Transcript Highlights:

• representative pay representative pay yes<00:32:29.559> representative<00:32:30.120> Romo
• to pay?
• should be paying people should be paying should be paying people should be paying for<02:00:18.760
• <03:15:41.479> for these degrees that will never pay for these degrees that will never pay
• math what do I mean by will never pay math what do I mean by will never pay for<03:15:48.120>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened with a hearing on CACR 7, a proposed constitutional amendment to explicitly state that defendants are innocent until proven guilty in all cases and suits brought by the state. The prime sponsor argued the amendment would strengthen due process, prevent government overreach, and extend the presumption of innocence beyond criminal cases into civil and administrative matters such as forfeiture and family court proceedings. In testimony and questioning, the sponsor cited New Hampshire constitutional provisions, historical examples, and concerns about courts shifting burdens onto individuals. Committee members raised questions about the amendment’s wording, its relationship to existing law, and whether it would have practical effect if current statutes already place the burden on the state. The hearing was then closed without further witnesses. The committee next moved to executive session on House Bill 480, which establishes a procedure for restoring competency and creates a pilot forensic liaison position in Merrimack or Strafford County to assist with that process. After discussion about prior concerns, including an email from the Disabilities Rights Center and whether enough members were present, the committee voted to adopt Amendment 2025-61H and then voted ought to pass as amended. The amendment passed unanimously, and the bill passed on a 10-1 roll call, with Representative Andrew voting no. The chair noted the bill would not go on consent and that no minority report was planned. Finally, the committee opened a hearing on House Bill 666-FN, which would add restitution for violations of library-use confidentiality and expressly include library cards and membership status among confidential records. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen privacy protections after a local dispute and to provide a remedy and deterrent for improper disclosure. Committee questions focused on whether the restitution penalty would apply to accidental disclosures, how the bill interacts with existing exceptions such as court orders or investigations, and whether the language was consistent with current confidentiality law. The hearing remained open at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• bringing new energy resources onto the grid and pay for all the money.
• So we want the impacts of that development to kind of pay for itself.
• To folks maybe paying attention or in the industry, maybe not.
• Delaware consumers and small businesses should not pay the price for that.
• And how would Delmarva pay for these batteries?

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on energy, public safety, and environmental cleanup. House Bill 455 would create a historic preservation license plate to raise funds and awareness for Delaware preservation efforts, and House Bill 471 would tighten rules and penalties for off-highway vehicles on shared private roads, with golf carts excluded. House Substitute No. 1 for House Bill 439, the Truth in E-Bike Marketing Act, would require clearer disclosures when selling electric mopeds and electric motorcycles so consumers understand classification, power, and licensing/insurance requirements. House Substitute No. 1 for House Bill 407, related to the Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act and brownfields, would shift funding for brownfield cleanup from the original realty transfer tax approach to a dedicated share of the hazardous substance cleanup fund and raise civil penalties for fraudulent acts. The committee also approved the June 18, 2026 minutes once quorum was reached. Most of the meeting centered on House Substitute No. 1 for House Bill 233, as amended, a large-load/data center bill intended to protect ratepayers from costs tied to massive new electricity users. The sponsor and Public Advocate said PJM’s warnings about a coming reliability backstop auction made it urgent to establish a Delaware framework now, requiring large energy users to sign utility agreements, cover their share of transmission, distribution, and capacity costs, and comply with curtailment and other protections. Supporters from environmental groups and some labor and business voices said the bill was needed to prevent cost shifts to households and small businesses, while opponents argued it was being rushed, could deter investment, and might unintentionally affect other industries; several asked for more time and clearer definitions. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee also took up House Bill 470, which would authorize Delmarva Power, with PSC approval, to build and operate utility-owned battery storage and spread costs across the customer base. The sponsor and Delmarva said the bill would improve reliability quickly and help avoid outages, while the chair expressed concern that the state had not yet fully studied whether utility-owned or competitively procured storage is the best model, noting a recent SEU storage study and broader policy questions. Supporters said utility storage could be deployed faster and help with peak shaving, while others urged a competitive process; the transcript cuts off before any final action on HB 470.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rights or have access to information about your pay.
• Fair pay from the start doesn't just affect our paycheck today.
• We all pay for it. It's not a victimless crime.
• And patience pays off. See? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members.
• It would simply ensure that applicants know the policy before they pay to apply.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we doctors right now have a... ...and then they're not paying.
• The injured workers and the businesses who are paying the bills.
• We’re paying more. We pay more. We’re not doing well. That’s good.
• So with that negotiation, somebody's paying $70,000 for that bill.
• So with that negotiation, somebody's paying $70,000 for that bill.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 408 by Senator Myers, a workers’ compensation overhaul creating an all-claims medical database, requiring electronic reporting and billing, and setting up confidentiality, rulemaking, and penalties. Senator Myers said the bill was meant to modernize a paper-based system, speed injured workers back to care and work, reduce disputes through a more predictable fee schedule, address outliers and abuse, and generate reliable data for future fee-schedule decisions. Representative Melarine then offered a large amendment package combining portions of House Bills 780 and 1101 into SB 408, adding preliminary-determination procedures, changes to benefit durations, fraud language, and a deadline for the department to establish a fee schedule if no agreement is reached. Supporters said the package would create a more complete reform; opponents argued the additions were rushed, not germane, and would harm injured workers, especially those without lawyers, by adding technical filing burdens and stricter fraud consequences. After debate, the committee adopted the amendment package, then adopted a follow-up amendment removing the word “potential” from a fines provision and deleting the fraud section, and finally reported SB 408 with amendments on a divided vote. Testimony on SB 408 was sharply split. Proponents, including Alton Ashy and Trey Mustian, argued the bill’s transparency and data-collection provisions were the most important part, that the system needs a modern fee schedule, and that the added reforms would help control costs and speed payment. Opponents, including Shannon Lindsay and another injured-worker advocate, said the original bill was a good compromise but the added provisions changed its character and would disadvantage pro se claimants, remove materiality from fraud law, and reduce benefits for seriously injured workers. Committee members also questioned the timeline for the database and fee schedule, the effect of historical data gaps, and whether the reforms would help employers and injured workers alike. The committee ultimately agreed the bill still contained its core goals of faster care, predictable fees, anti-abuse measures, and modernization. The committee then moved to House Bill 585 by Representative Chasson, a workplace-violence/safety measure for small-box discount retailers. Chasson explained that the bill had been narrowed to require retailers to submit an existing written workforce safety plan, or develop one if they do not already have one, with no penalties attached. The committee adopted a substitute bill incorporating prior amendments. Representative Glorioso noted continuing concerns about civil-liability implications and the duty to protect against third-party criminal acts, but the bill was advanced from committee after the substitute was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• You pay them back over time. They get the concession, 40, 50, 60... You pay them back over time.
• Now, there are two ways you pay them back.
• And if we pay... ...program through these private investors or pay them back, and if you pay them back
• You're going to have to... ...pay for the relocation of our businesses.
• You're going to have to pay for trench plate up and down our streets.

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:

• taxes, and then down the road you said they don't pay privilege fees.
• taxes and then you they don't pay privilege fees so aren't they one and the same okay can you please
• To provide a sense of... ...paying event promoters for stadium events.
• for That exceed its statutorily required cash reserve to pay for the authority's operating expenses,
• As a result, the authority could reduce the amount of tourism revenues it distributes to pay for its

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we need to pay more to providers? Do we need to look at the state appropriation?
• does ABC pay for?
• What they would have to pay.
• Co-pays have had a significant impact on the families we serve.
• What are you seeing regarding the What are you seeing regarding the co-pays?

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we need to pay more to providers? Do we need to look at the state appropriation?
• what does ABC pay for?
• Co-pays have had a significant impact on the families we serve.
• What are you seeing regarding the co-pays?
• For example, looking at it through more of a contracted way to pay for it—pay for that particular seat

Summary: The committee met to review early childhood education funding, access, and program sustainability, with Secretary Aleva and Director Ashland Abney providing updates on Arkansas’s ABC state-funded preschool program and the federal CCDF/SRA program. Members discussed the long-standing flat funding for ABC, which rose from $11 million to $14 million in 2018, compared with roughly $137 million in federal CCDF/SRA funding. Officials said ABC serves about 23,000 children, while SRA serves about 14,871 children and has a wait list of about 2,971 children. Members also asked for more data on rural versus urban access, provider types, and the number of slots and providers by region. A major topic was how to improve quality and access while aligning early childhood with K-12. Officials said the department is moving from the Better Beginnings environmental rating system toward CLASS observations, using local leads and a kindergarten-readiness strategy tied to quality improvement. Members raised concerns about deserts and islands in service availability, the cost of school-based versus community-based providers, and the need to support infant-toddler care as well as preschool. The commissioner said early learning should be part of long-term state education investment, but that simply adding money would not solve access gaps without broader structural changes. The committee also discussed recent funding changes and their effects on providers and families. Officials said a $14.741 million PDG-BFV competitive grant will support systems-building work, including local leads, workforce, data systems, and third-party CLASS observations, but it is a one-year grant and not direct service funding. Members questioned the impact of new co-pays, provider closures, and slot reallocations; officials said eight closures were tied specifically to funding changes, and that paying only for enrolled children rather than allocated slots saved about $576,000. They also discussed dual enrollment in home visiting and ABC, with officials estimating that limiting double enrollment could save about $2.4 million and potentially serve about 470 more children. The meeting ended with agreement to continue regular updates and further discussion, and the committee adjourned without a vote on legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I proposed a 10-member board accountable to the voters who are paying the bill.
• the three-eighths of a cent sales tax that the three other counties pay, and does not pay the property
• tax that the three other counties pay.
• My constituents pay sales tax and property tax into BART.
• San Francisco is going to be paying a full cent, double what everyone else is paying.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard SB 63 by Senator Wiener, as amended and coauthored by Senator Arreguín, a Bay Area transit funding measure intended to avert major service cuts at BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit. The authors said the region faces a fiscal cliff and that without new revenue, BART could collapse and other systems could face severe reductions. They described the bill as the product of extensive negotiations among the five Bay Area counties and transit operators, with San Mateo and Santa Clara counties opting in during the process. Much of the discussion focused on accountability and governance. Supporters said the bill includes some of the strongest oversight provisions in recent memory, including a third-party efficiency review and ad hoc adjudication committees that can withhold a portion of funding if operators fail to correct problems. Assembly Member Papin and Assembly Member Lackey argued the measure amounts to a taxpayer bailout with insufficient representation and too much control left to MTC, while the authors responded that the bill gives affected counties direct complaint and enforcement authority and that MTC must follow the ad hoc committees’ recommendations. Several members asked about complaint procedures, withholding thresholds, opt-in/opt-out issues, and whether the funding would return to the source counties if withheld. Testimony in support came from SPUR, Caltrain, MTC, the Bay Area Council, BART, SamTrans, VTA, San Francisco MTA, transit coalitions, environmental groups, local governments, and labor. Supporters emphasized the risk of severe service cuts, the importance of preserving recent investments such as Caltrain electrification, and the need for regional self-help. There was no registered opposition witness, though some members spoke against the bill. The committee ultimately voted 11-5 to pass SB 63 as amended to the floor, with the committee amendments also removing urgency language.

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, the developer pays for the upgrades to the line and the substations for each project we build
• We pay for those.
• It's the legislators' job to say we are going to decide who must pay.
• They would not pay you, right? Like, I'll try this again.
• If they were not producing solar on their roof, they'd be paying you retail. Correct? Correct.

Bills: HF2103, HF2793

Keywords: energy, renewable energy, ammonia, hydrogen, certificate tracking, funding, environment, community solar, energy policy, sustainability, solar garden program, regulation sunset

Transcript Highlights:

• already pay taxes? already pay taxes?
• No, now a a a decrease in our pay.
• Instead of pay see hiring freezes.
• employers have to pay increased costs? employers have to pay increased costs?
• They're not taking a rate pay decrease. They're not taking a rate pay decrease.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• including uh a new ability to pay including uh a new ability to pay provision,<00:04:31.520>
• policy falls under the ability to pay policy falls under the ability to pay clause.<00:05:03.600
• able to pay this fine? able to pay this fine?
• a position where they forgot to pay a position where they forgot to pay their<01:07:48.559> pro
• <01:08:13.599> our vehicle until we were able to pay our vehicle until we were able to pay

Bills: HF3131, HF3436, HF3106, HF3241, HF3531

Keywords: cancer, disability, parking certificates, transportation, state law, school bus, schoolchildren, student safety, traffic safety, stop arm, flashing red lights, amber lights, passing a school bus, 20 feet, vehicle stopping distance, driver duties, school transportation, Minnesota traffic law, school bus law, bus stop signal

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:59:18.960> for<00:59:19.200> their pay the premium or to pay for their pay the
• Um which we all pay for.
• Um which we all pay for.
• Um which we all pay for.
• Um which we all pay for.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The task force held its first meeting on the insurance affordability crisis affecting single-family housing, common interest communities, and multifamily rental housing. Members and staff introduced themselves, including representatives from insurers, the Department of Commerce, housing advocates, affordable housing developers, and HOA/community association interests. Representative Steve Elkins was elected chair by roll call vote with 10 members in favor, after discussion that the Senate appointee’s formal appointment had not yet arrived; the group noted the intent to later move to co-chair leadership once that appointment is finalized. Staff reviewed the task force’s enabling statute and open meeting law requirements. The task force is charged with studying homeowners and commercial property insurance, property resilience and risk mitigation, liability laws and possible tort reform, notice and oversight issues, public reporting, and the state-supported insurance program, including possible expansion to a catastrophic reinsurance fund or self-insured pool. The final report is due February 15 and will go to the commissioners of commerce, housing finance, and employment and economic development, as well as relevant legislative committees. Members were also briefed on meeting logistics, a draft charter to be voted on at the second meeting, a resource page for shared materials, and the schedule of future meetings. The Department of Commerce then gave an overview of Minnesota’s property and casualty insurance market. Commerce described its regulatory role, the state’s competitiveness test, and how homeowners insurance is often filed under a “file and use” process rather than prior approval. The presentation emphasized that homeowners coverage has been under pressure for years: insurers have lost money in many recent years, premiums have risen, some consumers are taking on more risk through higher deductibles or reduced coverage, and some are moving into the surplus market. Commerce also highlighted the impact of severe weather losses, the growth in premiums since 2014, and gaps in oversight for homeowners associations and related policies. The meeting then shifted to brainstorming the problems the task force should address. Early discussion focused on climate and construction-related resilience, including hail and wind-driven rain damage, discontinued building materials, and whether stronger materials are reflected in insurance pricing. Members also raised the need to study programs like Alabama’s fortified roof model and Minnesota’s own Strengthen Minnesota Homes effort, along with questions about whether the construction industry is prepared to support broader resilience measures. No additional votes were taken during the discussion segment.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:17:13.400> for centers as we've been able to pay for centers as we've been able to pay
• to pay all the associated claims. to pay all the associated claims.
• Are you going to pay that claim or not? Are you going to pay that claim or not?
• Is that basically you pay it?
• :29.640> huge you pay it You're going to pay a huge you pay it You're going to pay a huge penalty

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <02:12:03.960> for making sure that we're not paying for making sure that we're not paying
• a co-pay won't have to pay the premium, or those who pay the premium won't have to pay the co-pay, because
• <02:47:59.960> to<02:48:00.160> pay those who pay a co-pay won't have to pay those
• who pay a co-pay won't have to pay the<02:48:00.600> or<02:48:00.840> those<02:48:01.000
• the co-pay because the way I have to pay the co-pay because the way I read<02:48:04.279> this

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division 3 work session continued its review of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Medicaid budget and related policy issues, with CFO Nathan White and Medicaid Director Henry Litman presenting updated materials. The discussion focused on a crosswalk between the adjusted FY 2025 Medicaid budget and the governor’s FY 2026 recommendation, plus handouts showing service additions, eligibility changes, dental rates, and other Medicaid changes since 2019. The department also said it would provide a clearer breakdown of the pharmacy cost-sharing item by general, federal, and other funds. Members asked detailed questions about the Medicaid enhancement tax, the 80% plan, and how funds are allocated between hospital payments, directed payments, and DSH uncompensated care. The department explained that the MET is being used more toward rates and directed payments to better align with federal matching rules, while DSH remains important for uncompensated care. They also noted that a pending Senate Bill 249 would keep the 80% structure and move to Senate Finance. On the trigger law, the department identified the governing provision as Chapter 342:12, Laws of 2018, and explained that if the federal match for Medicaid expansion falls below 90%, the state must notify legislative leaders and participants and the program would sunset after 180 days unless the legislature acts. The committee also reviewed current Medicaid expansion enrollment and program trends. Officials said enrollment was just under 59,000 as of March 3, with about 87,000 people enrolled over the past year and more than a quarter-million residents having used the program over its lifetime. They said enrollment has fallen from a post-pandemic high of nearly 97,000 and may eventually settle in the low 50,000s. Finally, the department discussed federal DSH funding risk, saying New Hampshire could face a significant reduction if Congress does not extend current protections, which is part of why the state has shifted more funding toward payment rates and directed payments.

Transcript Highlights:

• that they have to pay for the medication, let alone for them to eat.
• Those are profits that are going to corporations, mostly out of town, and CEO pay.
• You are going to pay for these things.” “It’s taxes on your food, on your fuel.
• “By gutting our counties and cities, we will pay more for lower quality services.
• And it doesn't ask on the way in whether or not the patients can pay.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My next question is, counties pay a state-mandated share of Medicaid costs.
• My next question is, counties pay a state-mandated share of Medicaid costs.
• that they have to pay for the medication, let alone for them to eat.
• You are going to pay for these things. It's taxes on your food, on your fuel.
• And it doesn't ask on the way in whether or not the patients can pay.

Summary: The House met in special session, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the journal, and adopted the special order report setting the day’s calendar. The chamber then took up CS/House Joint Resolution 1F, the Governor’s property tax proposal, which would raise the homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and restrict county and municipal ad valorem revenue to public safety and certain other uses. Sponsor Rep. Overdorf said the measure would return money to homeowners and give local governments flexibility, while opponents repeatedly argued the ballot language was misleading and that the proposal could create large local revenue shortfalls, shift costs to other taxpayers, and threaten local services and debt obligations. Members debated a series of amendments aimed at protecting specific programs from the bill’s effects. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to exempt Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was defeated 25-74 after supporters said those entities fund child care, mental health, aftercare, and family support, while opponents said local governments could still choose to fund them. Rep. Cross’s amendment to include water management districts in allowable uses of ad valorem taxes was also defeated, despite testimony that the districts are essential for flood control, water supply, Everglades restoration, and drought response. Rep. Eskamani’s amendment to require the Legislature to backfill public safety funding failed 25-71 after debate over whether the proposal could reduce police and fire budgets and response times. The House then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other aging services, and opponents saying the state already funds senior programs. Finally, Rep. Gant’s amendment to protect veteran services was introduced and debated, with members emphasizing housing, mental health, transition assistance, and homelessness concerns for veterans; the transcript cuts off before the vote on that amendment. Throughout the debate, sponsors and supporters of the main resolution maintained that local governments would retain spending discretion and could use other revenue sources, while critics argued the measure lacked clear backfill provisions and could force cuts or tax shifts at the local level.

Transcript Highlights:

• the rate of pay is higher, and so we do have to pay for additional...
• If their pay goes up, then the amount that we pay for the claims does increase. increase to workers comp
• primarily because the rate of pay is higher and so we have do have to pay for additional if their pay
• If their pay goes up, then the amount that we pay for the claims does increase a little bit.
• that get what it is they're paying for.

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is about who pays.
• The first is about who pays. And I want to try to stay within your, ...about who pays.
• Should the state pay? Should local governments be paying? Should homeowners be paying?
• And then if I pay, what about my neighbors on each side?
• If I pay, what about my neighbors on each side?

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to pay this. Money is money. They have to pay this. Money is money.
• They have to pay this. Money is money. They have to pay this. Money is money.
• It'll pay for weapons screening equipment at places that don't have it, but it won't pay for the staff
• onetime money though, so it won't pay onetime money though, so it won't pay for<00:31:43.519>
• screening It'll pay for weapons screening It'll pay for weapons screening equipment<00:31:49.360

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3874, the Judiciary budget bill, and first moved it to the Ways and Means Committee. The bill was described as funding the judicial branch’s budget request, including courthouse and judge security measures, home safety for judges and staff, a $1 million courthouse safety grant program, and funding related to paid family and medical leave costs that the courts must absorb. A court administrator explained that some base adjustments were budget-neutral internal shifts within the court system, moving money from district courts to other courts to better meet overall needs. Members then debated several amendments. The A7 amendment, which reduced some of the requested security funding for administrators and aligned it more closely with legislative security levels while retaining flexible Supreme Court security personnel, was adopted. The A1 amendment, which would have deleted the additional operating adjustment for paid family and medical leave, failed on a 7-7 tie after debate over whether the courts should bear the employer share of that cost and whether the program itself was an unfunded mandate. The A2 amendment, also related to paid family and medical leave funding, likewise failed on a 7-7 tie after similar discussion about the judiciary’s ongoing employment costs and the branch’s inability to raise its own revenue. The committee then adopted the A4 amendment, which increased the courthouse safety grant program from $1 million to $4 million. Supporters said there was unmet demand for courthouse security grants and that the money would help with hardware such as screening equipment, while the court administrator said the branch would not spend more than it could use and that the grants would be reviewed by a committee including law enforcement and county representatives. The administrator noted the funding would be one-time money and would not cover staffing costs. The committee also discussed the judiciary’s ongoing need for funding, with members arguing both that the courts should be treated like other employers and that the judicial branch, as an independent branch of government, must be funded by the legislature. The final A5 amendment was then introduced, with staff noting it would delete a section already covered by the adopted A7 amendment and reduce an appropriation on page four, line 14.