Transcript Highlights:

• That'll be a permanent committee, a standing committee.
• For the governance and financing study, it examines the longer-term governance and financing models for
• For the governance and financing study, it examines the longer-term governance and financing models for
• Chairman and committee members. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and committee members.
• And then also with our study committee, our Water Topics Overview Committee, we stayed in there and it

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met with a quorum and received updates from the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Commission, followed by presentations from Deloitte on two legislative studies required by House Bill 1020. Director Reese Haas reviewed major project and budget updates, including the Northwest Area Water Supply and Southwest Pipeline projects, Resources Trust Fund balances, carryover spending, project prioritization, bid conditions, regional water system coverage, and department process improvements. Members also discussed how the commission prioritizes projects, maintenance expectations, and the impact of limited municipal water supply funding. No formal committee action was taken during the DWR update; the commission’s municipal funding decisions were described as pending its April 8 meeting. Deloitte then presented the cost-share policy study, which found that under current policy and forecasted revenues, North Dakota faces an estimated $1.3 billion shortfall over 14 years, with a near-term gap of about $1.8 billion through 2031. The firm outlined seven recommended options, including tighter definitions and a 25% cost share for eligible replacement projects, caps and financing strategies for the Mouse River and Red River Valley projects, aligning cost share with commission priority guidance, delaying lower-priority projects, using available lines of credit, and adjusting reimbursement timing for revolving loan funds. Committee members questioned inflation assumptions, affordability, user fees, and the use of legacy fund earnings for bonding, but no decisions were made. In the governance and finance study, Deloitte said final recommendations are still being refined, with a final report due May 29. The study examined the Southwest Pipeline, NAWS, and Red River Valley systems using governance and finance criteria such as decision authority, transparency, affordability, risk, and access to funding. For Southwest, Deloitte outlined options ranging from improved state-authority coordination to transferring ownership to the Southwest Water Authority; for NAWS, options focused on strengthening the authority’s role and potentially transitioning operations and maintenance; and for Red River, options ranged from enhanced facilitation to formal state oversight or state ownership. Members asked follow-up questions about ownership transfer, capital repayment streams, and why NAWS was not considered for transfer, and Deloitte said NAWS’s limited organizational maturity made that option less viable in the near term.

Transcript Highlights:

• Jessica Holmes, Department of Finance.
• CDT is not here, but maybe Finance can help us. Yeah, so Phil Osborne, Finance again.
• And just great appreciation again to the committee and to Finance for the proposed investments in our
• Good afternoon, members of the committee.
• Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the California Community Colleges budget proposal, including Proposition 98 funding, a 2.41% COLA for apportionments, enrollment growth funding, repayment of an apportionment deferral, and one-time investments for a student support block grant and deferred maintenance. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s package as providing significant new resources, while the LAO recommended prioritizing COLA and enrollment growth within available funds but raised concerns about some smaller proposals, including making the Healthy School Food Pathways Program ongoing and adding more funding for credit for prior learning before outcomes are known. The Chancellor’s Office supported the COLA, enrollment growth, and one-time investments, and said current projections suggest enrollment growth closer to 3%, with about $85 million to $90 million in ongoing costs if fully funded. Members focused heavily on enrollment growth, the 10% district cap, and whether the state should continue funding growth in the current year and budget year. The Chancellor’s Office said some districts, especially in the Inland Empire and Central Valley, are growing rapidly and that about seven districts are above the cap, with roughly 1,563 FTES and about $30 million in ongoing costs tied to that issue. Members also discussed hold-harmless districts and whether declining campuses should be required to produce turnaround or right-sizing plans. The Chancellor’s Office said districts are already having local conversations and that state funding provides time to adjust, but no formal plan requirement was proposed. The committee then took up common course numbering, where the Chancellor’s Office said all 115 community colleges have implemented the first phase and more than 550,000 students enrolled in the first six commonly numbered courses. The office argued that CCN improves clarity but does not yet guarantee that credits will transfer with full value across UC and CSU, because articulation is still handled campus by campus and can require more than 3,500 separate reviews. Members expressed concern that students can still be forced to retake courses such as calculus or ethnic studies even when they have the same common number, and urged the systems to develop a stronger statewide articulation mechanism tied to outcomes and transparency. The item was left open. Finally, the committee heard the Governor’s proposal to make Calbright College’s funding ongoing at $53.1 million. The LAO recommended instead transitioning Calbright to the student-centered funding formula, with one-time bridge funding in the meantime, arguing the Governor’s proposal lacks a clear enrollment-based rationale and performance expectations. Calbright’s leadership defended the college’s competency-based, flexible model for adult learners, citing more than 6,800 students served, over 2,200 certificates awarded, and wage gains for graduates; they said enrollment is expected to grow from about 7,000 students now to roughly 8,000 to 9,000 next year and around 10,000 over the next couple of years. Members pressed for clearer enrollment and funding data before deciding how Calbright should be funded going forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the Committee on State Government, Finance, and Policy.
• House Bill will be re-referred from the Committee on State Government Finance and Policy to the Committee
• and Policy, and be re-referred to the Committee on Public Safety, Finance and Policy.
• Resources Finance and Policy and be re-referred to the Committee on Energy Finance and Policy.
• Policy, and be re-referred to the Committee on Health, Finance and Policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• , then the House Appropriations and Finance Committee.
• , then the House Appropriations and Finance Committee.
• , then the House Appropriations and Finance Committee.
• , then the House Appropriations and Finance Committee.
• , then the House Appropriations and Finance Committee.

Bills: HM3, HM11, HM14, HM15, HM18, HM21, HB10, HB11, HB12, HB13, HB14, HB31, HB50

Keywords: nurses, health care workers, healthcare workers, frontline workers, hospital staff, clinicians, allied health professionals, support staff, public health, workforce shortage, nursing shortage, safe staffing, patient safety, rural health care, frontier communities, behavioral health, mental health, substance use disorder, substance abuse, health care memorial

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order.
• What are your thoughts about moving forward, making sure that this committee and other committees and
• And I just wanted this committee to understand.
• P3 financing.
• So any incremental financing means that the property tax added is all part of a financing, which takes

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• on finance.
• <00:00:54.160> All<00:00:54.320> those<00:00:54.480> in the committee on finance
• All those in the committee on finance.
• on finance.
• on finance.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Osborne with the Department of Finance. Welcome. Hi. The Lawsborne, Department of Finance.
• Jessica Holmes, Department of Finance.
• We'll kick it off with the Department of Finance. We’ll kick it off with the Department of Finance.
• CDT is not here, but maybe Finance can help us. Yeah, so Phil Osborne, Finance again.
• And just great appreciation again to the committee and to Finance for the proposed investments in our

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, I take school finance very seriously.
• The conference committee for HB 3, the special finance commission, something that we've worked on together
• So, some of our school finance system in Texas is. enrollment based but the bulk of our school finance
• It's a funding source for the foundation. finance.
• Yeah it's a method of finance so to the extent that so I think to the extent that that method of finance

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Phillip Osborne, Department of Finance.
• Again, Phil Osborne, partner to Finance.
• So Anita Lee with the Department of Finance...
• “Audrey Bezos, Department of Finance.
• So the Department of Finance recognizes that.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we will call the Senate Finance Committee meeting to order. Our first bill is House Bill 1042.
• We're not financing the housing, but we did finance the cleanup.
• So, it's not BFA financing.
• So, it's not BFA financing.
• the committee entertain that? the committee entertain that?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• also to include an advisory finance also to include an advisory finance committee committee committee
• or finance committee?
• as a finance committee member. as a finance committee member.
• Finance committee.
• advisory, budget or finance committee. advisory, budget or finance committee.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Debt service was moved to finance.
• Debt service was moved to finance. Debt service was moved to finance.
• Debt service was moved to finance.
• Debt service was moved to finance.
• Debt service was moved to finance.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Free Conference Committee on the 2026 General Assembly budget met to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of House Bill 500. Leaders opened by thanking the other chamber’s work, asking members to turn microphones on and off to avoid feedback, and stressing the need to clearly note decision points so both chambers record the same actions. Staff then walked through the bill page by page, explaining that the committee was comparing only House and Senate differences, not the governor’s proposed budget. The discussion covered a wide range of appropriations and language items, including next generation non-911 services, school safety reporting tools, restored funding for brain injury, epilepsy, veteran service, homeless veterans, and rocket docket programs, debt service changes, rural infrastructure, disaster aid caps, Attorney General and Medicaid fraud funding, agriculture and county fair grants, auditor and pension-related appropriations, school facilities and SEEK funding, and numerous education programs. Members also discussed charter-related funding such as Star Academy, Dolly Parton Imagination Library, school resource officers, school-based mental health providers, AP/IB exams, Governor’s Scholars and Entrepreneurs, and several pilot or initiative programs in economic development, energy, and labor. Several items were described as technical corrections or restorations of language and funding, while others reflected differences in amounts or how funds would be distributed. There were several questions and comments from members about wording such as “implement and carry out,” the absence of the governor’s budget from the comparison document, and whether SEEK funding should be tied to teacher raises. The chair and other members emphasized that the committee’s role was to reconcile the two chambers’ budgets, not to adopt the governor’s proposal. Members also raised concerns about opioid settlement funds and the Dolly Parton Imagination Library match rate, with one senator urging restoration of the House language. No final vote or formal action was taken in the portion provided; the meeting primarily consisted of explanation, questions, and discussion of proposed budget differences.

Transcript Highlights:

• the standing committees and the full Legislative Joint Auditing Committee this month.
• the committee.
• The second finding relates to the finance director.
• The second finding relates to the finance director.
• And that will include the finance department, even though they're... ...And that will include the finance

Summary: The Legislative Joint Auditing Committee met to approve prior minutes and receive reports from several subcommittees and audits. The executive committee reported that audit and special reports were scheduled for presentation, one requested report remained outstanding, and staff had reviewed circuit-court caseload assignments in Benton County’s 19th West Judicial District. The committee also heard that Arkansas legislative audit financial statements and audits for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 received clean opinions with no internal-control findings, and that the report was accepted. The counties and municipalities report covered delinquent private water and sewer audits, with many entities reinstated after filing required reports, and reviewed current and deferred reports; several reports were referred to prosecutors, the attorney general, or the Government Bonding Board. The education audit report covered 57 school district audits, with three districts—Camden Fairview, Forest City, and Eudora—deferred until the June meeting because of findings and referrals. A substitute motion amended the report to file the Nettleton School District report, and the amended report passed. The state agencies report noted findings at the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Transportation and Shared Services, including duplicate payments, collateral issues, record-keeping problems, and missing vehicle logs; the committee filed five reports. The committee then reviewed the City of Pine Bluff’s 2024 financial audit. The city received clean opinions overall, but the management letter identified serious issues in the mayor’s office, Parks and Recreation, and Finance, including unaccounted-for receipts, altered invoices, unallowable and questionable purchases, missing equipment, and weak cash-receipting and reconciliation procedures. City officials, including the mayor and department heads, testified that the problems largely involved prior activity, said they had terminated involved employees, referred matters to law enforcement, and described corrective steps such as a forensic audit, new procurement and accounting procedures, electronic receipting and payments, and software upgrades. After questions from members, the committee voted to file the Pine Bluff report and adjourned, with the next meeting set for June 4-5, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have not received finance approval. We have not received finance approval.
• committee committee um<00:47:53.240> our<00:47:53.400> conference<00:47:53.840> committee
• Committee members will recognize this. Committee members will recognize this.
• So, I will use your proposed CD1 and request release from Finance Committee. Okay.
• request release uh from Finance request release uh from Finance Committee.<00:51:50.160> Okay

Bills: SCR96, SCR164, SCR172, SCR166, SCR182, SCR7, SCR59, SCR58, SCR60, SCR89, SCR184, SCR11, HB2296, HB2315, HB2343

Keywords: electric reliability, renewable energy, interconnection, Hawaii Electric Reliability Administrator, Public Utilities Commission, capacity shortfalls, energy policies, critical infrastructure, foreign influence, local control, energy dependence, economic resilience, energy analysis, cost reduction, financial risk, Hawaii PUC, energy self-sufficiency, natural gas, energy transition, ratepayer protection

Transcript Highlights:

• committee. Representative Corman. committee. Representative Corman.
• financing is basically the market norm. financing is basically the market norm.
• term for financing. term for financing. Representative<02:47:25.120> Schneller.
• committee adopts amendment 1452H. committee adopts amendment 1452H.
• <04:25:58.080> So go to finance or somebody. So go to finance or somebody.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am accepting the committee amendments.
• Good morning, Chair and members of the committee.
• Chair, members of the committee. Ms.
• Vice Chair and members of the committee.
• It passes to the Appropriations Committee.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on wildfire resilience, land use, and local government transparency. SB 911 by Senator Becker would require notification to fire enforcement agencies when a home in a high fire severity zone is sold with an agreement for the buyer to bring the property into defensible-space compliance; the California Association of Realtors said it would drop opposition if the bill is amended to use the preliminary change of ownership report, and the bill passed 4-0 to Appropriations. SB 994 by Senator Cabaldon would bar local officials from signing nondisclosure agreements that prevent them from sharing information with the elected decision-makers of their jurisdiction; supporters framed it as a transparency measure, and it also passed 4-0 to Appropriations. SB 1041 by Senator Riggins would expand PACE financing for wildfire home-hardening improvements and add consumer protections, but it drew strong opposition from homeowner advocates, county treasurers, bankers, and others over predatory lending and lien concerns; it passed 3-2 and remained on call. The committee also considered SB 1075 by Senator Reyes, which would require local governments in AB 617 communities to consider air-quality reduction measures in land-use approvals for industrial and commercial projects. Environmental justice groups supported the bill as a way to implement community air plans, while counties, cities, business groups, builders, trucking interests, and others opposed it as duplicative of CEQA and a barrier to investment and jobs. After debate over local control and environmental justice, the bill passed 3-2 and remained on call. SB 958 by Senator Cabaldon would advance the Midway Rising redevelopment project in San Diego, replacing a former arena and parking lots with housing, affordable units, parks, and a new entertainment venue; with no opposition voiced, it passed 3-0 to Appropriations. Another wildfire-related measure, SB 1182 by Senator Allen, would require local governments to consider insurance availability in safety planning for development in high fire hazard areas and direct state technical guidance on the issue. Supporters said insurance access is now a key indicator of risk, while some members questioned whether the bill would add useful information or burden local governments; the bill received a 1-1 vote and remained on call. The committee then began hearing SB 1116 by Senator Caballero, a starter-home/infill housing bill creating a streamlined ministerial path for small projects up to 10 units, but the transcript cuts off before testimony or a vote on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then, the loans will be administered by the Finance Authority staff.
• Finance Authority offers below market financing in its programs; that's one of the reasons we exist.
• We provide the financing that our.
• Good morning, and good morning, committee members. members.
• Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• > which<03:21:21.040> was committee on finance to which was committee on finance to which
• The Senate Finance Committee care.
• <03:41:23.279> of Finance Committee recommends passage of Finance Committee recommends passage
• The Committee on Finance to President.
• 04:18:13.680> recommends Senate Finance Committee recommends Senate Finance Committee recommends

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I remind people that the budget hearing on housing, jointly with the Finance and Ways and Means Committee
• The housing committee runs on Dunkin'. The housing committee runs on Dunkin'.
• Today we're continuing with the first few committees moving bills that the committee has seen before
• We'd be looking for a motion to report to the Finance Committee.
• We'd be looking for a motion to report to the Finance Committee.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Housing, Construction and Community Development Committee met with quorum present and considered a full agenda of housing, code enforcement, and rent regulation bills, many of which had passed the Senate in prior years. Early measures included a statewide residential rental registry (S.912), penalties and reporting for vacant and abandoned properties (S.925), and extending tenant response time for major capital improvement rent increase applications (S.1461). The committee also advanced several code-enforcement and fire/building-code bills, including measures to expand remedies for Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code violations (S.3406), increase the Secretary of State’s code enforcement powers (S.4165 and S.4534), and authorize investigations into code administration and enforcement (S.4535). Members raised concerns about local fiscal impacts, the scope of state authority, contractor use, and whether the bills adequately define or limit “imminent threat” and related enforcement powers. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on S.4852, which would require the Codes Council to review and act on updates to international model codes within 18 months. Senators debated whether the bill would speed up code adoption or, as some feared, weaken economic reasonableness considerations by striking the word “economically” from the statutory standard. Supporters said the bill was intended to ensure prompt review of widely used model codes and noted other statutory safeguards remain in place; opponents worried about reduced attention to cost and practical impacts, especially amid housing and utility capacity constraints. The committee also discussed S.6368A, requiring complainants to receive copies of compliance orders issued after code complaints, and S.6600B, mandating inspections of certain non-fireproof buildings in New York City. Additional bills advanced included standards for all-gender bathroom design and construction (S.7131A), compensation for required code-enforcement personnel training (S.7159), and audits of individual apartment improvements in rent-regulated units (S.8046A). Several measures were reported to Finance, while others were reported to the floor. Throughout the meeting, votes were largely along expected lines, with some members voting negative or “without recommendation” on the more expansive code-enforcement bills. No bill was defeated, and all items on the agenda were reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Without the money can be determined in conference committee.
• Chairman, I did it really for the committee. I mean, I... Sure. Whatever the committee wants to do.
• And I take the input from the committee and work on it.
• It's just going to conference committee, Mr. Chair. Yep.
• They didn't do the rebasing on the finances.

Bills: SB2015

Keywords: corrections, rehabilitation, prison budget, department of corrections, adult services, youth services, correctional facilities, Heart River correctional center, Missouri River correctional center, James River correctional center, minimum security facility, county jails, regional jails, deferred maintenance, capital construction, strategic investment and improvements fund, Bank of North Dakota, line of credit, tasers, body cameras

Summary: The committee first discussed a wastewater infrastructure bill, centered on whether state support should be provided as a grant or through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund as a low-interest loan program. Department of Environmental Quality official David Brushwine explained that the SRF already finances wastewater projects, can leverage federal funds with state bond proceeds, and could accommodate the Washburn, Lincoln, and Peasant projects if they are ready to proceed. Members noted that losing federal grant support would make projects harder for local residents to afford because costs would be recovered through utility rates or special assessments, but the projects would still be eligible for loans. Senator Magrum indicated he would likely concur with the budget after this discussion, and the bill was set aside for later consideration. The committee then turned to a proposed amendment for a four-plex housing project for people with disabilities or other special needs. Senator Mathern described Sections 7 and 8 as creating a design consultation appropriation and a revolving loan fund modeled on existing hospital and nursing home loan programs, while Section 9 would transfer $3.3 million from the state infrastructure fund. Members debated ownership, rent subsidies, repayment terms, and whether the state should finance the project directly or leave it to a private developer with Department of Human Services oversight. Concerns were raised that the state should not own the housing and that the proposal needed more work to be workable, but the committee ultimately reached consensus to adopt Sections 7 and 8 and leave out Section 9 for further conference committee discussion. The committee also reviewed provider inflation and long-term care rate issues, with members discussing whether to support a 2% and 1.5% inflation adjustment and how to handle the $5-per-day basic care rate. Staff explained that the $5 payment was already in the base budget, but members debated whether it should remain ongoing or be treated as one-time funding and paired with a study of rate rebasing. The committee agreed to have draft language prepared to remove the $5 from the base budget and add study language, then moved the bill forward for drafting.