Transcript Highlights:

• With a vote of 7 aye and zero nay, we'll report your bill as due pass. Heavy lift.

Summary: The Rules Committee met briefly and first took up Senate Bill 2184, described as a clean duplicate-sections bill that does not create new law but consolidates multiple versions of statutes and repeals duplicative sections. In response to a question about what happens if such a bill does not pass, members explained that the duplicate provisions remain in statute, which can create confusion and make future cleanup bills larger; they also referenced a prior attorney general request aimed at guiding judges when duplicate sections remain. The committee then voted 7-0 to report SB 2184 as due pass. The committee next considered an amended version of Senate Bill 171, using a PCS as the working draft without objection. The bill would increase the number of armed security personnel/sergeants from one to two, with the additional commission coming from an existing staff member rather than a new hire; the commission would end when that person leaves service. After brief discussion, the committee voted 7-0 to report SB 171 as due pass.

Transcript Highlights:

• By you're a 12A's zero nays. You vote a House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 1092. Do pass.

Committee: House Emerging Issues

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• By your vote of 20 ayes and zero noes, you have voted Senate Bill 1629 as do pass.

Committee: House Utilities

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• President. ...to zero, referred to the Committee on Rules.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Seven ayes and zero nays. The committee substitute for SB 2543 does pass.

Committee: Senate Veteran Affairs

Summary: The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee met, established a quorum, and took up several pending bills. Senate Bill 2007, Senate Bill 2926, and Senate Bill 2938 were each moved out of committee with recommendations that they pass and be printed. All three received unanimous approval by roll call and were also recommended for the local and contested calendars. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2543. Senator Hancock moved adoption of a committee substitute, which was explained as clarifying references to veteran cemeteries and replacing a reference to the U.S. Department of Veteran Cemetery for clarity. The substitute was adopted without objection, and the bill as substituted was approved unanimously, 7-0, to be reported favorably to the full Senate. After the final vote, the committee also agreed to place SB 2543 on the local and non-contested calendar. With no further business, the Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will say I'm disappointed with our zero target.

Bills: HF2442

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Keywords: climate finance, energy finance, renewable development account, RDA, weatherization, preweatherization, low-income housing, energy efficiency, clean energy, solar incentive, Made in Minnesota, community solar gardens, transportation electrification, electric vehicles, grid-enhancing technologies, microgrid, University of St. Thomas, Public Utilities Commission, Department of Commerce, petroleum tank fund

Transcript Highlights:

• With 63 in favor, zero opposed, and two excused, the memorial is adopted. Co-sponsors.
• <01:05:30.880><c> machine</c> with<01:05:34.319><c> 63</c><01:05:34.880><c> I</c><01:05:35.119><c> zero
• </c><01:05:36.400><c> The</c> with 63 I zero. No, and two excused. The with 63 I zero.
• Uh, so there still is, even though on the second version of the fiscal note, you know, it goes to zero
• Uh, so there still is, even though on the second version of the fiscal note, you know, it goes to zero

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> It passed uh the state and federal committee 20 to zero pass on a voice vote and that was it.
• Thank you. 2024 we did HCR10. >> Yeah. >> It passed uh the state and federal committee 20 to zero pass
• Thank you. 2024 we did HCR10. >> Yeah. >> It passed uh the state and federal committee 20 to zero pass
• Thank you. 2024 we did HCR10. >> Yeah. >> It passed uh the state and federal committee 20 to zero pass
• pass on a voice committee 20 to zero pass on a voice vote vote vote and<04:20:43.439><c> that</c><04

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission meeting focused on reviewing and correcting draft minutes and then working through a draft report on the cost of special education. Members made mostly clerical corrections, including clarifying references to Spalding, fixing acronyms such as LETRS, and cleaning up membership titles and appointee roles to match SB 57. The minutes were approved as amended, with some members abstaining because they were not present at the prior meeting. The chair also noted the commission’s deadline to complete findings and recommendations by July 1 and said the final report must be delivered to legislative leaders, the governor, the state librarian, and others. The main substantive discussion centered on the report’s findings about special education funding. Members agreed the report should emphasize that the commission was created to study the cost of special education and reduce reliance on local property taxes. One draft section described FY24 special education funding as coming from three primary state and federal sources totaling about $152 million, or roughly 15% of annual costs, with the remaining 85% paid by local school districts through property tax revenue, estimated at about $825 million. Members discussed adding historical or longitudinal data to show trends over time, and some suggested attaching charts or tables showing funding over the last 20 to 30 years. A second major topic was demographic data. The draft noted that statewide K-12 enrollment has declined since 2003 while the number and share of students with IEPs has increased. Members questioned whether the data compared like with like, especially given the growth of Education Freedom Accounts and charter school enrollment, and whether the figures included or excluded those students. Several members asked for clearer sourcing from the Department of Education and suggested keeping a list of unresolved questions, including the impact of the shift from ADMA to ADMR and the effect of the EFA program. The discussion ended with agreement to continue refining the report and to gather additional attachments and clarifications before finalizing recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• In Appropriations, we ran two amendments which zeroed out the fiscal note and allowed us to proceed out
• in on those fistfuls of we really zeroed in on those fistfuls of extra<02:12:22.880><c> things</c><02
• Zero protections for small businesses or any business.
• Zero<02:48:16.720><c> protections</c><02:48:17.320><c> for</c><02:48:17.440><c> small</c><02:48:17.720
• ><c> businesses</c><02:48:18.320><c> or</c> Zero protections for small businesses or Zero protections

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• By your vote of eight yes and zero noes, you have voted that House Committee Sub for House Bill 2234

Committee: House Special Committee on Tax Reform

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• By your vote of eight yes and zero noes, you have voted that House Committee Sub for House Bill 2234

Committee: House Special Committee on Tax Reform

Summary: The Special Committee on Tax Reform met in executive session, established a quorum, and took up House Bill 2234. The main issue discussed was an amendment offered by Representative Tricia Burns that would replace “as soon as practicable” with specific deadlines: notice within 30 days and payment within 60 days. Burns explained the change was intended to ensure the person entitled to funds is paid on a definite timeline. Members asked clarifying questions and generally expressed support for adding clearer deadlines. The committee adopted the amendment by voice vote, then rolled it into a House committee substitute. The committee then moved House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2234 to a due pass recommendation. A roll call vote was taken, and the substitute bill passed 8-0. The meeting then adjourned from executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> 15 YAYS, ZERO NAYS. >> Chair Esposito: HB 561 IS REPORTED FAVORABLY. CONGRATULATIONS. >> Rep.

Transcript Highlights:

• Zero noes. Consent calendar is adopted. No, no, I do. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Labor and Employment Committee convened for its first hearing of the year, established quorum, and took up a consent calendar containing AB 805 (Fong) and AB 1245 (Stephanie). The committee chair welcomed members, introduced the new committee secretary, and thanked the outgoing Republican consultant for her service. Both bills on the consent calendar were moved with a do pass recommendation and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. The committee voted to adopt the consent calendar, with recorded ayes and no noes, and the items were approved without substantive debate. The roll was left open briefly for absent members before the meeting concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Zero noes. Consent calendar is adopted. No, no, I do. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Committee: House Labor and Employment

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we have<00:31:49.360><c> the</c><00:31:49.679><c> phase</c><00:31:50.080><c> zero</c><00:31:50.399
• program and phase 00 have the phase zero program and phase 00 program<00:31:53.039><c> that</c><00:31
• when it come to any We were ground zero when it come to any economic. economic. economic.
• </c> budget, and there was a request of zero budget, and there was a request of zero dollars<03:11:56.080
• I think you've zeroed in on reform.

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is a net zero cost shift through the indirect cost rate recovery.
• So this is a a net zero surface mines.
• Um, and like I said, all of these positions are going to be net zero.
• So we'll they'll be added to uh zero.
• Uh, so it's a net zero. Uh, the next is the uranium recovery.

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair: Unless there's any questions, the answer is zero right now. Senator Klein: So, Mr.
• $1,600 that you're going to get the $1,600 primary residence tax credit, and your tax bill would be zero
• No, zero zero, zero, prepared January 2026. Is it in our packet? No, I don't believe it is. Yeah.
• ...is in the infants and toddler area, as opposed to just the whole zero to five? Yeah.

Committee: Joint Legislative Management

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Four zero. The bill is on call. Thank you very much. Anyone here? Consent calendar. Okay.
• Four to zero. Thank you. The bill will remain on call. Okay, who's next? He ran out.
• We have zero ability to have any role in jail operations. But yet the public believes we do.
• There is zero ability for us as a county board of supervisors to affect jail operations. Okay.
• Three to zero. The bill... Thank you very much. Next we'll be calling up Assembly Member Valencia.

Summary: The committee heard several housing, local government, coastal, and infrastructure bills. AB 306 would create a statewide appeal and code-interpretation process for building code issues at the California Building Standards Commission; supporters said it would reduce inconsistent local interpretations and speed housing delivery, while no opposition testified, and it was moved on a do-pass-as-amended vote to Appropriations. AB 956 would clarify ADU law to allow up to two detached ADUs on a property and address ADUs in HOAs/common interest developments; supporters framed it as a flexibility and housing-supply measure, while local government and county groups raised concerns about ministerial approval, parking, density, and impacts on neighborhood character. After committee questions, the bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations on a 2-0 vote, with the bill remaining on call. Members also considered AB 1751, which would create a ministerial approval path for qualifying townhome projects and allow local inclusionary ordinances for larger projects. Supporters said it would expand attainable homeownership and help produce missing-middle housing, while cities and counties objected to reduced density, by-right approval, and potential housing-element net-loss issues. The bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations on a 2-0 vote and remained on call. AB 912, which would revise the governance structure of the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District board, drew unanimous support from the district, city, and county; it passed 3-0 to Appropriations and remained on call. AB 1710, aimed at preserving housing project entitlements from later regulatory changes, also advanced on a 4-0 do-pass-as-amended vote after opponents said they were awaiting the committee amendments. The committee also heard AB 2080, which would make county treasurer investment authority delegations ongoing until revoked rather than requiring annual renewal; supporters said it would reduce technical noncompliance and administrative burden without reducing oversight, and it was moved to the Senate Floor. AB 1740, a coastal bill for Santa Monica, would set timelines and reporting for a local coastal program and create an expedited Coastal Commission process for bike, transit, and pedestrian projects; supporters said it reflected a negotiated path forward with the city and commission, and it passed 3-0 to Appropriations. AB 2181, backed by Unite Here, would limit use of hypothetical density bonus value in hotel and motel appraisals; supporters said it would protect hospitality jobs from speculative lease-rent increases, and it was moved to the Senate Floor on a 4-0 vote. Finally, AB 2469 on data centers and water use drew the most extended debate. The bill would require water supply and water use assessments before approval, and shift infrastructure costs to project proponents; supporters said it would improve transparency, protect ratepayers, and ensure local governments have information before approving water-intensive facilities. Opponents, including business, city, county, and tech groups, argued existing law already covers water assessments and fees, warned the bill could create a separate permitting regime, and raised concerns about privacy, security, and investment impacts. The committee had not yet taken final action on AB 2469 when the transcript ended, and members were still asking technical questions about data center cooling and water reuse.

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, if a taxpayer ends up paying zero dollars in property taxes, they may be required to pay
• Many and most were almost zeroed out. Many still are. We don't have properties back on the books.
• Many are almost zeroed out. Many still are. We don't have properties back on the books.
• And if someone here can show me how to reduce that cost to zero while maintaining the same services at
• the same level, I am Reduce that cost to zero while maintaining the same services at the same level,

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, if a taxpayer ends up paying zero dollars in property taxes, they may be required to pay
• Many and most were almost zeroed out. Many still are. We don't have properties back on the books.
• Many were almost zeroed out. Many still are.
• And if someone here can show me how to reduce that cost to zero while maintaining the same services at
• the same level, I am... ...reduce that cost to zero while maintaining the same services at the same

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, the proposed constitutional amendment on property tax relief, which would reduce assessment growth on non-homestead property, expand homestead exemptions, create a new exemption for new homesteaders, and direct counties, cities, and school districts to use property tax revenues for specified core services. Senator Avila presented the measure as the governor’s plan to provide historic relief and argued that local governments should tighten budgets and prioritize core functions. Senators raised concerns about the lack of fiscal scoring, the breadth and ambiguity of the permitted uses, the effect on special districts and local services, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. The committee adopted several amendments, including Avila’s amendment clarifying that ad valorem revenues could be used for county and municipal operations and administration and other expenditures not prohibited by law, and Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal. Other amendments failed, including proposals to allow user fees and non-ad valorem assessments, add a sunset, redirect tourism development taxes, narrow the small-business provision, and change the ballot title to reference local service reductions. Grall’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund requirement was adopted, while the committee also rejected Berman’s title-change amendment and Smith’s sunset and tourism-tax amendments. The committee then returned to the bill as amended for questions, including extended debate over whether the proposal would affect noncitizen residents, the impact on local government finances, and whether local governments would respond with higher fees or special assessments. The meeting ended with the bill still under discussion after the final round of questions, with Avila saying he would continue working with the governor’s office on the language before the next vote.