Transcript Highlights:

• And we don't want the fact that they're serving part-time in the legislature to keep them from doing
• I get paid by my members to represent them at that level, and then come to the legislature?
• of the legislature.
• of the legislature, and let's just be good with that.
• Frustrated, because we all bring interests to the legislature.

Summary: The Legislative Ethics Board met to reorganize its agenda, elect officers, approve prior minutes, review employment disclosure forms, consider rule changes, and discuss a draft annual report. Larry Hoff was nominated and elected chair/president, and Lori was nominated and elected vice chair. The board then approved the December 8 minutes and approved two employment disclosures involving Senate and House security employees whose spouses also work in legislative security roles. Jennifer presented proposed rule updates, described as mostly technical, clarifying procedures for continuances, answers to reasonable-cause determinations, hearings before either the board or an ALJ, and discovery in adjudicative proceedings. The board moved to approve the rule amendments, and the motion passed. The draft annual report was also discussed, with members suggesting edits to bios and noting the report’s reference to 478 ethics inquiries. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on a draft advisory opinion about whether attorney-legislators may represent clients in matters against state agencies. Members debated whether the opinion should emphasize the constitutional reality of a part-time legislature and the need to distinguish legislative duties from private legal work, or whether it would create unnecessary special treatment for attorneys. Several members raised concerns about conflicts of interest and using legislative status to gain advantage, while others argued the existing ethics rules already cover those situations. In the end, the board decided not to issue the proposed advisory opinion. Jennifer also mentioned Advisory Opinion 2019-5 regarding citizen members of the board and their restrictions, including limits on lobbying. No public testimony was offered, and the board adjourned to executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We know most of the legislature does not want to education this year is facing.
• We know most of the legislature does not want to make the cuts.
• to accurately reflect the needs of the Legislature.
• The Legislature can still influence the 2026-27 enrollment level.
• If the Legislature— The other projects towards the UC Davis project.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held an extended hearing focused primarily on University of California budget issues, enrollment, housing, and Title IX. Chair David Alvarez opened by noting the governor’s proposed 8% ongoing General Fund reduction to UC, the deferral of compact funding, and the College of the Law budget item, while emphasizing that no votes would be taken that day. Public commenters, including UC Davis employees and lecturers, urged restoration of UC funding and opposed the hiring freeze, saying cuts would worsen staffing shortages, reduce research capacity, and harm students and patients. On UC core operations, the Department of Finance said the governor’s budget maintains the compact but defers $240.8 million in ongoing support and continues a planned 7.95% reduction, while the LAO recommended rejecting the deferrals and instead making any changes in the budget year. UC San Diego’s chancellor and UC Office of the President argued the cuts and deferrals would create major campus shortfalls, force hiring freezes, larger class sizes, fewer course offerings, delayed projects, and possible layoffs. Committee members questioned whether cuts could be shifted away from students and toward administration, discussed UCOP reserves and bond debt, and noted that UC’s budget structure makes the campus-level impact larger than the headline reduction. The committee also reviewed enrollment trends and nonresident replacement. The LAO said UC resident enrollment has grown and recommended revisiting 2026-27 targets and pausing the nonresident replacement plan if state funding does not improve. UC said it has exceeded California undergraduate enrollment and nonresident replacement goals, but warned that continued growth without funding would force enrollment reductions and harm quality. Members discussed the role of nonresident and international students, tuition rates, and the value of UC as a pathway for California students and a source of talent for the state. A separate housing item covered the state’s Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. UC reported that recent bond savings could support additional affordable beds at UC Davis and UC Santa Barbara, but the LAO and Finance noted the Legislature would need to decide how to use the $6.2 million in savings from the original projects. The committee also heard a Title IX update from UC’s systemwide civil rights office, which described campus Title IX structures, training, and policy enforcement, and said the system has been working to improve confidentiality guidance and streamline complaint processes after survey feedback showed confusion and lengthy procedures.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, once the state budget condition improved, the Legislature and the 2018-19 budget provided $1.3
• I want to start by saying thank you to all of you and your fellow members of the Legislature, to the
• that the Legislature would also want to...
• cuts elsewhere, that's something that the Legislature could do.
• For its facilities, based on the amount identified by the Legislature.

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:

• We completed and the legislature approved that rural pro promulgation in 2025.
• They have it in their budget requests every Year, the legislature for whatever reason.
• The legislature appropriated $12 million to that last time.
• And so the legislature set aside some funding for that.
• of elections, and we are always Going to follow the laws of our legislature.

Transcript Highlights:

• all other measures in the legislature except for appropriations bills.
• They impose a duty upon us, the legislature, to give effect to these— A duty upon us, the legislature
• Shall be enacted by the legislature.
• And the next article talks about the legislature having the authority to legislate.
• And our constitutional duty as a legislature is to... ...the initiative.

Bills: HB1160 , HB1289 , HB1339 , HB1604 , HB1798 , HB1002 , HB1065 , HB1155 , HB1269 , HB1916 , HB2120 , HB2123 , HB2158 , HB2178 , HB2264 , HB2309 , HB2411 , HJM4004

Keywords: design review, local government, land use, zoning, project permits, housing density, middle housing, affordable housing, parking minimums, single-family zoning, infill development, growth management, comprehensive plan, permit streamlining, objective development regulations, architectural review, administrative review, transit-oriented development, accessory dwelling units, ADU

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:20:42.440><c> of</c> long history here at the legislature of long history here at the legislature
• </c><00:30:00.519><c> amended</c> in 2023 the legislature amended in 2023 the legislature amended Minnesota
• A portion of that $2.2 billion is sort of set aside for the 2027 Legislature, because if the Legislature
• That is sort of set aside for the 2027 Legislature and budget.
• has um where the the legislature has um where the legislature<00:50:43.200><c> has</c><00:50:43.319>

Bills: HF3

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are both well-established through the Legislature.
• We are the Legislature. By the way, we are the Legislature. CARB answers to us. Let's revert.
• We are the Legislature. By the way, we are the Legislature. CARB answers to us.
• take in new data for the legislature to weigh in.
• I think that the idea that the Legislature...

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, that's the decision of the legislature, though. Is that correct?
• The legislature has a history of respecting the will of the people.
• What would be fair to say is that it would give this legislature or the future legislatures the ability
• The legislature has never prioritized it from the very beginning of this.
• It doesn't say the legislature would or would not.

Bills: HB4440 , HJR1067 , HJR1087 , HJR1089

Committee: Senate Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of credit goes to the agreement made with the legislature.
• Are they helping achieve that intended goal that the legislature had?
• I may be new to the legislature, but I'm not new to business.
• And if the legislature feels like that downside risk is more...
• Every year, the legislature and the governor do not fund child care rates.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are both well-established through the Legislature. dollars or more.
• Those are both well-established through the legislature.
• We are the Legislature. By the way, we are the Legislature. CARB answers to us. Let's revert.
• We are the Legislature. By the way, we are the Legislature. CARB answers to us.
• Two, do they strike take in new data for the legislature to weigh in.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• OPDP was established in 2016 by the legislature and currently has 4.5 staff.
• The legislature did not state an objective for either preference.
• The legislature did not state an objective for either preference.
• First, the legislature should determine whether to continue the preference.
• Indeed, the policies that the legislature intended to serve.

Summary: The committee met on December 3, 2025, with a quorum present and approved the September 17 minutes. Members first voted to suspend the 2026 JLARC lodging tax expenditure report for one year, based on staff’s explanation that the report is self-reported, not verified, and less useful than State Auditor accountability audits; the motion passed. The committee also approved renaming the JLARC I-900 subcommittee to the “Committee to Hear SAO Performance Audits,” while keeping the opening script noting that the performance audit process exists under Initiative 900. The committee then heard follow-up updates on two prior performance audits. The Department of Health presented a draft strategic management plan in response to findings on hospital inspections, complaints, adverse event review, and hospital data access. JLARC staff reiterated that 72% of hospital inspections were late, that DOH did not verify third-party inspection standards or review adverse event reports, and that complaint data suggested possible language-access barriers. DOH said it concurred with the recommendations, had improved on-time inspection compliance to about 49%, planned annual updates starting in July 2026, and would work on accreditation oversight, complaint-language access, and data accessibility, though members pressed for firmer deadlines and questioned the three-year timeline for language access improvements. The Liquor and Cannabis Board also reported on its cannabis market study recommendation. JLARC staff said the agency’s data were incomplete and unreliable, limiting oversight of production, recalls, tax collection, and diversion. LCB said it had improved its current CCRS system but still relied on self-reported data, and it presented a decision package for a new traceability system estimated at about $9 million over three fiscal years. LCB described a plant-tagging and serialization approach tied to production, processing, testing, and retail, but acknowledged it did not currently have sufficient staff to fully implement the system without additional funding. The committee also received briefings on JLARC’s recommendation-tracking tools and the 2024 public records reporting summary, including a high-level review of agency response rates, request volumes, costs, and litigation. Finally, JLARC presented the proposed final report on the Office of Privacy and Data Protection, concluding that OPDP meets its statutory responsibilities and has high user satisfaction, but that its mandate should be updated to better match its current capacity and focus; the committee adopted the report for distribution. The meeting then moved into the 2025 tax preference performance reviews, where JLARC staff summarized nine reviews and noted that the Citizens Commission on Tax Preference and Performance Measurement endorsed all 17 legislative auditor recommendations, with comments on seven. Early reviews discussed included natural gas transportation fuel preferences, travel agent and tour operator B&O rates, nonprofit low-income housing development, multipurpose senior centers, disabled veteran adaptive housing, and trade convention attendance, with staff and commissioners generally recommending continuation of some preferences, modification of others, and improved objectives or performance measures where needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• cuts elsewhere, that's something that the Legislature could do.
• So what we're recommending is that the Legislature determine...
• For its facilities, based on the amount identified by the Legislature.
• Or the Legislature, in a more formal way, could direct that these large projects currently, or the Legislature
• We're not envisioning a scenario where the Legislature would say, okay, we're going to...

Transcript Highlights:

• In some sense, it's a value judgment made by the legislature as a whole.
• This area that the legislature would want to spend some of its time over the next year or so.
• Last June at this time, the legislature adopted a two-year approach, and what we've urged the legislature
• I want to thank the Legislature for the delay and the cut on Prop 66 dental payments.
• As cap and invest negotiations continue, I urge the legislature to prioritize this funding.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• Once acted upon, their decisions have the full effect of law unless the legislature votes to repeal and
• As a result, the legislature and governor at the time passed a bipartisan bill that created a fund for
• It should be something more close to the people, and that's through the legislature.
• It should be something more close to the people, and that's through the legislature.
• It should be something more close to the people, and that's through the legislature.

Transcript Highlights:

• in terms of going forward with this bond, and the Legislature pushed this.
• So at the same time, the Legislature may want, the Legislature is essentially being asked to pre-approve
• And so at the same time, the legislature may want, the legislature is essentially being asked to pre-approve
• But the legislature may want to have some additional. spend across its 10 or so programs, but the legislature
• We recommend that the Legislature reject this portion of the funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the administration’s spending plan for Proposition 4’s climate smart agriculture and biodiversity chapters, along with related trailer bill language. CDFA outlined proposed funding for existing programs such as SWEEP, Healthy Soils, Urban Agriculture, and invasive species work, plus new or phased-in programs including year-round and mobile farmers’ markets, tribal food sovereignty, and regional farm equipment sharing. The Department of Conservation described funding for the California Farmland Conservancy Program and Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program, while the Department of Finance and LAO discussed pending allocations and generally found the overall approach reasonable, though LAO suggested the Legislature may want more statutory guidance and reporting, especially for new programs. Members focused on implementation details, equity, and accountability. Questions covered how programs would serve vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, whether new solicitations would be reopened for previously oversubscribed grants, how outcomes are tracked, and how to structure guidance for new programs such as farm equipment sharing. The chair emphasized that the Legislature wants clearer direction on program design and noted that AB 2313 should guide implementation of the regional farm equipment sharing allocation. The committee also discussed the administration’s request to directly appropriate bond funds to departments and to exempt bond program guidelines from the Administrative Procedures Act; LAO supported the APA exemption with possible legislative guardrails for public notice and comment. The committee then heard on the farm-to-school proposal, with CDFA requesting $24.9 million General Fund for incubator grants, technical assistance, and network support. CDFA said the program has reached nearly half of California schoolchildren and has shown strong demand and positive evaluation results. LAO supported the core program but recommended rejecting the $3 million technical assistance component as too broad and suggested the Legislature consider using Proposition 98 for some of the funding. Members debated that point, with some expressing concern about using General Fund dollars for a new discretionary request during a tight budget year. The biodiversity and nature-based solutions chapter included funding for the Wildlife Conservation Board, state conservancies, and tribal nature-based solutions. WCB described major recent investments and proposed projects tied to 30 by 30, habitat restoration, tribal partnerships, and public access. Members raised concerns about long-term stewardship, the size of the WCB allocation, and whether the Legislature should receive more detail on how funds will be distributed. The committee also heard requests for Bolsa Chica wetlands maintenance and Rincon Island decommissioning funding from the State Lands Commission, with members questioning long-term liability, remediation costs, and the role of private oil operators. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with public comment from stakeholders largely supporting the APA exemption, farm-to-school funding, biodiversity investments, and related conservation programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Given that the legislature, even if the legislature doesn't direct CDCR to close a prison, it could be
• about updating the legislature and its progress.
• Well, I think that that's certainly the prerogative of the Legislature.
• It is publicly available on our website and was produced for the Legislature.
• You know, I want what other state agencies have and the legislature has.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) budget, with a focus on prison population trends, spending, facility closures, and efforts to find savings. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) presented data showing the prison and parole populations have fallen sharply over the past 20 years while CDCR spending has remained high, driven largely by security, health care, litigation-related requirements, and aging infrastructure. The LAO also said the state is likely to have several thousand empty beds by 2030 and recommended closing another prison, identifying the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad as the strongest candidate, while also urging more transparency around facility deactivations and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) efficiency contract. CDCR Secretary Jeff McCumber said the department faces structural budget pressures from retirement payouts, workers’ compensation, overtime, medical transport, aging facilities, and violence in prisons, but emphasized declining recidivism, expanding reentry beds, and the need for more single-celling and rehabilitation. Department of Finance representative Anthony Franzoa said the administration is not proposing another prison closure at this time, opposed new reporting requirements on deactivations, and said the BCG contract is intended to produce long-term savings even if near-term estimates are being revised downward. Amber Rose Howard of California United for Responsible Budget argued the state should close more prisons, redirect funds to community services, and stop spending on excess prison capacity. Members questioned why CDCR still relies on vacancy savings, why rehabilitation is only a small share of the budget, and whether the department should be more transparent about capacity reductions and legal liabilities. Several members criticized the $20 million BCG contract and the lack of competitive bidding, while others pressed CDCR on staffing levels, single-celling, suicide prevention, and health care costs for older incarcerated people. The hearing did not take a formal vote, but it ended with clear committee concern about CDCR’s budget transparency, the pace of prison closures, and the need to align spending more closely with the declining prison population and the department’s stated rehabilitation mission.

Transcript Highlights:

• He said he hoped the Legislature would restore those funding cuts.
• In some sense, it's a value judgment made by the Legislature as a whole.
• We appreciate the Legislature rejecting the proposed cuts to the Office of Health Equity.
• Appreciate the legislature rejecting the proposed cuts to the Office of Health Equity.
• We urge the Legislature to prioritize this funding. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee heard opening remarks on the 2025 Budget Act, which will be amended into AB 101 and SB 101 for floor consideration. Committee leaders described the budget as a difficult compromise shaped by a $12 billion deficit, federal funding uncertainty, wildfire impacts, and rising out-year costs, while emphasizing a balance between compassion and fiscal responsibility. Each budget subcommittee chair then summarized major actions in their areas, including health care, human services, education, climate and transportation, housing and state administration, public safety, and oversight/transparency. Key policy items included delaying or narrowing some of the Governor’s proposed cuts, especially in Medi-Cal and other safety-net programs; preserving funding for dental care, women’s health, family planning, hospice, long-term care, IHSS, and services for undocumented Californians; and maintaining or expanding child care, foster care, food banks, and CalWORKs-related supports. Education actions included additional Proposition 98 settle-up, reduced deferrals, support for TK-12, teacher recruitment, literacy, mental health, preschool slots, and restored funding for UC and CSU. Other major items included housing and homelessness investments, wildfire and disaster response funding, transit loans and greenhouse gas reduction fund support, Proposition 36 and VOCA-related public safety funding, and oversight measures on federal impacts and state efficiency. Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst staff said the package makes some of the same savings moves as the May Revision but relies more on internal borrowing and fewer reductions, leaving a smaller reserve than the administration’s plan but still maintaining roughly $11 billion in the rainy day fund. Members from both parties largely supported the package while raising concerns about long-term sustainability, Medi-Cal costs, reserve use, and the need for future revenue and program review. The committee adopted the subcommittee actions by roll call, 18-6, with the roll held open for absent members and additional comments continuing after the vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I would hope that we in the Legislature treat this seriously as well.
• Are you thinking of a fund that is actually funded by the Legislature?
• And lastly, asking the legislature to fully fund county CCS programs.
• We urge the legislature to reach the legislature to reach the legislature to to balance the budget on
• C-Pen strongly urges the legislature to reject Governor Newsom's proposed budget.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:55.840><c> is</c> said was uh that the legislature is said was uh that the legislature is
• </c> resolution between the legislature resolution between the legislature regarding<00:36:03.680><c>
• </c><00:36:15.000><c> in</c> as budget years at the legislature in as budget years at the legislature
• </c> autonomy have held that the legislature autonomy have held that the legislature can<01:17:46.199
• </c><01:17:50.679><c> can</c> Appropriations so the legislature can Appropriations so the legislature

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• He asked whether, if a future legislature said, 'Hey, let's go 10%.
• legislature said, "Hey, let's<00:09:12.880><c> go</c><00:09:12.960><c> 10%.
• A legislature couldn't say we're going to capture some of these capital gains.
• The legislature suppression.
• , legislature, legislature, uh<00:21:29.800><c> especially</c><00:21:30.280><c> if</c><00:21:30.400><

Summary: The conference committee on House File 3900 met with a quorum, introduced members and staff, and received a nonpartisan walkthrough of the bill. Staff explained that the proposal would change the permanent school fund’s distribution formula from interest and dividends to a statutory payout based on 4.5% of the fund’s average value over the previous three fiscal years, with the Commissioner of Management and Budget responsible for determining and transferring the distributable amount. The Senate version differed by adding language requiring a two-thirds vote of each legislative house to change the distribution policy or apportionment. Members then debated whether a future legislature could increase the payout and whether the constitutional language would sufficiently protect the fund’s purchasing power. Senator Farnsworth argued that a supermajority requirement would help prevent politicization and lock in the fund’s purpose, while Representative Long, Senator Kunesh, Representative Youakim, and Representative O’Driscoll opposed the supermajority as unnecessary and potentially politicizing, emphasizing existing constitutional protections, fiduciary duties, and the legislature’s track record of stewarding school trust lands for students. Staff indicated the language requiring preservation of purchasing power would be a strong safeguard, though the exact legal remedy was unclear. Senator Kunesh moved to adopt the House File 3900 second engrossment as the conference committee report. The committee took a roll call vote and approved the motion 7-1, with Senator Farnsworth voting no. After the vote, Senator Swedzinski offered brief remarks about the historical importance of school trust funds and public education.