Transcript Highlights:

• But basically the same process anyway.
• But basically the same process anyway.
• What does end process mean?
• What does end process mean?
• It will no longer have to be a manual process, but it will be an automatic process.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And whereas the 18th voting process.
• If there is a recommendation process or Senate confirmation, that process has to be followed for the
• c><00:37:35.520> process.
• And a lot the general regular process.
• They just through the RFP process.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Duran said throughout the process is that at times this process felt that it was moving too quickly,
• What's your standard IPP process, which is also a new process that all regional centers are utilizing
• What's that process look like?
• I track the master plan process closely. I think it was a great process in many ways.
• So how long was your intake process?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that process has been in operate.
• <00:22:15.919> uh<00:22:16.240> more through the process uh more through the process
• So obviously here through this process.
• When when companies in this process.
• There's online ordering. processing uh plant operators processing uh plant operators became<01:02:48.799

Bills: HB0116, HB0056

Keywords: water rights, beneficial use, industrial production, hydrogen, applications, public welfare, carbon capture, energy standards, public utilities, environmental regulation, state law, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the challenge there is that the right-of-way process is a variable process. It takes time.
• That's a time-consuming process.
• process is a variable<00:20:46.240> process.
• That's a time-consuming process.
• It's an evaluation process.

Keywords: 00:05 Call to Order and Roll Call 01:20 Road Projects 46:30 Approval of Minutes 46:50 Railroads 57:26 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met without a quorum, so it could not approve the minutes. The chair announced an Eastern Kentucky University health forum later that day and then proceeded with testimony on alternative delivery methods for road projects. Jason Sawala of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and Chad Laroo of the Kentucky Association of Highway Contractors were sworn in and introduced themselves. Sawala explained KYTC’s use of alternative delivery tools, including design-build, construction manager/general contractor (CMGC), and public-private partnerships (P3s). He said the cabinet’s goal is to deliver the best value to taxpayers in terms of quality, cost, and time, and emphasized that alternative delivery is most useful on projects with special circumstances such as innovation needs, specialized technology, complex constructibility, schedule pressure, or early contractor input. He cited the cabinet’s wrong-way driving prevention project as an example where design-build helped evaluate technologies and coordinate with stakeholders such as EMS and first responders. He also outlined the main tradeoffs: alternative delivery can improve collaboration and sometimes accelerate schedules, but it also brings risks related to right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, changing scope, and the need for dedicated staff and compressed decision-making. He stressed that these methods are not a cure-all and are not appropriate for every project, while noting that traditional design-bid-build remains effective for most of KYTC’s work. Representative Branscum responded favorably, saying early contractor involvement is valuable and consistent with his experience in the vertical construction world. No votes or formal actions were taken because the committee lacked a quorum.

Transcript Highlights:

• Screening process.
• Income should not matter as to the selection process.
• was needed, and this bill creates a standardized process.
• Is there a certain process? Madam Speaker and gentlemen, yes.
• This is a really tenuous process to be able to get a voucher.

Transcript Highlights:

• happens after election day to process happens after election day to process election<00:17:53.440
• all of the actual entry and processing all of the actual entry and processing of<00:20:39.880>
• the vouching process the vouching process you<01:17:26.800> still<01:17:27.040> have
• from the SSA matching process. from the SSA matching process.
• So, I don't I I've always process.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• is all due process. is all due process.
• <00:18:32.799> Uh disciplinary resolution process. Uh disciplinary resolution process.
• students have due process rights. students have due process rights.
• <00:32:43.360> It due process rights are to exist. It due process rights are to exist.
• process on campuses. process on campuses.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee’s higher education subcommittee met to discuss HB 443, HB 510, and related issues. The chair explained the subcommittee membership and noted that Representative Luno was absent and replaced by Representative Bricky, with other full committee members allowed to participate in discussion but not final votes. No votes were taken during this meeting, and the chair said final subcommittee recommendations would likely come in the first week of November. On HB 443, which concerns terms of appointment to the Higher Education Commission, the chair described the bill as intended to let the governor replace members who are not attending or no longer representing the appointing organization. He said the prior governor supported the idea, but the current governor’s office believes the bill is unnecessary because nonattendance or loss of representation would already amount to resignation or removal. Members raised questions about legal authority and whether the same principle should apply to other boards. The chair said he was leaning toward finding the bill not needed, but would continue discussion later. The committee then spent most of the meeting on HB 510, which would establish due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty at public higher education institutions and address collective bargaining issues. Supporters, including Representatives Papovich and Brown, argued the bill would provide clear, minimum protections, especially because campus rules are lengthy and vary by institution; Brown also suggested adding an independent ombudsman or representation for students. Opponents, including Representatives Burton and Bricky, said existing campus regulations already provide due process and that the bill could interfere with campus governance and collective bargaining. The chair and others discussed whether the bill’s definitions should be aligned with existing law to avoid confusion, and several members suggested using existing statutory definitions or cross-references. The chair also said the bill would apply only when disciplinary action is involved, not as a general challenge to DEI policies, though members referenced recent national examples involving DEI-related disputes as context.

Transcript Highlights:

• The process certification process that we're talking about here has to do with cremation.
• <00:47:50.880> so believe applies to to this process so believe applies to to this process
• Another process, too?
• through this process through this process um<01:26:14.080> so<01:26:14.480> in<01:
• <01:27:17.840> don't they're not guiding the process don't they're not guiding the process

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• due<00:14:44.280> process,<00:14:45.080> having due process, but due process, having
• process here. process here.
• > process.
• can't request that process. can't request that process.
• in the process. in the process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They do have a process. They do have a process. Not been auditing whether they actually do it.
• They do have a process that's like a couple years later.
• pay process, in order to make that a viable alternative to a protracted litigation process?
• The report speaks for itself and was the product of a very robust process.
• Can you explain or clarify the audit process for us? Sure. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a messy process, but there does seem to be processes in current statute to deal with all of the
• And it has been a messy process all the way from the beginning.
• It's a different process. It's just which process is more efficient is my concern. Yep, I get that.
• There's no online process, but I know we're working on that.
• It is a really important process.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee opened with roll call and a review of special-session procedure: bills would be heard in filing order, with related school-lunch bills grouped together, and any bill advancing would require a motion, second, and majority vote to be introduced. Members also discussed that the committee was functioning much like a delayed-bills committee, with final referral to either Appropriations or Policy depending on the bill’s fiscal impact. The first major proposal was Senator Schibley’s bill to create a narrow, statewide Bank of North Dakota bridge-loan program for struggling nonprofit medical facilities, prompted by Jacobson Memorial Hospital’s financial crisis. He argued the hospital and surrounding EMS services could close without short-term help, while committee members questioned the added language, the population cap, the $10 million fund with $5 million per applicant limit, and whether the program could open the door to future requests. Representative Headland then presented two cleanup bills from the prior property-tax session: one to fix notice and tax-certification issues for local taxing districts, and another to correct how the primary residence credit is applied so taxpayers receive the full benefit rather than counties retaining part of the reimbursement. Members asked about township hearing timing, the estimated $10–15 million annual impact, and whether the credit issue could be fixed retroactively; Headland said the bill was intended to correct the problem going forward. Three school-lunch bills drew extensive discussion. Representative Vetter proposed a small administrative appropriation to add an FTE to help eligible families enroll in the existing free/reduced lunch program, saying the goal was to ensure needy children are signed up and that the state should not subsidize meals for wealthy families. Representative Nathe offered a broader bill mirroring the pending initiated measure but placing the program in statute instead of the Constitution, moving implementation up a year, and funding it with a one-time $65 million from the strategic investment fund; he said this would preserve legislative flexibility and avoid constitutional entrenchment. Representative Dressler proposed raising the state-funded eligibility threshold from 225% to 300% of poverty, arguing it would expand access while still preserving federal reimbursements and encouraging better enrollment systems. Members debated costs, future budget pressure, whether the bills set a precedent for responding to ballot measures, and whether the program should include breakfast and other operational details. Other proposals included Senator Powers’ bill to create a hyperbaric oxygen board and support rural access to hyperbaric chambers for wounds, concussions, PTSD, and other conditions; Representative Tolman’s reporting-requirements bill to force new or expanded programs to justify purpose, alternatives, evaluation methods, and full implementation costs; Representative Frelich’s bill addressing the ongoing redistricting litigation and what happens if the Supreme Court or lower courts alter the current map; and a bill requested by the Public Service Commission and ITD for FERC litigation support and ADA website/document compliance. The committee also heard a rural-health eligibility bill from Representative Twait aimed at steering federal rural health dollars toward rural providers, with questions focused on whether the mileage limits would exclude some communities. One Holocaust education item was deferred until the sponsor could be located.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a region, we've done, or we're going through the process.
• It says state review process and regulations.
• And talking with them, they have their processes, their internal processes.
• So the legislature, in the process we end, and it is...
• Now let's talk about the state review processes.

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• The truth in taxation process requires.
• Several of the study processes overlap.
• What, if any, is your role in that process?
• So it's a nerve-wracking process for us.
• It has been two distinct separate processes, the appraisal process to determine the proper size of. of

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So thank you for the process. I think it was needed a long time ago, and not just today.
• When funding sources require separate processes, When funding sources require separate processes with
• What if we saved a year on that process?
• And that is the closing process that people referred to over and over again.
• But, um, you know, I now know the processes. I go to these things and I also learn a process.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on the Governor’s 2025 reorganization plan to split the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into two new agencies: a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency. Administration officials said the change would give each side more focused leadership, improve consumer protection and regulatory oversight, and better align housing and homelessness policy with the state’s broader housing goals. Leaders from the Department of Consumer Affairs, Cannabis Control, Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Financial Protection and Innovation all voiced support for the business-side reorganization, while housing officials emphasized that the new housing agency would help streamline funding, compliance, and coordination across programs. Members raised concerns about timing, budget impacts, office space, and whether the split would actually reduce bureaucracy. The administration said the plan would be included in the May Revision, was intended to be cost-neutral, and would not require fee increases for licensees or additional office space. On the housing side, officials said the new Housing Development and Finance Committee would work toward a single application and more coordinated award process for affordable housing funding, while preserving CalHFA’s statutory and financial independence. They also said the reorganization would improve compliance monitoring, data collection, and coordination with local governments, including Los Angeles homelessness programs. Public testimony was largely supportive. Industry groups representing beverage distributors, craft brewers, wine, mortgage lenders, and housing organizations backed the business-side split, and housing advocates such as Housing California, the California Housing Partnership, and the California Housing Consortium supported the housing agency concept and the proposed one-stop-shop approach. Several witnesses urged that tax credits, bonds, and other funding sources be better coordinated, and some said the plan should be paired with additional state investment and implementation resources. No formal vote was taken; the hearing was informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• It outlines the process, some of the procedures.
• So it's a really lopsided process.
• And the process is... But the process is... But the process is... It's three lines.
• Any time after this process, once that offer-counteroffer process starts, and if we end up in the condemnation
• It's not a rulemaking process.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 5695, which would create the Sayers Ranch Municipal Utility District in Bastrop County between Elgin and Bastrop. Representative Gurdis said Bastrop County commissioners unanimously supported the district. There was no public testimony, the bill was left pending, and later reported favorably to the full House on an 8-0 vote. The main debate centered on Senate Bill 291, which would require condemning entities to pay landowner attorney’s fees if they fail to provide 10 years of appraisal reports with an initial offer in an eminent domain case. Supporters, including Rita Beving and Charles Maley, argued the bill would add an enforcement mechanism and better protect landowners in a process they described as intimidating and lopsided. Opponents, including Tom Zabel and Lisa Kaufman, said current law already provides a remedy through abatement and attorney’s fees under Section 21.047 of the Property Code, and warned the bill could create inconsistency, delay public infrastructure projects, and increase costs. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 5699, a simple MUD boundary change in Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 405 that would allow a tract to leave one district and join another. Representative Schofield said the landowner and district agreed to the change and to pay the tract’s share of debt. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably on an 8-0 vote. Later, the committee considered House Bill 5489, which would impose a four-year moratorium on impact fees. Representative Dyson framed it as an “active study” to test whether impact fees raise housing costs. College Station officials and other opponents argued impact fees help fund infrastructure for growth and that local governments should retain control; supporters said the fees are regressive and add to housing prices. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard Senate Bill 292, which would update the Landowner Bill of Rights to add information on surveys, require separate offers for property not sought in condemnation, and require the rights document to be delivered with the initial offer. Supporters said it would improve transparency and fill gaps in the current document, while opponents said it was unnecessary because the law already exists and warned against revisiting a 2021 compromise. The transcript ends during that discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:38.879> was improvements to our election process was improvements to our election process
• It provides that process.
• that process. It authorizes the board of that process.
• <00:04:57.360> as process for individuals identified as process for individuals identified
• We know that lawmaking is a process, and we respect that process and continue to be a partner in it.

Keywords: HB 534 (only one on the agenda) – 00:02:08, 958, all

Summary: The House Elections, Constitutional Amendments, and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee met to consider House Bill 534, sponsored by Rep. DJ Johnson, with a committee substitute. Johnson said the bill was the product of interim work with the Secretary of State’s office, the State Board of Elections, county clerks, KREF, and other stakeholders, and that the committee substitute folded in several election-administration changes. He highlighted provisions clarifying the timeline for felony voter-roll removals, allowing the Board of Elections to work with federal agencies to identify non-citizens on the voter rolls, creating a process for those individuals to prove citizenship and vote provisionally, and changing some KREF board appointments. He also described technical campaign-finance changes and said some provisions might still be adjusted through floor amendments. Members raised concerns about fiscal impact, timing, and voter privacy. Rep. Bivens questioned the cost and whether the bill could affect voter records; Johnson responded that the bill itself did not require new equipment or broad new spending, though a special election in a local government failure scenario could create costs. Rep. Hancock and Rep. Marzian argued the bill could create unnecessary burdens on county clerks and questioned whether there was a demonstrated problem to justify the changes. The county clerks’ association, through Rockcastle County Clerk Danetta Ford Allen, opposed the bill as introduced, warning that citizenship checks could wrongly remove eligible voters, that online ballot images or cast vote records could threaten voter privacy and facilitate vote buying, and that the emergency clause would force major changes too close to the May primary. Johnson defended the bill as a targeted response to a real local election failure and said the citizenship data sharing would be limited to name, date of birth, and Social Security number. He also explained that the ballot-image language was permissive and intended to let counties explore emerging technology, but he was open to removing that section or changing the effective date in a floor amendment. He further said he would consider preserving gubernatorial appointments to KREF with Senate oversight instead of shifting appointments to legislative leaders. After discussion, the committee voted 9-2 with one pass to report the bill out, with several members explaining yes votes as support for moving the bill forward while expecting further cleanup, and no votes citing cost, timing, and voter-access concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE ARE GENERALLY TRYING TO FIND A BETTER PROCESS.
• >> WE THINK THAT PROCESS SHOULD BE THROUGH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THE ACTUAL PROCESS ITSELF. >> Sen.
• SB 1080 STREAMS AND THE PROCESS ORDERS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
• SHEET SAYING THIS DIFFICULTY ALREADY WITH THE FUNDING PROCESS.
• BUT WE DID WITH THE MATCHING PROCESS.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we have seen, even with kind of our pre-application process, we typically have a two-step process
• So process matters, process matters, process matters. I think that's the takeaway here.
• So process matters, process matters, process matters. I think that's the takeaway here.
• And how does that process work?
• So I think the process you described is kind of more of a speculative process from certain developers

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So you have to have a fair process, and it kind of threw some people off.
• So we were not involved in that decision process.
• I think this process has caused a lot of confusion. Thank you.
• So we started this process, but this process is not working like it should.
• So there's— We started this process, but this process is not working like it should.

Summary: The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 12, 2026, and focused primarily on Senate Bill 407, a congressional redistricting proposal, with Senate Bill 121 also scheduled for later. The chair explained the committee would first take up SB 407, consider amendments, then hear public testimony, and would not take up SB 116 or SB 130. Two amendment sets were adopted on SB 407: one technical set adjusting dates to align with the upcoming election cycle, and another updating the map in the bill. Committee members and the bill sponsor described the proposal as a 4-2 congressional map intended to comply with the Supreme Court’s CalA ruling, preserve traditional redistricting criteria, and avoid using race as the basis for district lines. Supporters of SB 407 argued the map was compact, contiguous, kept parishes and cities together, and created two opportunity districts without racial predominance. Several senators said the map better reflected Louisiana’s political and demographic realities and could withstand legal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment. Testimony in support also emphasized fairness, representation, and the idea that the state should not move to a 5-1 map. Some speakers, including former legislators and community advocates, said the state should maintain or preserve two districts where Black voters and Democratic voters could elect candidates of choice. Opponents of the broader redistricting effort criticized the process as rushed and confusing, especially because early voting had already begun and the Secretary of State was not present to answer questions. Some speakers said the legislature had not been properly involved in the election suspension process and raised concerns about whether votes already cast would count if maps changed. Others argued the proposed changes were an attempt to dilute political power and disenfranchise voters, particularly Black, poor, and queer communities. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but no final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.