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

Transcript Highlights:

• I have seen a pay rate change where the company are keeping more, and I've seen times where I cannot
• I have seen a pay rate change where the company are keeping more, and I've seen times where I cannot
• I have seen a pay rate change where the company are keeping more, and I've seen times where I cannot
• I have seen a pay rate change where the company are keeping more, and I've seen times where I cannot
• I have seen a pay rate change where the company are keeping more, and I've seen times where I cannot

Transcript Highlights:

• payers you know that they won't rate payers you know that they won't absorb<00:10:20.240><c> that</c
• </c><00:10:22.920><c> payers</c> it on to our constituents as rate payers it on to our constituents as
• Just, uh, Representative Lewis, will this raise electric rates where we live?
• I reached out to them before I filed the bill, so it will not raise our rates, no. bill<00:14:42.399>
• rate I have<00:25:32.279><c> a</c><00:25:32.919><c> I</c><00:25:33.000><c> need</c><00:25:33.159><c>

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 88, which was described as a short bill to clarify procedures for Waste Management boards, including term limits, appointments, and making sure consolidated governments actively recruit community members and make openings easier to find. The sponsor said the bill was intended to resolve confusion about members staying on after terms expire. The bill received no opposition, passed the committee unanimously, and was reported favorably for the floor. The committee then took up House Bill 346, as amended by a committee substitute. The sponsor explained that the bill responds to a dispute over air emission fees, especially for emergency generators and backup generators used for worker safety and limited non-emergency testing. The bill would exempt emergency generators and backup generators operating 100 hours or less for maintenance/testing from fees, while also removing an existing 4,000-ton cap so the per-ton fee would drop for most permitted sources. Members discussed the possible impact on utilities and ratepayers, with concerns raised that costs could be passed through to consumers and affect coal-dependent areas. The sponsor and another member argued the change would generally reduce fees for most sources and incentivize emissions reductions; the cabinet was described as neutral, and the affected utilities were identified as TVA, LG&E, East Kentucky Power, and Big Rivers, with only TVA having raised comments. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill passed the committee with a favorable recommendation, though one member voted no and several members explained yes votes while expressing ongoing concerns about future rate impacts. At the end of the meeting, members briefly discussed broader concerns about utility surcharges and the need to monitor the effects of legislation on ratepayers, but those comments were not part of the bill under consideration. The chair noted that future meetings may include more bills and could start earlier if needed, and the committee then adjourned.

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%.

Summary: The committee met with Representative Redman participating remotely after his flight was canceled. Members approved the minutes, then voted to proceed with a Medicaid study and to release the follow-up report on state oversight of children’s residential care. OPE staff said the original report had identified major gaps in oversight, but that most recommendations had now been addressed through agency changes and House Bill 723, which codified several reforms including a Youth Bill of Rights, annual unannounced surveys, revised interview procedures, and restraint/seclusion reporting to licensing. Of 19 recommendations, 13 were complete, two were in progress, and four remained open, with one requiring legislative action. The follow-up discussion focused on the remaining gaps: whether licensing should have authority to oversee treatment quality, whether restraint and seclusion data should be reported publicly or to the legislature, and how to address abuse by facility staff, including a registry pathway and a single investigative process. OPE and committee members noted that these unresolved items would require policy decisions by the legislature. Department of Health and Welfare and licensing officials described improved oversight practices, including unannounced surveys, a new tracking system, and better monitoring of foster placements. The ombudsman reported increased complaints, more facility visits, and stronger collaboration with licensing, and said his office could potentially take on more oversight if given authority and staffing. The committee then voted to close the report, with several members saying they wanted to work on legislation next session. The committee also heard OPE’s report on career technical education funding and teacher recruitment. The report said Idaho had 1,103 approved secondary CTE programs and about 151,500 enrollments, with agriculture the largest program area. Members heard that larger and more urban districts, especially in southwest Idaho, offered more diverse CTE options, while smaller and more remote districts relied more heavily on agriculture and had fewer health, public safety, and engineering programs. OPE said 60% of surveyed LEAs reported funding constraints, especially equipment and facility costs, and many said dedicated CTE funds could not be used for base teacher salaries. The report also found that recruiting CTE teachers was difficult, with respondents citing a lack of qualified candidates and pay that often was not competitive with local industry, though the comparison varied widely by program area. OPE outlined policy options such as allowing more CTE funds to pay salaries, adjusting the funding formula for smaller class sizes, simplifying occupational specialist credential routes, and targeting salary incentives to high-need fields. The presentation was still underway when the transcript ended, with members asking questions about district settings, salary comparisons, and how the funding options might affect staffing and program access.

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:

• , meaning they have increased their rates by more than 6% since December.
• </c> fraction of 47 cents a month per rate fraction of 47 cents a month per rate paay<01:07:42.240><c
• </c> per purchase at that discounted rate per purchase at that discounted rate only<01:53:24.599><c>
• There's an approximate 30% difference between the CDC rate and the commercially purchased rate.
• You will have more lung problems, higher rates of lung problems, and higher rates of intellectual dysfunction

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 224, which would redirect most money from New Hampshire’s renewable energy fund back to electric ratepayers. The bill sponsor argued the measure would lower energy costs, noting recent utility rate increases and estimating annual savings of roughly $2.5 million to $7.3 million for ratepayers. Supporters said the fund has accumulated money that should be returned to customers rather than used for subsidies, and they emphasized that the state has already rebated similar funds from RGGI for years. Opponents, including Rep. Kat McGee, argued the renewable energy fund is a successful, nonlapsing dedicated fund that supports local clean-energy projects, energy resilience, emissions reductions, and private investment. McGee said the fiscal note overstated the benefit of rebates and understated the loss of investment, claiming the average annual rebate would amount to less than $10 per customer while the program has helped leverage significant private dollars and nearly 10,000 projects. She urged the committee to reject the bill as a poor deal for the state and ratepayers. Committee members questioned the fiscal note, the size of the rebate, whether the bill would set a precedent for other dedicated funds, and whether the program’s incentives amount to picking winners and losers. The Department of Energy testified neutrally, explaining how the renewable energy fund works, including renewable energy credits, alternative compliance payments, and the fund’s use for renewable energy initiatives. No vote was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That rate doesn't cover what our sheriffs are losing out of their budgets.
• So I think thinking about that is we don't have a differential in rate.
• So we tried to rework that rate. They worked with us.
• a partial day rate.
• So we'll see how that works as well for some of those daily rate services.

Committee: All PUBLIC HEALTH- HOUSE HEALTH SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE

Transcript Highlights:

• Their rate is below 275? Their rate is below 275? Be sure you're using microphones, folks.
• We rely on the auditor's office to do the rate, to calculate the rate rollbacks and where the assessments
• They don't calculate the TIF or the tax abatement into your new rate structure.
• They don't calculate the TIF or the tax abatement into your new rate structure.
• So every year we have a tax rate hearing.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Transcript Highlights:

• Udub's 10-year rate of return, these numbers are as of June 30, 2025, would put it 64th among all higher-ed
• Had they achieved the same rate of return that the State Investment Board was able to achieve at that
• But that also assumes a 90% redemption rate, which is what they reported in Oregon, so if the redemption
• rate was lower than that, especially for a newer program in Washington, then that $40 million might
• And I would just say that when you look at the return rates on the bottles, nationally the average is

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 2565, which would require University of Washington gifts, grants, and similar funds to be invested through the Washington State Investment Board instead of UW’s internal investment office. Staff and the prime sponsor argued the change would lower fees and improve returns, while UW’s representatives opposed the bill, citing concerns about donor intent, legal restrictions on thousands of individual endowments, and differences in portfolio management and liquidity needs. No questions were raised in the hearing, and no action was taken on the bill at that time. The committee then moved into executive session on several bills. On Third Substitute House Bill 1607, related to recycling and waste reduction, members adopted a technical amendment but rejected amendments that would have directed unredeemed deposits to the Working Families Tax Credit and litter programs, added accountability requirements for grants, or created a SNAP-related benefit. The bill was then reported out of committee with a do pass recommendation on a 17-13 vote. On Second Substitute House Bill 1622, concerning bargaining over public employers’ use of artificial intelligence, members adopted one amendment updating the AI definition and rejected three others that would have narrowed bargaining triggers or limited the bill to technologies with demonstrable material impacts. The bill was reported out with a do pass recommendation on a 19-11 vote. The committee also advanced House Bill 2254, which would cover administrative costs for the Partnership Access Line assessment, and House Bill 2385, which extends timelines for the Medicaid access program after federal changes affected implementation; both were reported out with do pass recommendations. House Bill 2531, continuing and adjusting the ground transportation quality assurance fee structure, also passed out of committee. Finally, House Bill 2543, allowing county clerks to increase certain fees to cover court-related costs, was reported out with a do pass recommendation on a 22-6 vote. The committee adjourned after completing its business.

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:

• 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:

• saw that in certain regions like the Central Valley and the Inland Empire exhibited lower transfer rates
• , our analysis found that globally the CSU and the UC systems generally have high admission rates and
• Transfer students are admitted to UC at extremely high rates.
• rate for students who enter as first-year students.
• The data, including the transfer rate findings in the audit, also showed this troubling reality.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee held an oversight hearing on a state audit of California’s community college transfer process, with members and witnesses broadly agreeing that transfer pathways remain too complex and inconsistent. Opening remarks emphasized that community colleges serve a large, diverse, often first-generation and low-income student population, but only about one in five transfer-intending students move to a UC, CSU, or other university within four years. Members highlighted disparities by race, region, campus, and major, and pointed to the Associate Degree for Transfer, TAG, and Cal-GETC as helpful but incomplete tools because requirements still vary across campuses and systems. State Auditor’s Office staff said the audit found that while UC and CSU overall enroll substantial numbers of transfer students, individual campuses and high-demand programs often do not, especially in STEM fields. They described barriers including missing prerequisite courses, unclear information, limited counseling, and inconsistent articulation between campuses. The audit used a computer science example to show how different UC and CSU campuses require different courses for the same major. The audit issued 22 recommendations, with 10 fully implemented and four partially implemented; remaining work centers on articulation, counseling, data sharing, and better use of ASSIST. UC, CSU, and the Community Colleges each said they support transfer and are taking steps to improve it. UC cited a new public dashboard, data-sharing agreements, new transfer pathways, and an ADT pilot at UCLA, while saying campus capacity and program differences limit systemwide mandates. CSU pointed to its strategic plan goals, the Transfer Success Pathway program, direct admissions outreach, and efforts to expand ADT alignment and credit applicability, while acknowledging that many students never reach the application stage. Community Colleges emphasized that transfer reform is central to equity and baccalaureate access, and called for stronger common course numbering, broader ADT acceptance, and more student-centered articulation. Members pressed the systems on why more uniform requirements and better coordination have not been achieved, and on how to reduce barriers for placebound and working students.

Transcript Highlights:

• saw that in certain regions like the Central Valley and the Inland Empire exhibited lower transfer rates
• of student transfer, Member Alvarez requested an audit examining how the state can increase the rate
• Transfer students are admitted to UC at extremely high rates.
• Their four-year graduation rate is slightly higher than the six-year graduation rate for students who
• The data, including the transfer rate findings in the audit, also showed this troubling reality.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Audit