Transcript Highlights:

• They have made seven out of eight milestone payments, and this $2.6 million payment will be the last
• payment.
• The milestone payments were broken up into eight milestones.
• The bond payments do not go through ASIS, like all the regular payments go through.
• The bond payments do not go through ASIS, like all the regular payments go through.

Committee: All ALC-REVIEW

Summary: The committee met to review a supplemental agenda item, procurement rule revisions, methods of finance, discretionary grants, contracts, reports, and a member disclosure. The supplemental agenda was accepted, and the Office of State Procurement’s rule revisions were approved after Jessica Patterson explained they were driven by 2025 legislative changes, including Act 782, CASO Consulting recommendations, and updates to sole source, bid, protest, and debarment provisions. The methods of finance and discretionary grants were also approved, covering a range of university capital projects, health and human services grants, historic preservation awards, and tobacco prevention and cessation programs. The committee then reviewed RFQs and six ratifications. The ratifications included a Workforce Connections payment to ACT WorkKeys for services provided during a contract gap, a Department of Health ratification for water-leak repairs, a large Department of Public Safety ratification for Motorola’s Arkansas Wireless Information Network upgrade, a Veterans Affairs HVAC ratification, an ADFA medical services ratification, and a UA Little Rock painting contract ratification. Members questioned the Public Safety ratification at length about why the expired Motorola contract was not caught sooner and why it took months after discovery to come forward; agency officials said the work was tied to bond funding and was not tracked in ASIS, and the chair urged agencies to develop better monitoring procedures. The committee approved a large slate of construction, intergovernmental, out-of-state, and in-state contracts, including many recurring service agreements for DHS, higher education institutions, corrections, health agencies, and state support functions. Several members asked about specific contracts, including aerial application services for correctional farms and a Southern Arkansas University custodial contract, and staff or agency representatives provided brief explanations. The meeting concluded with review of reports and approval of a member disclosure involving Representative Andrew Collins’ investment interest in a company leasing property to Arkansas Rehabilitation Services.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have made seven out of eight milestone payments, and this $2.6 million payment will be the last
• payment.
• The payment, the milestones, the payments were broken up into milestones, and there's eight milestones
• The bond payments do not go through ASIS like all the regular Paid out of bond money.
• The bond payments do not go through ASIS, like all the regular payments go through.

Committee: All ALC-REVIEW

Transcript Highlights:

• So we've had two main methods of payment for state-funded projects, which are advance payment or reimbursement
• Our community-based organizations with limited resources having a reimbursement payment method caused
• We turn it back as an award and send out that first payment so they can begin the work.
• on yourselves to make sure you're getting that payment out within a certain period?
• I want to ask you right now about your payments or disbursements from the department.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE HAVE PAYMENT PROJECTS GOING ON IN SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS. YOU CAN SEE IT THERE.
• PLAN AND MAYBE THIS ALLOWED PEOPLE TO MAKE PAYMENTS THROUGH WHAT I CALL THE DEAD BEAT DAD WINDOW.
• WE STARTED THE PAYMENT PLAN 20,000 IN VISUAL TO ENROLL IN THESE PAYMENT PLANS.
• SO CLERKS ARE TAKING THE IDEA OF PAYMENT PLANS AND TAKING THE IDEA OF SPLITTING THOSE THINGS OUT AND
• THE LICENSE AND WE DO PAYMENT PLANS AS LOW AS $10 A MONTH.

Transcript Highlights:

• First item on the agenda is HB 2270 HD1 SD1, relating to the down payment loan assistance program.
• </c><00:11:31.680><c> loan</c> This bill amends the down payment loan This bill amends the down payment
• loans, and reducing the borrower's required personal contribution toward the down payment.
• Authorizes borrowers to use a portion of a down payment loan to pay for closing costs, prepaids, and
• reserves to purchase the residential property for which the down payment loan is provided.

Bills: SB2057 , SB2109 , SB2400 , HB1752 , SB2599 , SB2930

Transcript Highlights:

• That 1.5% amount is split 50-50 between BSA deposits and debt payments for certain eligible debts.
• It also included certain payments that were owed to schools and community colleges from funding below
• I don't understand the administration to be proposing any changes to the debt payment.
• payments are essentially accrued to each of the funds.
• But then it doesn't seem like there's an increase in monetary baseline payments.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on proposals to reform California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or rainy day fund, ahead of the May Revision. Members and witnesses reviewed how Proposition 2 (2014) changed reserve rules, including mandatory deposits, a 10% cap on the fund, and limits tied to the Governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. LAO staff explained that California’s revenues are highly volatile, that current reserve rules are complicated by interactions with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit, and that under current law reserves would cover only about one-third of funding shortfalls in a benchmark scenario over 50 years. The LAO presented its report recommending a larger reserve target, including raising the cap to 50% by 2055 and pairing that with either broader, more flexible deposit rules or a simpler approach that deposits all excess capital gains. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exempt BSA deposits from the state appropriations limit, while Assembly Member Valencia presented ACA 1, which would make similar changes and was described as an evolving proposal. Testimony generally supported saving more during boom years, but differed on how much to hardwire into the Constitution versus leave flexible, and on whether to broaden the deposit formulas beyond capital gains. Public witnesses and committee members raised additional issues, including whether reserve reforms should also address debt repayment, the treatment of unemployment insurance fund debt, and whether the Gann limit should be adjusted to better allow reserve growth. Supporters argued that stronger reserves would protect Californians from cuts during downturns and help the state weather volatility and federal funding threats. Some advocates warned that reforms should not come at the expense of current public needs, while taxpayer representatives cautioned against turning the BSA into a pass-through account that weakens constitutional spending limits. The hearing ended without a vote, with the committee chair noting the complexity of the issue and adjourning after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• One little question is about the part that changes the required payments in Section 3.
• Representative Dotson, could you just explain what that's doing in regards to the payment of what that
• delay and withheld payments that combined totaled more than $1.5 billion each year as of 2023.
• I like to use the term improper payments because that's really what is at stake.
• Subsection 7 talks about payments. Subsection 8 talks about qualifying measures on that.

Committee: House Health Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• But, what we're seeing over payment.
• </c> establish a comprehensive pre-payment establish a comprehensive pre-payment pre-payment<00:34:46.520
• </c><00:35:00.120><c> review,</c><00:35:00.560><c> post-payment</c> inform pre-payment review, post-payment
• inform pre-payment review, post-payment review,<00:35:01.760><c> our</c><00:35:01.920><c> program</c
• </c> payment of services for the FEP model. payment of services for the FEP model.

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• And and New Hampshire's had a payments.
• Um, and New Hampshire's payment rate.
• </c> be a 30% increase in benefit payments. be a 30% increase in benefit payments.
• And we'd be sending you the payment, and you'd keep that payment.
• you'd keep that you the payment and you'd keep that payment.<01:18:39.440><c> You'd</c><01:18:39.679>

Committee: House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you explain what kick payments are?
• What is a quick payment eyes? >> I've never heard of it before I came.
• But it's your monthly health insurance payment.
• We issue attorney kick payment, which is a separate payment outside of the competition of a process for
• whatever there's a delivery or payment.

Transcript Highlights:

• and then 10% of the cleanup payment.
• and then 10% of the cleanup payment.
• and then 10% of the cleanup payment.
• and then 10% of the cleanup payment.
• and then 10% of the cleanup payment.

Bills: HF51 , HF1161 , HF2201 , HF2786 , HF1053

Committee: House Education Finance

Keywords: HF51, Sibley County, State-Aid Highway 21, capital investment, bonding bill, general obligation bonds, transportation infrastructure, road improvements, sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, local infrastructure, county grant, Minnesota Department of Transportation, bond proceeds fund, public works, utility infrastructure, education finance, school district funding, tax base adjustment

Transcript Highlights:

• and other types of uh welfare payments and other types of uh welfare payments<02:12:47.760><c> and</
• > the</c> payments and other payments from the payments and other payments from the state<02:12:49.640
• So, if a government employee is making payments while they know that those payments are illegal, this
• And so, I can't withhold payments.
• That they would want us to um make payments intentionally, payments intentionally, um, um, um, make payments

Committee: Senate State and Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• Issuers pay interest on the outstanding bonds, usually semi-annually, and the interest payments will
• come almost always. really from the same source of revenues as the principal payments come from.
• And that'll just soak up that capacity so that then you can use it on those payments.
• They’re accepting payments and making payments to the bondholders of the principal and interest as they
• They get the benefit if the IRS ever comes knocking to find out where all the bond payments went.

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:52:28.960><c> are</c> so from the way the payments are so from the way the payments are currently
• Currently, we recover payments to pay the IPPs.
• </c><00:53:34.520><c> or</c> month of the covered PPA payments or month of the covered PPA payments or
• </c><00:54:18.000><c> to</c> ensure that there's enough payments to ensure that there's enough payments
• of a termination provides for payment of a termination payment<01:13:27.840><c> after</c><01:13:28.560

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Summary: The joint Senate hearing focused primarily on SB 1201, a wildfire measure that would create a wildfire recovery fund and allow securitization for electric utilities. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the bill, saying it would help protect customers, property owners, insurers, and the broader economy from future catastrophic wildfire liability while improving the utility’s credit profile and lowering financing costs. Support also came from DCCA Consumer Advocacy, the Attorney General’s office on written comments, Ulupono Initiative, Clearway Energy Group, IBEW Local 1260, Par Hawaii, KIUC, the Chamber of Commerce Hawaiʻi, Plus Power, and numerous organizations and individuals. Opponents or commenters raised concerns about the liability cap, victim compensation process, and fund structure, including the Hawaiʻi Association for Justice, the Hawaiʻi Regional Council of Carpenters, and the Hawaiʻi Insurance Council; Henry Curtis of Life of the Land supported the concept of a fund but questioned the catastrophe threshold and whether the fund would be empty without a prudency finding. Much of the discussion centered on whether the proposed fund would actually help restore Hawaiian Electric to investment grade, with senators comparing the proposal to California’s wildfire fund. Hawaiian Electric said the bill was only one part of a broader process, alongside physical risk reduction and settlement finalization, and argued that without the bill the utility would not regain investment grade. Senators also questioned the proposed $1 billion fund size, the fairness of ratepayer contributions versus shareholder contributions, and whether customers should pay for consulting and administrative costs; Hawaiian Electric said its proposed amendment would remove those consulting-related charges. The company also said the fund would accrue interest and, if unused, could be returned to customers, and that there would be replenishment and supplemental contribution mechanisms if the fund were exhausted. The Attorney General’s office said it still had further amendments to discuss, and the departments had not yet resolved where the fund should reside administratively, though Hawaiian Electric said it believed DCCA was the appropriate place but was open to alternatives. KIUC requested two amendments. No vote or final committee action was taken during the hearing, and the measure remained under discussion with questions and proposed amendments still outstanding.

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe the MWA Watershed Pilot Program, there are two different payments.
• I believe one of them, the minimum payment is $50,000 a year.
• , with the payments for the lands around the Quabbin.
• It's an equitable solution that we need to provide payment for nature services.
• with the payments for the lands around the quabin.

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Climate Change and Global Warming

Summary: The committee held a hearing on natural and working lands, carbon sequestration, and related provisions in Governor Healey’s $3 billion Mass Ready Act. EEA officials described the bill’s investments in flooding, land protection, tree planting, wetlands restoration, biodiversity, dams, seawalls, and coastal resilience, along with permitting reforms intended to speed ecological restoration projects. They also outlined current programs on resilient lands, healthy soils, forest climate solutions, forest reserves, and urban tree planting, and said the administration expects natural and working lands to offset up to 7 million metric tons of residual emissions by 2050, while acknowledging that additional strategies will be needed to close the gap to the state’s 10-million-ton offset target. Committee members pressed EEA on the cost of reaching the 30% conservation-by-2030 goal, the loss of a federal USDA grant of about $22 million, the adequacy of current sequestration estimates, and whether the state should consider regional approaches or statutory changes. EEA said current state conservation spending has been about $35 million to $40 million annually, that the Mass Ready Act is intended to help double the pace of conservation, and that federal funding remains uncertain. Senators also raised concerns about PILOT payments for state-owned land, the management of state forests, and the proposed Chapter 91 general license for restoration projects. EEA said the bill’s forest reserve language is meant to create a more durable designation process while still allowing limited active management. Advocates from The Nature Conservancy and Mass Audubon supported stronger investment in land conservation and restoration, saying natural and working lands are a cost-effective climate strategy that also provides biodiversity, water quality, and public health benefits. They urged passage of legislation to increase funding, improve PILOT equity, and strengthen land-use planning and mitigation requirements. They also backed removing Chapter 91 licensing requirements for ecological restoration, arguing that the current process adds cost and delay. In a later panel, a forest scientist and an urban forestry advocate emphasized the carbon and cooling benefits of mature trees, called for greater protection of older forests, and supported bills to expand municipal reforestation and modernize public shade tree law. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm mandated by law to pay out their lump-sum payments.
• I'm mandated by law to pay out their lump sum payments.
• All right, with that, we're going to move to issue number three, which is the lump sum payments that
• My colleague can speak to the lump sum payments issue if you wish, but in terms of the LAO's comments
• And again, we're happy to address the lump sum payment issue as well. Thank you. Mr. Gaiman? Sure.

Transcript Highlights:

• They did stop payment, only to be later directed to resume the payments and reimbursements, and sustain
• only to be later directed to resume the payments and reimbursements it sustain legal and a harassment
• employee who attempted to do any do the thing that everybody is expecting and asking them to stop payment
• ve done a lot of work to try and clarify where state employees can refuse to remit certain grant payments
• When you use that example and you talked about payments were cut and then payments were reinstated, I

Bills: HF3489 , HF3990 , HF3825 , HF3826 , HF3827 , HF3822

Committee: House Public Safety Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• And then finally, this or another task force should explore the method of tracking cash payments as it's
• And then finally, this or another task force should explore the method of tracking cash payments as it's
• L&I is directed under the Wage Payment Act to investigate every complaint that a worker files.
• The third is to update the penalty structure under the Wage Payment Act.
• income threshold, and the payments will be limited themselves.

Committee: House Labor & Workplace Standards

Summary: The committee heard a report from Labor and Industries on the Underground Economy Task Force in the construction industry. L&I said the task force, created by a 2024 budget proviso, studied underreporting, worker misclassification, unpaid taxes and premiums, and other underground-economy activity. L&I described consensus recommendations including defining and regulating construction labor providers, improving interagency information sharing, increasing penalties for repeat offenders, giving L&I more authority over successor accountability, reviewing agency penalties and policies, and exploring ways to track cash payments. Majority-but-not-consensus recommendations included posting subcontractor notices at job sites, setting a threshold for independent contractor use that would trigger review, holding direct contractors liable for unpaid wages owed by subcontractors, and reviewing reporting requirements. Testifiers from labor, business, and the Attorney General’s Office generally supported stronger enforcement and transparency, while business representatives cautioned against overregulation, preserving lawful cash payments, and protecting legitimate independent contractors and small businesses. L&I said the final report would be issued by December 31 and that the underground economy committee would be reconvened. The committee then heard the wage recovery work group report. L&I explained current wage-complaint law and the work group’s consensus recommendations to let the department prioritize wage complaints strategically, aggregate related complaints, raise the minimum penalty for willful violations from $1,000 to $1,500 and use a penalty matrix, improve employer awareness, and create a wage recovery fund. Under the proposal, penalties would be deposited into a new fund account, and after the fund is sufficiently built up, limited early payments could be made to eligible low-income workers facing immediate hardship, with a five-year review built in. Business and labor representatives both supported the general framework, though business raised concern about safeguards to recover funds if a claim later proved invalid or fraudulent. The committee also received an overview of Washington’s apprenticeship system and the Washington State Apprenticeship and Training Council. L&I described Washington as a state apprenticeship agency with higher standards than the federal system, and said registered apprenticeship combines paid on-the-job training with classroom instruction. L&I reported more than 15,500 active apprentices, 4,800 new registrations, 2,500 completions, and 206 active sponsors. Members asked about the difference between state and federal apprenticeship pathways, the role of program sponsors and training agents, and the objection process for new programs. L&I said objections do not stop approval but can delay recognition, and noted ongoing internal work to improve the process. The presentation also highlighted strong post-apprenticeship earnings and return on investment. Finally, the committee heard updates on wildland firefighter respiratory protection, the impacts of federal cuts to NIOSH, and ESD’s unemployment insurance and workforce systems. L&I and SHARP said wildland firefighters face significant smoke exposure and cancer risk, but current respirator options are limited by remote conditions, communication needs, fit, and heat; no NIOSH-approved commercial respirator currently meets the relevant NFPA standard. L&I said Washington’s firefighter rules do not currently require respiratory protection for wildland firefighting. On NIOSH, the presenter warned that federal cuts and grant disruptions could reduce training, surveillance, firefighter cancer research, agricultural safety work, and exposure-assessment programs, including work relevant to Hanford and mining safety. ESD reported rising UI claims, a stable unemployment rate, federal funding uncertainty, and pressure on the trust fund, but also described technology and process changes that have reduced call-center bottlenecks and improved claim processing. ESD said a 90-day pilot that compresses phone hours has increased calls answered and work completed while improving timeliness of first payments.

Transcript Highlights:

• That would be kind of an ongoing set payment.
• corrections performance growth payment.
• It's a 2011 realignment payment.
• This won't change the payment a whole lot at a statewide level, but it could have some impact on some
• This won't change the payment a whole lot.

Summary: The committee heard a broad public safety budget hearing focused on youth justice funding, probation incentive grants, and disaster response and recovery. On the youth justice item, the Office of Youth and Community Restoration described a proposed change to the JJRBG funding formula that would shift resources away from a DJJ-based measure and toward county youth population, serious offenses, and step-down placements in less restrictive programs. Members asked about data on Native American youth; OYCR said statewide data are limited, but its SYTF data show about 1% of youth in secure youth treatment facilities were Native in 2024. The Department of Finance had no objections, and the item was discussed as a way to support alternatives to long-term incarceration. The committee then reviewed the community corrections performance incentive program for county probation departments. The Department of Finance proposed stabilizing the program with a maintenance payment, updating the performance baseline, and adding a growth factor; the LAO agreed the formula needed changes but recommended using 2022-23 data instead of 2021-23, using marginal rather than average cost assumptions, rejecting the growth payment and minimum guarantee, and adding stronger oversight through the BSCC. Finance said it was open to some technical changes but opposed a new BSCC audit framework, noting Judicial Council already surveys probation departments and that evidence-based practice use has increased over time. Members and staff indicated the proposal still needed further work. A major portion of the hearing focused on the January 2025 Southern California wildfires and state disaster response. A resident of Altadena gave emotional testimony about evacuation failures, loss of home, and the need for accountability. LAO and Cal OES outlined the disaster response and recovery system, including mutual aid, alert and warning, debris removal, FEMA and state funding streams, and the long timeline for reimbursement. Cal OES said it had pre-positioned resources, temporarily took over the county’s wireless emergency alert function for about three weeks, coordinated debris removal and recovery operations, and had already allocated more than $286 million in state funds. Officials also discussed the 100% federal cost share for emergency work for 180 days and the uncertainty created by changing federal processes and the cancellation of the BRIC resilience program. The committee also heard two smaller Cal OES items: a request to reappropriate about $22 million for the law enforcement mutual aid reimbursement program, which the LAO said should be placed in statute with clearer goals and reporting, and an update on Victims of Crime Act funding, where Cal OES said federal VOCA allocations have fallen sharply and that roughly $224 million would be needed to maintain current service levels if federal funding does not improve. Public comment included a request for funding to expand datacasting and emergency alert receivers for wildfire and earthquake warning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Payment of the 2025-26 amount has been effectively deferred to 2027-28.
• the deferral payments.
• There is a technicality on the explanation of the two-year payment.
• So in 26-27, they will get one payment.
• What does it look like if those payments don't come?