Transcript Highlights:

• Just listening... ...forward. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Senator Wapow.
• And what, what the plan is going forward. Yeah, go ahead, great.
• Our project plan moving forward.
• I took some convincing to see the need to move this forward.
• And so I do feel like it is important to move forward.

Summary: The committee approved the March 26 minutes and then received a quarterly update on major IT projects from NDIT. Staff reported the portfolio included 116 major projects totaling about $546 million, with the overall portfolio under budget but slightly behind schedule. They reviewed projects over the 20% variance threshold, including an Industrial Commission grants management system and DOT’s roadway pre-construction replacement, and then heard startup and closeout reports from HHS, OMB, DPI, and DOT. Several previously troubled projects were closed, including HHS bed management, vital records modernization, and DOT roadway capital planning; some projects finished under budget and ahead of schedule, while others were significantly behind schedule or over budget but were now closed or being remediated. The committee also reviewed NDIT’s annual report, including service-fund financials, peer-state rate comparisons, records management, and customer satisfaction efforts. Members asked about how service-fund revenue and grant administrative charges are accounted for, how chargebacks work, and whether NDIT tracks customer satisfaction scores. NDIT said it does track CSAT-type measures in some service areas and has survey data, but it is not planning another customer survey this summer. Members encouraged more regular reporting of customer satisfaction, service-level metrics, and performance data to help guide future improvements. A major portion of the meeting focused on the state’s mainframe modernization effort. NDIT said the overall effort is still targeting about 2030, with multiple HHS and DOT projects underway and a $15 million tech-debt appropriation already removing some components. Staff described the main obstacles as data cleanup, complex integrations, limited staff capacity, retirements, and vendor constraints, and said they are seeking a vendor with modernization support in the next contract cycle. Members pressed for clearer accountability and faster progress, and NDIT and HHS emphasized that they are working jointly but need continued support and better tools. The committee then heard a cybersecurity update on NDIT’s statewide services and maturity assessments. NDIT explained that it provides vulnerability scanning, endpoint protection, security awareness training, threat briefings, and penetration testing, and that these services are tied to a cybersecurity maturity assessment based on CIS controls. Members questioned the sharp drop in participation since 2020 and whether the self-assessment should be mandatory or tied more strongly to StageNet access or insurance incentives. NDIT said participation is voluntary, but Enderf is now requiring annual assessments to keep a 4% insurance discount, and members discussed whether stronger requirements or audit authority may be needed. The meeting ended as the committee began a follow-up discussion on BEAD broadband connection costs and why some locations are much more expensive to connect than others.

Transcript Highlights:

• I ask the panel for issue number one to please come forward.
• Please come forward. Welcome to all of you. We will start with Mr.
• Usually it's just on a going-forward basis, correct?
• The Department of Finance has brought forward.
• Is that the same proposal being put forward this year?

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:

• I thank you again, and we look forward to your questions. Thank you.
• If a staff member comes forward, how deeply is that investigated?
• But today we heard the voices of these individuals coming forward, victims that are bringing that forward
• Their voices are coming forward, right?
• So definitely have work cut out, but it's something that moves forward.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s handling of mental health care in prisons and allegations of sexual abuse, retaliation, and excessive force in the state’s women’s facilities. CDCR officials described their PREA-based prevention and response efforts, including training, oversight, body-worn cameras, retaliation follow-up, and partnerships with outside groups. The Office of the Inspector General explained its monitoring role, noting increased authority under SB 1069, but also limited staffing and the ability to monitor only a portion of cases. The Legislative Analyst’s Office added that prison population trends could allow the state to close a prison and save over $100 million, with some savings potentially redirected to prevention or response efforts. Advocates and formerly incarcerated witnesses from Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition and the California Coalition of Women Prisoners testified that meaningful systemic change has not occurred and that retaliation, blocked programming, and unsafe reporting conditions remain widespread. They described alleged barriers to community-based services, forced or coercive treatment concerns involving Suboxone, and the need for survivor-centered reentry support, trauma-informed care, and more independent oversight. Sandra DeAnda gave detailed testimony about alleged staff abuse, retaliation, denial of mental health care, and a large use-of-force incident at Central California Women’s Facility, while Amika Mota and April Grayson urged release or resentencing for survivors housed with their abusers and greater investment in outside programs. Members of the committee pressed CDCR and OIG on accountability, use-of-force standards, criminal referrals, disciplinary outcomes, and whether investigations are completed within statutory timelines. CDCR acknowledged cultural problems at both women’s prisons and said it was retraining staff and working on reforms, while OIG said it had monitored 161 investigations and found most grievance routing appropriate, though some cases had lapsed due to time limits. Later exchanges revealed that CDCR has over 13,500 active cases and 109 investigators, and that some cases have exceeded deadlines, prompting concerns from members about whether the current system can adequately investigate misconduct and impose consequences. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll move forward with the agenda.
• Looking forward to that.
• So I look forward to that.
• We will continue to do that moving forward.
• It's more of an expectation as we go forward.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first approved the December 10 minutes and then received a DEQ base budget summary and agency overview. DEQ staff explained that the agency is largely federally and special funded, with major ongoing costs in salaries, operating expenses, grants, and continuing appropriations. Director Dave Glatt and accounting director Beth Jacobson highlighted core programs, the move to a new chemistry laboratory, the new state fuel inspection program, wastewater-related funding from HB 1577, and implementation of SB 2267 for on-site wastewater rules. They also noted the agency’s spending patterns, possible federal EPA cuts, and the likelihood of some fee adjustments or program changes if federal support declines. Members asked about DEQ’s travel, field offices, future staffing, and how the agency would respond to reduced federal regulation. DEQ said most staff are based in Bismarck, with field offices in Fargo, Sawyer, and Gwinner, and that travel is driven by inspections and spill response. Glatt said the agency would continue to rely on science and law, and that any future federal retrenchment could mean more state responsibility but likely not a wholesale increase in FTEs. The committee also discussed a feedlot enforcement case in the Minot area, with DEQ explaining its role in ensuring compliance, permitting, and animal-waste management standards. The Department of Health and Human Services then presented on FTE block grant reporting, TANF balances, child care transfers, and the Rural Health Transformation Program. Donna Ockland explained that no line-item transfers had occurred yet for the new rural health work, but about 33 positions were planned and some current staff time could be reimbursed through approved cost allocation. HHS also reviewed TANF’s frozen eligibility and block grant structure, the transfer of up to 30% of TANF funds to child care, and recent program changes that increased benefits and raised the income limit. Staff said the department is using TANF more strategically to support child care and other allowable uses, while still carrying over unused funds as many states do. Finally, Pat and HHS staff gave an update on the Rural Health Transformation Program, saying the first funding opportunity was being posted and that the state is on track to obligate the federal funds within the required timeline. They described priorities such as workforce retention, preceptor development, technical assistance for critical access hospitals, community wellness projects, and ambulance upgrades. Members asked about rural versus urban eligibility, immigrant recruitment, evaluation of year-two funding, and how the program would address varied local workforce needs. The meeting then shifted to an Office of Management and Budget update on the new State Hospital project, where Lindsay Ashley reported continued construction progress, updated cost information, and selected alternates, with photos and details showing work underway in multiple building sections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please come forward to the microphone.
• Please come forward. Thank you.
• We are now sitting, fast forward, after many months, with me...
• And I commend your leadership in bringing it forward.
• I heard you say bring something forward in January with an urgency clause.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on AB 715, followed by discussion of SB 48. AB 715 was presented by Assembly Members Zbur and Addis as a response to rising anti-Semitism in California schools. They described incidents involving harassment, swastikas, biased classroom materials, and students feeling unsafe, and said the bill would create an Office of Civil Rights with coordinators to address anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination, provide prevention resources, and support school districts. Witnesses in support, including a rabbi and a student who described personal experiences with anti-Semitic harassment, urged immediate action to protect Jewish students. Opposition testimony came from the California Teachers Association, county superintendents, school board groups, labor organizations, civil liberties advocates, ethnic studies educators, and many community members. Their main concerns were that the bill was rushed, had not been fully vetted in the Assembly Education Committee, and could chill classroom speech or create constitutional problems, especially around language requiring instruction and materials to be “factually accurate” and not based on advocacy, bias, or partisanship. Several opponents argued that anti-Semitism should be addressed through education, training, and restorative practices rather than new statutory restrictions. Some witnesses also raised concerns about the bill’s impact on ethnic studies and free speech. Committee members then debated the bill’s process and substance at length. The authors said the bill had been narrowed through negotiations with education stakeholders and the Senate, that some disputed provisions would be revisited in cleanup language, and that the urgency of anti-Semitic incidents required action now. Several members expressed support for the bill’s goal but criticized the late release of the final language and the lack of consultation with the Assembly committee. Others emphasized the need to protect Jewish students immediately and argued the bill was a necessary response to a real crisis. The transcript does not show a final vote on AB 715 in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:23.680> to efforts that we're putting forward to efforts that we're putting forward
• , whistleblowers that have come forward, whistleblowers that have come forward, especially<00:41:
• Now, that's an coming forward.
• <00:56:50.160> Senator forward. So, that is my my plea. Senator forward.
• So, if this moves forward,<01:42:07.880> I forward, I forward, I we<01:42:09.040> can<01

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When insurance pays on time, recoveries move forward.
• Please come forward and state your name and affiliation.
• If so, please come forward and state your name and affiliation.
• If so, please come forward and state your name and affiliation.
• and moving it forward today?

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee heard several bills, with most of the discussion focused on insurance transparency, claims handling, privacy, and regulatory enforcement. SB 877 and SB 878 by Senator Pérez addressed post-disaster claims practices: SB 877 would require insurers to disclose original and revised loss estimates and related claim materials to policyholders, while SB 878 would add automatic interest penalties for delayed claim decisions or payments and require written identification of disputed items. Fire survivors, consumer groups, AARP, the Department of Insurance, and other advocates supported both bills, while insurer groups moved to neutral after amendments. Both bills were voted out on roll call and reported to the Committee on Appropriations. The committee also considered SB 1054 by Senator Cabaldon, which would expand data sharing and reporting to improve workforce program evaluation and help counties verify work requirements for Medi-Cal and CalFresh using employer-reported hours worked. County officials, workforce advocates, and the Department of Insurance supported the measure, and no opposition was heard. The bill passed on a due-pass-as-amended motion to the Committee on Labor and Employment. SB 1209 by Senator Allen, presented with Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, would give the commissioner stronger enforcement tools to require insurers to carry out corrective actions identified in market conduct examinations, including fines and hearings for noncompliance. The commissioner and author said the bill would close an enforcement gap and improve accountability; there was no opposition testimony, but the bill was left on call after the roll. The committee also heard SB 354 on insurance privacy, presented by Senator Padilla on behalf of Pro Tem Limón, which would modernize insurance privacy rules by expanding consumer rights over personal data, limiting sale and use of sensitive information, and increasing disclosure requirements. Supporters said the bill updates outdated 1980s-era rules, while insurers, agents, and business groups raised concerns about scope, compliance burdens, and small-business impacts. Members indicated the bill was still being negotiated and would return in a revised form in the Privacy Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• I look forward to this hearing. Mr.
• I look forward to your testimony.
• I look forward to working. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
• I look forward to supporting you.
• I look forward to that as well. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, I look forward to the discussion today and look forward to hearing from uh people after this
• So, um, I look forward to the discussion today and look forward to hearing from people after this hearing
• So, um, I look forward to the discussion today and look forward to hearing from people after this hearing
• So, um, I look forward to the discussion today and look forward to hearing from people after this hearing
• can just move forward as a consensus. can just move forward as a consensus.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing opened with chairs explaining that the program integrity omnibus bill is a combined draft assembled from individual member bills and governor proposals, many of which had already been heard in committee. Members emphasized the compressed end-of-session timeline, said the language was not yet ready for enactment, and invited continued revisions as the bill moves next to judiciary and finance. Several speakers stressed the need for bipartisan collaboration, while also warning that the Legislature must act this session on program integrity rather than defer reforms. The fiscal staff then walked through a spreadsheet showing the bill’s overall budget effects and major provisions. The package includes DHS proposals on transforming human services, market- and receipt-based rate reform, enhanced program and payment integrity, uniform service standards, nursing facility rate changes, ICS reforms, and a repeal/redesign of housing stabilization, along with child care assistance integrity and human services redesign items in DCYF. Staff highlighted that the bill combines multiple sources, including governor proposals and member bills, and noted several items that are also in the supplemental human services budget. Committee discussion focused heavily on prepayment review, remote supports, ICS, and provider accountability. Chairs said the bill would codify prepayment review with a 60-day notice requirement after providers were caught off guard by prior rollout, and that remote supports and ICS language were placeholders or under active debate. One member argued the system needs stronger standards but cautioned against harming compliant providers, while another urged the committee to learn from good providers and warned against repeating failed implementations. Staff also reviewed thematic indexes covering billing and service delivery oversight, EVV, administrative reform, licensing and background studies, provider enrollment, sanctions, and child care provider compliance training. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided. The hearing ended with staff beginning the index walkthrough and members indicating that posted amendments would be considered as the bill advances through the remaining committees.

Transcript Highlights:

• Vernig for bringing this bill forward.
• . forward. forward.
• There are no forward to support.
• We want to be able to continue forward. We want to be able to continue forward.
• this bill moving forward today. this bill moving forward today.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House first took up House File 1794, which would remove the post-graduate collaborative practice requirement for advanced practice registered nurses. The author and several supporters argued the bill would reduce barriers to practice, improve access to primary care and mental health services, especially in rural areas, and align Minnesota with other states. Supporters cited backing from APRN organizations and said the Board of Nursing had no concerns, while opponents, led by Representative Liebling, argued the current one-year collaborative period is a patient-safety safeguard that gives new APRNs needed experience working with physicians before practicing independently. After debate and questions about how the current requirement works in practice, the House passed the bill 119-12. The House then considered House File 4595, which changes licensure reciprocity rules for marriage and family therapists. Representative Schumacher said the bill would expand access to mental health care at no cost by making it easier for qualified out-of-state therapists to obtain Minnesota licenses, eliminating a five-year waiting period and other barriers while maintaining standards through background checks and a jurisprudence exam. Supporters, including Representatives Bierman and Gilman, emphasized workforce shortages and the value of more therapy access for families and relationships. The Board of Marriage and Family Therapy was noted as neutral, and the bill passed unanimously, 133-0. Finally, the House began debate on House File 4493, which would authorize pharmacists to initiate, prescribe, administer, and dispense certain drugs for opioid use disorder, including buprenorphine/Suboxone. Representative Baker said the bill would save lives by allowing people to access treatment immediately through local pharmacies, especially in greater Minnesota, and help them through withdrawal when they are most likely to seek help. The transcript cuts off during the opening of discussion on this bill, before any vote or final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• forward to continuing these forward to continuing these conversations<00:10:14.720> as<00
• informed recommendations moving forward. informed recommendations moving forward.
• Olsen for bringing this bill forward. Olsen for bringing this bill forward.
• Thank you for bringing it forward.
• Thank you for bringing it forward.

Bills: HF4588, HF3685, HF4577, HF4932

Keywords: veterans, veterans affairs, mental health, behavioral health, rural health, rural areas, access to care, task force, Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, general fund appropriation, veteran suicide prevention, PTSD, service members, military families, telehealth, rural psychiatry, high school diploma, armed forces, education policy, military service

Transcript Highlights:

• We appreciate everyone coming forward.
• We appreciate everyone coming forward.
• <00:20:42.159> Thank forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• The Senate bill moves us forward.
• And I'll be moving forward.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will invite the both of you to please come forward and sit here.
• I look forward to answering any of your questions. Thank you.
• We still have a lot of work to do, and I look forward to it.
• I look forward to your confirmation. Again, I’m not being rude.
• I'm about moving a mission forward.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first established quorum and then approved several routine items, including one governor’s appointment not required to appear, references of bills to committees, and floor acknowledgments. The committee then heard from two CDCR appointees required to appear, Kathleen Ratliff and Joseph Tuggle, both nominated to associate director positions in the Division of Adult Institutions. They described their long careers in corrections and emphasized the California model, explaining that it is intended to improve staff safety, rehabilitation, trauma-informed practices, and reentry outcomes. Members raised concerns about a widely reported use-of-force incident at Central California Women’s Facility, sexual abuse and retaliation concerns in women’s prisons, visitation restrictions, and the need for consistent policies and stronger communication. The nominees said the department investigated the incident, disciplined staff, provided medical and mental health support, conducted training, and is working to improve reporting, PREA compliance, and family visitation. The committee voted 4-0 to send both nominations to the Senate floor, with public testimony largely in support from former incarcerated people, nonprofit reentry advocates, and community stakeholders. The committee then heard from Jason Johnson, nominated as Undersecretary of Operations at CDCR. Johnson framed his work as centered on rehabilitation, public safety, and culture change, and he described his background in probation, parole, and CDCR leadership. Members questioned him about opposition letters and complaints alleging retaliation, hostile work environment, discrimination, and public safety concerns tied to his leadership of adult parole operations. Johnson said many complaints were tied to efforts to change a previously toxic culture, denied retaliatory intent, and pointed to his record of creating or strengthening reentry and compliance programs, including community reentry units, community compliance units, behavioral health reintegration efforts, and transitional community reentry programs. He also addressed parole supervision tools for high-risk sex offenders, contraband interdiction, and PREA-related training and reporting systems. The discussion repeatedly returned to the need to balance institutional security with rehabilitation and to ensure that staff and incarcerated people can report misconduct safely. The committee did not take a final vote on Johnson in the portion provided, but members indicated they were weighing the late-breaking opposition materials and his responses carefully.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rights Act and if so how to move forward Rights Act and if so how to move forward with<00:14:43.920
• <00:14:49.560> as back to people and move cases forward as back to people and move cases forward
• We really like to work with employers to say, hey, find creative solutions and move forward, because
• because you want good workers forward because you want good workers workers<00:19:18.600> want
• forward with the consent<00:22:50.640> decree<00:22:51.600> uh<00:22:51.720> at

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And of course, we'll look forward to any.
• Or are we just going to not move forward with this item?
• opportunity for us to be able to move forward.
• to move us forward to rates based on the true cost of care.
• This proposal to come forward at this time.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you to the author for bringing this forward.
• And so I'm looking forward to... ...as safety. And so I'm looking forward to that conversation.
• So with that, I look forward to supporting this bill. Ransom.
• Should this be able to move forward? Well, a couple things.
• Again, thank you for bringing this bill forward.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So with that, to happen moving forward.
• And I jobs as is possible going forward.
• really also want to keep forward really also want to keep forward beholden<00:25:07.520> to
• <00:43:27.200> to buildings can be an asset to forward to buildings can be an asset to forward
• We're working going forward, Kentucky.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:04 Economic Development Projects Funding 00:01:25 Blue Oval SK 00:05:20, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum to hear a recap of the 2021 special session legislation, Senate Bill 5, and then receive testimony from the Secretary of Economic Development on the Blue Oval SK project and related economic development issues. Staff explained that Senate Bill 5 appropriated five amounts from the budget reserve trust fund for a project tied to a minimum $2 billion investment: $350 million for forgivable loans through the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, $10,639,600 to pay off a Hardin County loan tied to 47 tracts of property, $20 million for Bluegrass State Skills Corporation training grants, $5 million for KCTCS training grants, and $25 million for a KCTCS on-site training center. Staff also noted there were no job-related requirements in the bill itself. The secretary said the Blue Oval SK incentive was structured as a $250 million forgivable loan rather than the state’s usual pay-as-you-go incentives, with clawback provisions tied to jobs, wages, investment, and changes in ownership or operations. He said the project had already exceeded the $2 billion investment threshold, that corporate guarantees were required from SK On and Ford, and that the agreement’s compliance period begins in December 2026 with payments starting in March 2027 and running through 2038. He said the state’s goal after the joint venture dissolution was to protect taxpayers, support affected workers, and preserve future job creation, while also ensuring the money would be repaid if performance targets are not met. Members asked about the workforce impact, the training programs, and whether the jobs targets would be revised. The secretary said the project had about 1,850 workers at the site, with both production and salaried employees affected, and described state-led job fairs, a job portal, and other rapid-response efforts to help displaced workers find new jobs or training. He said Ford had agreed to continue discussions, invest an additional $2 billion in the site for energy storage solutions, and pursue roughly 2,100 new jobs, while the state sought to keep the company accountable for the full repayment obligation if jobs are not created. One senator raised broader concerns about mega-projects displacing small businesses and creating infrastructure burdens in surrounding communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I appreciate your bringing it forward.
• We know there's more work to do moving forward, and we look forward to further conversations with the
• We know there's more work to do moving forward, and we look forward. appreciate the work of the committee
• We know there's more work to do moving forward, and we look forward to further conversations with the
• , moving forward, I look forward to working with all of you.

Summary: The committee heard several housing bills, with the longest discussion focused on SB 79, which would allow more housing near high-capacity transit stops and on transit agency-owned land. The author and supporters argued it would address California’s housing shortage, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and strengthen transit systems by putting more residents near rail and rapid transit. Supporters included housing advocates, local officials, environmental groups, and transit-oriented development organizations. Opponents, including many cities, the League of California Cities, and some tenant and legal advocacy groups, raised concerns about affordability requirements, displacement, demolition protections, local control, and the bill’s interaction with existing local planning efforts. The committee discussed amendments to strengthen anti-displacement protections, minimum density, affordability standards, and a local flexibility alternative, and SB 79 was moved out on a due-pass-as-amended vote of 8-1, with one member not voting. The committee then took up SB 21, which would amend the Housing Crisis Act to allow limited unit reductions when converting deed-restricted SRO buildings into larger, more livable affordable units with private bathrooms, kitchens, and supportive services. The author and nonprofit housing providers said many SRO buildings are financially unsustainable and that the bill would preserve deeply affordable housing while improving conditions for residents. There was no organized opposition testimony at the hearing, though one business property group registered opposition. Members expressed support for the preservation-focused approach, and SB 21 was approved on an 8-0 vote and sent to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. Next, SB 92 was heard, a measure to close a density bonus loophole by limiting how much additional commercial floor area a project can receive and preventing the law from being used to justify very large nonresidential projects with only minimal affordable housing. The author cited a San Diego project as an example of the problem, and the City of San Diego supported the bill as a reasonable fix. Several labor and housing groups also supported it, while no formal opposition witnesses testified. The committee accepted amendments, members praised the effort to curb abuse while preserving feasibility, and SB 92 passed on a 7-0 vote. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 522, which would extend just-cause eviction protections to units rebuilt after disaster if they had previously been covered by the Tenant Protection Act. The author and the Los Angeles City Attorney said the bill would help preserve rental housing in disaster-affected communities, especially after the Pacific Palisades fires, and would not create new rent control. Opponents, including apartment, realtor, and property owner groups, argued it would add burdens to rebuilding and could discourage reconstruction. Members raised questions about whether existing law already protects returning tenants and whether the bill was necessary, and the hearing continued into committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please come forward. You each have two minutes. Good morning.
• I'm looking forward to continuing the work going forward. Thank you.
• Please come forward. Good morning. Good morning.
• Please come forward and state your name and affiliation. Thank you.
• Please come forward.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee met to consider several insurance-related bills, with SB 1301 by Senator Allen and SB 876 by Senator Padilla receiving the most discussion. SB 1301 would reform residential property insurance non-renewals by requiring clearer written explanations, giving policyholders a chance to fix identified issues, and limiting non-renewals based on unreasonable grounds. The bill was supported by consumer advocates, fire survivors, local officials, and several organizations, while insurers said they had worked extensively with the author and were moving to neutral, though they still raised implementation and proprietary-information concerns. The committee voted to pass SB 1301 as amended to Appropriations, with the roll left open briefly before the bill was declared out. SB 876 would overhaul wildfire and disaster claims handling by requiring updated replacement-cost estimates, stronger extended replacement-cost and building-code coverage options, faster status updates when adjusters change, and other consumer protections. Supporters included the Department of Insurance, United Policyholders, consumer groups, and local representatives, who argued the bill addresses underinsurance, delays, and inconsistent claims handling exposed by recent wildfires. Several industry groups said recent amendments resolved major concerns and moved them to neutral, while the California Fair Plan remained respectfully opposed pending further review. The committee approved SB 876 as amended to Judiciary, again leaving the roll open briefly before finalizing the vote. The committee also took up a consent item, SB 536 by Senator Archuleta, which was approved unanimously to Appropriations. Other bills listed at the start of the hearing, SB 555 and SB 795, were pulled at the request of the authors and were not heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• Come forward with support? Is there any support on the bill? Okay.
• We're working with the opposition on final language as the bill moves forward.
• All right, is there anyone who'd like to come forward to register their support?
• All right, is there anyone who'd like to come forward to register their support?
• Then we can move forward. Is there a motion on this bill? Okay. So we have a first and a second.

Summary: The Assembly Emergency Management Committee met late in the evening and first approved a consent calendar containing SB 837, SB 894, SB 973, and SB 1079, sending those bills to the Committee on Appropriations. The committee then heard SB 904, which would codify coordinated state response and permitting review efforts for wildfire recovery, and SB 1263, which would limit post-disaster debris removal work to properly licensed contractors with required hazardous-materials training. Both bills drew support from the authors and industry/public-safety witnesses, with SB 1263 also drawing an opposed-unless-amended position from contractors who said they were working toward agreement on final language. Both measures passed to Appropriations on unanimous or near-unanimous votes. The committee next heard SB 804, the Hydrogen Pipeline Safety Act, which would designate the State Fire Marshal as the safety regulator for interstate hydrogen pipelines and require hydrogen-specific safety standards. The author and supporters from building trades and pipe trades argued the bill would provide clear safety rules before hydrogen infrastructure expands, while one industry witness said the correct agency had been identified but that some concerns remained. The bill passed as amended to Appropriations, with Assemblymember DeMaio voting no. Finally, the committee considered SB 883, which would impose additional oversight on facilities storing methyl methacrylate and other reactive chemicals after a recent Orange County evacuation tied to a potential explosion risk. Supporters, including community, environmental, and public-health groups, said the bill would improve transparency, emergency planning, and safety protections near homes and schools. Chemical and manufacturing groups opposed the bill in its current form, citing undefined terms, concerns about mandated cooling systems, and possible conflicts with existing regulatory frameworks, but said they were willing to continue working on the measure. The bill passed to the Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials on a 4-2 vote, with Assemblymembers Hadwick and DeMaio voting no.