Transcript Highlights:

• Are they contract outside counsel? The outside counsel? Well, they may have some.
• The parish may then award a follow-on sole source contract to the innovator.
• And that's what I'm worried about here, is these unelected bodies giving no bid contracts.
• But right now, it's difficult for innovators to get a contract and to really start commercializing on
• This does not, this also does not force the awarding of such a contract or anything like that.

Summary: The House Committee on Commerce met on May 18, 2026, with a quorum present and the chair noting it was the committee’s last meeting of the session. The committee first considered Senate Bill 254, which would prohibit certain excess debit card surcharges and authorize enforcement by the Attorney General. After adopting technical amendments and a committee amendment requiring written notice before a private right of action, the bill was reported favorably as amended. The committee then took up Senate Bill 80 on broadband administration fees and GUMBO program closeout. Members questioned the proposed increase in administrative and contractor fees, the timing of project completion, and how withheld reimbursements would work for utility damage. After adopting several amendments, including cleanup language and a provision to restore the reimbursement process, the bill was reported favorably as amended, though the Louisiana Telecommunications Association voiced concerns about the withholding language and lack of a clearer fault-determination process. The committee next considered Senate Bill 469, updating the Louisiana Underground Utilities and Facilities Damage Prevention Law. Technical amendments were adopted, along with amendments clarifying that the bill’s 30-day notice to utility owner-operators is separate from existing GUMBO notice requirements and creating a rapid dispute-resolution process involving the Office of Broadband, the utility operator, and the local governing authority. Testimony from broadband and municipal stakeholders emphasized the need for quicker responses to excavation damage and better enforcement, while some witnesses raised concerns about the late amendment and the need for clearer recourse and standards. The bill was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 468, dealing with fuel rewards programs and fuel discount limits, was also amended to allow such discounts while capping them at $1 below the advertised price; it was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 131, concerning attorney’s fees and costs in professional licensing disciplinary proceedings, drew testimony from a cosmetology board representative and the Pelican Institute. Supporters argued the bill would curb incentives for boards to generate revenue through enforcement and give licensees a fairer opportunity to resolve cases; board testimony noted that some boards already have fee caps and that enforcement actions are relatively limited. After adopting an amendment clarifying when a licensee is the prevailing party, the bill was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 251 on critical infrastructure protection also received technical amendments and several substantive changes, including adding ports and airports to the definition of critical infrastructure, clarifying “significant access,” adding a knowledge requirement, and adjusting exemptions and enforcement timing; it was reported favorably as amended after testimony from State Armor representatives about foreign adversary threats. Finally, House Resolution 253 was introduced to create a task force to study how post-2005 building code additions and inspection requirements affect residential construction costs, with the sponsor explaining the goal was to gather industry input and return recommendations next session.

Transcript Highlights:

• But just as importantly, the contracts.
• We also have contracts, and if those contracts are not, um, if we don't incur those costs, most of our
• We also have contracts, and if those contracts are not, um, if we don't incur those costs, most of our
• to cut um additional funding contracts to cut um additional funding for<00:30:42.559> new<00:
• So that's a 100% federally funded grant that we will be implementing as soon as we have the contracts

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The work session was limited to House Bill 1750, a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services’ SNAP administration. Before testimony, Representative Terski distributed a written statement from Representative Priest for the record. Department officials Karen Heert and Nathan White then walked the committee through a chart showing SNAP participation, federal benefit dollars, and state administrative costs, emphasizing that the benefits themselves do not flow through the state budget. They explained that the reported administrative cost includes overhead and cost-allocation methods used to maximize federal reimbursement, and that the current participant count is about 75,000 with the trend steady in recent years. Members questioned whether the reported costs were stable, how much of the administrative expense was directly tied to SNAP, and whether reducing overhead would lower the need for the appropriation. The department said the cost per participant and per dollar distributed would be lower if SNAP were isolated, but that the broader allocation system also supports federal claiming across multiple programs. Officials said SNAP eligibility is redetermined every six months, that the department processes nearly 50 eligibility programs with about 250 field staff, roughly 70 unfunded positions, and a vacancy rate around 25%. They also said most errors in the program are unintentional and can come from either staff or participant mistakes, and that the department reviews errors to identify systemic fixes. The committee discussed the fiscal impact of the bill and related budget issues. DHHS said the current adjusted authorization for 2026 is about $31 million, but actual spending is expected to be closer to $25–26 million because of vacancies and unfilled positions. Members asked whether the $4.4 million shortfall identified in the fiscal note would come from the rainy day fund; staff said it would not be taken directly from that fund, but would reduce the amount available to flow into it at the end of the biennium. The committee also reviewed Senate Bill 603 FN, which was described as an alternative approach that would require DHHS to transfer funds within its existing budget rather than provide new money; officials said it would simply codify an option the department already has. No vote or final action on House Bill 1750 was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• These include contracting with counties and renting equipment, which can be a less costly option than
• But hopefully in the future, we will have the protections for underrepresented people in contracting.
• But hopefully in the future, we will have the protections for underrepresented people in contracting.
• Those priorities and those rules for underrepresented folks in contracting, because we don't have them
• Over a period, the contract terms can be a number of years. But are we looking at tolls?

Summary: The committee began with member introductions, then heard a presentation on a draft final report studying alternative funding mechanisms for sidewalks and related pedestrian infrastructure. Consultants said current local funding sources are insufficient, with most jurisdictions unable to complete planned sidewalk networks within 50 years. They evaluated four options: a sidewalk utility fee, a modified transportation benefit district sales tax, a new real estate excise tax option, and expanded stormwater fee use for ADA sidewalk ramps. The consultants recommended authorizing the modified TBD sales tax and new REET option, considering a sidewalk utility despite legal uncertainty, broadening any authorization to all pedestrian improvements, and not pursuing the stormwater fee option. Members asked about legal authority, fairness, revenue adequacy, and whether jurisdictions had been consulted; the presenters said state enabling legislation would likely be needed for a sidewalk utility and that fairness could be defined either by direct benefit or by need. The committee then received an update on the 2025 assessment of city transportation funding needs. The consultants reported that city transportation revenues have grown in some local and federal categories since 2019, but state revenues have remained relatively flat and smaller cities are especially affected by declining fuel tax revenues and limited tax bases. They estimated annual city transportation needs at $4.25 billion, average annual spending at $1.89 billion, and a funding gap of $2.37 billion, larger than in the prior study because of updated data, inclusion of system improvements, and higher preservation costs. Draft recommendations focused on reducing costs and improving efficiency, preserving and increasing state support, and expanding local funding options, including preservation-first spending, a permanent federal fund exchange program, streamlined review processes, better coordination with WSDOT, possible property tax flexibility, and exploration of new local tools. Members raised questions about design standards, the role of density and transit, federal compliance, and whether the report would identify specific consolidation or process changes. The committee also heard a project update on evaluating zero-emission vehicle and electrification programs funded by the Climate Commitment Act. Consultants said they had reviewed roughly 23 programs and projects across seven agencies and were now evaluating options to improve delivery, including process improvements, reorganizing programs, or consolidating governance and administrative functions. Early findings highlighted staffing shortages, duplication and variation across agencies, differing levels of risk, and the challenge of coordinating climate priorities across agencies with other core missions. Members asked about program outcomes, administrative costs, whether some programs should have exit strategies, and how to strengthen the EV Coordinating Council. Finally, WSDOT provided an implementation update on its new public-private partnership authority under SB 5801, saying work is underway to prepare governance, legal, policy, and organizational structures ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be contracting with the track builder within the next five to seven weeks.
• We have not contracted anything. It's still open.
• There is no contract in place. There is nothing that we have decided.
• We have not contracted anything on those locations.
• Thank you. ...proposed station relocations are not under contract yet.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan, with testimony from the authority, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General. Chair Cortese framed the hearing around the project’s recent changes: a new CEO, revised delivery strategy, loss of federal funds, renewed interest in private financing and value capture, and proposed adjustments to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment. He also raised concerns about statutory compliance, transparency, and whether the draft plan fully reflects required elements and true costs and timelines. Authority CEO Ian Chaudhry said the project has made substantial construction progress in the Central Valley and is moving toward track installation, with the state’s $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funding providing a stable base. He argued the plan uses design optimization, direct procurement of materials, and revised sequencing to reduce costs and support an early operating segment by about 2032-33. He also promoted broader commercialization of the corridor through real estate, energy, broadband, logistics, and public-private partnerships, saying private sector interest is now real. Several senators pressed him on station locations, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, permitting delays, transparency, and whether the project can realistically reach Los Angeles and San Francisco on the current timeline and budget. The LAO and Inspector General were more skeptical. LAO analyst Helen Kirstine said the draft plan assumes major scope changes, including a shorter segment, a Merced station outside downtown, more single-tracking, and several statutory changes that have not yet been enacted. She warned that the plan may not comply with recent legislative requirements, that funding may still be insufficient even for the reduced segment, and that borrowing against future cap-and-invest revenues is risky because those revenues are uncertain and volatile. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan fails to comply with newer statutory requirements, especially regarding the Merced-to-Bakersfield scope, the funding plan, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the presentation obscures cost increases and schedule delays and limits the Legislature’s ability to compare current estimates with prior reports. Committee members generally supported continued oversight and some form of project delivery reform, but several expressed concern that the plan relies on legislative changes that have not been approved and on private financing that may not materialize. Chaudhry said the authority would address the Inspector General’s findings in the final business plan and continue to pursue federal grants, private capital, and corridor commercialization. No vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of these departments have realized that It's cheaper to contract out that work.
• There is concern about those grant and contract funds.
• We have Department of Energy contracts that we're getting word may be ending.
• So it's a big challenge to continue operating the network through grants And contracts.
• And that's how we bring in grants and contracts.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• No, that is a city contract with Tetra Tech, and that is their money.
• Thank you. ...contracted with Tetra Tech, and that is their money. Thank you.
• So if they signed a contract, why are we... ...the food service. Yes.
• So if they signed a contract, why are we asking for more?
• This is based on the contracted rate and also additional offenders.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 82 by Senator Umberg and relating to contracts.
• Some members Senate Bill 82 by Senator Umberg, relating to contracts.
• Today I present SB 82, which ensures that contract terms between businesses and consumers apply only
• Dental plans often contract with third-party companies to issue provider payments to dental practices
• These contracts preserve more than half of California's 31.4 million acres of farm and ranch land.

Summary: The Assembly convened, established a quorum, offered prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and then moved through a long floor file with many Senate bills. Early procedural actions included unanimous-consent motions, a successful roll-call to rescind prior action on SB 351, and a 54-vote suspension of Joint Rule 61(a)(3) to allow floor amendments on SBs 80, 351, and 415. The chamber also made several referrals, moved one item to the inactive file, and welcomed new Assembly Member Natasha Johnson and other guests. The bulk of the meeting consisted of concurrence and third-reading votes on a wide range of measures, many of them passing with little or no opposition. Topics included tribal gaming grants (AB 221), State Bar fee and bar exam changes (SB 253), AI guardrails in community colleges (SB 241), consumer arbitration clauses (SB 82), due process for law enforcement in Racial Justice Act cases (SB 734), dental payment fee disclosures (SB 386), HOA balcony inspection reports (SB 410), farmland protection and EIFD rules (SB 5 and SB 516), emergency shelter zoning (SB 340), HIV confidentiality (SB 504), election signature-cure reforms (SB 3), contractor workers’ compensation compliance (SB 291), fire training funding (SB 345), wage theft enforcement (SB 355 and SB 261), food allergen disclosures (SB 68), ride-share insurance coverage (SB 371), housing and disaster recovery measures (SB 233, SB 625, SB 21), midwifery education (SB 520), mobile home insurance access (SB 525), epinephrine in schools (SB 568), health facility emergency licensing (SB 582), hair relaxer enforcement (SB 236), wastewater surveillance (SB 317), and several tax, transportation, and public health bills. A number of bills drew brief policy debate or opposition. SB 388, creating a California Latino Commission, prompted criticism from some members who argued the money should go directly to community needs rather than a new commission; it still passed. SB 50 on digital safety for victims of abuse, SB 20 on silicosis prevention, SB 306 on prior authorization reform, SB 373 on oversight of out-of-state special education placements, and SB 437 on reparations descendant-status verification were among the more substantive and discussed measures. Most bills passed by wide margins, often unanimously, and several urgency or tax-levy measures required 54 votes and were approved. The session ended with continued passage of remaining file items and multiple items retained or passed temporarily for later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Was the bill to apply to county jailer contracts under 287(g)? Has that changed?
• Every county that has a jail or contracts with the jail is mandatory.
• The counties that have a jail or contract with a jail must participate in the 287(g) program.
• In Hidalgo, we now have signed a $15 million contract to lease facilities up in Raymondville.
• Again, there are 234 counties that have jails or contract with jails.

Bills: SB27, SB1494, SB2121, SB2373, SB2431, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB30, SB37, SB260, SB268, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB568, SB650, SB763, SB1405, SB1506, SB1540, SB1566, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB2018, SB2024, SB2217, SB2308, SB2337, SB2601, SB2753, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB145, HB300, HB493, HB705, HB1545, HB2011, HB2017, HB2067, HB2516, HB2885, HB2963, HB2974, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB3642, HB3909, HB5138, HB5246, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, HB748, HB3395, HB180, HB3171, HB146, HB5596, HB5694, HB1135, HB3225, HB186, HB1449, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB3336, HB3520, HB3320, HB5663, HB2399, HB111, HB3483, HB4580, HB3748, HB632, HB4730, HB5690, HB5689, HB3385, HB4359, HB5381, HB123, HB5606, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59, SR634, SR687, SR703, SR709, SR715, SB1494, SB2121, SB2373, SB2431, HB46, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB37, SB260, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB568, SB763, SB1405, SB1540, SB1566, SB2018, SB2308, SB2337, SB2878, SB3059, HB705, HB2017, HB2067, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB3909, HB5246

Keywords: elections, local governance, political subdivisions, general elections, Texas Election Code, data brokers, personal data, regulation, business entities, consumer protection, financial exploitation, artificial intelligence, phishing, legal liability, criminal offense, civil penalty, foreign language, study abroad, higher education, language credit

Transcript Highlights:

• You have a contract, and that contract clearly defines the risk. Denzel Hankinson: Thank you.
• Importantly, I think it's worth considering that these lease-type contracts are not untested.
• Instead, you have it in the contract, and that contract is binding.
• And so that's one of the benefits is that you You have it in the contract, and that contract is binding
• Once a developer is approved to be part of the study, He said contract negotiations with the utility

Summary: The committee first heard AB 13, which would restructure the CPUC to increase legislative oversight, add legislative liaisons, require more detailed and timely reporting on rate-setting decisions, and add a public advocate member. The author and supporters argued the bill would improve transparency, accountability, and geographic diversity in CPUC decision-making amid rising utility rates. Witnesses from TURN, San Joaquin County, SDG&E, and former CPUC Commissioner Loretta Lynch offered support or support-in-principle, while no opposition testimony was presented. Members generally praised the bill’s transparency goals, and AB 13 passed 10-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open for absent members. The committee then adopted the 2025-2026 committee rules and approved three consent items: AB 61, AB 365, and AB 406. The next bill, AB 99, would cap investor-owned utility rate increases above inflation except for specified costs such as safety, modernization, and fuel/commodity costs. The author and supporters, including a representative of the California Senior Legislature, said the bill was needed to protect ratepayers, especially seniors and low-income customers, from repeated rate hikes. Opposition came from utility labor, utilities, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, who argued the bill was too simplistic, could suppress labor costs, and did not account for major cost drivers such as wildfire mitigation, mandates, and net metering. Several members supported moving the bill forward as a starting point on affordability, while others criticized it as overly blunt. AB 99 passed 11-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open. The hearing then shifted to an informational panel on strategies to reduce California transmission costs. A Public Advocates Office staffer described a growing backlog of approved-but-unbuilt transmission projects, rising transmission access charges, and long project timelines driven largely by utility pre-application and construction periods. Panelists from Net Zero California and consulting firms presented research suggesting that public financing or public-private partnership lease models could reduce transmission costs by lowering financing, tax, and capital costs, with estimated savings of up to 57% and as much as $123 billion over 40 years. PG&E’s representative said the utility is already pursuing federal loan guarantees, grants, and a public-private partnership with Citizens Energy, but warned that state ownership could create tax, wildfire-liability, and governance risks. Members asked about the CPUC’s role, the causes of delays, and whether public financing could complement existing competitive solicitation processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the project was, the contract was awarded earlier this year.
• So the project was, the contract was awarded earlier this year. Standards as well.
• The 10% usually equates to the dollar value of the contract. Which is what?
• Because these were big-time contracts.
• How much is the state currently spending on these types of third-party contracts?

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've contracted with KPMG to conduct that work.
• Nearly a decade later, the family still has no contract, no reliable price, and now faces major repair
• concerns, at least six recent instances of unlawful contracting under the Education Code, an estimate
• Recent instances of unlawful contracting under the Education Code, an estimated half a million dollars
• There have been no complaints alleging violations of the Public Contract Code.

Summary: The committee met as a subcommittee for much of the hearing because it initially lacked a quorum, then later established one and began taking votes. The state auditor gave a status update on ongoing audits, including several JALAC-requested audits in progress, other statutory audits, staffing growth in his office, and the number of new JALAC audits his office could start in the coming months. The committee also heard that one audit request on Prop. 28 was held, and another PUC-related request was moved off consent and heard on the regular calendar. Members then heard and discussed several audit requests. Senator Cervantes presented a request to audit California fusion centers, with witnesses from the FBI and ACLU supporting the need for transparency and oversight; opponents argued the request was politically motivated and could interfere with counterterrorism work. Senator Allen presented a request on CPUC enforcement of Rule 21 interconnection timelines for solar and storage projects, supported by industry and school representatives who described long delays and financial harm, while CPUC staff said the issue was being addressed through workshops and a formal proceeding. Senator Perez presented a request to audit Caltrans’ administration of the former SR 710 extension properties and affordable sales program, citing tenant complaints about maintenance, pricing, and transparency; Caltrans said it was working to complete sales and improve administration. Senator Umberg presented a request to audit the Orange County Board of Education over transparency, contracting, litigation spending, charter oversight, and whistleblower issues, while board representatives said there was no factual basis for an audit and that existing legal remedies had not been invoked. After quorum was established, the committee approved the consent-calendar DMV license revocation audit and then approved the PUC utility timeliness audit and the Caltrans SR 710 audit. The fusion center audit was left on call after a split vote, and the Orange County Board of Education audit continued with testimony from the board’s representatives after the committee had already moved on to other business.

Transcript Highlights:

• administrator is simply a contracting administrator is simply a contracting and<02:28:26.720>
• the<03:02:07.040> state contract contracted rate with the state contract contracted rate
• Uh and asked the contract of them.
• ,<03:08:07.120> reduce contracts, reduce contracts, reduce competition<03:08:09.840> over
• I don't have the contract in front of me. And a follow-up: is that contract publicly available?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, what you're saying is that these will be contracted within a school district?
• Chair and Representative—contracted out to an outside company necessarily.
• So you have this huge spectrum of what's happening. ...contracting with them.
• However, it's actually a program contracted with a district, but those will continue.
• By contracting directly with the certifier, and then they would do the process with the company.

Bills: HB253, HB153, HB255, HB287, HB371, SB151, HB8, SB177

Keywords: distance learning, virtual instruction, public education, student enrollment, school funding, education standards, pandemic education response, low-carbon construction, construction materials, rebate, environmental product declaration, EPD, embodied carbon, carbon intensity, greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonization, industrial incentives, clean manufacturing, cement, concrete

Transcript Highlights:

• And so it was we were having a lot of breaks in contracts, and we decided to sunset that program and
• I understand There are statewide contracts and things like that, but when you have an instance where
• So, we know what contracts we have. We know what contracts are cancelable.
• If I can ask a final follow up, what was what is the fiscal impact of three Canceled agrivoltaic contracts
• The leasing agent basically leases the minerals, puts them in, gets the contract put together, and they

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so my question is, it's a contract and you have a set price.
• How did we go over that contract price? We have, it is a You have a set price.
• How did we go over that contract price?
• Okay, did that contract have to come through review? I do not believe so.
• And on these contracts, like you're paying to value vehicles, and how much is that contract?

Summary: The committee met to consider a series of appropriation, reserve transfer, and grant requests. Early items included temporary appropriations for the Department of Education’s Educational Freedom Account program ($32 million), the State Crime Lab ($476,000), and DFA Assessment Coordination ($90,000), along with a $1 ARPA return from the Department of Health. The committee approved these items after brief questions, including a discussion about contract cost increases at Assessment Coordination and a clarification that the $1 ARPA item was simply an unused-funds return. The most extensive discussion centered on the Department of Education’s EFA funding. Members questioned the growth in participation, the use of one-time funds and restricted reserves, and safeguards against fraud or improper purchases. Agency officials said about 44,000 students were being funded, that purchases are reviewed and flagged for unusual activity, and that homeschool students are not required to buy a curriculum so long as purchases are eligible and approved. The committee approved the EFA appropriation and related reserve transfer, and officials said the governor’s proposed budget would include the program in the RSA going forward. The committee also approved a DHS reallocation request and reviewed a building authority loan for a data center power supply replacement. In the federal grant section, members discussed a Department of Agriculture request for Central Arkansas Water to acquire land in the Maumelle watershed. Debate focused on the environmental benefits versus local property-tax and development concerns in Perry County, with testimony from the agency, Central Arkansas Water, and Potlatch about watershed protection, public access, and potential development impacts. After extended discussion, the committee adopted a motion to defer the item to the full Legislative Council and asked the department to remove the Perry County portion from the request, limiting the grant-funded purchase to Pulaski County property. The committee then reviewed remaining items, including a Veterans Affairs pay-plan appropriation, and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Insurance carriers could form or contract with certified networks, and if their policyholders opted to
• Insurance carriers could form or contract with certified networks, and if their policyholders opted to
• Instead, some political subdivisions contract with some of the same companies that have a certified network
• For almost 20 years, the Alliance, a 504 network, has focused on identifying and contracting with the
• For almost 20 years, the Alliance, a 504 network has focused on identifying and contracting with the

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on a broad agenda of workforce, labor, and workers’ compensation bills. HB 4676 would require political subdivision workers’ compensation networks to follow the same notice, access, and complaint rules as certified TDI networks; supporters said public employees and first responders deserve equal access to care, while municipal risk pool representatives opposed added regulation and said existing 504 networks already perform well. HB 4479 would create a rural workforce development grant program at TWC to support college-and-career readiness and local workforce alignment, and HB 3844 would define “opportunity youth” in state law to improve data, coordination, and access to services for disconnected young Texans; both drew strong support from rural, education, and chamber witnesses. HB 5545 would clarify federal tax treatment for wage-replacement benefits in non-subscriber injury benefit plans, with proponents calling it a win for employers and injured workers. HB 5118 would direct TWC and DIR to study AI and automated employment decision tools in hiring, including bias and oversight concerns. HB 1667 would move existing PTSD workers’ compensation language into a broader Labor Code chapter so more first responders, including state and campus officers, could qualify for benefits; supporters called it a technical fix to extend coverage more evenly across agencies. The committee also heard several first-responder and workers’ compensation bills. HB 2369 would speed up claims handling for injured first responders by allowing a single medical evaluation, giving carriers 60 days to accept or deny a claim, and letting workers seek treatment while disputes proceed; law enforcement supporters said it would help injured officers return to work faster, while opponents warned it would revive extent-of-injury waiver problems and increase litigation. HB 4483 would reclassify certain workers’ compensation maintenance taxes as surcharges to reduce retaliatory taxes imposed by other states on Texas-domiciled carriers, and HB 875, as revised by committee substitute, would create a small-project exception to municipal workers’ compensation and bonding requirements for certain low-value construction contracts in small cities; both were presented as cost-saving measures for Texas employers and local governments. HB 4415 would extend anti-retaliation protections for workers’ compensation claimants from first responders to all public employees and expressly waive sovereign immunity for those claims, with supporters describing it as closing a loophole that leaves public workers without the same remedy available in the private sector. The committee also took testimony on HB 5400, which would expand remedies for sexual harassment victims by removing the requirement to first file an administrative charge, extending the filing deadline from 300 days to two years, clarifying retaliation, and eliminating current damages caps. Supporters, including employment lawyers and a parent of a victim, said the current deadlines and caps prevent many survivors from obtaining counsel or full relief, especially younger workers and those in small workplaces or franchises. Across the agenda, witnesses repeatedly emphasized access to care, fair treatment for injured workers, rural workforce development, and stronger protections for vulnerable employees. After each bill was laid out and testimony heard, the chair generally closed the public hearing and left the bill pending; no final votes were taken, and the subcommittee adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what would guarantee that the credit unions or the banks are even going to accept a contract like
• So as mentioned previously, there is a CRA credit, and like I said, there would be a contract that they
• What would the contract say, I guess, if that's what we're heading toward?
• What would the contract say, I guess, if that's what we're heading?
• What would the contract say that they're going to receive just another person or they're actually going

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 407, which would expand the California Pollution Control Financing Authority. The author said the measure would increase flexibility and access to resources, and the bill was approved 7-0 and sent to the Committee on Local Government. The committee also adopted the consent calendar, which included AB 76, by a 7-0 vote. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on AB 1065, which would prohibit swipe fees on the sales tax portion of credit card transactions. Supporters, including small business owners, restaurant and grocery representatives, and a payments-policy expert, argued the bill would reduce costs for merchants and consumers and rein in dominant card networks. Opponents, including banks, credit unions, and payment industry groups, argued the bill is likely preempted by federal law, would be difficult to implement, and could disproportionately affect community banks and credit unions. After extensive questioning about preemption, fraud, implementation, and consumer impacts, the committee rejected the bill on a 6-0 vote, but then granted reconsideration by a 7-1 vote. The committee then heard AB 1365, which would create the Cal Account Program, a zero-fee, zero-penalty state banking account for unbanked and underbanked Californians. Supporters said the program would help low-income households, survivors of abuse, and others facing barriers to traditional banking, while opponents from community banks and credit unions argued existing low-cost accounts and the Bank On program already address the need and raised concerns about cost, feasibility, and duplication. The bill advanced on a 6-0 vote and later received enough votes on the reopened roll to move forward to the Committee on Labor and Employment. The committee also approved AB 1052, which would create a legal framework for digital assets and address unclaimed digital property and restrictions on public officials issuing or promoting digital assets, and AB 1180, which would create a pilot program for paying state fees with digital financial assets and require a report on broader adoption. Both bills passed with broad support after brief testimony and discussion. Final roll calls later confirmed AB 1052 and AB 1180, along with AB 407 and AB 1365, were moved out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Consumers are often unaware of the terms, conditions, and what is covered under the service contracts
• , leading to potential misunderstandings or exploitation by service contract providers.
• HB 4830 would resolve these issues by updating the current laws governing service contracts for lease
• vehicles, ensuring that consumers are fully informed of what is covered under the contract.
• It requires service contract providers to clearly disclose terms and conditions while also providing

Bills: HB 1301, HB2278, HB2776, HB2820, HB3848, HB3920, HB4172, HB4215, HB4284, HB4285, HB4463, HB4517, HB4690, HB4765, HB4766, HB4767, HB4768, HB4769, HB4773, HB4830, HB5506

Keywords: alcohol, beverages, winery permit, restaurant, malt beverages, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, alcohol production, home brewing, family use, craft beverages, massage therapy, licensing, criminal offenses, sexually oriented businesses, public safety, bingo, charitable gaming, operating capital, regulation, funding

Summary: The Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures met with a quorum present, corrected the minutes from April 8, and then took up a long list of pending bills, most of which were reported favorably or left pending after hearing testimony. Early action included HB 1764 (accounting practice for certain out-of-state CPAs), HB 1788 (continuing education for barbers and cosmetologists on recognizing and assisting victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and human trafficking), HB 2204 (land surveyor regulation), HB 2885 (local option elections on alcohol sales), HB 2996 (gambling offense definitions and prosecution), HB 3250 (real estate appraisals and appraisal management companies), HB 3352 (driver education on work zones), HB 3385 (farm winery permit), HB 3756 (powers of certain nonresident sellers’ permit holders who also hold a winery permit), HB 3816 (cruelty to livestock animals), HB 3913 (real estate licensing), and HB 3928 (electronic notice of towed vehicles), all of which were advanced with unanimous or near-unanimous votes. Several of these bills were reported with committee substitutes, and some were also sent to the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars. The committee then heard testimony on HB 2278, which would legalize limited home distilling of spirits for personal or family use and add honey as an approved ingredient; supporters framed it as a consistency and freedom issue, and the bill was left pending. HB 3920, a TDLR workforce/CTE bill, and HB 1301, which would allow beer or malt beverages to be sold at certain wineries with on-site restaurants, were also laid out and left pending after discussion. HB 2776, aimed at tightening massage therapy licensing restrictions for people convicted of sexual and trafficking-related offenses and strengthening TDLR enforcement, and HB 3848, which would allow electronic filing of elevator and escalator inspection reports, were both heard and left pending as well. A major portion of the meeting focused on alcohol-related bills. HB 4215 would place delivery network companies under a statewide TDLR regulatory framework; Favor Delivery supported it, and it was left pending after the committee substitute was withdrawn. HB 4172 and HB 2820 would raise bingo reserve limits and update charitable bingo rules; supporters from veterans and nonprofit groups argued the changes would help charities, but both bills were left pending after the substitutes were withdrawn. HB 4463, a broadly supported bill allowing contract brewing and alternating brewery proprietorships, was also left pending. HB 4284 would remove the “excessive discount” prohibition in alcohol sales, HB 4285 would allow airlines to store alcohol within five miles of an airport in the same county, HB 4517 would create a complaint process for Texas distillers not paid by wholesalers, and HB 4773 would let breweries and brewpubs transport their own beer between facilities; HB 4773 drew the most debate, with supporters citing efficiency and opponents warning about unintended consequences and possible effects on the three-tier system, but it too was left pending. The committee also heard and left pending a series of TDLR cleanup bills and other measures, including HB 4765 through HB 4769, HB 4830 on service contracts for lease vehicles, HB 5506 giving civil immunity to ringside physicians at combative sports events, and HB 4690 on gasoline vapor pressure compliance. The meeting ended after all business was completed and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so some, apparently an outside entity, a contracted entity, And so apparently an outside entity,
• So there's baseline requirements for the contract, which would be student ages, grade level, student
• and school safety, Requirements for the contract, which would be student ages, grade level, student and
• So they have to first agree before any contract can be created on all the levels of how these issues
• I think after initial hiccups of you go here and I go there, all of that will be within contract and

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met with a quorum present and took up several education bills. SB 1150, which would remove an unrelated exam barrier for school social workers to help districts retain them, was briefly explained and reported favorably. The committee then heard SB 1514 on anaphylaxis in public schools, which would require emergency action plans and training for school personnel; amendments narrowed and clarified the bill, including applicability to K-8 schools and FDA-approved epinephrine devices. Orange County Public Schools waived in support, and CS/CS/SB 1514 was reported favorably. The committee spent the most time on SB 1708, which expands Schools of Hope and creates a co-location framework allowing high-performing charter operators to share space in underused public school facilities, with the sponsor explaining that agreements would address safety, supervision, grade levels, emergency protocols, and liability. Members raised concerns about who would be served, lottery access, accountability, and whether the bill would worsen inequities or strain public schools; many public speakers opposed the bill on similar grounds, arguing it would divert resources from already underfunded schools. The sponsor clarified that Schools of Hope recruitment is exempt from lottery, that the bill would not use classrooms already in use, and that districts would receive $600 per student plus associated funding for vacant space. Despite mixed debate, CS for SB 1708 was reported favorably. Finally, the committee considered CS/SB 822, which updates charter school governance by limiting sponsor-imposed deadlines, preventing enrollment caps below facility capacity, improving data sharing, and allowing high-performing charter schools to assume existing charters. A charter school advocate supported the bill as a fairness and efficiency measure, while senators pressed him on claims of district “harassment” and the basis for the bill’s deadline changes. After brief debate, CS/SB 822 was reported favorably. The meeting ended with members recording votes on prior tabs and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• DOES YOUR BILL PRECLUDE A WOMAN-OWNED CONTRACTOR OR COMPANY GETTING A CONTRACT BASED ON THE FACT THEY
• THEY ALSO HAVE A BILL ABOUT PREFERENCES AND LOCAL CONTRACTS. AND OUT IN LOCAL DOLLARS.
• AS IT PERTAINS TO MINORITY BUILDING CONTRACTS, DOES THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION PUT THAT IN TURMOIL. >>
• >> A CONTRACT FOR ME? >> Sen.
• AND EVERY TIME I COMPETED TO GET THOSE CONTRACTS I DIDN'T GET THEM.

Keywords: 999, senate, all