEM TO CLEAR OUT OKAY.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR. I WANT TO, THANK THE
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
WORKING WITH US ON THIS BILL ON
THE WELFARE TAX EXEMPTION
PORTION OF THE BILL, WE'VE,
AGREED ON SOME AMENDMENTS. I
THINK DUE TO TIMING OF MY
UNDERSTANDING IS IT WON'T BE
AMENDED COMING OUT OF THE
COMMITTEE, BUT THERE WILL BE
SOME FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AND THEN WE
WOULD PUT THE AMENDMENT IN,
PRESUMABLY IN APPROPRIATIONS.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT
MISSTATING THAT. NO, I THINK
THAT'S CORRECT. AS LONG AS THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE IS,
IS, BLESSES THOSE, IT'D BE GOOD
IF YOU PUT ON THE RECORD THE
ISSUES AT HAND. OKAY IS THAT SO?
IS THAT SUFFICIENT? MR. JARED,
DO YOU WANT ME TO STATE MORE, I
THINK THAT, I THINK EXPLAINING
WHAT THOSE AMENDMENTS INTEND TO
DO WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS
TIME. YEAH, SO, SO, THE SO RIGHT
NOW, THE WELFARE TAX EXEMPTION
FOR MODERATE INCOME HOUSING, IS
IT'S SIMPLY APPLYING THE SAME
WELFARE TAX EXEMPTION ON THAT
OTHER SUBSIDIZED BELOW MARKET
RATE HOMES, RECEIVE, SO THE
AMENDMENT IS TWOFOLD. FIRST, IT
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE ARE
ASPECTS OF PROPERTY TAX THAT GET
PAID TO THAT GET REMITTED TO
ENTITIES OTHER THAN THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BART, ETC, AND SO
THOSE, WILL THAT WILL CONTINUE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE
NON CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
RECIPIENTS OF THE PROPERTY TAX.
IN ADDITION, THIS WILL BE MOVED
FROM THE REVENUE AND TAX
TAXATION CODE TO THE GOVERNMENT
CODE. AND THEN THE CITY WILL
HAVE THE ABILITY THEN TO USE
THAT ITS PORTION OF, OF THAT
PROPERTY TAX TO INCENTIVIZE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS MODERATE
INCOME HOUSING. I HAVE I
ACCURATELY STATED YES YOU HAVE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I DO MY BEST,
OKAY. WITH THAT SAID, SO, MR.
CHAIR, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR
WORKING WITH US, THIS, BILL, IS,
FOCUSES ON THE DOWNTOWN AREAS OF
SAN FRANCISCO, WHICH ARE,
FRANKLY STRUGGLING RIGHT NOW.
AND THE ANALYSIS DOES, I THINK A
GOOD JOB OF LAYING OUT THE
DETAILS OF THOSE, STRUGGLES
DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO IS
DOWNTOWN IS ONE OF THE SLOWEST
RECOVERING DOWNTOWNS, IN THE
COUNTRY, THE DUE TO RETURN TO
WORK, OR THE OR REMOTE WORK. AND
WE HAVE A VERY HIGH, OFFICE
VACANCY RATE DOWNTOWN, IT'S IN
THE MID 30S, AND IT'S PROBABLY
GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO UP AS
MORE LEASES EXPIRE HERE IN THE
COMING YEARS, TAX REVENUE
DOWNTOWN, IS WAY, WAY DOWN. AND
THERE ARE SOME REAL CHALLENGES.
AND WHILE MANY OTHER PARTS OF
SAN FRANCISCO ARE DOING REALLY,
REALLY WELL AND ARE VERY, VERY
VIBRANT, WE JUST HAVE A BIG
PROBLEM DOWNTOWN UNION SQUARE,
PARTS OF SOUTH OF MARKET AND SO
FORTH. AND SO THIS BILL DOES TWO
THINGS TO TRY TO HELP SAN
FRANCISCO AS IT REIMAGINES WHAT
DOWNTOWN IS, IN TERMS OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF NOT HAVING THE
FINANCIAL DISTRICT BE PURELY
OFFICE, WHICH IS WHAT IT HAS
BEEN IN THE PAST, AND HAVING
MORE OF A MIXED USE FUTURE OF
ENTERTAINMENT AND HOUSING,
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. AND SO
FORTH, HELPING UNION SQUARE
RECOVER OVER, IT CREATES A CEQA
EXEMPTION, WHICH WE WORKED OUT
AMENDMENTS WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE
ON BECAUSE, PHYSICAL CHANGES ARE
LIKELY GOING TO BE NECESSARY AND
WE WANT TO FACILITATE THOSE. AND
THAT SEQUEL EXEMPTION HAS STRONG
ANTI-DISPLACEMENT PROTECTIONS IN
IT. STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS IN IT. IT'S A VERY
FOCUSED, NARROW APPROACH TO
FACILITATE THE PROCESS, THE
PIECE THAT IS BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE, IS CREATING WHAT WE
CREATED AS A WELFARE TAX
EXEMPTION EXPANSION. OBVIOUSLY,
AS INDICATED, WE'RE CHANGING IT
TO BE A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE. BUT
TO END THE DOWNTOWN
REVITALIZATION AREA TO
INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF A
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING, WE KNOW
THAT WE WANT THE FUTURE OF
DOWNTOWN TO BE VERY, VERY ROBUST
. WE WANT PEOPLE OF ALL INCOME
LEVELS TO BE ABLE TO LIVE THERE.
WE WANT WORKERS TO BE ABLE TO
LIVE NEAR WHERE THEY WORK OR IF
THERE'S EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES,
WE WANT THAT WORKFORCE TO BE
ABLE TO LIVE THERE. WE WANT
STUDENT HOUSING TO BE THERE. AND
THIS, EXPANSION OF THE EXEMPTION
AND THE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF WILL
HELP CREATE AN INCENTIVE. I DO
JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE
PRECEDENTS FOR THIS, NEW YORK
CITY HAS A FAIRLY ROBUST STOCK
OF WORKFORCE HOUSING. IT'S
ACTUALLY HUGE. AND WHEN WE ASK,
HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? IT'S
BECAUSE AFTER WORLD WAR TWO, NEW
YORK MADE THE DECISION BECAUSE
THEY HAD A HOUSING CRISIS. THEN
TO, TO, PROVIDE TAX ABATEMENTS
FOR BUILDING THAT WORKFORCE,
HOUSING AND AS A RESULT, A
MASSIVE AMOUNT OF WORKFORCE
HOUSING WAS BUILT IN NEW YORK
CITY. AND AND, WE SHOULD BE
LOOKING TO MODELS LIKE THAT, I
AM A HUGE SUPPORTER OF
INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIZED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOW
INCOME PEOPLE IN THE LAST FIVE
YEARS, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
GOVERNOR, THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
PUT BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS INTO HELPING CITIES FUND
THAT HOUSING. WE HAVE PASSED
LEGISLATION TO INCENTIVIZE AND
TO STREAMLINE, LOW INCOME AND
VERY LOW INCOME AND EXTREMELY
LOW INCOME HOUSING IN
CALIFORNIA. WE SHOULD ALSO FIND
WAYS TO BUILD FOR THIS MISSING
MIDDLE INCOME LEVEL. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AND WITH ME HERE TODAY TO
TESTIFY IS JACOB BINTLIFF,
MANAGER OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY
INITIATIVES FOR THE SAN
FRANCISCO OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. AND
CAROLYN MCCORMICK, THE VICE
PRESIDENT OF LENDING AND POLICY
AT THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING
ACCELERATOR FUND. THANK YOU,
SENATOR WIENER, WE INVITE YOUR
WITNESSES TO GIVE TESTIMONY TWO
MINUTES EACH, PLEASE BEGIN.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR GLASER AND
SENATORS. I'M JACOB BINTLIFF
WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF
ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT HERE, SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF MAYOR BREED, WHO'S A
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, AS THE
SENATOR MENTIONED, DOWNTOWN SAN
FRANCISCO HAS BEEN GREATLY
IMPACTED BY THE PANDEMIC AND
REMOTE WORK. WE HAVE A HISTORIC
OFFICE VACANCY OF 36. RETAIL
VACANCY IS GOING FROM 25 TO 40,
DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE
DOWNTOWN. IN RESPONSE TO THOSE
CHALLENGES, MAYOR BREED HAS LAID
OUT HER ROADMAP TO SAN
FRANCISCO'S FUTURE, WHICH IS A
SERIES OF MORE THAN 50
INITIATIVES TO MAKE DOWNTOWN
THRIVE INTO ITS NEXT CHAPTER.
OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF,
WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON
THAT. WE'VE HAD ZONING REFORMS
AND LOCAL TAX INCENTIVES TO
SUPPORT OFFICE TO HOUSING
CONVERSIONS, LOCAL TAX RELIEF
FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, AND A TAX
CREDIT FOR NEW OFFICE TENANTS
DOWNTOWN. SIGNIFICANT
INVESTMENTS IN PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CLEANING DOWNTOWN INVESTMENTS IN
OUR DOWNTOWN PARKS AND PLAZAS.
FUNDING FOR OUTDOOR EVENTS AND A
ROBUST STREAMLINING LEGISLATION
FOR BOTH SMALL BUSINESSES AND
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. SO WE'VE
BEEN HARD AT WORK AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL. THE INTENT OF THIS BILL
IS TO BRING ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO
BEAR THAT ONLY THE STATE CAN
PROVIDE, NAMELY, AN EXPANDED
WELFARE TAX EXEMPTION TO SUPPORT
THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RENTAL
WORKFORCE HOUSING TO MODERATE
INCOME RESIDENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN
REVITALIZATION ZONE FOR A PERIOD
OF TEN YEARS, AND EXPANDED. THIS
ADVANCES MULTIPLE POLICY
OBJECTIVES, ADDING HOUSING TO
OUR DENSE TRANSIT RICH DOWNTOWN,
REPURPOSING VACANT OFFICE SPACE,
PROVIDING HOUSING FOR WORKERS
CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN JOBS, AND
INCREASING FOOT TRAFFIC TO OUR
STREETS AND OUR SMALL BUSINESSES
THAT WILL SUPPORT OUR OVERALL
DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT
INCREASING THE INCOME LEVEL HERE
IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO
CURRENT STATE POLICY, WE BELIEVE
IT IS WARRANTED IN THIS TIME AND
PLACE. SAN FRANCISCO REMAINS THE
MOST EXPENSIVE RENTAL MARKET IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IN SAN
FRANCISCO, NEW RENTAL UNITS
REMAIN FAR OUT OF REACH FOR
MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OF UP
TO 120, AMI. NEW RENTAL UNITS
ROUTINELY GO FOR $5,000 PER
MONTH FOR A ONE BEDROOM UNIT, AN
AMOUNT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A
HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF AROUND 200%
OF AMI TO BE AFFORDABLE TO THAT
HOUSEHOLD. MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING IS ALSO THE MOST
CHALLENGING INCOME LEVEL OF
HOUSING FOR SAN FRANCISCO TO
PRODUCE, WITHOUT ANY EXISTING
PROGRAMS TO FINANCE THIS INCOME
LEVEL, THIS BILL WOULD ADD A
VALUABLE NEW TOOL IN STIMULATING
LONG TERME AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR THOSE HOUSEHOLDS FOR LIMITED
, LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME IN A
TARGETED GEOGRAPHIC AREA WHERE
THE NEED IS MOST ACUTE, YES. WE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
ATTENTION TODAY AND ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT IN HELPING US REVIVE
DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD MORNING.
THERE YOU GO. GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. MY
NAME IS CAROLINE MCCORMACK, AND
I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF
LENDING AND POLICY AT THE SAN
FRANCISCO HOUSING ACCELERATOR
FUND. THE HAF IS A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION THAT DELIVERS
CAPITAL TO CREATE AND PRESERVE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME COMMUNITIES IN
SAN FRANCISCO. SINCE WE'VE
LAUNCHED IN 2017, WE'VE INVESTED
$450 MILLION IN OVER 2500
AFFORDABLE HOMES IN SAN
FRANCISCO AND AMONG THAT
PORTFOLIO, APPROXIMATELY 40% OF
OUR PROJECTS HAVE INVOLVED THE
ACQUISITION OF MIXED INCOME
BUILDINGS SERVING HOUSEHOLDS
FROM 30% AREA MEDIAN INCOME UP
TO 120% AREA MEDIAN INCOME. AND
IN OUR EXPERIENCE, HOUSEHOLDS AT
THAT UPPER END OF THAT RANGE,
WHAT WE CALL OUR MIDDLE INCOME
OR WORKFORCE HOUSING ALSO
STRUGGLE TO SECURE AND MAINTAIN
AFFORDABLE HOMES IN OUR CITY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MARINE
BIOLOGISTS LIVING IN ONE OF OUR
BUILDINGS, OR THE FREELANCE
PHOTOGRAPHER WITH TWO CHILDREN
WHO FINALLY LANDED A FAMILY
SIZED APARTMENT. THEY ARE OUR
CITY. THEY CONTRIBUTE TO OUR
CITY'S ECONOMY AND VIBRANCY AND
YET FACE ONGOING HOUSING
INSECURITY. AND AS JACOB NOTED,
THE REALITY IS THAT FEW
FINANCING TOOLS EXIST AT THE
LOCAL OR STATE LEVEL TO REACH
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND
THAT'S WHY THE HAF IS EXCITED
ABOUT THE WELFARE TAX EXEMPTION
COMPONENT OF SB 1227. IT
PROVIDES A BENEFIT WITHOUT THE
CREATION OF A DIRECT SUBSIDY
PROGRAM AND A JOB IN TRANSIT
RICH CITY LIKE SAN FRANCISCO. WE
THINK THAT EXTENDING THE
CHARITABLE PURPOSE OF THE
WELFARE TAX EXEMPTION FOR MIDDLE
INCOME WORKERS MAKES SENSE IN
THIS MOMENT, IN THIS GEOGRAPHY,
AND REPRESENTS AN IMPORTANT,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY FOR
THE CITY, FOR AN UNDERSERVED
SEGMENT OF THE MARKET WHERE
THERE IS CURRENTLY LIMITED
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. AND WE
DON'T THINK THAT THIS COMES AT
THE EXPENSE OF CREATING THE
DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT
OUR CITY ALSO NEEDS. THE LOW
INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT
PROGRAM IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF
FINANCING AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
BUT THIS PROGRAM IS LIMITED TO
BUILDINGS RESTRICTED USUALLY UP
TO 100 UP TO 60% AREA. MEDIAN
INCOME. IF YOU COULD SUM UP
PLEASE, AND SO WE NEED MORE
TOOLS FOR MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING.
AND SO I THIS BILL REPRESENTS A
UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY AND THE HAF
RESPECTFULLY URGED YOU TO VOTE
AYE TO SUPPORT MOVING IT
FORWARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO NOW
TURN TO THOSE HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
COME UP AND GIVE A ME TOO IN
SUPPORT JUST YOUR NAME AND
AFFILIATION AND POSITION. PLEASE
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
MARTIN RADOSEVICH ON BEHALF OF
SPUR IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
RYAN. ELAINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
FRANCISCO MORALES HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE HOUSING ACTION COALITION,
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM
WANT TO INDICATE THEIR POSITION
IN SUPPORT? SEEING NONE, WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO OPPOSITION.
THÀNH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO
IS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL TO
INVITE YOU TO THE MICROPHONE?
AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE A FEW
MINUTES TO EXPRESS YOUR
OPPOSITION. OOPS, SORRY. GOOD
MORNING. ANGELICA CABANA,
DIRECTOR OF SAM KHN. WE ARE ONE
OF THE MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT
IS OPPOSING SB 1227. UNLESS
AMENDED. SINCE 2000, SOME KHN
HAS PARTICIPATED AND WORKED
CLOSELY WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS
LIKE MCHD TO ADDRESS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, TENANT PROTECTION AND
PRESERVATION ISSUES, THE HOUSING
ELEMENT, AND MANY MORE. WE ARE
PRO-DEVELOPMENT AS LONG AS IT
CENTERS AROUND PEOPLE AND EQUITY
. THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS TO SB
1227. FIRST, IT PROPOSES TO
REMOVE ALL SQL PROTECTION FROM
DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO, WHERE
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LIVE AND
WORK, INCLUDING FAMILIES, YOUTH
AND SENIORS. THIS WILL CREATE AN
INEQUITABLE SAN FRANCISCO WHERE
SEACOAST PROTECTION WOULD REMAIN
IN AFFLUENT AREAS, LEAVING LOW
INCOME DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS
VULNERABLE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SECOND,
CEQA DOES NOT STOP PROJECTS.
OVER 58,000 HOUSING UNITS HAVE
CLEARED THE EIR PROCESS IN SAN
FRANCISCO, BUT REMAIN UNBUILT.
THE NUMBERS SUGGEST THE PANDEMIC
AND OTHER FACTORS ARE THE CAUSE
OF OUR DOWNTOWN PROBLEMS, NOT
CEQA. SECOND, THE BILL ALSO
WOULD GIVE TAX BREAK TO PRIVATE
INTERESTS BUT DOES NOTHING TO
ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IGNORING THE NEEDS OF VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES. IN THE CONSULTANT
REPORT, THE STATE WANTS TO
APPROVE TAX EXEMPTION IN SAN
FRANCISCO BUT WANTS TO DISCLAIM
THE STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY. HOW
IS THIS EQUITABLE AND FAIR?
WHERE WILL THE CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO GET THE FUNDS TO
SUBSIDIZE BUILDING THESE HOUSING
WHEN THE CITY IS CURRENTLY IN A
BUDGET DEFICIT? HOW IS THE
AUTHOR AND SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR
SEEKING TO ADDRESS SAN
FRANCISCO'S ECONOMIC CHALLENGES
WITH THIS BILL? WHEN THEY ARE
NOT ONLY PROVIDING TAX EXEMPTION
TO A LARGE GEOGRAPHIC AREA, BUT
ALSO COMMENCING THE TAX
EXEMPTION ON JANUARY 1ST, 2025
NEXT YEAR. HOW DOES THIS MAKE
SENSE IN A TIME OF BUDGET CUTS?
AT THIS VERY MOMENT, OUR
COMMUNITY OF SAN FRANCISCO AT
CITY HALL FIGHTING CUTS TO
ESSENTIAL PROGRAMS AT THE TIME
WHEN WE NEED MORE PUBLIC FUNDS,
WHILE WE INCREASING THE DEFICIT
IN THE FORM OF TAX BREAKS. DO
YOU SUM UP, PLEASE? THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION ALSO INCLUDES THE
FILIPINO CULTURAL HERITAGE
DISTRICT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE 14
STATE DESIGNATED CULTURAL
DISTRICT. THIS IS, IF YOU COULD
SUM UP, PLEASE THANK YOU. THIS
DISTRICT ADVANCED SOCIOECONOMIC
AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY. THE STATE
SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THE
CULTURAL DISTRICT, NOT
RESCINDING THEIR CEQA PROTECTION
AND GIVING TAX EXEMPTIONS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. HELLO. MY NAME IS
TERESA DELYLAH AND I LIVE IN THE
HEART OF THE SOUTH OF MARKET,
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED. YOU KNOW, GIVING
INCENTIVES TO DEVELOPERS IS NOT
A NEW CONCEPT TO TRY TO
REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN. IN 2011,
THE CENTRAL MARKET TENDERLOIN
PAYROLL TAX EXCLUSION EXCLUSION,
ALSO KNOWN AS THE TWITTER
TWITTER TAX BREAK, WAS PASSED,
WHICH WAS CHAMPIONED BY CITY
LEADERS INCLUDING THE THEN MAYOR
ED LEE, AS A WAY TO BOTH
REVITALIZE THE MID-MARKET AND
TENDERLOIN AREAS AND
SIMULTANEOUSLY KEEP AND ATTRACT
CORPORATE TENANTS. IF TAXES ON
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ARE
REDUCED, HOW CAN WE GUARANTEE
THAT THE IMPACTS OF SB 1227 WILL
NOT HAVE THE SAME NEGATIVE
IMPACTS ON OUR COMMUNITIES AS
THE AS THE TWITTER BACKS TAX
BREAK? SENATORS I LIVE IN THE
SOUTH OF MARKET FILIPINO
CULTURAL HERITAGE DISTRICT. FOR
ALMOST 50 YEARS, I'VE SEEN
FIRSTHAND, YOU KNOW, FIRSTHAND
WHAT THESE IMPACTS WERE. MY
NEIGHBORS AND I WENT THROUGH
FOUR EVICTION CASES AND ALONG
WITH ONE HUNDREDS OF OTHER
TENANTS, THEY THEY FACED ALL
THESE EVICTIONS. HOW CAN YOU
HAVE THIS SB 1227 BE ON THIS
RIGHT NOW WHEN WE ARE FACING,
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF BUDGET
DEFICITS RIGHT NOW IN THE CITY,
I'M SUPPOSED TO BE OVER AT CITY
HALL, YOU KNOW, FIGHTING AGAINST
THE BUDGET CUTS, YOU KNOW,
SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE A BUDGET.
DEFICITS ARE AT CHILDREN'S
EDUCATION. YOU KNOW, ALL THE
DIFFERENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
WHICH ARE UNDER THE CARE OF THE
DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OF THE
CITY ARE ALL IMPACTED. SO HOW DO
YOU WANT DO YOU WANT US TO BUILD
OR DO YOU WANT US TO NOT I'M NOT
AGAINST, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE,
ALL THESE, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
AS LONG AS THERE'S SINCERITY IN
THERE AND MAKING SURE, YOU KNOW,
THAT THIS BILL IS ACTUALLY, YOU
KNOW, FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THIS
I JUST ALSO WANT TO ALSO SHARE
WITH YOU ABOUT SEQUA. YOUR TIME
IS EXHAUSTED. SO IF YOU WANT TO
SUM UP, I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER
10S. THANK YOU SIR. I REALLY,
REALLY APPRECIATE, THIS BILL
TEMPERS THE FUNDAMENTAL
FOUNDATION AND PURPOSE OF SEQUA
GREAT SEQUA IS THERE FOR A
PURPOSE. THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE AND FOR SHARING YOUR. THANK
YOU. AND WE WELCOME ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY WHICH YOU CAN PROVIDE
TO THE COMMITTEE. IF YOU DIDN'T
HAVE ENOUGH TIME HERE TODAY.
YES. YOU'RE NEXT UP. THANK YOU.
CHAIR ALLISON RAMEY HERE TODAY
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE PIPE TRADES COUNCIL, STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS AND STATE COUNCIL FOR
SHEET METAL WORKERS IN
OPPOSITION. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, MIKE WEST, ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
ALSO IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING, RENATO,
COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WITH PEOPLE
ORGANIZING TO DEMAND
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
RIGHTS AND OPPOSITION, UNLESS
AMENDED, ALSO WAS ASKED BY
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER
ENVIRONMENT TO GIVE THEM TO.
GREAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. HELLO.
MY NAME IS ZACHARY FRIEL,
RESIDENT OF SAN FRANCISCO. ALSO
WORK IN THE SOUTH OF MARKET IN
THE AFFECTED AREA. I'M HERE TO
REPRESENT RACE AND EQUITY IN ALL
PLANNING A COALITION OF OVER 40
ORGANIZATIONS, AND WE WOULD LIKE
TO EXPRESS OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HI THERE. MY NAME IS MARTY
BUCKLEY DELYLAH AND I'M WITH SAM
KHN AS WELL AS REPRESENTING
COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR HEALTH
AND JUSTICE AND STRONGLY OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU.
RAYMOND CASTILLO I'M ALSO WITH
SAM KHN AS WELL AS SAN
FRANCISCO ANTI-DISPLACEMENT
COALITION, WERE BUILT UP OF OVER
40 ORGANIZATIONS, IN OPPOSED TO
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GREAT ALL
RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM? IN OPPOSITION,
SEEING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE OUR
PUBLIC PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION
AND BRING THE MATTER BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COLLEAGUES,
SENATOR WIENER, I JUST WANT TO
SAY I SAW THIS BILL IN Â C¯
MADE MY COMMENTS THERE. I WILL
CONTINUE TO BE OPPOSING THE
BILL. OKAY. THANK YOU. SENATOR
DOLLY, SENATOR WIENER, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR WORK IN THIS AREA. I
KNOW YOU AND MAYOR BREED ARE
CERTAINLY COMMITTED AND
PASSIONATE ABOUT TRYING TO HELP
THE SAN FRANCISCO CIRCUMSTANCES
IN WHICH YOU FIND YOURSELF IN,
AND THAT CERTAINLY IS TO BE
APPLAUDED. YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS
LOOKING AT THIS BILL, THE
QUESTION THAT WENT THROUGH MY
HEAD IS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
SIDE, WE HAD A COMMITTEE TO DO
THAT WORK. SO THAT'S THAT'S
THEIR WORK. BUT IN THE TAX SPACE
, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO WRESTLE
WITH IS THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS
SETS. NUMBER ONE, WHILE IT'S
JUST A SAN FRANCISCO CENTERED
BILL, AND I BELIEVE, AS YOU
KNOW, IN LOCAL CONTROL AND THE
ABILITY TO KIND OF HANDLE YOUR
AFFAIRS, I WAS TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND IF SOMEONE ELSE CAME
FROM ANOTHER COMMUNITY AND
WANTED THE SAME, HOW WOULD I
FEEL ABOUT IT? AND THE SECOND
ISSUE THAT WENT THROUGH MY HEAD
WAS THAT WHILE IN THE UNIQUE
CASE OF SAN FRANCISCO, THAT 80%
OF THE MONEY THAT WOULD BE
DEFERRED WOULD BE MONEY THAT
WOULD BE GOING TO THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND IN
SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS IT'S A
DIFFERENT FORMULA. BUT THAT
WHAT'S WHAT'S THE MATTER FOR
STATE POLICY REVIEW. AND I
THOUGHT THAT THE, THE MATTER FOR
US WAS, WHO DOESN'T GET THE
MONEY WHEN THESE EXEMPTIONS ARE
PUT INTO PLACE, THAT THERE ARE
SPECIAL DISTRICTS, THERE'S
SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THERE'S
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICTS THAT
UNDER THE BILL AS ORIGINALLY
PRESENTED, WHILE THEY WOULDN'T
HAVE A SAY IN PROVIDING THAT,
THAT EXEMPTION THAT THEY WOULD
HAVE THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT. AND
HOW SHOULD WE AS A COMMITTEE
ENSURE THAT THEIR INTERESTS ARE
PROTECTED, THE AMENDMENTS THAT
YOU HAVE ACCEPTED IN THE
COMMITTEE TODAY, THEY REALLY GO
TO THE HEART OF THOSE CONCERNS.
THEY WOULD ALLOW THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO TAKE
THE BENEFIT THAT THEY WOULD BE
GIVING UP, IT WOULD IT WOULD IT
WOULD IT WOULD MARRY IT WITH THE
CHOICE THAT THEY WOULD MAKE
ABOUT WHETHER THESE SUBSIDIES
SHOULD BE OR THESE ASSISTANCE
THAT SHOULD HAPPEN FOR THIS TYPE
OF HOUSING THAT YOU FEEL AND THE
CITY FEELS IS IMPORTANT. AND
THAT FOR ME, IF ANOTHER
JURISDICTION COMES IN AND SAYS,
WE WANT THE SAME EXEMPTION THAT
SAN FRANCISCO GOT, THAT AS LONG
AS THAT THEY WERE COVERING THE
CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE THAT
WEREN'T A PART OF THAT DECISION,
THAT I FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD BE A
PRECEDENT, THAT I WOULD FEEL
COMFORTABLE WITH, THAT UNDER THE
BILL, AS AS YOU ARE PROPOSING TO
AMEND, IT WOULD BE FOR ME, SAY
WE'VE SET THE RIGHT PRACTICE IF
IT WAS TO GO FURTHER THAN THIS
PILOT PROGRAM IN SAN FRANCISCO.
AND SO THERE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
FOLLOWING THIS, THEY CAN
UNDERSTAND AT LEAST THE THINKING
THAT WENT BEHIND MY EXAMINATION
OF YOUR PROPOSAL. THAT'S WHY I'M
I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF THIS THAT
REQUIRES THE INPUT FROM OUR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE.
THEY'RE NOT HERE IN THE ROOM.
AND I WANT TO SHOW A PROPER
DEFERENCE TO THAT COMMITTEE AND
HOW THIS WOULD BE RESTRUCTURED
SO SAN FRANCISCO COULD HAVE ALL
THOSE CHOICES THAT YOU WOULD
DESIRE BEFORE THEM. AND SO WITH
THAT, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT YOUR
BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. AND ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SENATOR, YOU
CAN RESPOND OR YOU CAN PUT IT IN
YOUR CLOTHES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND I DO APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE WORK CREATIVELY
WORKING WITH US ON THIS ISSUE.
AS YOU AND I DISCUSSED, THE CITY
CAN'T DO THESE THINGS ON ITS
OWN, REQUIRES STATE
AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE OF PROP
13. AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO
NOTE, YOU KNOW, MY FORMER
COLLEAGUE, OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE
DAVID CHU, REPEATEDLY TRIED TO
ENACT THIS POLICY AT THE STATE
LEVEL. NEVER MADE IT OVER HERE,
BUT IT DID NOT ADVANCE. AND I
THINK THAT IS A CONVERSATION
THAT SHOULD CONTINUE, BUT FOR
NOW, WE HAVE A CRISIS IN
DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO. AND THIS
WILL HELP. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. TERRIFIC.
THE AUTHOR, HAVING CLOSED,
LOOKING FOR A MOTION HERE IN THE
COMMITTEE, SENATOR BRADFORD
MOVES THE BILL. THIS WOULD BE DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. DO PASS.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR. GLASER. GLASER. AYE.
DOLLY DOLLY. NO. ASHBY.
BRADFORD. BRADFORD AYE. DODD.
PADILLA. SKINNER. 2 TO 1. ALL
RIGHT. THAT BILL WILL PUT ON
CALL FOR. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SENATOR
WIENER. ALL RIGHT, ARE THERE ANY
OTHER AUTHORS HERE BESIDES, I
KNOW WE'RE GOING TO SENATOR
BRADFORD, BUT WE HAVE SENATOR
BRADFORD, IF YOU'RE READY, WE
CAN GO, OR YOU CAN DEFER AND
WAIT FOR AN AUTHOR TO ARRIVE.
TERRIFIC. SENATOR BRADFORD IS UP
NEXT, THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
SIX, SB 1013. SENATOR BRADFORD,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS
BILL. AND THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I'M
HERE TO PRESENT SB 1013, WHICH
WOULD CREATE A PROPERTY TAX
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR
DESCENDANTS OF ENSLAVED, PEOPLE
PERSONS PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM
WOULD PROVIDE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF A
REBATE ON PROPERTY TAX PAID,
HELPING DESCENDANTS MAINTAIN
HOME OWNERSHIP AND KEEP A ROOF
OVER THEIR HEADS, MANY OF US
KNOW AFTER THE CIVIL WAR,
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WORKING
WITH PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS,
ACTIVELY SEGREGATED AFRICAN
AMERICANS, WELL AMERICANS AND
LAND INTO AFRICAN AMERICAN AND
WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS, THIS
HOUSING SEGREGATION OCCURRED FOR
OVER 200 YEARS. AND THROUGH A
VARIETY OF DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT
STRATEGIES AND POLICIES, A
CERTAIN SEGREGATION MEANT A
CERTAIN SEGREGATION METHODS WERE
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IGNORED THEM
OR THOUGHT OF NEW WAYS TO REACH
THE SAME GOALS. ALTHOUGH THE
DECISIONS OF MILLIONS OF PRIVATE
HOMEOWNERS, REAL ESTATE AGENTS
AND LANDLORDS SETTLED AMERICANS
INTO SEGREGATED RESIDENTIAL
PATTERNS, IT WAS ACTIONS BY ALL
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT WHICH
EXPANDED AND SOLIDIFIED THESE,
SETTLEMENTS INTO SEGREGATED
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE KNOW
TODAY. THIS BILL IS THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE RECORD,
CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE, WHICH I SPENT TWO YEARS
PART OF. AND IT WAS WILL
COUNTERACT THE PROPERTY TAX
BARRIERS THAT HAVE BEEN
REINFORCED, THE EXISTING
PATTERNS OF HOUSING SEGREGATION
IN CALIFORNIA AND ACROSS THE
NATION. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR
BRADFORD, DO YOU HAVE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES? NOT THAT I'M
AWARE OF. OH, WE NØ NOT HERE.
OKAY. WE WOULD INVITE ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK
IN FAVOR OF THE BILL TO COME
JOIN US HERE AT THE FRONT
MICROPHONE. WELCOME. WELCOME TO
THE COMMITTEE. GOOD MORNING.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
KIM MIMS. I'M HERE WITH A
COALITION FOR A JUST AND
EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA ARC,
SACRAMENTO AND AMEND THE MASS
MEDIA GROUP. AND I AM IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF 1013. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MORNING,
CHAIR MEMBERS. SENATOR BRADFORD,
CHRIS LAWSON, COALITION FOR A
JUST AND EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA
BEHALF OF THE COALITION, STRONG
SUPPORT ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE
LINEAGE EQUITY AND ADVANCEMENT
PROJECT OUT OF LA, CALIFORNIA
BLACK LINEAGE SOCIETY OF THE
INLAND EMPIRE AND THE AMERICAN
REDRESS COALITION OF CALIFORNIA
OUT OF THE BAY AREA, ALL IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SIR. GOOD MORNING AGAIN,
KAREN LANG ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY
TREASURERS AND TAX COLLECTORS
AND SUPPORT. AND THEY WANT TO BE
HELPFUL IN IN DEVELOPING THE
PROGRAM WHEN IT COMES TO LIFE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
MICHELLE RUBALCAVA WITH NIELSEN
ON BEHALF OF CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY, ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MORNING. HENRY ORTIZ WITH,
LEGAL SERVICES, PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN AND ALL OF US ARE NONE
IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS GREAT
BILL. MR. BRADFORD, HOPEFULLY WE
COULD GET ONE FOR THE
UTO-AZTECAN DESCENDANTS OF OUR
NATIVE PEOPLE HERE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING, SYDNEY
FONG WITH ASIAN AMERICANS AND
PACIFIC ISLANDERS FOR CIVIC
EMPOWERMENT. AAPI FORCE AND
ALLIANCE FOR REPARATIONS,
RECONCILIATION AND TRUTH IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM WANT TO INDICATE THEIR
POSITION OF SUPPORT? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE WILL MOVE TO THOSE
IN OPPOSITION. IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN THE HEARING ROOM THAT
WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL BRING THE
MATTER BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. SENATOR
DARLING. SO, SENATOR, WE'VE
WORKED TOGETHER ON THAT. MY
OFFICE, ACTUALLY, IF YOU RECALL,
WHEN I WAS IN THE ASSEMBLY, WE
DID THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU, AND
ACTUALLY HAD, THE MORMON CHURCH,
WHICH DID A LOT OF WORK IN
TRYING TO TRACE BACK LINEAGE TO
SLAVERY AND ACTUALLY WENT
THROUGH THE WHOLE, FREEDMEN'S,
DATA. AND I KNOW, THE, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER JONES, SAWYER AND MANY
OTHERS CAME AND TRIED TO TRACE,
BACK. SO I WANT TO ASK A
QUESTION ON THAT. SO, TRYING TO
GET THE GIST OF HOW THIS WAS
GOING, HOW HOW IT'S GOING TO
WORK BECAUSE ONE OF THE, ONE OF
THE MY CONCERNS IS THAT TO WE'VE
HAD A LOT OF IMMIGRATION COME TO
AMERICA PRIOR TO SLAVERY AND HOW
HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHO'S
ACTUALLY A DESCENDANT OF, OF,
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SB 1403,
WHICH WILL ESTABLISH THE
FREEDMEN'S BUREAU. THAT'S
ANOTHER BILL THAT I'M WORKING ON
THAT WILL HAVE GENEALOGISTS THAT
WILL HELP DETERMINE THOSE
INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE AGAIN,
THOSE WHO ARE DIRECT DESCENDANTS
OF CHATTEL SLAVERY, WHICH WE
KNOW IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE
IN TRACING THAT OR ANYONE WHO
ARRIVED TO THE UNITED STATES
PRIOR TO THE 1900S. OKAY THAT
THAT'S THE THAT BILL IS SEPARATE
OF THIS. YES. BUT IT'S GOING TO
HELP DETERMINE SO YOU CAN TRACE
BACK YOU ACTUALLY ARE SO THE
SYSTEM CAN'T BE GAMED FROM
SOMEBODY THAT WASN'T ACTUALLY
THAT'S WHY WE WERE VERY SPECIFIC
WASN'T IMPACTED BY THE LANGUAGE
OF THE REPARATIONS TASK FORCE
THAT OUR FORMER COLLEAGUES,
DOCTOR SHIRLEY WEBER AUTHORED,
AB 3121 CLEARLY STATED
DESCENDANTS OF CHATTEL SLAVERY.
NOT IT'S NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW,
CAPTURE EVERYONE WHO SAYS, HEY,
I'M I'M HERE. IT'S THOSE WHO CAN
TRACE THEIR LINEAGE TO CHATTEL
SLAVERY OR THOSE WHO ARRIVED IN
THE UNITED STATES PRIOR TO
1900S. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD,
SENATOR BRADFORD, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONTINUOUS WORK IN THIS
AREA. I KNOW IT'S NOT BEEN EASY.
IT'S BEEN A LOT OF TIME. YOU
SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE
TASK FORCE AND THEIR THOUGHTFUL
RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WE'RE
CONSIDERING TODAY. I APPRECIATED
THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD
YESTERDAY IN REGARD TO THE BILL
BEFORE US, IN ENSURING THAT WE
COULD PROVIDE THE BENEFIT TO ALL
THOSE WHO MEET THE TEST, NOT
JUST THOSE WHO ARE PROPERTY
OWNERS, THAT IF YOU'RE A RENTER
AND YOU'RE A DESCENDANT. THE
CONCERN THAT I EXPRESSED WAS
THAT WE SHOULD BE TREATING THEM
THE SAME. AND I THINK YOU HAVE
INDICATED THAT THAT THAT IS YOUR
INTENTION. I ACCEPTED YOUR
AMENDMENTS. I FAILED TO STATE
THAT IN MY OPENING STATEMENT. SO
I JUST WANTED TO HAVE ON THE
RECORD THEN THAT WOULD YOU LIKE
ME TO DESCRIBE IT OR DO YOU WANT
TO DESCRIBE THE. YOU CAN
DESCRIBE IT. OKAY, SO IN REGARD
TO ENSURING THAT WE WOULD TREAT
EVERYONE FAIRLY UNDER THE BILL,
THAT IT WOULD ALLOW RENTERS WHO
MEET THE DEFINITION OF A
CLAIMANT IN THE BILL TO ALSO
RECEIVE ASSISTANCE BASED ON THE
AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAXES PAID BY
THE PROPERTY OWNER WHERE THEY'RE
RENTING, THE AMOUNT OF TIME
THEY'VE RENTED IN A CALENDAR
YEAR, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
PAYING RENT AT A GIVEN ADDRESS.
SO THESE ARE ELEMENTS THAT WILL
BE PUT IN THE BILL. AS I
UNDERSTAND YOU'RE ACCEPTING
THOSE. I'M ACCEPTING YOUR
AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THE
BENEFITS OF THIS, TO ACCOUNT FOR
THAT TRAIL OF DISCRIMINATION,
WHICH IS SO UNFORTUNATE BUT TRUE
THAT THEY GET THE BENEFITS OF
WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. EXACTLY.
OKAY, TERRIFIC. AND I THINK
THAT, FOR ME SUMS UP WHY I THINK
THIS IS A BILL THAT'S WORTHY OF
SUPPORT TODAY, AND I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT IT. IF WE HAVE A MOTION
NOW OR, AS WE CONTINUE THIS
DISCUSSION TODAY, IS THERE
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD IN
CLOSING, SENATOR? NO, I
APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT, NOT ONLY
FROM THIS COMMITTEE, BUT THE
WITNESSES WHO CAME TO TESTIFY,
THIS IS NOT EASY ISSUE, BUT IT'S
ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND AGAIN, IT'S A LOT OF FOLKS
WHO ARE STILL IN DENIAL OF
CALIFORNIA'S ROLE AND SLAVERY
AND THE IMPACTS THAT IT STILL
HAS IN THIS STATE AND THIS
COUNTRY TODAY. AND THE
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE, WHICH I
CHALLENGE EVERY MEMBER OF THIS
LEGISLATIVE BODY IN BOTH HOUSES
TO REACH THOSE 1100 PAGES,
CLEARLY SPELLS OUT ALL WHAT WE
HAVE DISCOVERED, ALL THAT NEEDS
TO BE KNOWN AND WHY THIS IS SO
IMPORTANT. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR
BRADFORD. YEAH I'M GOING TO PASS
THE GAVEL OVER TO SENATOR, OUR
VICE CHAIR, DOLLY. GO AHEAD. I'D
BE HAPPY TO. I'D BE HAPPY TO
MOVE THE BILL, AS AMENDED. OKAY
SO OKAY WITH THE CLERK, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SENATORS. GLASER. GLASER I
DOLLY. ASHBY. BRADFORD BRADFORD
I. DODD. PADILLA. SKINNER 2 TO
0. I'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. I'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR
ABSENT. ARE YOU PRESENT YOUR
BILL? NO. NO. WE HAVE AN AUTHOR
IN THE IN THE ROOM. THANK YOU,
SENATOR DOLLY, FOR YOUR WORK AS
LEADING THE COMMITTEE. WE'RE
GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO NOW GO
TO THE NEXT AUTHOR WHO'S
PATIENTLY WAITING IN THE ROOM.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE,
SB 1362 BY SENATOR NEWMAN, DOING
DOUBLE DUTY TODAY OVER AT
EDUCATION. SO THANK YOU, SIR.
THIS BUSY DAY. IT IS I
APPRECIATE THAT. MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO SWAP THIS
BILL OUT FOR A BILL. I HAVE A
BILL ON CLEAR I'D LIKE TO BRING
TO THIS COMMITTEE. I HEAR THAT'S
A POPULAR ONE. VERY POPULAR, SB
1362. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS, THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 1362, WHICH WOULD
MAKE A CHANGE TO THE EXISTING
CAL ABLE ACT BY PROVIDING SEED
FUNDING OF AT LEAST $250,
SUBJECT TO AN APPROPRIATION BY
THE LEGISLATURE. IN ORDER TO
ENCOURAGE ELIGIBLE CALIFORNIANS
TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
INNOVATIVE SAVINGS AND
INVESTMENT PROGRAM, WHICH HELPS
FOSTER FINANCIAL SECURITY VIA A
529 INVESTMENT ACCOUNT, CAL ABLE
IS THE CALIFORNIA VERSION OF
ACHIEVING A BETTER LIFE
EXPERIENCE ACT, A FEDERAL
PROGRAM ENACTED BY CONGRESS IN
2014 TO ALLOW INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES TO ESTABLISH TAX
ADVANTAGED SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING
THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR OTHER
IMPORTANT PUBLIC BENEFITS.
CERTAIN DISABILITIES, WHICH
MANIFEST DURING CHILDHOOD AND
EARLY ADULTHOOD, OFTEN PREVENT
INDIVIDUALS FROM GENERATING
SUFFICIENT INCOME TO SUPPORT
THEIR MEDICAL CARE AND BASIC
NECESSITIES, AND MANY
INDIVIDUALS LIVING WITH
DISABILITIES RECEIVE MEANS
TESTED PUBLIC BENEFITS LIKE
MEDICAID AND SSI IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN BASIC NECESSITIES PRIOR
TO THE ABLE PROGRAM, INDIVIDUALS
RECEIVING SUCH BENEFITS COULD
NOT SAVE MORE THAN $2,000
WITHOUT FEAR OF A POSSIBLE LOSS
OF ELIGIBILITY. CALIFORNIANS.
CALIFORNIA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE FEDERAL ACT ALLOWS
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES TO
BUILD FINANCIAL SECURITY WITHOUT
IMPEDING THEIR ACCESS TO NEEDED
PUBLIC BENEFITS. UNLIKE SO MANY
OTHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE EITHER
OVERSUBSCRIBED OR STRAPPED FOR
FUNDS, THE CAL ABLE PROGRAM IS
CURRENTLY UNDERUTILIZED AND
WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE ACTION,
MILLIONS OF ELIGIBLE
CALIFORNIANS WILL MISS OUT ON
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE AND
INVEST IN THEIR FINANCIAL
FUTURE. CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF 47
STATES THAT HAS AN ABLE PROGRAM,
BUT LESS THAN 1% OF THE STATE'S
ELIGIBLE DISABLED POPULATION IS
CURRENTLY UTILIZING THE PROGRAM
TO SAVE AND INVEST FOR THEIR
FUTURE. SB 1362 WILL ENCOURAGE
ELIGIBLE CALIFORNIANS WITH
QUALIFYING DISABILITIES TO SET
UP THE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS TO WHICH
THEY'RE ENTITLED, BY REQUIRING A
CAL ABLE PROGRAM TO MAKE A ONE
TIME DEPOSIT OF AT LEAST $250,
EITHER THROUGH A FUTURE
APPROPRIATION OR VIA FUNDRAISING
FROM PRIVATE DONORS OR OTHER
ENTITIES. BY ENSURING THE
FINANCIAL WELL-BEING OF
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES,
WE CAN CREATE A MORE INCLUSIVE
AND PROSPEROUS CALIFORNIA IN
LIGHT OF THE CURRENT FISCAL
CHALLENGES FACED BY CALIFORNIA,
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS
BILL DOES NOT INCLUDE OR ASSUME
AN APPROPRIATION IN THIS
LEGISLATIVE CYCLE. HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB 1362 IS
MR. THOMAS MARTIN, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CAL ABLE
PROGRAM, AND MISS ANNE OSBORNE.
THE PROGRAM MANAGER FOR CAL
ABLE, WHO IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR NEWMAN. WE'LL
GO TO YOUR WITNESS. TWO MINUTES,
SIR. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. SO
AGAIN, MY NAME IS THOMAS MARTIN.
I AM THE NEWLY APPOINTED
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CAL ABLE.
WITH ME AS AN OSBORNE, THE
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. SO AS
A DISABLED CALIFORNIA MYSELF,
I'M VERY PROUD TO REPRESENT THIS
PROGRAM, IT REPRESENTS A, A
MAJOR, A LIFE CHANGING, A LIFE
CHANGING AND A GAME CHANGING
OPPORTUNITY FOR CALIFORNIANS
WITH DISABILITIES. MORE THAN
HALF OF ACCOUNT HOLDERS HAVE A
HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF $25,000 OR
LESS A YEAR, MANY OF THEM ARE.
THEY'RE SAVING MONEY FOR THE
FIRST TIME. MANY OF THEM. THIS
IS THEIR VERY FIRST BANK
ACCOUNT. SO THIS THIS THIS
PROGRAM IS, IS CRITICAL AS, AS
AS THE SENATOR STATED, IT'S
CRITICAL FOR, FOR HELPING FOR
HELPING CALIFORNIANS WITH
DISABILITIES, NOT BE SUBJECT TO,
TO MEANS TESTING, FOR DECADES,
THEY'VE BEEN TOLD, DON'T SAVE
MONEY, DON'T PUT NAME IN YOUR
ACCOUNT, YOU'LL YOU'LL YOU'LL
RUN INTO ISSUES. YOU'LL LOSE
YOUR STATE AND FEDERAL BENEFITS.
AND SO THIS PROGRAM IS CRITICAL
TO MAKE SURE THAT'S THAT'S NOT
THE CASE RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW
CALIFORNIA CARLY IS HELPING
HELPING PARENTS WITH WITH
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES, SAVE
WHEN HISTORICALLY THEY WERE TOLD
THEY SHOULDN'T IT'S HELPING THEM
SAVE FOR FUTURE LIFELONG COSTS
THOSE CHILDREN MIGHT HAVE. IT'S
ALSO HELPING CALIFORNIANS WITH
DISABILITIES WHO ARE WORKING BE
ABLE TO SAVE AND GROW THEIR
MONEY. IT'S HELPING CALIFORNIANS
GET WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE
VEHICLES. IT'S HELPING THEM LIVE
INDEPENDENTLY FOR THE FIRST
TIME. THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT
HAPPEN BECAUSE CAL ABLE EXISTS,
SO TODAY, WHILE WE'RE HERE
TODAY, IS TALK ABOUT HOW WE CAN
KEEP THE KEEP THE PROGRAM
GROWING TO MAKE CALIBER MORE
EQUITABLE, TO MAKE IT REACH EVEN
MORE CALIFORNIANS, ESPECIALLY
THOSE WHO MIGHT MIGHT BE A
LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM
TO START SAVING MONEY, THIS
PROGRAM WOULD WOULD THIS BILL
WOULD GIVE US AN EXTRA TOOL.
IT'LL HELP THEM BE MORE
INDEPENDENT. IT'LL HELP THEM BE,
BE ABLE TO SELF-ADVOCATE. SO THE
TO SUM UP. OKAY. YES. SO, SO TO
BE CLEAR, THE FUNDING, THE
FUNDING IS NOT LOCKED IN, IT
WOULD BE IT COULD BE SET IN
FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS, BUT
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT. BUT
IMPORTANTLY, IT WOULD GIVE US A
TOOL TO BE ABLE TO FUND RAISE
AND BE ABLE TO, TO PROVIDE THE
MONEY SEPARATELY AS WELL. SO
WITH THAT, I APPRECIATE
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR I VOTE AND
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE HERE
JUST FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. IS
THAT RIGHT? OKAY. WE'LL GO TO
THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'D LIKE
TO EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL TO COME UP TO THE
MICROPHONE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. GENE HEARST HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY LIVING
NETWORK AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE. ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN THE HEARING ROOM SEEING NONE,
WE'LL GO TO OPPOSITION. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? SEEING NONE. WE'LL BRING
THE MATTER BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SENATOR NEWMAN, THANK
YOU FOR YOUR GOOD WORK IN THIS
AREA. AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
YOUR BILL TODAY. APPRECIATE ALL
THAT YOU'RE DOING. I APPRECIATE
THAT OUR BUDGET PICTURE IMPROVES
GOING FORWARD. IS THERE A MOTION
FROM MEMBERS? SENATOR BRAD
BRADFORD MOVES THE BILL. THIS IS
Dð PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR GLAZER. AYE. GLAZER.
AYE. DOLLY. DOLLY AYE. ASHBY.
BRADFORD. BRADFORD AYE. DODD.
PADILLA. SKINNER. 3 TO 0.
SENATE-ROOM I DID GIVE YOU A
CHANCE TO CLOSE. I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU COULD CHANGE THE VOTE COUNT.
I THINK THREE EYES WERE MY
CLOSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEE
YOU LATER. WE'RE GOING TO PUT
THAT VOTE ON CALL FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU SIR. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL
FOR BEING HERE. ALL RIGHT, I
DON'T SEE AN AUTHOR IN THE ROOM.
I DO HAVE A BILL THAT I CAN
PRESENT. I'LL PASS THE GAVEL
OVER TO VICE CHAIR DOLLY. WE
WILL SEE. SB 1494. SENATOR
GLAZER
.
ANY TIME YOU'RE READY. GREAT.
THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO PRESENT THIS BILL, THE
CURRENT SYSTEM FOR DISTRIBUTING
ONLINE SALES TAX IS BROKEN.
CURRENTLY, REVENUE SHARING
AGREEMENTS ALLOW RETAILERS TO
ALLOCATE SALES TAX TO SPECIFIC
DISTRIBUTION CENTERS AND
WAREHOUSES, REGARDLESS OF WHERE
THE SALE OCCURRED. THIS CREATES
A PERVERSE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE
WHEN COMPANIES BAIT CITIES INTO
GIVING AWAY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN SALES TAX REVENUE THROUGH
REBATES IN EXCHANGE FOR
MARGINALLY HIGHER TAX REVENUE
AND A PROMISE OF, QUOTE UNQUOTE
GOOD JOBS. WHILE THESE
AGREEMENTS ALLOW SOME CITIES TO
PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR
NEIGHBORS, THE MAJORITY OF OUR
CITIES, ABOUT 93% ARE
EXPERIENCING SUBSTANTIAL LOSSES
IN TAX REVENUE DUE TO THIS
MANIPULATION OF TAX ALLOCATION.
THIS LOSS DIRECTLY AFFECTS OUR
ABILITY TO FUND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC
SERVICES, MAINTAIN
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT OUR
COMMUNITIES. TO ADDRESS THIS
PROBLEM, SB 1494 WOULD DO TWO
THINGS THAT COLLECTIVELY, I
THINK WOULD RESOLVE THE CONCERNS
THAT I HAVE EXPRESSED. FIRST, IT
WOULD RETROACTIVELY PROHIBIT A
LOCAL AGENCY FROM ENTERING INTO
RENEWING OR EXTENDING A TAX
REBATE AGREEMENT. AND SECOND, IT
VOIDS ALL EXISTING EXISTING
AGREEMENTS STARTING JANUARY 1ST,
2030. SO IT GIVES THEM SIX YEARS
TO UNWIND THESE AGREEMENTS. THE
CURRENT AGREEMENTS, FOR OBVIOUS
REASONS, ARE A PROBLEM BOTH THE
STATE AUDITOR AND OUR
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSTS HAVE ISSUED
REPORTS SHOWING THAT THE
CONSEQUENCE OF THE CURRENT
APPROACH ON THE BRADLEY BYRNE
SALES TAX REVENUE IS
DISPROPORTIONATELY CONCENTRATED
IN DISTRICTS WITH SURPLUS
INDUSTRIAL SPACE, WHERE THESE
DISTRIBUTION CENTERS OFTEN
LOCATE. IT'S UNACCEPTABLE TO
PROVIDE CORPORATE WELFARE
THROUGH THESE TAX SHARING
AGREEMENTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN
PUBLIC RESOURCES ARE ALREADY
SCARCE. WE MUST CREATE A TAX
STRUCTURE THAT FOSTERS ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND BENEFITS ALL
COMMUNITIES, FROM LOCAL
BUSINESSES TO WORKERS TO
TAXPAYERS. AND WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE HERE TODAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY
WITNESSES? I DO NOT. OKAY. IS
THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO,
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 1494?
SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE
HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION?
YET TWO MINUTES EACH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. ANGIE MINETTI HERE
REPRESENTING THE MAYOR OF
FRESNO. JERRY DYER, IN
OPPOSITION TO 1494. THIS BILL
STRIKES A HEAVY BLOW TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS BY REMOVING OUR
ABILITY TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN
BUSINESSES IN AN ALREADY UNLEVEL
PLAYING FIELD. THESE TOOLS HELP
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
PROMOTE ECONOMIC VITALITY,
DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS.
ELIMINATING LEAVES THESE
COMMUNITIES WITH THE STATUS QUO
AND HELPS AND STOPS FUTURE
INVESTMENT, THESE AGREEMENTS ARE
NOT CORPORATE TAX GIVEAWAYS.
THEY ARE JOB CREATION BASED. IF
JOBS ARE NOT CREATED, THE
INCENTIVES ARE NOT PROVIDED. WE
ATTRACTED THE GAP FROM PHOENIX
AND THAT MEANS WE TOOK JOBS FROM
ARIZONA AND BROUGHT THEM TO
CALIFORNIA. IN TOTAL, OUR
AGREEMENTS HAVE EQUATED TO
AROUND 3000 OR 3500 DIRECT JOBS
AND ABOUT 4000 PLUS INDIRECT
JOBS. BANNING THESE AGREEMENTS
WILL DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE
SENATORS MAIN CONCERNS OVER THE
WAY SALES TAXES, ONLINE SALES
TAXES ALLOCATED. RATHER, IT WILL
DEVASTATE RURAL AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND IT
PERPETUATES WEALTH INEQUALITY.
THE GOVERNOR VETOED A SIMILAR
BILL THAT HAD PROHIBITIONS ON
THESE AGREEMENTS, AND I'LL QUOTE
HIM IN HIS VETO MESSAGE. HE
SAID. CURRENT USE OF THESE TAX
AGREEMENTS ARE LIMITED, BUT ALSO
AN IMPORTANT LOCAL TOOL THAT
CAPTURES ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY, PARTICULARLY
PARTICULARLY IN RURAL AND INLAND
CALIFORNIA CITIES THAT CONTINUE
TO FACE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC
CHALLENGES LIKE HIGH
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES. THEREFORE,
COMPLETELY REMOVING THESE TAX
OPTIONS FROM LOCAL DECISION
MAKERS IS THE WRONG APPROACH.
BEFORE WE APPROVE A POLICY THAT
WILL THAT WILL DO SUCH HARM, I
ENCOURAGE TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE
POLICIES THAT PROVIDE SIMILAR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS PRIOR
TO REMOVING OUR ABILITY TO HELP
ELEVATE FRESNO RESIDENTS OUT OF
POVERTY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF OUR POSITION.
THANK YOU. MICHEL, ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF PARIS HERE TODAY,
THE CITY OF PARIS IS LOCATED
WITHIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY. OUR
POPULATION IS PREDOMINANTLY
LATINO, AND PRIOR TO THE CITY
ENTERING INTO SOME OF THESE
E-COMMERCE AGREEMENTS, THE CITY
STRUGGLED WITH ABOUT AN 18%
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. CURRENTLY,
THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SITS AT
6. NOW, SOME OF YOU MAY THINK
THAT A WAREHOUSE JOB IS NOT A
SUITABLE JOB, BUT I CAN TELL YOU
THAT THE MEN AND WOMEN OF PARIS
WHO WORK IN THESE WAREHOUSES ARE
GRATEFUL FOR THE JOB THAT PAYS
FOR THE RENT, PUTS MONEY ON THE
FOOD AND GAS IN THEIR CARS, THE
OTHER THING THAT THEY'RE REALLY
GRATEFUL FOR IS THAT THEY GET TO
SPEND MORE TIME AT HOME AND WITH
THEIR FAMILIES, AND NOT ON THE
ROAD GOING TO JOBS IN LA OR IN
SAN DIEGO. BEFORE ONLINE
SHOPPING WAS A NORMAL PRACTICE
OF EVERYDAY LIFE. PARIS
STRUGGLED WITH GENERATIONAL
POVERTY. HOWEVER, WITH THE
OPPORTUNITIES THAT HAVE COME
WITH THE E-COMMERCE AGREEMENTS,
THE CITY OF PARIS HAS BEEN
SLOWLY ABLE TO GROW AND PROSPER.
AS A RESULT OF THESE AGREEMENTS,
THE CITY OF PARIS HAS BEEN ABLE
TO SUPPORT AND MAINTAIN 25 PARKS
IN THE 274 ACRES OF PARKLAND
WITHIN THE CITY, AND PAID OFF
$14.3 MILLION OF UNFUNDED
PENSION LIABILITY. SB 1494 IS AN
AGGRESSIVE ATTACK ON THE CITY OF
PARIS IN SIMILARLY SITUATED
CITIES. THE CITY OF PARIS IS NOT
A COASTAL CITY. THEY ARE NOT A
TOURIST DESTINATION. UNLESS YOU
WANT TO GO SKYDIVING. WE DO NOT
HAVE OTHER VALUABLE AND
PROSPEROUS ECONOMIC TOOLS THAT
OTHER CITIES HAVE. WE HAVE LAND,
AND THAT LAND IS CONVENIENTLY
LOCATED NEAR MAJOR
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. SB
1494 UNABASHEDLY SEEKS TO TAKE
AWAY THE SINGULAR ECONOMIC TOOL
AVAILABLE TO CITIES LIKE PARIS,
WITHOUT THE COURTESY OF
SUGGESTING AN ALTERNATIVE. THE
LAST POINT I'D LIKE TO RAISE. SB
1494 FOCUSED SOLELY ON
E-COMMERCE AGREEMENTS, WHICH ARE
TYPICALLY FOUND IN MOSTLY
UNDERSERVED LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC
CITIES WITH HIGH POPULATION OF
PEOPLE OF COLOR. THERE ARE OTHER
TYPES OF REBATE AGREEMENTS THAT
HAPPEN WITH CITIES, SUCH AS
REBATES ON TRANSIT, TRANSIENT
OCCUPANCY TAX BACK TO HOTELS.
CITIES WILL ALSO REBATE SALES
TAX TO BIG BOX STORES THAT
CHOOSE TO SET UP IN THEIR
SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES. AUTO
DEALERSHIPS WILL ALSO ENTER INTO
THESE AGREEMENTS WITH CITIES,
YET THESE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS
ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THIS BILL
ONLY. AND WHAT'S NOTABLE IS
THOSE TYPE OF AGREEMENTS ARE
USUALLY FOUND IN YOUR MORE
AFFLUENT COMMUNITIES. SO THAT'S
WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE. WE'D ASK
FOR A NO VOTE ON SB 1494. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN 1200 WISHING TO, ME TO ON
OPPOSITION. PETER BLOCHER WITH
THE CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. CARL
AND SHELBY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITIES OF TRACY, DINUBA AND LA
PALMA AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. YOU, PRESTON YOUNG
FROM THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE HERE TODAY IN
OPPOSITION. MARY CREASY, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY AND CITY OF
ONTARIO IN OPPOSITION. SHARON
GONSALVES ON BEHALF OF THE
CITIES OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
BEAUMONT, EASTVALE AND MERCED IN
OPPOSITION. RYAN, ELAINE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING, BEN
TREVOR, WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES IN OPPOSITION.
LAWRENCE GAYTON, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
IN THE ROOM THAT WISHES TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION, WE WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. AND SINCE
I'M THE ONLY ONE HERE AT THE
COMMITTEE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
SOME COMMENTS. ACTUALLY, I'M A
COAUTHOR TO THIS BILL, AND I
WANTED TO AND I'M GETTING
GETTING A LOT OF HEAT, FROM THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY. BUT I WANT
TO STATE SOME FACTS. I REPRESENT
A VERY RURAL, HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT,
POOR PEOPLE DISTRICT IN
CALIFORNIA AND A LOT OF VERY
SMALL COMMUNITIES THAT, RELY ON
A TAX BASE THAT IS ERODED AND
THAT A TAX BASE HAS ACTUALLY
BEEN TRANSFERRED TO ONLINE
SALES. SO IF YOU'RE IN THE
COMMUNITY THAT I LIVE IN,
BIEBER, WE HAVE ONE MARKET AND
MOST OF MY CONSTITUENTS ARE
ORDERING ONLINE FROM COSTCO,
FROM FROM AMAZON, YOU NAME IT,
AND THEY'RE PAYING A TAX WHEN
THEY BUY THOSE, GOODS AND THAT
THEY NEED. AND THAT TAX IS GOING
TO, LET'S SAY, TRACY, WHERE
THERE IS A AMAZON DISTRIBUTION
CENTER, AND THEN THE CITY OF
TRACY IS ACTUALLY GIVING, TAKING
A PORTION OF THAT TAX THAT'S
BEING PAID AND GIVEN IT TO THE
COMPANY. SO MY TAX BASE THAT I
PAY IS GOING TO NOT MY LOCAL
COMMUNITY WHERE IT WENT BEFORE
WHEN I HAD A RETAILER THERE.
IT'S GOING TO AN ACTUAL PROFIT
CENTER IN TRACY, AND I THINK
THAT THAT'S WRONG. I STILL HAVE
DEPUTY SHERIFFS I NEED TO FIND.
I STILL HAVE THINGS THAT THAT
TAX BASE WAS ORIGINALLY SET UP
FOR TO FUND THOSE SERVICES AT
THOSE LEVELS. NOW NOW WE HAVE
OUR ECONOMIES HAVE CHANGED AND
WE'RE DIVERTING THOSE TAXES. AND
SOME AREAS WHERE THERE ARE
OBVIOUSLY I-5 OR OR A HUB OR
DISTANCES BETWEEN COMMUNITIES,
THEY PROFIT FROM THAT. AND
THAT'S TYPICALLY THE PEOPLE THAT
YOU'RE REPRESENTING HERE HAVE
BEEN PROFITING. BUT ALL OF
CALIFORNIA, THOSE LITTLE
COMMUNITIES OUT THERE ARE NOT
GETTING THEIR TAX BASE. SO
THAT'S THE REASON THAT I SUPPORT
THE SENATOR'S BILL, BECAUSE I
WANT FAIRNESS. AND WHERE MY TAX
BASE GOES. AND THERE'S REASONS
THAT WE ALLOW SALES TAXES FOR
THOSE SERVICES THAT THOSE
COMMUNITIES NEED. AND TO TALK
ABOUT, VEHICLES. RIGHT HERE IN
SACRAMENTO WAS THE REASON WE
DON'T ALLOW VEHICLES. WE HAD CAL
WORTHINGTON. I WANT YOU GUYS
REMEMBER YOU RODE A COW RIGHT
OUTSIDE AND HE WENT TO
ROSEVILLE, AND HE HE BASICALLY,
TOOK THE TAX BASE FROM
SACRAMENTO COUNTY TO ROSEVILLE
OR FROM THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO.
AND THERE WAS A BIG WAR OVER.
AND HE HE GOT A BETTER DEAL OUT
THERE, AND HE WAS ABLE TO, DO
CART. WELL, IT IT STARTED
HAPPENING ALL OVER CALIFORNIA.
AND WHAT DID WE DO? WE CHANGED
THE LAW. THE LAW NOW SAYS
WHEREVER YOU REGISTER THAT
VEHICLE IS WHERE THE TAX BASE
GOES, RIGHT? SO WHEN I BUY A
$50,000 PICKUP IN MY DISTRICT,
THE MONEY GOES TO MY COUNTY,
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE
CERVANTES THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
THE SENATOR HERE IS TRYING TO
DO. SO FOR ALL OF YOU PEOPLE WHO
ARE TAXED PEOPLE, I'M SURPRISED
AT THE OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
YOU KNOW, TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATIONS. I DON'T KNOW WHY.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS BILL
IS BASICALLY SAYING, LET'S PUT
LET'S LET'S LET THIS TAX WHERE
IT'S CONSUMED GO. AND THEN THAT
WE DID IT WITH WE DID IT WITH
VEHICLES BECAUSE IT'S RIGHTEOUS,
IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND
THEN YOU DON'T HAVE COMMUNITIES,
GIVING OUR TAX BASE BACK TO
CORPORATIONS. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS
THE ONES THAT ARE GOOD AT
LOBBYING GET MORE MONEY. AND THE
ONES THAT AREN'T, WHICH ARE MY
COMMUNITIES, DON'T GET IT. SO
FOR THOSE REASONS, SENATOR, I
WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL. I THINK IT'S RIGHTEOUS IN
THE FACE OF ALL THE SPECIAL
INTERESTS THAT'S OUT THERE THAT
IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE
SYSTEM FOR THEIR COMMUNITY. AND
QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S NOT FAIR TO
ALL THE OTHER COMMUNITIES WHO
STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE THOSE
SERVICES WITH NO RESOURCES. SO
THERE'S MY COMMENTS ON YOUR
BILL. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR
DOLLY, FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL
REMARKS. AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF
THE IMPACTS YOU DIDN'T SPEAK TO
BUT IS CERTAINLY WHEN THAT
DELIVERY TRUCK COMES DOWN INTO
YOUR PART OF THE WORLD AND
IMPACTS YOUR ROADS, POTHOLES AND
THE REST WHERE THAT MONEY IS
SUPPOSED TO MITIGATE. YOU DON'T
GET THAT FOR THOSE IMPACTS AS
WELL. YOU KNOW, THEY THE WITNESS
IN OPPOSITION MENTIONED THE
GOVERNOR'S VETO, A FEW YEARS
BACK. AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
MEASURES THAT HE VETOED WAS TO
TRY TO ASCERTAIN WHO WERE THE
WINNERS AND LOSERS UNDER THIS
TAX SCHEME. THAT'S GOING ON. AND
HE HE VETOED THAT BILL. BUT THE
TAX AGENCY DID THE WORK ANYWAY.
AND THEY DETERMINED WHO WINS AND
WHO LOSES UNDER THIS CURRENT TAX
STRUCTURE. AND THEY FOUND OUT
THAT 7% OF THE CITIES GAVE IN
AND 93% OF THE CITIES ARE LOSERS
, 93% ARE LOSERS. AND YOU WANT
TO KNOW WHERE THE 7% ARE.
THEY'RE RIGHT HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM. AND THEY, THEY
THEY GET A LOT OF MONEY FROM
THIS DEAL. AND THEY HIRE
LOBBYISTS AND THEY'RE AND
THEY'RE PRESENT. AND IT'S WHY
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME AROUND
FOR ME ON THIS BILL. IT'S ALWAYS
BEEN CONTENTIOUS BECAUSE THE
OPPOSITION KNOWS THEY HAVE A LOT
TO LOSE. AND THEY AND THEY SHOW
UP. BUT THE FACT IS, IS THAT 90,
93% OF THE CITIES ARE LOSERS.
AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE
CENTRAL VALLEY AND IMPOVERISHED
CITIES, YOU CAN PUT FORWARD SOME
THAT HAVE THAT DEFINITION. BUT
THERE ARE SO MANY NEIGHBORS
RIGHT AROUND YOU THAT ARE IN
THAT EXACT SAME POSITION, AND
YOU'RE STEALING THEIR MONEY.
YOU'RE STEALING THEIR MONEY THAT
THEY NEED FOR THEIR COMMUNITY
AND THEIR SERVICES AND SERVING
THEIR AND THE COMMUNITY AND THE
AND THE CITIZENS THAT ARE THERE
THAT ARE NOT WEALTHY CITIZENS ON
SOME COASTAL ELITE. BUT YOU KNOW
WHO IS NOT HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM TODAY? YOU'RE NOT HAVING
PEOPLE COME FRONT AND CENTER WHO
ARE THE BIGGEST GAINERS OF THIS
WHOLE DEAL OVER $1 BILLION GOING
TO THE BIGGEST COMPANIES IN THE
WORLD, BECAUSE YOU'RE GIVING IT
AWAY BECAUSE IT'S FREE MONEY FOR
YOU. YOU'RE GIVING IT AWAY TO
APPLE COMPUTER. YOU'RE GIVING IT
AWAY TO TARGET, TO WALMART, TO
BEST BUY. THEY'RE NOT HERE IN
THE HEARING ROOM BECAUSE THEY
DON'T WANT TO BE HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM. THEY WANT TO BE IN
THE SHADOWS. YOU ARE PROTECTING
THEM. THESE CITIES THAT HAVE
MADE THESE DEALS ARE PROTECTING
THE WEALTHIEST COMPANIES IN THE
WORLD. IN THE WORLD, BECAUSE YOU
GET A YOU GET SOME SOME PAY IN
YOUR POCKET. AND I SAY TO MY
FRIENDS, BECAUSE I KNOW THEY'RE
WELL INTENTIONED, COME UP WITH
SOME ALTERNATIVES, COME UP WITH
SOME AMENDMENTS THAT THERE'S
BEEN NOTHING PUT FORWARD TO ME
THAT SAYS, HEY, WE'LL TAKE A
PHASED OUT OVER 15 YEARS. SIX
YEARS IS TOO SOON, OR WE'LL DO
THIS OR THAT. THERE'S NO
PROPOSALS TO DO ANY OF THAT OVER
THE MANY YEARS THAT I HAVE
AUTHORED THIS BILL, BECAUSE YOU
WANT TO KEEP THAT MONEY, THAT
ILL GOTTEN GAIN, YOU WANT TO
KEEP IT IN YOUR POCKET, AND
YOU'RE HURTING 93% OF THE OTHER
CITIES IN CALIFORNIA. AND THAT
THAT'S NOT RIGHT. AND WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT TAXES AND, SENATOR
DALY, YOU RAISED THIS. I MEAN,
NO ONE LIKES TO PAY TAXES, BUT
THEY WANT THE SYSTEM TO BE FAIR.
THEY WANT IT TO BE FAIR THAT YOU
CAN'T GAME THE SYSTEM. AND WE
SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THIS
COMMITTEE AND IN THIS
LEGISLATURE TRYING TO DEAL WITH
THE GAMING OF THE SYSTEM,
BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO PAY IT.
BUT LET ME AT LEAST KNOW THAT
IT'S BEING DONE FAIRLY AND WITH
THE INTERNET, THE RISE OF THE
INTERNET IS NOT BEING DONE
FAIRLY AS, AS AS I'VE TESTIFIED
TO IN SENATOR DOLLY, ARTICULATE,
WE HAVE TO HAVE A SYSTEM THAT'S
FAIR. AND SO I KNOW I'VE GONE ON
TOO LONG, BUT IT'S, THIS THIS
BILL INSPIRES ME, AND THAT'S
WHAT HAPPENS. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR VOTE TODAY
. THANK YOU. AS SOON AS WE GET
ANOTHER MEMBER HERE, I'LL BE
HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION FOR YOUR
BILL
.
ALL RIGHT. WE WELCOME TO THE
PODIUM, OUR NEXT AUTHOR. THIS IS
FILED ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SB 1135.
SENATOR LEMON, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR PATIENCE HERE TODAY AND FOR
HAVING TO LISTEN TO SOME OF THIS
EARLIER TESTIMONY. AND THE FLOOR
IS YOURS. WOW, CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR, WHAT'S STRONG AND
POWERFUL? COMMENTS. GOOD MORNING
. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK
ON THIS BILL. AND I WOULD LIKE
TO ACCEPT THE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS. COMPOST APPLICATION
ON AGRICULTURE AND RANGELANDS IS
BENEFICIAL PRACTICE AS IT
REPAIRS SOIL HEALTH, CONSERVES
WATER, INCREASES CARBON
SEQUESTRATION IN SOIL, AND
REDUCES OVERALL CARBON IN THE
ATMOSPHERE. THE 2022 CARB AB 32
SCOPING PLAN FURTHER IDENTIFIES
COMPOST AS A STRATEGY TO REDUCE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AIDING
IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE
CHANGE. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT
COMPOST IS EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE,
TRANSPORT AND APPLY TO LAND. SB
1135 ESTABLISHES A TAX CREDIT
FOR CALIFORNIA FARMERS,
RANCHERS, AND LANDOWNERS WHO
EMPLOY FARMING AND RANCHING
PRACTICES THAT MAXIMIZE CARBON
SEQUESTRATION THROUGH THE
UTILIZATION OF COMPOST ON
NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS. THE
BILL CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATES
1% OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION FUND TO A NEW FUND,
THE CALIFORNIA COMPOST TAX
CREDIT FUND, NOT TO EXCEED 120
MILLION ANNUALLY FOR TEN YEARS
TO FULLY PAY FOR THE TAX CREDIT
I HAVE WITH ME TODAY, JENNIFER
GALEHOUSE, ON BEHALF OF THE
PEOPLE, FOOD AND LAND FOUNDATION
AND MICHAEL MILLER FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINE
GRAPE GROWERS TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU,
SENATOR LEMON. WE HAVE TWO
WITNESSES. WE WELCOME YOU. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH AND YOU
CAN BEGIN. WHY DON'T YOU CHECK
YOUR MICROPHONE VOLUME THERE?
TRY IT ONE MORE TIME. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBER NØ
COMMITTEE. THERE WE GO. OH,
THANK YOU. OKAY. SENATOR DALLI,
MY NAME IS JENNIFER GALEHOUSE,
AND I'M HERE WITH THE PEOPLE
FOOD AND LAND FOUNDATION, WHO IS
AN ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
IN RURAL COMMUNITIES, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, AND ALSO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY FARMS. I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR INTRODUCING
THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE THAT WILL
NOT ONLY HELP IMPROVE THE SOIL
FOR RANCHERS AND FARMERS, BUT
WILL ALSO IMPACT THE HEALTH OF
FOOD AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. AS, AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, COMPOSTING IS IT'S A
WAY TO REPURPOSE ORGANIC
MATERIALS. AND THE MAJOR
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ARE
CARBON SEQUESTRATION, SOIL
HEALTH IMPROVEMENT AND SOIL
WATER RETENTION, WHICH WILL
ACTUALLY REDUCE THE NEED FOR
IRRIGATION AND THE ASSOCIATED
ENERGY USE WITH IRRIGATION.
COMPOST IS INTERESTING BECAUSE
JUST ONE APPLICATION CAN
CONTINUE TO SEQUESTER CARBON AND
REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FOR UP TO BETWEEN IT'S ESTIMATED
30 TO 70 YEARS. THAT'S JUST ONE
APPLICATION. AND IT'S ALSO COST
EFFECTIVE. THE ACTUAL COST IS
STILL BEING STUDIED, BUT IT'S
ESTIMATED THAT FOR BETWEEN 50 TO
$110, YOU CAN REDUCE, ONE TON,
ONE METRIC TON OF CO2
EQUIVALENT. SO WITH THAT, I'D
LIKE TO CLOSE BY SAYING SB 1135
HAS THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF A
GRANT PROGRAM, BUT THE
AVAILABILITY OF A TAX CREDIT. SO
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. AND THEN I'M AVAILABLE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. NEXT WITNESS, GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS MICHAEL MILLER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINE
GRAPE GROWERS. I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR HER LEADERSHIP ON
THIS BILL, AND WE THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR ITS THOROUGH
ANALYSIS OF FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE BILL. AND I ALSO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE OUR CO SPONSORSHIP
HERE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
INDUSTRY WHERE YOU HAVE AG AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COMING TOGETHER,
WORKING ON ON THIS IMPORTANT
ISSUE SHOULD SPEAK TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE AND HOW
WE CAN COME TOGETHER AND WORK
TOGETHER, THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINE
GRAPE GROWERS, WE REPRESENT
BASICALLY THE VINEYARD AND THE
WINE INDUSTRY. WE GROW THE
GRAPES THAT MAKE THE WINE FOR
US, SUSTAINABILITY IS A BIG
ISSUE. WE'VE PARTNERED WITH THE
WINE INSTITUTE TO CREATE THE
CALIFORNIA SUSTAINABLE
SUSTAINABLE WINE GROWING
ALLIANCE. AND IN THAT EFFORT, WE
CERTIFY GROWERS THE
SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IS
A BIG PART OF THAT CONVERSATION.
WATER CONSERVATION, SOIL, SOIL
HEALTH, ALL OF THAT IS VERY
IMPORTANT. AND THAT'S IN THAT
PROGRAM. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES
WE HAVE TODAY, WHILE WE HAVE A
HUGE INTEREST FROM OUR GROWERS
IN MOVING THAT DIRECTION AND
GETTING THAT DONE, THERE ARE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT GET
IN THE WAY. OUR INDUSTRY IS
FACING SOME SIGNIFICANT,
ECONOMIC CHALLENGES,
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC
CHALLENGES, AND THE FACT THAT
GLOBALLY, THE WINE INDUSTRY HAS
TAKEN A PRETTY BIG HIT RIGHT NOW
IN FRANCE, THEY SPENT ROUGHLY
$250 MILLION TO SUBSIDIZE THE
FRENCH, WINERIES TO NOT SELL
WINE ANYMORE, TO TRY TO
STABILIZE THAT MARKET IN CANADA,
OREGON. THEY'VE ALSO PUT MONEY
INTO THE WINE INDUSTRY TO HELP
STABILIZE THINGS. THE REALITY IN
CALIFORNIA IS THAT WE'VE GOT
TAKE OUT BETWEEN 30,000 AND
50,000 ACRES OF GRAPES JUST TO
GET BACK TO EQUILIBRIUM IN THE
MARKET SUPPLY DEMAND. SO WHEN
WE'RE LOOKING AT GROWERS, WE'RE
TRYING TO, ON A DAY TO DAY
BASIS, PAY THE BILLS AND GET
THINGS DONE. IT'S HARD TO GO TO
THEM WITH A STRAIGHT FACE AND
SAY, HEY, INVEST IN THINGS LIKE
COMPOSTING. YES, IT'S GOOD. IT
HELPS THEM. IT HELPS THE
ENVIRONMENT OF FIGHTING CLIMATE
CHANGE, THE WHOLE THING. BUT
WHEN THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT IN THE
SHORT TERME, IT'S A REAL
CHALLENGE FOR THEM. AND THAT IS
WHERE THIS BILL WILL STEP IN. IT
WILL HELP THEM OUT. IT WILL HELP
THEM, ENGAGE IN THESE PRACTICES
IN THE SHORT TERME WHICH HAVE
LONG TERME BENEFITS. AND THAT IS
WHY WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO TURN
TO OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE HERE
WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND DO A
ME TWO IN FAVOR. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS. JEAN HURST HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE SANTA
BARBARA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. AARON NORWOOD,
REPRESENTING THE ALLMAN ALLIANCE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING, NOEL CRAMER WITH
WINE INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS,
MADISON D¯ÚI WITH POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
FAMILY WINEMAKERS OF CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, PRESTON
YOUNG FROM THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HERE TODAY
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
NICOLAS MAZZOTTI, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE AND
COMPOST COALITION IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. TERRIFIC. THANK YOU
ALL. OKAY WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
OPPOSITION, SEEING NONE. WE'LL
BRING THE MATTER BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. YES, SENATOR DOLLY, I
JUST WANT TO SAY, I LOVE THIS
BILL. I'M AN ORGANIC FARMER, AND
WE'VE BEEN DOING COMPOSTING FOR
A LONG TIME, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY
HAVE REALLY GREAT DATA ON WATER
RETENTION, CARBON SEQUESTRATION.
WE DO. WE USE BIOCHAR AS OUR
MAIN, AG OR AS TO OUR SOIL,
ALONG WITH COMPOSTING BACK IN
OUR WE DON'T WE'RE NOT WE DO
ANNUAL CROPS, THOUGH. NOT NOT,
LIKE AN ORCHARD OR OR SOMETHING
THAT IS, YOU KNOW, MANY YEARS
REMOVED. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION
THOUGH. SO IS THIS AVAILABLE TO
ALL TYPES OF AND WHAT'S THE
CRITERIA, TO GET IN THE PROGRAM,
I GUESS, AND RECEIVE THE, THE
BENEFITS. WE'VE DEFERRED THE
CRITERIA TO THE REGULATORY
PROCESS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
FOOD AND AG TO DEVELOP THAT
CRITERIA. SO THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY
IN THE BILL. THEY'LL BE
DEVELOPING THE REGULATIONS FOR
THE PROGRAM. SO ONE OF THE
THINGS I JUST WANT TO MENTION AS
AS A FAMILY FARMER AND SOMEBODY
WHO HAS A SMALL BUSINESS, RIGHT,
SO WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE
SOME MEGA FARMS THAT ARE GOING
TO BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE
PROCESS. BUT FOR THOSE, SMALL,
YOU KNOW, FAMILY FARMS, IT'S THE
PROCESS USUALLY DEFEATS THE
ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO GET THE
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE, OF THE,
OF THE PROGRAM. SO I WOULD
ENCOURAGE THEM TO MAKE IT SO
THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ARE
CERTIFIED ORGANIC OR DOING THOSE
THINGS OR APPLYING THESE,
COMPOSTING AND STUFF TO THEIR
LANDS THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO GET
THROUGH THE PROCESS AND ACTUALLY
GET ADVANTAGE BECAUSE WE ARE ALL
AG IN CALIFORNIA. OVER THE LAST
3 OR 4 YEARS, WE'VE SEEN, YOU
KNOW, COMPETITION AND, YOU KNOW,
REGULATION WHERE IT'S BEING VERY
DIFFICULT TO AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S
A WORLDWIDE MARKET. AND SO WE'RE
NOT COMPETITIVE. AND SO WE NEED
TO BE ABLE TO STAY COMPETITIVE.
AND THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING
I WOULD JUST HOPEFULLY COMES OUT
RIGHT. SO THAT THOSE OF US WHO
DON'T HAVE AN HR DEPARTMENT,
SOMEBODY WRITING A GRANT FOR US,
CAN GET THROUGH THE PROCESS TO
ACTUALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DOING
GOOD THINGS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
AND DOING GOOD THINGS FOR THE
FOOD CHAIN. WE DO ANTICIPATE AS
THE BILL CONTINUES TO MOVE
THROUGH THE PROCESS, WORKING
WITH THE POLICY COMMITTEES, THE
TWO HERE IN THE SENATE AS WELL
AS THOSE IN THE ASSEMBLY, ON
GIVING MORE DIRECTION TOWARDS
THE DEPARTMENT, ON WHAT THE
REGULATIONS SHOULD INCLUDE AND
THE ORGANIZATION. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF. ALSO, IS INTERESTED
IN THE SAME THINGS YOU ARE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
DODD. YES JUST REALLY SHORT, I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. YOU KNOW, OUR
AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITIES HAVE
HAD REALLY A DISPROPORTIONATE
SHARE OF BURDEN ON ALL THE WIDE
VARIETY OF POLICIES THAT WE'VE
HAD THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IT'S HIGH TIME THAT,
WE DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. SO I
APPRECIATE THIS. AND I'LL BE
VOTING AYE ON THIS TODAY. THANK
YOU. GREAT. AND I JOINED IN MY
COLLEAGUES PRAISE FOR THE BILL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP IN
THIS AREA, I THINK THE CHALLENGE
WILL BE LESS POLICY AND MORE
BUDGET, BUT I WISH YOU WELL WITH
THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU. AND I WILL JUST SAY,
MEMBERS. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THIS
IS SENATOR DALI'S LAST YEAR IN
THE LEGISLATURE, BUT, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S BEEN AN EVOLUTION IN
TERMS OF. THERE'S A COUPLE OF
BILL HE LIKES OF MINE, BUT I
HAVE TO JUST RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU
KNOW, IT DOES TAKE THE
LEGISLATURE A LITTLE TIME TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK ON MUTUAL
THINGS THAT ARE OF MUTUAL
INTEREST. AND SO THIS IS ONE
EXAMPLE OF REALLY LOOKING AT THE
AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO
WHAT WAS COMING FROM THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY TO SAY,
HOW DO WE BRIDGE THAT? AND IT
HAS TAKEN TIME. BUT, YOU KNOW,
I'M VERY RESPECTFUL OF THAT AND
ALSO JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT IT'S NOT TIME ALONE. IT'S
ALSO THE PREVIOUS WORK,
INCLUDING THE WORK THAT HE AND
OTHERS HAVE DONE IN THE
LEGISLATURE, TO KIND OF GET US
HERE AND SAY WE FOUND SOMETHING,
SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR MUTUAL,
YOU KNOW, GROUPS, THAT AND
STAKEHOLDERS ON, ON ON SOMETHING
LIKE THIS. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. LOOKING FOR A
MOTION? ALL RIGHT. SENATOR DALI,
THE LAME DUCK NÓ THE Þ. NO, NO,
NO. BIEBER. HE JOINS TWO OTHERS.
OH THE WHOLE PANEL. OH MY GOD.
WOW. YEAH. LIKE JUST LOOK,
BECAUSE WE MAY NOT BE HERE THE
NEXT TIME. YOU. MY GOODNESS. ALL
RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION. IT'S Dð
PASS, IS THERE AN AMENDMENT TO
THAT? YES, YES, AND I ACCEPTED
THE Dð PASSES, AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR.
GLASER. GLASER. AYE DOLLY.
DOLLY. AYE. ASHBY. BRADFORD
BRADFORD. AYE. DODD. DODD. AYE
PADILLA. SKINNER. 420. ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES. I THANK YOU, SENATOR
LEMON. CLEAN UP. YEAH, WE WILL,
SIR, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR OUR
FINAL AUTHOR, SENATOR ASHBY, IF
HER OFFICE IS PAYING ATTENTION,
WE'D LOVE YOU TO COME DOWN TO
THE COMMITTEE, YOU'RE BETWEEN US
AND LUNCH IS YOUR BILL. BUT WE
HAVE THREE MEASURES THAT DID NOT
GET MOTIONS EARLIER TODAY. WE
HAVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. FIRST
UP, IS THERE A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR? SO MOVED BY
SENATOR BRADFORD. SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS A
FILE ITEM TEN AND 11 SB 1527 AND
1528. SENATOR GLASER. GLASER I
DOLLY. DOLLY I ASHBY. BRADFORD
BRADFORD I DODD. DODD I PADILLA.
SKINNER 40 ZERO. THAT'S ON CALL
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. WE NEEDED A
MOTION ON FILE ITEM ONE SB 964,
MOVED BY SENATOR DOLLY. THIS IS
A DO PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR
GLASER. GLASER AYE. DOLLY.
DOLLY. AYE. ASHBY. BRADFORD
BRADFORD. AYE. DODD. DODD. AYE
PADILLA. SKINNER. 40 ZERO. ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. WE HAVE ONE
MORE MEASURE WITHOUT A MOTION.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NINE, SB 1494.
IS THERE A MOTION MOVE BY
SENATOR DOLLY, THIS IS A, DO
PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATOR. GLASER. GLASER. AYE
DOLLY. DOLLY. AYE. ASHBY.
BRADFORD BRADFORD. AYE. DODD.
DODD. AYE PADILLA. SKINNER. 4 TO
0. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO THROUGH
THE OTHER ITEMS TO CATCH
EVERYONE UP. WHO WAS ABSENT
EARLIER TODAY? WE'LL GO NEXT TO
FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO. THIS IS
SENATOR WIENER'S 1031.
SECRETARY, PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL.
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS WITH THE CHAIR
VOTING. AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. CURRENT VOTE IS 3 TO 1.
SENATORS. ASHBY. PADILLA SKINNER
3 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING
TO MOVE TO FILE ITEM THREE SB
1227 BY SENATOR WEINER. PLEASE
OPEN THE ROLL. MOTION IS TO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS WITH THE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. CURRENT VOTE IS 2 TO 1.
SENATORS ASHBY. DODD AYE. DODD.
AYE PADILLA. SKINNER 3 TO 1. ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. WE'LL MOVE
NEXT TO FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
THIS IS SB 1362 BY SENATOR
NEWMAN. MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. VÌ, CHAIR VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
CURRENT VOTE IS 3 TO 0.
SENATORS. ASHBY. DODD DODD. AYE.
PADILLA. SKINNER 4 TO 0. PUT
THAT ON CALL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
WE'LL MOVE NEXT TO FILE ITEM
SIX. THIS IS SB 1013 BY SENATOR
BRADFORD. PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL.
A MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE WITH
THE VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
CURRENT VOTE FOR THE VICE CHAIR.
CURRENT VOTE IS 2 TO 0.
SENATORS. DOLLY ASHBY DODD AYE.
DODD AYE. PADILLA. SKINNER 3 TO
0. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, THAT CATCHES US UP. I
BELIEVE WE'LL WAIT FOR OUR FINAL
AUTHOR TO COME FORWARD AND. YOUR
BILL. I THINK YOU ALREADY VOTED
ON THAT. VOTE ON THAT? YES. YEAH
SO WE'LL WE'LL BE IN SHORT
RECESS AS WE WAIT FOR OUR FINAL
AUTHOR
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO COME
BACK, SENATE AND TAXES, BACK TO
ORDER. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH
THE ROLL FOR A, RETURNING
MEMBER. WE'LL START WITH FILE
ITEM NUMBER ONE. THIS IS SB 964.
SECRETARY OPENED THE ROLL MOTION
IS TO PASS THIS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO 0. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. SENATORS ASHBY. PADILLA.
SKINNER ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE
NEXT TO FILE ITEM NUMBER. ASHBY.
ASHBY I 5 TO 0, OKAY. WELL,
LET'S LET'S PAUSE THAT. NOW. WE
HAVE AN AUTHOR HERE, SO WE'LL GO
BACK THROUGH THE ROLL IN JUST A
MOMENT, BUT LET'S MOVE NOW TO
FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. THIS IS
SB 1035 BY SENATOR ASHBY. I KNOW
IT'S BEEN DOUBLE AND TRIPLE
BOOKED TODAY. THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE I APOLOGIZE, BLAME
SENATOR NEWMAN. OKAY THANK YOU
SO MUCH, CHAIRMAN GLASER. I'M
HERE TODAY TO PRESENT SB 1035,
WHICH SEEKS TO BETTER REFORM THE
STRUCTURE OF RESTITUTION
PAYMENTS. I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. I'D
LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF AND THE CHAIRMAN HIMSELF
FOR THEIR INPUT AND HELP.
RESTITUTION FINES ARE PAID TO
THE VICTIMS COMPENSATION BOARD
BY INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF
CRIMES IN AN ATTEMPT TO HOLD
THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
FINANCIAL LOSSES THAT THEY'VE
CAUSED TO THEIR VICTIMS AND
VICTIMS FAMILIES. RESTITUTION.
IN THEORY, AIMS TO SERVE AS A
FORM OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE BY
PROMOTING FORGIVENESS,
RESOLUTION OF DAMAGES, AND OF
COURSE, ACCOUNTABILITY. HOWEVER,
RESTITUTION FINES IN ACTUAL
PRACTICE HAVE OFTENTIMES FAILED
TO MAKE ANY OR ALL PARTIES
WHOLE. VICTIM RESTITUTION CAN
EASILY EXCEED AMOUNTS IN THE
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, ON
TOP OF WHICH THERE'S ACCRUING
INTEREST BY THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD UP TO 10. CURRENTLY, 80%
OF PEOPLE WHO OWE RESTITUTION
LIVE IN POVERTY, AND AN
UNCERTAIN INTEREST RATE FURTHER
EXACERBATE AN ALREADY DIRE
SITUATION. SB 1035 SEEKS TO
REFORM THE RESTITUTION PROCESS
TO ENSURE VICTIMS ARE PROPERLY
COMPENSATED, INCLUDING TODAY'S
AMEND TYING THE INTEREST RATES
ON RESTITUTION PAYMENTS TO
INFLATION NOT EXCEEDING 10,
ALLOWING INCREASED FLEXIBILITY
BY REQUIRING RESTITUTION
PAYMENTS BE PAID BEFORE
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THAT
SHOULD KEEP VICTIMS WHOLE
SOONER, AND IMPLEMENTING A
SLIDING SCALE MODEL FOR THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.
GARNISHMENTS THAT CONSIDER
INCOME AND ABILITY TO PAY AS
DETERMINING FACTORS. SB 1035
SEEKS TO REFORM THE STRUCTURE OF
RESTITUTION PAYMENTS BY BETTER
ENSURING VICTIMS OR COMPENSATED
FIRST AND IN A TIMELY MANNER,
WHILE ALSO EASING THE BURDEN FOR
PEOPLE TRYING TO REINTEGRATE
BACK INTO THEIR COMMUNITIES, PAY
OFF THEIR DEBT, AND MOVE FORWARD
WITH PRODUCTIVE LIVES. I DO HAVE
A COUPLE OF SUPPORT WITNESSES
HERE WITH ME TODAY, MR. CHAIR
MICHAEL MENDOZA FROM THE
ANTI-RECIDIVISM COALITION AND,
SOMEBODY FROM THE CALIFORNIA
STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE ON
BEHALF OF FIONA MA. TERRIFIC.
THANK YOU. SENATOR. WE WELCOME
YOUR WITNESSES. TWO MINUTES EACH
AND YOU CAN BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE
READY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I AM CONNIE CHAN,
LEGISLATIVE MANAGER FOR THE
CALIFORNIA STATE TREASURER.
FIONA MA, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
A SB 1035. THIS MEASURE SEEKS TO
DIRECTLY GET MORE RESTITUTION
MONIES BACK TO VICTIMS FAMILIES
WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY HELPING TO
LOWER THE RATES OF RECIDIVISM IN
OUR STATE. SB 1035 PROPOSES
REFORMS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES
BY REDUCING INTEREST RATES ON
RESTITUTION PAYMENTS,
PRIORITIZING RESTITUTION
PAYMENTS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS, AND IMPLEMENTING A
SLIDING SCALE MODEL FOR
GARNISHMENTS THAT CONSIDERS
INDIVIDUALS INCOME AND ABILITY
TO PAY RESTITUTION. FINES
ATTEMPT TO HOLD THOSE ORDERED
WITH RESTITUTION ACCOUNTABLE FOR
THE FINANCIAL LOSSES THEY HAVE
CAUSED TO THE VICTIMS OF THEIR
OFFENSES. THIS IS THIS IS NOT
MEANT TO SERVE AS A PUNISHMENT,
BUT RATHER A FORM OF RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE. HOWEVER RESTITUTION
FINES OFTEN FALL SHORT OF
PARTIALLY OR FULLY COMPENSATING
ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. LESS THAN
1% OF SURVIVORS RECEIVE
RESTITUTION AS ORDERED, AND 67%
OF SURVIVORS RECEIVE NO
RESTITUTION OR VICTIM
COMPENSATION AT ALL. THIS IS NOT
AT THE FAULT OF THOSE PAYING
RESTITUTION. MOST OF THEM ARE
LIVING IN POVERTY AND ARE UNABLE
TO PAY THIS INABILITY TO PAY OFF
RESTITUTION DEBT LEADS TO HIGHER
CASES OF RECIDIVISM. THE PROBLEM
IS EXACERBATED BY HIGH INTEREST
RATES AND WAGE GARNISHMENTS
IMPOSED BY RESTITUTION FINES.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE CURRENT
RESTITUTION SYSTEM
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS
INDIVIDUALS FROM LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES AND BACKGROUNDS.
PREPARATORY PERPETRATING THE
RACIAL WEALTH GAP AND SYSTEMIC
INEQUITIES. BY REDUCING BARRIERS
TO MAKE THESE PAYMENTS ON TIME,
WE ARE ENSURING THAT MORE MONEY
GOES DIRECTLY TO VICTIMS AND
THEIR FAMILIES INSTEAD OF IN
INTEREST CHARGES MADE TO THE
STATE. UNLIKE OTHER DEBT,
RESTITUTION, HAS NO STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS AND IS NOT
DISCHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.
CONSEQUENTLY, THIS DEBT CAN
FOLLOW FORMERLY INCARCERATED
PEOPLE FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.
FOR INDIVIDUALS REINTEGRATING
INTO THEIR COMMUNITIES AFTER
SERVING THEIR SENTENCES, PAYING
OFF RESTITUTION FINES CAN BE A
SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO MOVING
FORWARD WITH THEIR LIVES. SB
1035 ALLOWS FORMERLY
INCARCERATED PEOPLE NOT ONLY THE
ABILITY TO ASSIMILATE, BUT ALSO
GIVE BACK THEIR RESTITUTION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. NEXT. NEXT WITNESS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
MICHAEL MENDOZA, AND I'M A
CONSULTANT ON JUVENILE AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AS WELL AS A
MEMBER OF THE ANTI-RECIDIVISM
COALITION. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1053, WHICH IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE
LIKE MYSELF WHO ARE PREVIOUSLY
INCARCERATED, BUT ALSO TO MANY
AMERICANS WHO ARE TAXPAYING
CITIZENS OF THIS STATE. AND THIS
BILL TO LOWER THE INTEREST RATES
AND APPLY AN ABILITY TO PAY A
STYLE OF GARNISHMENT WOULD BE
INCREDIBLY USEFUL TO SO MANY
PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO PAY THEIR
RESTITUTION. CURRENT
GARNISHMENTS DON'T REALLY TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION A LOT OF
FACTORS THAT GO INTO MAKING IT
HARDER FOR DEBTORS TO PAY THEIR
THEIR GARNISHMENT, THEIR, THEIR
RESTITUTION, FOR EXAMPLE, I
MYSELF UNFORTUNATELY SERVED
CLOSE TO 18 YEARS FROM THE AGE
OF 15 TO 32, AN ADULT STATE
PRISONS. THROUGHOUT THAT TIME,
THERE WERE NO RESOURCES OR
ANYTHING AVAILABLE TO ME TO BE
ABLE TO EARN A LIVABLE WAGE AND
BE ABLE TO PAY MY FINANCIAL
RESTITUTION. ONCE I WAS ABLE TO
FINALLY EARN MY WAY HOME IN
2014, THERE WERE STILL A LOT OF
THINGS THAT WEREN'T TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION. THAT INABILITY TO
PAY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO UPON
RELEASE, I, I GOT A FULL TIME
JOB, MINIMUM WAGE. I WAS GOING
TO SCHOOL AT S.F. STATE
UNIVERSITY TO EARN MY BA DEGREE.
BUT WHEN THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
SENDS ME A LETTER SAYING THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO GARNISH MY
WAGES, THAT WAS A THREAT TO MY
BASIC LIVING NEEDS, ONE THAT I
DIDN'T KNOW HOW I WAS GOING TO
FINANCIALLY GIVE WHILE I WAS OUT
HERE TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING,
NOT HAVING ANYTHING AT ALL TO MY
NAME, TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND
SO FOR THIS BILL TO MAKE THOSE
SIMPLE CHANGES WOULD GO A LONG
WAY FOR TAXPAYING AMERICANS LIKE
MYSELF, TO BE ABLE TO GIVE BACK
AND MAKE THE AMENDS AND GIVE THE
IMPORTANT DOLLARS TO OUR VICTIMS
THAT ARE DESERVED. THIS IS A
SIMPLE BILL THAT JUST HELPS
PEOPLE, HELPS DEBTORS BE ABLE TO
PAY BACK TO SOCIETY WHERE IT'S
OWED, TO BE ABLE TO LOWER THAT
INTEREST RATE AND APPLY AN
ABILITY TO PAY STYLE OF
GARNISHMENTS. AND FOR THAT, WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. WE'RE
GOING TO NOW OPEN UP THE
MICROPHONE TO THOSE WHO IN THE
HEARING ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE THEIR POSITION IN
SUPPORT. THIS IS A ME TOO
OPPORTUNITY. SO JUST NAME AND
AFFILIATION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS DAN SEAMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE REENTRY PROVIDERS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND CRIME,
SURVIVORS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE, AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. ESPARZA NUNEZ, ON
BEHALF OF SISTER WARRIORS IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SIR.
GOOD MORNING. HENRY ORTIZ WITH
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN AND ALL OF US IN
SACRAMENTO. AND ON BEHALF OF
COMMUNITY HEALERS AS WELL IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, WE'LL GO
TO WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION WOULD
LIKE TO COME FORWARD. THANK YOU.
HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, I'M GRETCHEN
LICHTENBERGER. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF JUDGMENT
PROFESSIONS, AND I APPEAR BEFORE
YOU ON BEHALF OF ALL VICTIMS OF
CRIME. WE RESPECTFULLY AND
ADAMANTLY OPPOSE SB 1035. THIS
MEASURE ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZES
CRIME. WHY NOT STEAL MONEY,
INVEST IT AT A HIGHER RATE, AND
IF YOU GET CAUGHT, YOU ONLY HAVE
TO PAY LESS THAN 1% INTEREST ON
THAT MONEY. THAT'S A TERRIFIC
IDEA FOR PERPETRATORS. BUT A
TERRIBLE IDEA FOR THE VICTIMS. I
WOULD LOVE SOMEONE TO LOAN ME 1%
MONEY AT 1. SO PLEASE UNDERSTAND
THAT RESTITUTION HAS TWO
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
COMPONENTS. FIVE NINES ARE THE
STATUTORY PENALTY. THE CRIMINALS
ARE ORDERED TO PAY TO THE STATE
OF THE COUNTY, WHEREAS THE
RESTITUTION ORDER IS THE MONEY
THAT GOES TO THE VICTIMS. IF THE
STATE OR COUNTY DOESN'T NEED
INTEREST ON THEIR MONEY, THAT'S
FINE. SO BE IT. HOWEVER, PLEASE
DON'T TAKE THE INTEREST MONEY
FROM THE VICTIMS. THEY'RE THE
ONES THAT HAVE LOST OUT AND HAD
THEIR MONEY OR PROPERTY TAKEN.
EVERY JUDGMENT CREDITOR, BE IT
CRIMINAL RESTITUTION OR
OTHERWISE, HAS THE ABILITY TO
SETTLE THE JUDGMENT FOR LESS
MONEY. THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR WHO
OWES THAT MONEY, ALL THEY HAVE
TO DO IS PICK UP THE PHONE AND
CALL THE VICTIM AND MAKE
ARRANGEMENTS. DON'T CHOOSE HOW
MUCH INTEREST SHOULD BE SHOULD
BE GIVEN TO THE VICTIMS. THEY'RE
THE ONES THAT LOST THE USE OF
THEIR MONEY. THE AUTHOR FAILED
TO PROVIDE STATISTICS ON THE
PERCENTAGE OF RESTITUTION ORDERS
THAT ARE VOLUNTARILY PAID. I'VE
BEEN WORKING A LONG TIME IN
VICTIM RESTITUTION ORDERS AND I
CAN TELL YOU THAT VERY FEW
PEOPLE VOLUNTARILY PAY. IT'S NOT
THE INTEREST RATE THAT THEY
CHOOSE NOT TO PAY. YOU CAN SUM
UP, PLEASE, THE, PLEASE VOTE NO
ON SB 1035 TO PREVENT FURTHER
VICTIMIZATION OF THESE POOR
VICTIMS OF SENSELESS CRIMES, LET
THEM CHOOSE THE INTEREST RATE.
LEAVE IT AT 10. PLEASE FOR THE
VICTIMS, THE FINES CAN BE
LOWERED IF NECESSARY AND I'M
AVAILABLE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR COMING HERE TODAY. ANYBODY
ELSE IN OPPOSITION WANT TO COME
TO THE MICROPHONE. ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE. WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE FOR COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS. MEMBERS COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ON THE MEASURE,
SKINNER, I WILL MOVE THE BILL.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR WITNESSES.
I APPRECIATE ESPECIALLY HEARING
FIRSTHAND FROM SOMEONE WHO FACED
THE RESTITUTION FEE AND WHO HAS
CLEARLY BEEN CONVEYED, WANT
WANTED AND WAS COMMITTED TO
MAKING THAT RESTITUTION AND YET
STILL SURVIVING AND WE KNOW THAT
PERSONS WITH WITH A RECORD WHO
HAVE SERVED TIME AND THOSE ARE
MOSTLY THE PEOPLE THAT GET THE
RESTITUTION JUDGMENTS, HAVE
DIFFICULTY GETTING EMPLOYMENT
AND OUGHT VERY OFTEN THE
EMPLOYMENT THEY DO GET IS AT LOW
WAGES. AND SO IT IS DIFFICULT TO
PAY. BUT WE WANT THEM TO MAKE
GOOD ON THOSE COMMITMENTS. BUT
WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO
INCENTIVIZE RECIDIVISM. SO I
THINK WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO
DO WITHIN A LOT OF OUR
ADJUSTMENTS TO, TO CURRENT LAWS
IN THE BOOKS IS TO SUPPORT THOSE
WHO HAVE RETURNED TO OUR
COMMUNITIES, SUPPORT THEM SO
THEY CAN THRIVE, LIVE, AND
ACTUALLY FUNCTION WELL, AND MAKE
THEIR RESTITUTION AND NOT
RECIDIVATE. AND I THINK THIS
BILL IS IN THAT SPIRIT. SO I
THINK THE AUTHOR AND I'M HAPPY
TO MOVE IT. ANY OTHER FURTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? SENATOR
ASHBY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK
IN THIS AREA. I THINK I, AS YOU
KNOW, AGREE WITH YOU THAT A 10%
IS NOT A REASONABLE INTEREST
RATE. SURPRISED IT'S LASTED THIS
LONG BEFORE SOMEONE LIKE YOU HAS
COME FORWARD TO PROPERLY CORRECT
IT. I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO HAVE THE
RATE MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATE
THE RATE OF INFLATION, WHICH IS
PROBABLY IN THE 3 TO 4% RANGE.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL ALLOW YOU TO
CLOSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALSO, JUST THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND
WAITING FOR ME. I'M VERY SORRY
ABOUT THAT. BUT YOU KNOW,
SENATOR SKINNER SAYS THIS ALL
THE TIME. THERE'S NO ONE BILL
THAT'S GOING TO FIX ANY OF THESE
ISSUES. AND RECIDIVISM IS ONE OF
THE TOUGHEST ISSUES THAT WE FACE
IN THIS STATE. IF IT WAS EASY,
SOME SENATORS SMARTER THAN ME,
LONG BEFORE ME, WOULD HAVE
ALREADY RUN THAT BILL. BUT THE
THING IS, WE CAN TAKE
INCREMENTAL STEPS TO HELP PEOPLE
BE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR
ENDEAVORS. WHEN THEY ARE
RELEASED. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
INCREMENTAL STEPS. AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO
THIS ITEM AND URGING. I VOTE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ASHBY. SHE'S
CLOSED. I'LL RECOGNIZE THE
MOTION FROM SENATOR SKINNER.
THIS IS A DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS. SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR
GLASER. GLASER. AYE DOLLY.
ASHBY. AYE. ASHBY. AYE BRADFORD.
BRADFORD. AYE DODD. DODD. AYE.
PADILLA. SKINNER SKINNER. AYE. 5
TO 0. WE'LL PUT THAT ON. ON CALL
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
SENATOR, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT
WE'RE NOW FINISHED OUR AGENDA
FOR THE DAY, THAT WE DO HAVE
SOME MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT
PRESENT. WE'RE GOING TO GO
THROUGH THE RULE, AND I WANT TO
MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE RECORDED ON
THESE BILLS. WE HEARD TODAY. WE
HAVE ANY UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF
A COUPLE MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT
HERE. SENATOR B IS STILL IN THE
MIDDLE OF A BILL. OKAY ALL
RIGHT. OKAY. SO THANKS EVERYBODY
.
ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE
GOING TO START ONCE MORE AT THE
TOP, THIS IS, FILE ITEM NUMBER
ONE SB 964, SECRETARY, PLEASE
OPEN THE ROLL, WE DID THAT ONE.
AND JUST GIVE EVERYBODY A
CHANCE. ONE MORE. ONE LAST TIME.
THERE WE DID GET HER. WE DID GET
SENATOR ASHBY, SHE ADDED AT THE
END. RIGHT LET'S JUST CALL IT.
JUST GO AHEAD AND CALL THROUGH
THE ABSENT MEMBERS VOTING ON
CHRISTMAS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO
RECALL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S JUST GO
AHEAD. AND WE'RE GOING TO JUST
DO IT IN AN ORDERLY WAY. JUST GO
THROUGH, FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE
964. OPEN THE ROLL MOTION IS TO
PASS THIS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, VICE
CHAIR OR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. CURRENT VOTE IS 5 TO
0. SENATOR PADILLA SKINNER, 5 TO
0. I'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. FILE ITEM NUMBER
TWO SB 1031 BY SENATOR WIENER.
PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL. MOTION IS
TO PASS THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR. VOTING Þ NØ. CURRENT
VOTE IS 3 TO 1. SENATORS. ASHBY.
ASHBY AYE. PADILLA. SKINNER.
SKINNER AYE. 5 TO 1. LEAVE THAT
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. MOVED
TO FILE. ITEM NUMBER THREE. THIS
IS SB 1227. PLEASE OPEN THE
ROLL. MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
NO. CURRENT VOTE IS 3 TO 1.
SENATORS. ASHBY. ASHBY AYE.
PADILLA. SKINNER SKINNER. AYE. 5
TO 1. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THIS IS
1135 BY SENATOR LAYMAN. PLEASE
OPEN THE ROLL MOTION IS TO PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO
0. SENATORS ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE.
PADILLA. SKINNER SKINNER. AYE. 6
TO 0. I'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. NEXT UP, FILE
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SB 1362 BY
SENATOR NEWMAN. MOTION IS TO
PASS THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO
0. SENATORS. ASHBY, ASHBY. AYE.
PADILLA. SKINNER SKINNER. AYE. 6
TO 0. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO
FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX. THIS IS SB
1013 BY SENATOR BRADFORD. PLEASE
OPEN THE ROLL. MOTION IS TO PASS
AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATION AS
COMMITTEE CHAIR. VOTING AYE. NØ
CURRENT VOTE FOR THE VICE CHAIR.
CURRENT VOTE IS 3 TO 0. SENATORS
DOLLY. ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE.
PADILLA SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE 5
TO 0. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE NEXT
TO FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE. THIS
IS SB 1494 BY SENATOR GLAZER.
PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL MOTION IS
TO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO 0. SENATORS
ASHBY PADILLA. SKINNER. SKINNER.
AYE. 5 TO 0. I'LL LEAVE THAT
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THEN WE
HAVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THIS
IS FILE ITEM TEN AND 11.
SECRETARY, PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL.
MOTION IS ADOPTED. CONSENT
CALENDAR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO
0. SENATORS. ASHBY. ASHBY AYE.
PADILLA. SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE 6
TO 0. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT ON CALL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
OKAY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN ALL THE VOTES
TODAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
AND WE'LL WAIT HERE FOR OUR ONE
REMAINING ABSENT MEMBERS SO WE
CAN CONCLUDE OUR BUSINESS TODAY.
SO WE'LL BE IN RECESS FOR THE
MOMENT
.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE
COMMITTEE TO REV AND TAX. BACK
TO ORDER. OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE
THE ROLL ON BILLS THAT ARE
OUTSTANDING. IF EVERYONE IN THE
PANEL IS READY, WE'LL BEGIN WITH
FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE. MR.
CHAIRMAN, I APOLOGIZE FOR
WAITING. YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY,
WE'LL OPEN THE ROLL ON SB 964.
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIR
AND VICE CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
CURRENT VOTE IS 5 TO 0.
SENATORS. PADILLA. PADILLA. AYE
SKINNER 6 TO 0. THAT BILL IS OUT
ON A 6 TO 0 VOTE. NEXT UP, FILE
ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB 1031 BY
SENATOR WIENER. PLEASE OPEN THE
ROLL MOTION IS TO PASS THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. CURRENT VOTE IS 521.
SENATORS PADILLA. PADILLA. AYE.
6 TO 1. THAT BILL IS OUT 6 TO 1.
WE'LL MOVE NEXT TO FILE ITEM
NUMBER THREE. THIS IS SB 1227 BY
SENATOR WIENER. PLEASE OPEN THE
ROLL MOTION IS TO PASS THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. CURRENT VOTE IS 5 TO 1.
SENATORS PADILLA. PADILLA. AYE.
6 TO 1. THAT BILL IS OUT. 6 TO
1. NEXT UP, FILE ITEM NUMBER
FOUR. THIS IS SB 1135 BY SENATOR
LEMON. PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL.
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIR
AND VICE CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
CURRENT VOTE IS 6 TO 0. SENATORS
PADILLA. PADILLA I'M 7 TO 0.
BILL IS OUT 7 TO 0. NEXT UP,
FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THIS IS
SB 1362 BY SENATOR NEWMAN.
PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL. MOTION IS
TO PASS THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. CURRENT VOTE IS 6 TO
0. SENATORS PADILLA. PADILLA.
AYE, 7 TO 0. THAT BILL IS OUT 7
TO 0. NEXT UP, FILE ITEM SIX.
THIS IS SB 1013 BY SENATOR
BRADFORD. PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. NÓ. CURRENT VOTE FOR
THE VICE CHAIR. CURRENT VOTE IS
5 TO 0. SENATORS DOLLY PADILLA.
PADILLA I'M 6 TO 0. THAT BILL IS
OUT 6 TO 0. NEXT UP, FILE ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN. THIS IS SB 1035 BY
SENATOR ASHBY. PLEASE OPEN THE
ROLL. MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE CHAIR VOTING AYE. NO
CURRENT VOTE FOR THE VICE CHAIR.
CURRENT VOTE IS 5 TO 0. SENATORS
DOLLY PADILLA. PADILLA I'M 6 TO
0. THAT BILLS OUT 6 TO 0. NEXT
UP FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE. THIS
IS SB 1494 BY GLAZER. PLEASE
OPEN THE ROLL. MOTION IS TO PASS
TO THE SENATE FLOOR CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE. CURRENT
VOTE IS 5 TO 0. SENATORS ASHBY,
PADILLA. PADILLA. AYE, 6 TO 0.
THAT BILL IS OUT 6 TO 0. MOVING
NEXT TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
THIS IS FILE ITEM TEN AND 11. SB
1527 AND 1528. SECRETARY, PLEASE
OPEN THE ROLL MOTION IS ADOPTED.
CONSENT CALENDAR. CURRENT VOTE
IS 6 TO 0. SENATORS. PADILLA.
PADILLA I'M 7 TO 0. ALL RIGHT.
THAT BILL IS OUT 7 TO 0. THANK
YOU TO ALL WHO PARTICIPATED.
CERTAINLY THE STAFF AND ALL THE
WITNESSES WHO CAME HERE TODAY.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO OUR NEXT
HEARING. THANK YOU ALL AND HAVE
A GOOD DAY.