Transcript Highlights:

• Well, Representative, if you're asking about like a language around some kind of rate requirement, we
• We have implemented rate requirements in the past when they've been coupled with rate increases.
• These rates are...
• So unless there's a rate amendment, a rate change to a specific service, I'd have to get more clarity
• The funding for this initiative will be repurposed from the different unit rate increase for licensed

Transcript Highlights:

• So, are we talking about $7.5 million a year for... their rates from about $20 a day to $27 their rates
• We already have a vacancy rate of 22.5%. We have an attrition rate of about 10%.
• </c> will have higher call abandonment rates. will have higher call abandonment rates.
• So it's an enhanced rate.
• Um the rate transportation rates.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, I'm not sure actually if it would go into that rating.
• ISAT or in their graduation rates.
• students on examinations like the ISAT or in their graduation rates.
• Yeah, 8% higher graduation rate. 8%. 8%.
• I wish it was 80." "22%—yeah, 8% higher graduation rate. 8%. 8%.

Transcript Highlights:

• With wells drilled initially for the first time, you see that depletion rate.
• And Brian, just a little clarification on the oil tax rates by state.
• Monthly oil rates are on the y-axis over cumulative years on the x-axis.
• So next year... 1.8 million, roughly next year, depending we grow at the same rate.
• We see that in other... areas of the state paying different rates for schools.

Committee: Joint Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• New Mexico has an aggregate rate that would be closer to the 6.9% mark.
• And Brian, just a little clarification on the oil tax rate.
• And Brian, just a little clarification on the oil tax rates by state.
• "The monthly oil rates are on the y-axis over cumulative years on the x-axis.
• We see that in other... areas of the state paying different rates for schools.

Summary: The Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met with a quorum, approved the March 17, 2026 minutes, and heard a lengthy update from Tax Commissioner Brian Croshys on property tax relief programs. He reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting increased relief after House Bill 1158 and House Bill 1176, but also discussing how some households “income adjust out” of eligibility over time. Members asked about indexing income thresholds, expanding eligibility by age alone, simplifying administration, county-level notices, and whether the county and state systems could be streamlined. Croshys said the programs are heavily used, largely administered at the county level, and that the department is still refining compliance and reporting; he also said there were no material findings or overarching concerns in the latest review. The committee agreed more detailed PRC information would likely come back in a September meeting, and the chair announced an afternoon recess for lunch before later reconvening. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase report, the zero-growth report, and a statistical report on property values and tax levies by class. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and identified counties and cities with the largest percentage changes in growth or decline. She also summarized recent trends: agricultural values remain relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed values have risen over the last five years; in 2025, residential property accounted for the largest share of statewide property tax levies, followed by commercial, agriculture, and centrally assessed property. Committee members asked about unusual zero-growth figures, the effect of annexation and land-use changes, and whether the 3% levy cap was forcing political subdivisions to use reserves or defer spending. Myers said many counties complied by using reserves, delaying capital projects, or limiting increases, and that some counties had not used their full cap. The committee then moved to the stripper oil extraction tax exemption. Commissioner Croshys reviewed the state’s oil tax structure and estimated the revenue impact of keeping stripper wells exempt from extraction tax while still paying production tax. He said the exemption saves operators hundreds of millions of dollars over a biennium, while the state still collects production tax on those wells. He also discussed projected impacts if the exemption were changed for future wells and noted that future outcomes depend on oil prices, production declines, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly explained the historical difference between the 35-barrel and 30-barrel thresholds for certain wells, citing differences in completion costs and lateral lengths. The committee then heard from EERC CEO Charles Gorecki, who presented an analysis of oil well life cycles and said most oil is produced before wells reach stripper status, but that refracturing or other reinvestment can significantly extend production and keep wells above the threshold for years.

Transcript Highlights:

• Assistant state attorneys receive an increase of $10,000 to their base rate of pay.
• inflation, or have we perhaps just put an across-the-board rate increase, not tied to inflation?
• department in making sure that our error rates are low. because I think it's important.
• Senator Trumbull: Assisting the department in making sure that our error rates are low.
• Declining birth rates, which is something the legislature doesn't have any control over.

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the conference report on House Bill 501E, the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026-27. Budget chairs presented the major spending areas, describing a $114.5 billion overall budget that they said was fiscally responsible and below the prior year’s spending. Highlights included pay increases and retirement adjustments for public safety employees, education funding for K-12, higher education, health and human services, criminal justice, transportation, environmental programs, and agriculture/regulatory agencies. Members then questioned chairs on several items. In education, senators discussed K-12 declining enrollment funding, teacher salary set-asides, private school scholarship spending, mental health funding, preeminence funding for universities, the Hamilton Center at UF, and charter school PICO funding. In health and human services, questions focused on the iBudget waiver waitlist, provider rates, ADAP/HIV funding and the return of Biktarvy to the formulary, KidCare, rural health funding, SNAP-related IT and error reduction efforts, and the IDD managed care program. In criminal justice, senators asked about correctional officer pay, prison staffing and infrastructure, air conditioning in prisons, juvenile justice facilities, law enforcement recruitment, and court system funding. Environmental and transportation questions covered Florida Forever, water quality, state parks, water projects, housing, elections funding, and emergency management. Several specific actions and explanations were given during debate: the budget includes $8.8 million for state attorney competitive area differentials but no funding for public defender CAD requests; assistant state attorneys will start at $70,000 and assistant public defenders at $65,000; the battery disposal issue was described as a temporary study/preemption approach; and the Senate said the budget does not fund Medicaid expansion, preeminence funding, or the SunBucks Summer EBT state share. Senators also noted that some proposals discussed in committee did not make it into the final budget. The transcript ends with debate statements from members praising the budget process and Chair Hooper, while also expressing concerns about public schools, health care access, affordability, and the lack of funding for certain priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any impact there to their maybe workforce participation rates and that type of thing?
• That's the highest the labor force participation rate has been since February 2010.
• They often tie higher wage rates to whether employers offer health insurance or not.
• and labor force participation rates.
• Missouri unemployment rate went up roughly 25 percent-ish, from what I gathered.

Committee: House Business

Summary: The committee held a study on the potential effects of living wage or minimum wage laws in Oklahoma, with the chair emphasizing that the discussion was not intended to advocate for or against State Question 832. The first panel focused on economic and workforce impacts. An Oklahoma Department of Commerce representative argued that living wage calculations vary by region and household type, that Oklahoma’s average wages are already near or above many living-wage estimates, and that higher mandated wages could lead employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, automate, or avoid expansion, especially in rural areas where childcare, healthcare, broadband, and infrastructure constraints also affect labor participation. Committee members asked about wage distributions, rural cost differences, training pathways, and whether higher wages might draw workers or businesses out of state; the witness said many low-wage workers move up over time and that Oklahoma has seen net in-migration. A State Chamber Research Foundation witness then testified that a $15 statewide wage floor would raise payroll costs substantially, especially for small rural employers, and cited examples from California and Seattle to argue that higher wages can reduce hours, jobs, and benefits while increasing consumer prices. She suggested alternatives such as expanding the state earned income tax credit and promoting upskilling through existing education and training programs. A Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry representative described Missouri’s recent voter-approved minimum wage increase to $13.75, rising to $15, along with paid sick leave provisions. She said the chamber opposed the measure because it would raise business costs, hurt rural communities and youth employment, and force some employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, or close. She cited examples from Missouri businesses facing significant added costs and warned that a future ballot initiative could create a patchwork of local minimum wages. In response to questions, she said Missouri’s law did not distinguish by age or industry, that businesses had raised concerns about union contracts and compliance, and that the chamber viewed the measure as harmful to competitiveness. Peter Hansen of NFIB presented the final major testimony, summarizing an NFIB study projecting that a higher Oklahoma minimum wage would produce some short-term GDP gains but longer-term losses, with GDP turning negative by the early 2030s and job losses growing over time. He said businesses respond to higher wage mandates by raising prices, trimming jobs, converting full-time positions to part-time, reducing benefits, and shifting investment toward automation or other capital. He argued that the burden falls most heavily on vulnerable workers such as young or marginal employees, who are less likely to be hired when labor costs rise. In questioning, he acknowledged that higher wages can improve pay for some workers and may have some short-term positive effects, but maintained that the long-term employment and investment effects are negative. No votes or formal actions were taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Reimbursement rates, particularly from government programs, are inconsistent and often fall short of
• Medicaid reimbursement rates to reflect the true cost of providing emergency medical care and continue
• Reimbursement rates, particularly from government programs, are inconsistent and often fall short of
• Also chief offer on the House side with raising medical rates.
• </c> house side with raising medical rates. house side with raising medical rates.

Summary: The meeting focused on the financial and workforce crisis facing Minnesota emergency medical services, especially ground ambulance providers in rural areas. Michael Johnson of the Minnesota Ambulance Association said EMS serves more than 600,000 Minnesotans a year and argued that reimbursement rates do not cover the cost of readiness, staffing, and 24/7 response. He and others called for ongoing EMS sustainability funding of about $50 million, higher Medicaid reimbursement, and continued support for EMT/paramedic scholarships, first responder training, and high school EMS programs. Senator Grant Hoschild and Representative Jeff Backer echoed the urgency, describing EMS as a moral imperative and emphasizing that rural communities cannot wait for ambulances when lives are at risk. Backer, who also volunteers as an EMT, described staffing shortages, reliance on volunteers, and a recent cardiac arrest response to illustrate the importance of local EMS coverage. Becca Hitch of PUM Area EMS said rural services are paid only when patients are transported, not for responding or treating on scene, and that one-time aid helped but did not solve underlying deficits. Bradley Peterson of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities said local governments that hold ambulance licenses are being forced to absorb unrecovered costs through property taxes, and that state support is needed to prevent service failures and rising local burdens. In response to questions, speakers said a 2023 statewide study found about $120 million in need, with roughly half tied to operational deficits and half to volunteer support; last year’s aid included about $24 million for rural services and some improvements in volunteer call pay and equipment needs. They also discussed a proposed 10% Medicaid increase, possible special tax district ideas, and the need to target any new funding toward rural services most at risk.

Transcript Highlights:

• plans</c> the multi-year rate plans the multi-year rate plans &gt;&gt; in<00:47:24.880><c> stating</
• President. rate savings. rate savings.
• </c> tied to what the current SOS rate is. tied to what the current SOS rate is.
• SOS rates when you enter into the SOS rates when you enter into the agreement.<01:35:00.080><c> Uh</c
• </c><01:36:21.760><c> can</c> lock in a rate but then that rate can lock in a rate but then that rate

Transcript Highlights:

• a say in that vote instead of the city... ...instead of the city council or mayor increasing that rate
• not... ...Um, our concern is that one size does not fit all because the bill talks about that the rates
• Are there different rates in different areas, or are everybody's rates across the state the same as far
• Currently, there’s no cap on what that franchise rate can be.
• that municipality, specifically Birmingham, would have the ability up until December 31st to set a rate

Bills: SB271 , SB295 , SB309

Committee: Senate Transportation and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• , the taxable value rate, at 8.3% compared to 9.5%, which is the current rate.
• ><c> at</c><00:04:32.080><c> 8.3%</c> the taxable value rate at 8.3% the taxable value rate at 8.3% uh
• </c> spot, uh establishing the rate at 8.3%. spot, uh establishing the rate at 8.3%.
• </c> assessment rate to 8.3%. assessment rate to 8.3%.
• </c> interest rates and a variety of things. interest rates and a variety of things.

Committee: Joint Revenue

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:26.400><c> necessary</c> calculates the rate increase necessary calculates the rate increase necessary
• ,</c><00:24:27.600><c> increased</c> care, lower facility ratings, increased care, lower facility ratings
• 14:39.360><c> we</c> them from raising rates, but saying we them from raising rates, but saying we want
• to a flat rate with no option for rate exception.
• The rate greatest risk right now is to do nothing to keep the status quo and implement flat rates in

Committees: Senate Health and Human Services , Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're slowing the spending growth rate by, first of all, being able to measure that.
• So we're slowing the spending growth rate. we see health care really outpacing that.
• So we're slowing the spending growth rate by, first of all, being able to measure that.
• Small business rates have been lower.
• It's still a significant rate increase, but it's manageable.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're slowing the spending growth rate by, first of all, being able to measure that.
• So we're slowing the spending growth rate. we see health care really outpacing that.
• So we're slowing the spending growth rate by, first of all, being able to measure that.
• Small business rates have been lower.
• It's still a significant rate increase, but it's manageable.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the “cost of uncertainty” in health coverage, access, and affordability amid federal policy changes. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s gains under the Affordable Care Act and Health for All policies—high coverage rates, consumer protections, and lower uninsured rates—are now threatened by federal rollbacks, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits and H.R. 1. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk of coverage losses, especially for low-income Californians, workers, seniors, and immigrant communities. The first panel featured federal policy and state implementation experts, including Don Joyce, Jessica Altman of Covered California, and Elizabeth Lansberg of HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability. Testimony described the ACA’s coverage expansions and the current federal threats: shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, loss of enhanced subsidies, and changes affecting immigrants and preventive coverage. Covered California reported that average monthly premiums could nearly double without the subsidies, new enrollment is down sharply, and more consumers are shifting into bronze plans with higher deductibles. HCAI explained its affordability strategy through spending targets, consolidation review, and primary care investment, while members asked about the impact of federal cuts on provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue. The second panel, with UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz and California Health Care Foundation’s Christoph Stremikis, broadened the discussion to statewide cost drivers and consumer impacts. They highlighted that more than half of Californians under 65 rely on job-based coverage, yet premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs have risen faster than wages. They also pointed to medical debt, administrative waste, market consolidation, and underinvestment in primary care as major drivers of unaffordability. Members asked about the 25% of health spending that does not improve patient care, the role of fraud versus administrative friction, the effect of cost growth targets on workers, and the need for preventive care and possible revenue solutions. The hearing then moved to a third panel on human impacts, beginning with testimony from a Central Valley promotora describing how families are choosing lower-tier coverage, struggling with diabetes care, and facing higher premiums after subsidy losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• It establishes the outpatient rate for these services at 150% of the current rate, and it also establishes
• It establishes the outpatient rate for these services at 150% of the current rate, and it also establishes
• It establishes the outpatient rate for these services at 150% of the current rate, and it also establishes
• It establishes the outpatient rate for these services at 150% of the current rate, and it also establishes
• It establishes the outpatient rate for these services at 150% of the current rate, and it also establishes

Summary: The committee first considered Senate Bill 2, sponsored by Senator Mike Wilson, which would prohibit incarcerated people from receiving cross-sex hormones or gender-affirming surgeries, while allowing a tapering period if stopping an existing treatment would cause physical harm. Wilson said the bill was needed to prevent the Department of Corrections from providing such care by memo or policy rather than statute, and he argued the care was elective and not medically necessary. Senators Thomas, Neal, Nemes, Styers, and others questioned whether any gender-affirming surgeries had actually occurred in Kentucky, whether the hormone treatments were physician-prescribed, and whether the bill would override medical judgment; Wilson said the department reported no surgeries, that 67 incarcerated people were receiving cross-sex hormone therapy, and that he would only support treatment if it fit the bill’s narrow medical-harm exception. Public testimony on SB 2 was strongly opposed. Chris Hartman of the Fairness Campaign said the bill would deny medically necessary care, violate the Eighth Amendment, and target a very small and vulnerable incarcerated population. Dr. Jack Skilles testified that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and supported by major medical organizations, warning that denying it could worsen mental health and lead to suicidality. Hannah Callahan, a transgender woman, described being denied hormone therapy while incarcerated and said the interruption caused severe physical and mental harm, including suicidal thoughts. Emma Curtis, Lexington’s Fourth District councilwoman, also urged a no vote, framing the issue as a matter of compassion and religious duty. The committee then voted on SB 2. Senator Neal explained his no vote by saying he was not medically trained and deferred to doctors; Senator Nemes said he wanted clarification that the bill would not stop ongoing treatment; and Senator Styers argued the bill was a poor priority and noted there was no fiscal note and that only 67 people were affected. Senator Wheeler moved the bill, Senator Reed seconded, and the committee reported Senate Bill 2 favorably. Afterward, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 84, sponsored by Senator Steve Rawlings, which would limit judicial deference to state agency interpretations and require courts, not agencies, to interpret ambiguous laws, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision overturning Chevron deference.

Transcript Highlights:

• His PTSD stress reaction increased heart rate, anxiety, hypervigilance, and anger all hit the top of
• Today, our rates are lower than in 1988.
• In 2011, due to the Great Recession, the CPCS reduced their copy rate to 10 cents.
• The economy soon recovered, but not our copy rate.
• Notably, it provides for an increase in the original page rate from $3 to $4.50.”

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held its inaugural hearing of the session, led by Chair Michael Day and co-chair Senator Lydia Edwards, and reviewed a large slate of bills and constitutional amendments. The chair laid out hearing procedures, including three-minute testimony limits, priority for in-person witnesses, and deadlines for reporting constitutional amendments and House bills. The committee heard testimony on 29 proposals, with many witnesses and advocates speaking in support of measures they said would clarify the law, improve access to justice, or address public safety and fairness concerns. Several bills drew extensive testimony. Supporters of H.1686/S.1254 urged creation of a commission to study intentional misrepresentation of service animals, citing disruptive and dangerous encounters with fake service dogs and the need to protect legitimate service-dog teams. H.1649/S.1168 on court transcriber fees received strong support from transcribers and CPCS, who said rates have been frozen at $3 per page since 1988 and should be raised to $4.50, with an automatic CPI adjustment; they also described the work as time-consuming and essential to the justice system. H.1768/S.1037 on indigency was backed by CPCS, which said the bill would update eligibility rules, reduce unnecessary six-month reassessments, and eliminate the $150 counsel fee for indigent adults. H.1723/S.1193 to remove the charitable immunity cap was supported by legislators and attorneys who argued the current $20,000/$100,000 caps leave seriously injured people undercompensated and make Massachusetts an outlier. The committee also heard testimony on S.1046 regarding adoptions, with multiple adoptive parents, attorneys, and agency representatives describing recent probate court interpretations that have disrupted out-of-state surrender and finalization practices. Witnesses said the bill would restore predictability and allow birth parents outside Massachusetts to use either their home-state law or Massachusetts law, while preserving ICPC safeguards. Senator Feingold testified on H.1748/S.1109, “Conrad’s Law,” to criminalize coercing someone into suicide, arguing Massachusetts should join most other states in creating a specific offense rather than relying on involuntary manslaughter charges. Representative Donahue supported H.66 to remove “so help me God” from the constitutional oath of office. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee simply heard testimony and thanked witnesses, with chairs indicating they would continue reviewing the bills and written submissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• is low, but our chronic unemployment rate is over 8%.
• These are very high-risk, high failure rate. And it also is something.
• HJR1053 would require county clerks to calculate this revenue neutral rate.
• The rate of increase. So yes, we put those caps in whenever we put them in.
• And so, you, that's gonna drive your rate.

Committee: House Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• that they have with hospitals based on their capitation rate.
• How do we fix the reimbursement rate for Medi-Cal providers so that they continue to take care of the
• to exceed Medicare rates and brought them close to average commercial rates so that hospitals wouldn't
• Have asthma rates gone up?
• I want you to go out and find out if there's asthma rates.

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The Senate Rules Committee met to consider several governor’s appointees and routine committee actions. Members approved, by unanimous 5-0 votes, three not-required-to-appear appointments: Hampus Eitsiter to the Boating and Waterways Commission, Peter Stern to the California Horse Racing Board, and Dean White to the State Mining and Geology Board. The committee also approved references of bills to committees and floor acknowledgements, each by 5-0 vote. The committee then heard testimony on Tyler Sadwith’s appointment as Chief Deputy Director of Healthcare Programs at the Department of Health Care Services. Sadwith emphasized protecting Medi-Cal access for 14 million Californians, navigating federal changes, and continuing CalAIM and behavioral health reforms. Senators focused heavily on hospital financial distress, rural access, Medi-Cal redeterminations, work requirements, provider reimbursement, fraud oversight, dental access, labor and delivery closures, and the effectiveness of CalAIM and community supports. Public commenters from county, hospital, and provider groups largely supported the nomination, citing his experience and collaborative approach. The committee voted 5-0 to send his appointment to the full Senate. The committee also considered Chris Thayer’s appointment as director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Thayer described OEHHA’s role as providing transparent, science-based health assessments, improving risk communication, and supporting tools such as CalEnviroScreen and Prop 65 guidance. Senators raised concerns about reliance on models versus real-world data, PFAS, environmental justice, wildfire and battery-fire impacts, and whether CalEnviroScreen and Prop 65 are working as intended. Public testimony from environmental and health organizations supported the nomination and highlighted OEHHA’s scientific role. The committee approved Thayer’s appointment 3-1, with one senator not voting, and forwarded it to the Senate floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• continuation rate? First-year retention rate is 94%. That sounds pretty good.
• Higher rate than the pool at large.
• Our six-year graduation rate is over 80.
• First off, then, let me ask about your persistence rate of your talk.
• Our success rate is pretty good no matter what.

Bills: HB42 , HB 125 , HB 1233 , HB2853 , HB3148 , HB3326 , HB3701 , HB4066 , HB4361 , HB4762 , HB4909 , HB4912 , HB42 , HB125

Committee: House Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Section three increases the reimbursement rates for protected transportation, offering a humane, non-police
• ><c> for</c><00:02:59.920><c> for</c> the reimbursement rates for for the reimbursement rates for for
• We've seen lower rates of missing appointments because they can actually just hook up by phone.
• But the rate was set so low that we only have about two or three vehicles in the state.
• </c><00:08:46.480><c> of</c> onset and results in high rates of onset and results in high rates of disability