Transcript Highlights:

• Or does it depend on some cities, maybe?
• will change depending on where you live.
• So it depends on—that's why these out traveling HFCs are so dangerous. Mm hmm.
• So it really just kind of depends on the public benefit analysis itself.
• Community members, you depend on us. If you love music, you depend on musicians.

Bills: HB21, HB211, HB223, HB323, HB524, HB530, HB636, HB762, HB21, HB211, HB223

Keywords: housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, tax exemption, audit requirements, affordable housing, local government, development bonds, housing assistance, financial assistance, low income housing, community support, affordability, veterans housing, community involvement, air conditioning, tenant support, healthcare, elderly, taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• My livelihood depends on my ability to put people on healthy fish and healthy water.
• And that is wholly dependent on my ability to speak up for it.
• And that is wholly dependent on my ability to speak up for it.
• They depend on those That is the fiscal impact for me.
• They depend on those who live on them, work on them, and know them best to speak.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first one is the range in the dependency or reliance on ad valorem taxes across counties, ranging
• The first one is the range in the dependency or reliance on Advilorum taxes across county ranges from
• And so depending on the timing of the receipt of the money, they may or may not have had time to react
• And so depending on the timing of the receipt of the money, they may or may not have had time to react
• , depending on the county, we had, in one case, they had 25% of their tax revenue was being used as for

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for a listening session focused on a presentation by Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research on local government revenues and expenditures. Baker reviewed statewide financial data for counties, municipalities, and independent special districts, using 2018-19 as a baseline year because it was stable and pre-COVID. She explained that counties rely heavily on taxes, with ad valorem taxes making up about 73% of county tax revenue and about 24% of total county revenues statewide, while municipalities rely more on charges for services and have a lower statewide ad valorem share of about 14.7%. She also noted wide variation across local governments, with some counties and cities highly dependent on property taxes and others using them minimally or not at all. Special districts were shown to be very different from counties and cities, with hospital-related revenues and expenditures dominating many of them, while water management districts were more reliant on ad valorem taxes and focused expenditures on the physical environment. Baker also summarized expenditure patterns: counties spent the largest share on public safety, while municipalities spent the largest share on general government services, followed by physical environment and public safety. She emphasized that local government structures vary widely and that the committee should study what characteristics are associated with greater property tax reliance. She said the next research steps would be to extend the analysis through later years, including the COVID and inflation period, and to examine institutional and legal factors that shape local fiscal structures. Members asked about unfunded mandates, fuel taxes, reserves, school taxes, millage rates, and how property taxes relate to specific services such as police and fire. Baker said the current analysis did not yet account for mandates or school taxes and that further work could examine links between revenues and expenditures, commercial versus residential tax burdens, and other factors. After the presentation, members reported back on local meetings with counties and municipalities. Several described large differences in millage rates, revenue mixes, and the impact of any property tax changes on fiscally constrained counties versus larger, wealthier ones. Concerns were raised about how local governments would replace lost revenue, especially for public safety and emergency response, and members discussed the need to consider both revenue replacement and ways to rein in spending. The co-chairs said the committee would continue gathering information, send members follow-up homework and requests for panel suggestions, and invite additional input from constituents, stakeholders, and local governments. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions beyond adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We maintain air dependability.
• So it just varies depending on whether the school is in or out.
• Depending on the weather, it's gonna depend on what I'm looking at, but I know OETA is always going to
• Oklahomans highly value and depend on their public libraries, and that demand is increasing.
• But because Oklahomans depend on the services provided with this funding, we thought it was important

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Turning to page three, she says the next three pages are the federal reimbursement rates depending on
• </c><00:06:44.160><c> on</c> federal reimbursement rates depending on federal reimbursement rates depending
• Again, these rates are as of July 1 to June 30th, and these are dependent upon — there's a number of
• </c><00:09:17.000><c> upon</c><00:09:17.720><c> um</c> 30th um and these are dependent upon um 30th um
• </c><01:39:15.840><c> on</c> local vote and so it really depends on local vote and so it really depends

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of Wellness and Nutrition presented an overview of the school meal and child nutrition programs it administers, including the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Special Milk Program. Staff explained which programs are federally funded through USDA, which have state matching funds, and how reimbursement rates are set for different programs and fiscal years. They also walked the committee through a packet showing reimbursement tables, state and federal funding totals, and eligibility data. Members focused much of their questioning on how state and federal reimbursements work for lunch and breakfast, why lunch is shown as a state match while breakfast has meal-based breakdowns, and how the department allocates funds in the budget. The department explained that lunch uses a set state match tied to federal requirements, while breakfast reimbursement is based on meals served. They also reviewed FY 22-24 funding trends, noting higher federal spending during COVID-era waivers and lower amounts as those waivers ended. A committee member asked for the data in Excel and the department agreed to provide it. The discussion also covered summer meal programs and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-run benefit program that provides funds to families; the two programs coordinate through data sharing but are not the same. Members also discussed CEP, with staff explaining that New Hampshire currently has three schools participating, that the qualifying threshold was reduced from 40% to 25% identified students, and that districts must cover the non-federal share with non-federal funds. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• real, as we all know, and it is approximated that more than 665,000 able-bodied adults without dependents
• For example, pregnancy, receiving substance abuse treatment, caring for dependent children under 14,
• The table on page four shows what the impacts to California could be depending on our error rate.
• Do you have a different average cost per case depending on the profile of the beneficiary?
• It all depends on staff. And would you be able to just dive in?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If we do see a conflict, the recusal piece will definitely occur, and depending on the scenario, the
• If we do see a conflict, the recusal piece will definitely occur, and depending on the scenario, the
• If we do see a conflict, the recusal piece will definitely occur, and depending on the scenario, the
• Those will be some incidents, but it depends on the scenario.
• </c> you commissioner in general it depends you commissioner in general it depends on<01:10:13.480><c

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a dependent exemption for people that have dependents.
• The dependent exemption is $5,200 per dependent. These amounts are for tax year 2022.
• </c> state income tax we have a dependent state income tax we have a dependent exemption<00:13:05.120
• exemption is $5,200 filers the dependent exemption is $5,200 per<00:13:40.000><c> dependent</c><00:13
• </c><00:31:47.159><c> on</c> fewer number of owners so depending on fewer number of owners so depending

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't depend upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to protect me.
• I depend on me to protect me because at the end of the day I want to go home to my little 3-year-old
• You see I don't depend upon house floor.
• </c><00:08:46.360><c> Sergeant-at-Arms</c> I don't depend upon the Sergeant-at-Arms I don't depend upon
• I<00:08:50.160><c> depend</c><00:08:50.560><c> on</c><00:08:50.720><c> me</c> I depend on me I depend

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But again, there will be quite a bit of variation depending on how many people end up working over that
• That's what the report was in 2021: to have different rates depending on whether people elect medical
• Our port depends on it.
• Our port depends on it.
• Employees would also be required to make retroactive payments back to September 23, 2023, depending on

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on January 20, 2026, hearing several bills related to retirement systems, school employee health coverage, port district pensions, environmental fee accounts, developmental disability services, legislative budget transparency, and a new Apple Health employer assessment. Early in the meeting, the committee heard SB 5834, which would make permanent a temporary expansion allowing certain retirement trust fund earnings to pay broader administrative expenses, and SB 5835, which would raise the lump-sum retirement allowance threshold for Plan 2 members from $50 to $250. Both bills were presented by Department of Retirement Systems staff and supported by the department, with questions focused on the scope of the administrative-expense language in SB 5834 and the technical nature of SB 5835. The committee then entered executive session and moved three bills without recommendation to the Rules Committee: Substitute SB 5249, allowing kit homes as emergency housing; Substitute SB 5053, allowing certain counties to include school district boundaries when forming a public facilities district; and Substitute SB 5203, directing state agencies to develop a wildlife habitat connectivity strategy and creating related accounts. After returning to public hearing, members heard SB 5883 on SEBB eligibility for school employees in their second school year of employment. Supporters, including labor representatives and individual school workers, said the bill would reduce coverage gaps and improve recruitment and retention, while school district officials and administrators argued it would create an unfunded mandate, increase costs, and add administrative burden. No action was taken on the bill. The committee also heard SB 5905, which would exclude certain port district employees from PERS if they are covered by the federal Railroad Retirement Plan or a collectively bargained defined benefit pension plan. Port representatives, labor stakeholders, and the Department of Retirement Systems described it as a narrow technical fix to avoid duplicate pension coverage and retroactive liabilities, and the bill drew support. SB 6151 would create dedicated accounts for Ecology fee revenue tied to laboratory accreditation and landfill methane work; Ecology and county representatives supported the measure as a way to reinvest fees in the programs that generate them. SB 6163 would require the Individual and Family Services waiver for developmental disability services to be budgeted at maintenance level; advocates said it would stabilize services and prevent waitlists, and no opposition was heard. The final two bills were SB 6177, which would require LEAP’s budget website to display additional budget detail such as carry-forward data, program and subprogram expenditures, and balance sheets for all public accounts, and SB 6173, which would create an Apple Health employer assessment on larger private employers with workers enrolled in Medicaid expansion coverage. SB 6177 was framed as a transparency measure, while SB 6173 drew extensive testimony both in support and opposition: supporters said it would help offset expected Medicaid losses after federal work requirements take effect and stabilize the health safety net, while opponents argued it would be an unfunded tax, create administrative and legal complications, and could discourage hiring or reduce hours. The committee heard no final votes on the public hearing bills, and staff reminded members that signature sheets would be held for 24 hours under Senate rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• Vegetation management is needed; it's very dependent on where you are in the region of the country.
• It depends on what type of fault is occurring. And what type of protection system is enabled?
• Um, it depends on the service that the household chooses to subsidize.
• Madam Chair, Senator, it depends on the structure of the program.
• So it depends on the structure of the program and who would be eligible.

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee will go at ease for one hour at near or around 12:45 to 1:45, depending on where we are
• A dependency fact-finding hearing is generally held around 75 days following the filing of a dependency
• of the evidence that a child is dependent.
• I have to disagree that the success of this bill depends on services.
• It depends on the child getting to court and having due process.

Bills: HB1316, HB2401, HB2557, HB2720, HB1073, HB2685, HB2640, HB2403

Keywords: postsecondary education, homelessness, foster youth, education access, support programs, commission, gender equity, boys, men, advocacy, state policy, special education, parental rights, educational access, evaluation reports, disability services, behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access

Transcript Highlights:

• CSU students are dependent on federal financial aid, which is a key contributor that allows us to ensure
• Our future depends on it.
• Many vocational and technical programs depend on federal funding for equipment, faculty, and program
• I'll just be real: that depending on where a faculty member is coming from and depending on whether or
• not they feel safe in their own classrooms anymore, Coming from and depending on whether or not they

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, it just depends Madam Commissioner.
• It would just depend and we to appeal.
• Well, it just typically depends on the provider type.
• Well, it just typically depends on the provider type.
• Well, it just typically depends on the provider type.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee opened with a moment of silence for Representative McCool, who was absent due to a family death, then approved the April 14 minutes and noted the agenda contained 482 items totaling about $138.6 million. The first deferred item involved the Office of the Controller and a brokerage services contract. Senators questioned why the new contract was roughly $1 million a year when a prior vendor had been paid about $300,000 annually, why the procurement was rebid after years of no-bid arrangements, and why past performance was not heavily weighted. Agency witnesses said the prior vendor had held the work for more than 20 years, the new RFP drew more competition, technical evaluators did not see cost until after technical scoring, and AON received the highest technical score despite being an out-of-state vendor with its closest office in Nashville. After discussion, the committee voted to take no action, and the contract advanced to the Finance Cabinet for final decision. The committee then considered a DCBS memorandum of agreement amendment. Members asked what funding was being redirected to cover an increase of about $265,000. DCBS explained that reduced spending on interpreter services, due to more commonly used forms being translated into other languages, freed up funds to support the contract. The committee approved the item. Next, the committee reviewed an initial contract for the Kentucky Board of Hairdressers and Cosmetologists. The board explained that its small legal staff was handling 11 active cases and needed outside counsel with investigators and additional attorneys because of ongoing litigation and disciplinary changes tied to prior legislation and a recent LOIC report. Members asked whether the contract was a not-to-exceed amount and whether the board could afford it; the board said the $50,000 was a ceiling, not an expected spend, and that the board was fully funded through licensing fees and currently running a surplus. Senator Thomas urged support, citing recent reforms in Senate Bills 14 and 22 and the need to help the board work through corrective action. The committee approved the contract. The Board of Pharmacy item was then deferred at the agency’s request until the June 2025 meeting, and the committee approved that deferral.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:27:14.559><c> on</c><00:27:14.720><c> what</c> concern right now is depending on what concern
• right now is depending on what those<00:27:15.120><c> rates</c><00:27:15.520><c> look</c><00:27:15.679
• So this is a divergence from the state law, which would concurrently, depending on how one interprets
• So this is a divergence from the state law, which would concurrently, depending on how one interprets
• on whatever we'd like to say depending on whatever we'd like to say you<00:33:18.000><c> know</c><00

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so it depends on the category, their aid code category.
• And so I can't answer that explicitly, but it really does depend on aid code. Okay.
• I know it's all dependent on the dollars, right?
• That really depends.
• Children depend on us, the adults in their lives to provide safety, stability, and opportunity.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s Medi-Cal program and on community health effects from recent immigration enforcement actions. Committee leaders said H.R. 1 would sharply reduce federal funding, increase administrative burdens, and worsen access to care, especially for Medi-Cal enrollees, immigrant families, rural communities, and reproductive health patients. The second half of the hearing examined how ICE raids and related federal actions are creating fear, reducing clinic and emergency department use, and disrupting children’s access to schools and early childhood education. Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Bass outlined the main H.R. 1 provisions affecting Medi-Cal: work requirements, semiannual eligibility redeterminations, shorter retroactive coverage, new cost-sharing, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, reduced federal support for emergency and lawful immigrant coverage, and a one-year ban on Medicaid funding for prohibited abortion providers. She estimated millions could lose coverage, with tens of billions of dollars in federal funding at risk. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California warned the defunding provision could force clinic closures, service reductions, and loss of access to family planning, STI testing, and cancer screenings. The California Hospital Association said the financing changes could cut hospital revenue by tens of billions over 10 years and threaten access, especially for rural and safety-net hospitals. The Western Center on Law and Poverty argued the law would increase churn, paperwork, and uninsured rates, disproportionately harming working adults and people experiencing homelessness. Committee members asked about implementation timelines, notification systems, administrative costs, the effect on immigrant eligibility, and whether California could delay or mitigate some provisions. Bass said the state was still assessing federal guidance, planning county and provider outreach, and exploring a possible delay for work requirements and a transition period for provider-tax changes. Members also discussed how state budget actions may need to be revisited in light of H.R. 1, and how California might preserve access through state-only funding or other policy changes. In the second panel, CHIRLA, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and the Children’s Partnership described the health consequences of immigration enforcement. Speakers said raids and data-sharing fears are causing anxiety, trauma, and avoidance of care, with Los Angeles County reporting declines in emergency, urgent care, and clinic visits after enforcement actions. The Children’s Partnership said school and early childhood absences are rising in some communities and that enforcement is undermining children’s emotional well-being and access to education. Members asked for more data and discussed possible state protections, telehealth, mobile care, and legal and policy responses to reduce fear and preserve access to health and education services.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh depending on seniority, the per year.
• </c><00:04:52.720><c> So</c> per employee depending on seniority.
• So per employee depending on seniority.
• </c> conclusion, um, Kucky's future depends conclusion, um, Kucky's future depends on<00:09:33.200><c
• </c> in different graphs and charts depending in different graphs and charts depending on<00:21:41.679

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes, and then took up several administrative regulations. The first was an Office of the Attorney General regulation creating an online submission process for an annual certification report to replace prior quarterly notarized certification forms; there were no amendments or questions. The main discussion centered on Personnel Cabinet regulations 101 KAR 2:034, 2:102, 3:015, and 3:045, which include staff-suggested technical amendments and address state employee compensation and leave. The compensation provisions clarify salary and rehiring/demotion rules, increase critical position premiums from one to three, and update weekend premium and ACE award practices. The leave provisions would provide up to six weeks of paid leave per 10-year interval for birth, adoption, foster placement, or a serious health condition, and allow one paid adverse-weather day per year with supervisor approval. Staff explained that annual and sick leave already accrue and roll over, and that the new six-week benefit was intended as an additional enhancement tied to the 10-year and 20-year sick-leave milestones.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, dependent on a population, dependent on the traffic going into courthouse, dependent on authorized
• So dependent on a population, dependent on the traffic going into courthouse, dependent on authorized
• on the specific parameters that the Legislature put in place. $14 million, though that would depend
• So depending on the deterioration of the building, the electrical and mechanical plumbing, you know,
• So depending on how much money we get, we're spending money...

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation held a hearing focused on courthouse facility funding and the Governor’s budget proposals for the judicial branch. The Legislative Analyst’s Office outlined the state’s courthouse funding structure, including the Trial Court Facilities Act, the main facility funds, the fixed county facility payment, and the heavy reliance on General Fund backfill. LAO also explained that the state’s construction funds were depleted after large transfers and declining fine-and-fee revenue, leaving a backlog of roughly 80 construction projects and more than 22,000 deferred maintenance projects statewide. Members and witnesses discussed the long timelines for capital projects, the need for reassessments, and the impact of inflation, CEQA, and site acquisition delays. Judicial branch representatives, including Justice Hill, Judge Moorman, and Judge Tapia, testified that courthouses across the state face serious seismic, ADA, security, and maintenance problems. They described cost-cutting efforts in design and construction, but emphasized that many facilities are aging and unsafe, with examples from Los Angeles, Compton, Ukiah, and other courts involving flooding, elevator failures, asbestos issues, and closures that disrupted thousands of cases. Judge Moorman highlighted the Ukiah courthouse replacement as an example of a project that is on time and on budget and would improve access, safety, and community services. Judge Tapia stressed that deferred maintenance in Los Angeles County alone exceeds $1.4 billion and argued that preventive maintenance is fiscally prudent because emergency repairs and closures are more costly. Committee members pressed the panel on how priorities are set, whether caseload and population growth are adequately reflected, how quickly projects can be accelerated, and what level of funding would actually meet statewide needs. The Department of Finance and Judicial Council staff explained that the county contribution is fixed and not inflation-adjusted, that acquisitions require willing sellers and can be delayed by CEQA and market conditions, and that the Judicial Council’s prioritization process was based on 2019 criteria that may need updating. LAO cautioned that any new General Fund commitment would require tradeoffs with other state priorities and suggested the Legislature decide what level of funding it is willing to support. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s budget proposals for courthouse facilities, which include backfill for the construction fund, selected new construction and judgeship-related projects, and major facility modifications such as the Orange County Central Justice Center and relocation of Los Angeles courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building.

Transcript Highlights:

• It depends on—we have to make sure that they're tax exempt, that we could sell bonds that would be tax
• So, dependent on a population, dependent on the traffic going into courthouse, dependent on authorized
• So dependent on a population, dependent on the traffic going into courthouse, dependent on authorized
• on the specific parameters that the Legislature put in place. $14 million, though that would depend
• So depending on how much money we get, we're spending money...

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So you do, or you just depending on the type of bill that it is.
• Um, where do you know what kind of qualifying criteria would be for their dependents to get it?
• So if you're 11 or 12, depending on your situation, just say you committed a crime.
• It depends on the judge's decision if they decide to put an electronic monitor on your ankle.
• It depends on the PO on a case-by-case basis to know exactly what they did and the situation.

Keywords: 1136, house, all