Transcript Highlights:

• All right, starting with the Capital Development Program fund, We're just going to have a couple slides
• So House Bill 253 in 2024 created a new Capital Development and Reserve Fund and a related program fund
• What we're talking about here is only the Capital Development Program funds, so this $26 million that
• program, the capital outlay development program fund.
• sending those reversions to the Capital Development Program Fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• Everything from student aid to university funding to research funding, housing funding, Section 8 vouchers
• We can invest in pool funding.
• If they're grant funds, they basically go back into the General Fund.
• We've been reassured that the research and development funding and that $6.3 billion has never been on
• The renewed funding— The renewed funding will support direct funding for employment social enterprises

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee 5 on State Administration heard presentations from Go-Biz and the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation on the Governor’s budget proposals. Go-Biz described California Jobs First, the state’s 10-year economic development strategy, and emphasized support for small businesses, workforce development, and targeted investment in sectors such as ag tech, life sciences, semiconductors, and advanced manufacturing. Members raised concerns about federal policy changes, tariffs, tourism, housing, child care, and whether state incentives are truly additive; Go-Biz responded that it tracks federal actions closely, works with chambers and advocates, and uses programs like California Competes to target jobs that would not otherwise come to California. The committee then reviewed the proposal to restore the California Competes grant program with $60 million. Go-Biz said the grant would help businesses that cannot use the nonrefundable tax credit, and explained the program’s five-year contracts, milestone-based awards, and recapture provisions. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the grant could be effective but recommended stronger oversight and clearer eligibility criteria, while also noting the 30% cap in trailer bill language may be too restrictive given the smaller funding level. Public testimony supported the grant and suggested considering refundability or transferability for the tax credit to broaden access for smaller and startup businesses. Members also heard the CHIPS-related proposal for $25 million to support Natcast’s semiconductor design and collaboration facility in Sunnyvale. Go-Biz and public witnesses argued the state investment would help secure a major federal research facility, retain engineering talent, and leverage billions in broader investment, while the LAO recommended rejecting the item because of its dependence on uncertain federal funding and the state’s budget condition. The committee also considered a $17 million continuation of CA RISE, which supports employment social enterprises; Go-Biz and several grantees cited strong job placement and workforce outcomes, while the LAO recommended rejection absent a more rigorous evaluation, noting prior LA RISE evidence did not show long-term employment gains. Finally, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation presented budget requests for IT security and rent increases, and a trailer bill to raise fees across several programs. DFPI said decades-old fee schedules, inflation, and new regulatory responsibilities have created a structural deficit and warned the department could face insolvency without adjustments. The LAO recommended approving the fee increases only on a three-year limited-term basis and asked for more detailed revenue plans for programs not covered by the proposal, so the Legislature can assess actual collections and market impacts before making the changes permanent.

Transcript Highlights:

• In those cases, if there are federal funds involved, then there are requirements that the developer must
• In those cases, if there are federal funds involved, then there are requirements that the developer must
• in the development at the same rate or<02:16:18.840> fund<02:16:19.119> relocation<02:
• <02:16:51.200> Ops<02:16:51.479> to<02:16:51.559> fund case where a developer
• Ops to fund case where a developer Ops to fund relocation<02:16:52.280> benefits<02:16:52.760

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Housing held a public hearing and moved quickly through a long agenda, beginning with HB 606 on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. DHHL and several community testifiers strongly supported the bill, describing it as a way to fulfill long-standing promises to Native Hawaiians, reduce the DHHL waitlist, keep families in Hawaii, and support housing production and the broader economy. Testifiers emphasized the cultural and economic importance of stable housing and noted the large number of people still waiting for DHHL homes. The committee then heard HB 1086, also relating to DHHL, which would allow the department to use a $75 million appropriation from the dwelling unit revolving fund as collateral for loans. DHHL, HHFDC, and other supporters said the measure would help DHHL obtain better loan terms and preserve trust funds for other uses. Members asked detailed questions about how the collateral would work, whether other agencies use similar structures, and what would happen if the collateral were drawn upon; staff explained that the funds would be encumbered for the loan and that a similar model had been used for a HUD-backed project. The committee also heard HB 739, which would create the COM homes program to fund counties to buy voluntary deed restrictions from eligible homeowners or buyers. Supporters said the program could help keep local workers in Hawaii by using existing housing stock and cited examples from places like Aspen and Vail. The Attorney General’s office recommended amendments to remove duration requirements to avoid right-to-travel concerns, and the Tax Foundation suggested clarifying the conveyance tax exemption so it also covers the instrument imposing the restriction. Members asked whether tax dollars would be used to buy homes, who would be eligible, and how enforcement would work; supporters said the program is voluntary and income-blind, with restrictions tied to living and working in the state. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:01:27.799> funds<01:01:28.160> to<01:01:28.359> develop allocation of funds
• to develop allocation of funds to develop questionable<01:01:30.119> solutions<01:01:30.680>
• I do not see a need to appropriate funds from the health department to develop more vaccines for, you
• I do not see a need to appropriate funds from the health department to develop more vaccines for, you
• and development on new and existing tools and filling gaps where there is no other funding available

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's important to note Title III subgrantees who also receive BMEP funding must use Title III funding
• Make sure that with funding, in particular.
• You've been talking about funding formulas.
• Chair, my last point is determining the funding.
• One last question: The federal funding they were cutting back on English language learner funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• from state funds.
• Who is funding it?
• We get federal funds.
• As we are charged to do, enterprise funds are treated the same as the city's funds.
• The economic development—enterprise funds.

Bills: HB26, HB73, SB 14, HB46

Keywords: HB26, law enforcement contracts, sheriff, constable, county commissioners court, commissioners court, private security, special law enforcement district, property owners association, POA, municipal utility district, school district, junior college district, local government, contract policing, supplemental police services, large counties, population over 3.3 million, Texas Local Government Code, Harris County

Transcript Highlights:

• fund for hdap. 44.6 million general fund for HDAP.
• It provides $25 million one-time Prop. 98 General Fund to develop a career passport that provides individuals
• It provides 25 million one-time Prop 98 general fund to develop a career passport that provides individuals
• It enables the Department of Housing and Community Development to recycle previous funding by allowing
• What is the status of the actual rest of the funding, the non-virtual funding, the funding that was supposed

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the final three-party budget agreement and related trailer bills, with the Department of Finance outlining the major budget bill and omnibus measures. Finance described a package built around balancing the state budget amid economic uncertainty, preserving core health and safety-net programs, and making significant ongoing reductions in some state programs. The budget bill included major items such as shifting $1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for Cal Fire, funding universal transitional kindergarten, deferring some UC and CSU funding, supporting foster care and homelessness programs, providing Proposition 36 implementation funding, and achieving Medi-Cal savings through changes to benefits and eligibility. The committee also heard that votes on the budget bills were expected later in the week and the following Monday. Finance then walked through the trailer bills, including health, human services, early learning, education, resources, energy, transportation, labor, housing, tax, public safety, courts, general government, cannabis, and energy-related measures. Notable provisions included a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for certain adults, new premiums and benefit changes for some immigrants, child care COLA changes, education funding for literacy, teacher support, universal meals, and community college student support, as well as resource and climate measures affecting Cal Fire staffing and energy permitting. The housing trailer bill drew the most discussion, with provisions on CEQA streamlining, a vehicle miles traveled mitigation banking program, a renters’ credit trigger, and a six-year moratorium on new residential building standards. Members also discussed a film tax credit expansion, cannabis enforcement funding, a tribal police pilot program, and changes to tax policy, including military retirement income exclusions and wildfire settlement payment exclusions. Committee members largely praised the staff and the budget process, but several raised concerns and asked detailed questions, especially about the housing trailer bill’s new wage standards, tribal consultation provisions, and possible effects on prevailing wage protections. Finance explained that the housing language was intended to set wage floors for market-rate projects receiving CEQA streamlining, with different county-based tiers and a notwithstanding clause preserving existing prevailing wage laws. Members also questioned the size and timing of funding for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Clean Cars for All, Proposition 36, and the film tax credit expansion. Other members highlighted support for public safety, veterans’ tax relief, child care providers, housing production, and higher education, while some expressed concern that the budget’s policy changes were being negotiated too quickly or without enough stakeholder input.

Transcript Highlights:

• A developer would come in and say, we're going to develop a small subdivision, it's going to add 500
• from development or are they funded from the existing tax base?
• and promote commercial development, right?
• , on the timing of the funds.
• partly funding from the impact fee.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund.
• , and $20 to the clerk fund.
• Speaker and county clerk, how much is in the Children's Trust Fund? Madam, this isn't the big fund.
• I'd like to know what they're funding, like maybe the last couple of years, what they've funded.
• And what it does is this bill creates two new funds: the Natural Disaster Revolving Fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• C outlines funding for the Comprehensive Research Fund, or CRF.
• bill patterns the available university fund or AUF is a constitutional fund that provides capital funding
• The Higher Education Fund, or HEAF, is a constitutional fund that provides capital funding to institutions
• The Texas University Fund, or TUF, is a constitutional fund that provides research funding to certain
• funding.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• or our personal funds for.
• to obtain federal funding.
• to obtain federal funding.
• They're townhome-type development in a developed community.
• They're townhome-type development in a developed community.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• General Fund for Bringing Families Home and $44.6 million General Fund for HDAP.
• It provides $25 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund to develop a career passport that provides
• , through the general fund.
• (GGRF) to the general fund and the out-year shifts from GGRF to the general fund.
• Workforce development.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• New development in California is hopefully going to be more fire resistant than existing development
• What this is really about is people don't like that type of development going near their rural development
• There have been restaurants that have gotten funding.
• is there, funding that comes from their tax dollars.
• or any funding.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government met to hear a long agenda of local government, housing, labor, and transparency bills. The committee first adopted the consent calendar for SB 1187 and SB 1388, then heard SB 983, which would authorize the Port of San Diego to use job order contracting for repairs and repetitive maintenance work. Supporters said the bill would speed emergency and small repairs and reduce costs, while opponents raised concerns about construction definitions and project labor agreement language. The bill was ultimately moved forward on a 2-2 vote after discussion of amendments and labor negotiations, and later the committee’s final roll call showed it passing out on a 5-2 vote. The committee also heard SB 1256, aimed at limiting duplicative litigation over a San Diego County housing project, and SB 992, which would make permanent and expand a small special-district audit flexibility by raising the revenue threshold from $150,000 to $250,000. SB 1256 drew support from the author and project counsel, who argued the project had already been litigated and was delaying needed housing, while opponents said the bill would interfere with wildfire and subdivision-map review. SB 992 had support from county auditors and special districts, with no opposition, and was approved 5-0. SB 1115, addressing governance failures at the Tulare County Public Cemetery District by allowing county supervisors to remove an individual trustee for cause, also passed unanimously after testimony describing serious dysfunction and opposition from the California Special Districts Association. The committee then took up SB 1193, which would impose transparency and approval requirements on Alameda County discretionary funding to nonprofits and other entities. The author and supporters described the bill as a response to grand jury findings and alleged conflicts of interest, while Alameda County argued its current process is already transparent and that the bill would add burdens and could harm services. After amendments and discussion, the bill passed 5-0. SB 1383, a density bonus law bill clarifying that local labor standards cannot be waived through density bonus concessions, was supported by labor groups and moved forward despite no opposition, with the final roll call showing it passing out 5-1. SB 1361, intended to prevent local governments from undermining transit projects because of SB 79 density concerns, also passed after support from L.A. Metro and labor and no formal opposition, with the final vote recorded as 5-2. The committee later resumed to hear SB 1272, the CASH Act, which would limit certain sanctions on homeowners for prior unpermitted work by previous owners; the transcript cuts off before that bill’s full testimony and vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Estimated impact of federal funding changes.
• of The FY26 funds.
• Since that long-term infrastructure revolving fund is right there, if we could move these funds into
• Federal funding changes again.
• You look at our current revolving funds, the remaining of our prep funds, our APA funds, all of the encumbrances

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• From 2020 forward, the development of our planning function with respect to flood, as well as our funding
• Now, I'm going to turn it over to Brian to talk about our funding and our... at the Texas Water Development
• Since 2020, the Texas Water Development Board has funded 140 flood projects and solutions, totaling..
• Over the past year, the UGRA board approved funding to develop a centralized dashboard of existing data
• Our board did take action on that by funding and developing that dashboard as an initial step because

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a transformative development project for the city as well.
• It is a transformative development project for the city as well.
• benefit other economic development activities in this particular area.
• 07.880> site,<00:04:08.560> and a development-ready site, and a development-ready site,
• The city does have a development partner that's at the table.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Representative Clardy introduced House File 4238, seeking a $5 million state general obligation investment for roads and infrastructure in Inver Grove Heights tied to the planned Minnesota Hockey Hall of Fame project, along with a separate requested $20 million cash appropriation for the facility itself. He described the bill as having statewide value and asked to focus first on the $5 million GO request. Mayor Brenda Dietrich and Community Development Director Jason Ziemer testified in support, calling the Hall of Fame a once-in-a-lifetime, transformative project for the city, the Twin Cities region, and the state. They said Inver Grove Heights expects to invest $14 million to $17 million locally for land acquisition and site improvements, and that the state funds would help pay for roads, utilities, stormwater work, grading, and right-of-way needs. They also emphasized that the public investment would support broader economic development in the area and accommodate a future I-494 interchange. Members asked about long-term ownership and maintenance, and were told the facility would be privately owned, with a developer owning about half and the Minnesota Hockey Hall of Fame nonprofit owning the ice arena portion. Another question raised whether the project would compete with the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame; testifiers said it would instead work in tandem, with collaboration on exhibits and a potential benefit to the Eveleth institution. No vote or formal action was taken in the portion of the meeting shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's between our investment funds for pensions and our investment funds for permanent funds.
• Rainy day funds and investment funds are not the same.
• Funds.
• Fund.
• Permanent funds create trust funds with general fund dollars.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so what we did was develop strategies.
• 106 grant funds, as long as we continue to be awarded those grant funds.
• Two states fund their programs fully with fees: California and New Jersey, and two states fund their
• Funding of this program.
• from our own general fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• State funding is also positioning us to go after larger federal funding.
• All told, additional funding would allow us to develop new crops for farmers faster and more effectively
• <00:10:29.920> new funding would allow us to develop new funding would allow us to develop
• It is my opinion continued investment into the new crop development and increased funding into the supply
• It is my opinion continued investment into the new crop development and increased funding into the supply

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What this is really about is people don't like that type of development going near their rural development
• There have been restaurants that have gotten funding.
• And this slush fund has been used in... By law.
• And we do not need to walk away from federal funding or any funding, especially in this day. built, and
• we do not need to walk away from federal funding or any funding, especially in this day and age when

Keywords: 987, senate, all