California Assembly Bill AB2006

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/17/26
• Refer: 3/2/26
• Report Pass: 3/2/26
• Refer: 3/3/26
• Report Pass: 3/25/26
• Refer: 3/25/26
• Report Pass: 4/9/26
• Refer: 4/9/26
• Refer: 5/6/26
• Report Pass: 5/14/26
• Engrossed: 5/26/26
• Refer: 5/27/26
• Refer: 6/3/26
• Report Pass: 6/9/26
• Refer: 6/9/26

Caption

An act to add Section 4564 to the Government Code, relating to daycare centers.

Summary

AB 2006 would add a new Government Code section directing the state to give priority to licensed child care providers when state office buildings are newly constructed, acquired, gifted, or substantially altered after January 1, 2027. In those circumstances, the Department of General Services would have to make space available for a daycare center in the building, subject to terms set by the director, including rent or other cost arrangements. The bill also allows the state to secure nearby off-site space for daycare if on-site placement is not feasible or is less efficient, and it permits retrofitting existing state office buildings for child care when funds are available. The bill sets operating requirements for these daycare centers, including compliance with local and state building and safety codes and Title 22 child care regulations. It also establishes enrollment priorities: first for employees working in the building, then other state employees, and then community members living within five miles of the office building. The measure excludes state buildings that provide care or 24-hour residential care for patients, inmates, or wards of the state, such as hospitals and correctional facilities. AB 2006 would affect state property management and building-use rules by requiring child care considerations to be built into future state office projects and, where feasible, into existing facilities. It would also create a special rent exemption for nonprofit licensed child care providers that accept subsidies, while otherwise leaving the director discretion to set rates based on state costs and local market conditions. The bill includes findings intended to support the public-purpose rationale and address concerns about gifts of public funds. The overall sentiment reflected in the available legislative history is strongly favorable. The bill passed its recorded committee votes unanimously, including a 7-0 vote and a 22-0 vote, and was recommended for the consent calendar, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition at those stages. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record does not show detailed debate or amendments beyond the bill text itself. The main points of potential contention are fiscal and operational rather than ideological. Because the bill can require space allocation, possible retrofits, and potentially reduced or waived rent for some providers, questions may arise about costs to the state, building design constraints, security, and how the Department of General Services will balance child care access against other office-building needs. The bill’s explicit exclusion of hospitals, prisons, and similar facilities suggests lawmakers anticipated that some state properties are not suitable for this use.

Impact

AB 2006 would add Section 4564 to the Government Code and create a new statewide policy requiring child care planning in state office buildings. It would affect the Department of General Services’ authority over state-owned office space by directing priority access to licensed child care providers, authorizing off-site space acquisition and retrofits when funded, and establishing rent-setting rules and enrollment priorities. It would also incorporate compliance with state and local safety codes and Title 22 child care standards, while excluding certain institutional facilities from coverage.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support and little opposition in the available record. It advanced through committee with unanimous votes and a recommendation for the consent calendar, which typically signals noncontroversial legislation. The text and legislative findings frame the measure as a child care access and affordability policy, and there is no transcript evidence of significant resistance in the materials provided.

Contention

The likely areas of contention are practical implementation issues: whether state office projects can accommodate daycare space, how much retrofitting or off-site leasing would cost, and how security and building-code requirements would be handled. Another possible issue is the rent waiver for nonprofit providers that accept subsidies, which could raise questions about state revenue and the bill’s public-funds justification. The bill’s carve-out for hospitals, prisons, and similar facilities also reflects an acknowledgment that not all state-owned buildings are suitable for child care use.