Transcript Highlights:

• <00:27:00.240> know accurate fiscal note if we don't know accurate fiscal note if we don't
• They it's laid out in the fiscal note.
• <00:40:59.040> note and we have since the first fiscal note and we have since the first fiscal
• uh I because in the fiscal note I see I uh I because in the fiscal note I see I see<00:55:36.559>
• fiscal note is completely wait until the fiscal note is completely done.<00:58:00.880> as<00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, can you—do you have the fiscal note in front of you? I do, sir.
• Beyond that, I am not a fiscal note expert.
• I think that when I was looking at the fiscal note, I don't know that it was necessarily the wrong fiscal
• I think that's where the fiscal note that we have is.
• I noticed in the fiscal note on the second...

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• note<00:03:46.360> estimated that time, the fiscal note estimated that time, the fiscal
• <00:04:01.960> notes continue we've requested fiscal notes continue we've requested fiscal
• I can't believe we don't have a fiscal note, though. Okay.
• And you're fiscal note on this bill.
• fiscal note coming. fiscal note coming.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Where, you know, I don't see any fiscal notes.
• Where, you know, I don't see any fiscal notes.
• Where, you know, I don't see any fiscal notes.
• Where, you know, I don't see any fiscal notes.
• It's not been preliminary fiscal note.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 4205, as amended, was heard and then re-referred to the Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee. Representative Tabke said the bill is intended to protect Minnesotans’ private data tied to license plate reader systems by requiring warrants for out-of-state access, limiting dissemination of privately collected data, and adding reporting and oversight. He said the amendment was substantive and was adopted before the bill was discussed. Tabke also said he was open to changes, including revisiting the audit requirement, and noted the bill should still allow law enforcement to use license plate data for investigations. John Beeler of the ACLU of Minnesota testified in support, arguing that automatic license plate reader use has expanded far beyond what the 2015 statute contemplated and that third-party vendors have complicated data practices and accountability. He said the bill would modernize the law, require public disclosure of data-sharing relationships, and ensure private vendors are subject to data obligations. Jeff Potts of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association opposed the bill as written, saying LPR technology has been important in investigations, including a recent child abduction case, but that the annual audit requirement would be too costly for small agencies and could make the technology unaffordable. He said the association was open to further discussions on guardrails but opposed the bill in its current form. Members raised questions about what data is actually returned by a license plate query versus an LPR hit, with Representative Duran arguing the bill conflated limited registration information with broader private data. Representative Feist supported the bill, saying the public should not trust Flock and that the issue is the cumulative tracking of people’s movements, not just isolated data points. Representative Hudson said the bill raised valid questions but might unintentionally hinder investigations, and he requested a roll call. The committee ultimately adopted the A1 amendment and moved the bill forward on a roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So noted. Thank you, Chair.
• If we focus on fiscal year 26, ...
• Two things to note: these projections for fiscal year 26 and 27 do not include the structural changes
• two fiscal years.
• two fiscal years.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• made<00:04:25.800> the year's fiscal note would have made the year's fiscal note would have
• > note<00:09:10.959> significantly uh the fiscal note significantly uh the fiscal note
• > bit about the fiscal note he did a bit about the fiscal note he did a wonderful<00:16:28.720> job
• <00:16:43.120> the<00:16:43.240> fiscal the fiscal notes so we know the fiscal the
• fiscal notes so we know the fiscal notes<00:16:43.720> AR<00:16:43.959> exact<00:16:44.279

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Social cost versus fiscal cost. What are your thoughts about that?
• Social costs versus fiscal costs.
• Just noting that the comments that my colleague Ms.
• As Assemblymember Arens noted, it's necessary infrastructure.
• As Assemblymember Arens noted, it's necessary infrastructure.

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:

• note has been requested or a fiscal note needs to be requested.
• note has been requested or a fiscal note needs to be requested.
• <00:47:21.119> note<00:47:21.680> because even once we get the fiscal note because
• Noner, do we need to request a fiscal note on this bill? Mr.
• Noner, do we need to request a fiscal note on this bill? Mr.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, yeah, I know he's sitting out there, but I want to say something about these fiscal notes because
• It's death by fiscal note. And this should not be. So, I just want to touch base.
• It's It's death by fiscal note. It's It's death by fiscal note.
• And honestly, sometimes these fiscal And honestly, sometimes these fiscal notes<00:02:58.280>
• And the fiscal note has been requested. We have no idea.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Members discussed House File 3487, Representative Ray Rawer’s anonymous threat reporting bill, which had previously been heard and laid over. The bill had been worked into a bipartisan agreement with Representative Mueller and others, including an amendment intended to allow school participation, and members said they broadly supported sending it to the general register for school safety purposes. The main issue raised was a newly requested fiscal note tied to a reporting requirement in the bill. The speaker criticized the timing and substance of the fiscal note, arguing the Department of Education should be able to absorb the cost within its existing budget and noting the department’s hiring and carryover funds. He said the fiscal note created the appearance of an effort to kill the bill administratively and compared it to unfunded mandates placed on schools. Chair Jordan responded that Representative Rawer had been working hard on the bill and said the committee would hear it next week. Representative Roach also objected to the fiscal note, saying school safety is a top priority and the department should “figure it out.” No vote was taken on the bill in this exchange; the action was to postpone further consideration until the following week.

Transcript Highlights:

• fiscal note on the content of it and the fiscal note on the base<00:11:28.399> bill<00:11:28.600
• <00:28:04.760> note that isn't written into the fiscal note that isn't written into the fiscal
• and understanding the fiscal note.
• note so I I I I think we should fiscal note so I I I I think we should entertain<00:39:24.640> all
• impact our interpretation of the fiscal impact our interpretation of the fiscal note<00:39:28.440

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began as a Division 3 work session on HB 71, but much of the early discussion focused on whether a previously discussed non-germane amendment could be considered or voted on that day. Members and the chair debated process and notice requirements, and the clerk’s guidance was that the amendment needed a separate public hearing before the full Finance Committee. The amendment was described as requiring DHHS contracts and addenda to include compliance with the Patient Bill of Rights, with a repeal date so the requirement would expire on November 30, 2026. The motion to move OTP on HB 71 with the amendment was withdrawn, and the committee agreed the amendment would be scheduled for a future full Finance hearing instead. The committee then turned to HB 71 itself and heard testimony from DHHS representatives John Williams and Jenny O’Higgins on the fiscal note and policy implications. Members questioned the estimate that the bill could put $12 million to $18 million per year in federal funding at risk, including HUD and Office of Refugee Resettlement funds. DHHS explained that the estimate was based on a broad reading of the bill’s term “specified alien,” which they said was not clearly defined in the bill, so they analyzed it using the federal definition of “alien” and assumed the bill could affect lawfully present non-citizens as well as undocumented individuals. They said the figure represented a worst-case scenario and that they were not claiming the loss was certain. Members also pressed DHHS on whether the bill could affect emergency sheltering in schools, public academies, or institutions of higher learning during disasters. DHHS said the language could create conflicts with federal funding conditions because emergency shelter programs generally cannot impose barriers on who may be sheltered, and they warned that excluding certain people could affect refugee-related and HUD funding. Questions were raised about whether the bill’s language would apply to private institutions as well as public ones, and whether the state could still use schools in short-term emergencies. DHHS said the language was broad, that they could not answer every legal question definitively, and that they would need input from public health and legal staff. No final vote on HB 71 was taken in the portion provided; the committee remained in discussion/work session mode after the amendment motion was withdrawn.

Transcript Highlights:

• notes, uh, fiscal committee items, and fiscal impact statements.
• Uh, but as far as volume, probably about 1,000 fiscal notes this year.
• notes, uh, fiscal committee items, and fiscal impact statements.
• Uh, but as far as volume, probably about 1,000 fiscal notes this year.
• Pam Alis is back at her desk right now, who processes all the fiscal notes, uh, fiscal committee items

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a significant amount of funds after all, so we understand the need for fiscal stewardship.
• I might point out it's important to note that this is a partnership with Med-Quest Division on these
• I might point out it's important to note that this is a partnership with Med-Quest Division on these
• I might point out it's important to note that this is a partnership with Med-Quest Division on these
• Then, in the next fiscal year, we will be looking at expanding the additional three respite sites.

Bills: HB20, HB276, HB644, HB812, HB816, HB916, HB1131, HB1247, HB1518, HB1525, HB1537, HB1541, HB1546, HB1553, HB1562, HB1565, HB1566, HB1576, HB1577, HB1591, HB1605, HB1612, HB1613, HB1614, HB1618, HB1620, HB1650, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1668, HB1676, HB1707, HB1711, HB1713, HB1715, HB1718, HB1727, HB1749, HB1756, HB1774, HB1776, HB1801, HB1802, HB1805, HB1813, HB1815, HB1831, HB1838, HB1853, HB1854, HB1859, HB1863, HB1871, HB1872, HB1918, HB1920, HB1952, HB1965, HB1966, HB1967, HB1969, HB1972, HB1973, HB1974, HB1975, HB1980, HB1985, HB2005, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB2062, HB2113, HB2114, HB2116, HB2138, HB2139, HB2156, HB2158, HB2159, HB2171, HB2208, HB2268, HB2270, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2289, HB2310, HB2315, HB2335, HB2338, HB2339, HB2340, HB2343, HB2361, HB2384, HB2387, SB2338, SB2431, SB2438, SB2593, SB2907, SB2671, SB2321, SB3084, SB2401, SB3033, SB2972, SB3032, SB2806, SB3014, SB2108, SB2981, SB2973, SB2423, SB2078, SB2322, SB2397, SB2896, SB2088, SB2347, SB2408, SB2970, SB2851, SB2713, SB2697, SB2312, SB2192, SB2363, SB2530, SB3028, SB2024, SB3007, SB2599, SB2596, SB2662, SB2930, SB3334, SB2378, SB3019, SB3231, SB2240, SB2372, SB2175, SB2046, SB2298, SB2922, SB2835, SB3263, SB2174, SB2128, SB2006, SB2489, SB3134, SB2982, SB2425, SB2849, SB2797, SB2795, SB2575, SB2521, SB2765, SB2386, SB2852, SB2022, SB2117, SB2277, SB2387, SB2688, SB2885, SB3132, SB3219, SB2169, SB2591, SB2090, SB2983, SB888, SB3249, SB2611, SB2429, SB2463, SB3154, SB3131, SB3152, SB3315, SB2448, SB2054, SB2140, SB2520, SB2377, SB2986, SB2010, SB2189, SB2026, SB3010, SB2818, SB2002

Keywords: lava insurance, homeowners, insurance market, subsidy, Hawaii, condominiums, annual report, filing fee, real estate, developer, residency, property regime, PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, local produce, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• So,<00:03:59.520> noted.
• So, noted. Any other no votes? So, noted. Any other no votes?
• So<00:09:24.280> noted. So noted. So noted.
• So<00:09:34.480> noted.
• Please note my reservation on the first one, SB 3069. Mahalo. So noted. Any other discussion?

Bills: HB20, HB276, HB644, HB812, HB816, HB916, HB1131, HB1247, HB1518, HB1525, HB1537, HB1541, HB1546, HB1553, HB1562, HB1565, HB1566, HB1576, HB1577, HB1591, HB1605, HB1612, HB1613, HB1614, HB1618, HB1620, HB1650, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1668, HB1676, HB1707, HB1711, HB1713, HB1715, HB1718, HB1727, HB1749, HB1756, HB1774, HB1776, HB1801, HB1802, HB1805, HB1813, HB1815, HB1831, HB1838, HB1853, HB1854, HB1859, HB1863, HB1871, HB1872, HB1918, HB1920, HB1952, HB1965, HB1966, HB1967, HB1969, HB1972, HB1973, HB1974, HB1975, HB1980, HB1985, HB2005, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB2062, HB2113, HB2114, HB2116, HB2138, HB2139, HB2156, HB2158, HB2159, HB2171, HB2208, HB2268, HB2270, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2289, HB2310, HB2315, HB2335, HB2338, HB2339, HB2340, HB2343, HB2361, HB2384, HB2387, SB2338, SB2431, SB2438, SB2593, SB2907, SB2671, SB2321, SB3084, SB2401, SB3033, SB2972, SB3032, SB2806, SB3014, SB2108, SB2981, SB2973, SB2423, SB2078, SB2322, SB2397, SB2896, SB2088, SB2347, SB2408, SB2970, SB2851, SB2713, SB2697, SB2312, SB2192, SB2363, SB2530, SB3028, SB2024, SB3007, SB2599, SB2596, SB2662, SB2930, SB3334, SB2378, SB3019, SB3231, SB2240, SB2372, SB2175, SB2046, SB2298, SB2922, SB2835, SB3263, SB2174, SB2128, SB2006, SB2489, SB3134, SB2982, SB2425, SB2849, SB2797, SB2795, SB2575, SB2521, SB2765, SB2386, SB2852, SB2022, SB2117, SB2277, SB2387, SB2688, SB2885, SB3132, SB3219, SB2169, SB2591, SB2090, SB2983, SB888, SB3249, SB2611, SB2429, SB2463, SB3154, SB3131, SB3152, SB3315, SB2448, SB2054, SB2140, SB2520, SB2377, SB2986, SB2010, SB2189, SB2026, SB3010, SB2818, SB2002

Keywords: lava insurance, homeowners, insurance market, subsidy, Hawaii, condominiums, annual report, filing fee, real estate, developer, residency, property regime, PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, local produce, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• Governor's Message No. 5 transmits proposed changes to the fiscal year '27 executive supplemental budget

Bills: HB20, HB276, HB644, HB812, HB816, HB916, HB1131, HB1247, HB1518, HB1525, HB1537, HB1541, HB1546, HB1553, HB1562, HB1565, HB1566, HB1576, HB1577, HB1591, HB1605, HB1612, HB1613, HB1614, HB1618, HB1620, HB1650, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1668, HB1676, HB1707, HB1711, HB1713, HB1715, HB1718, HB1727, HB1749, HB1756, HB1774, HB1776, HB1801, HB1802, HB1805, HB1813, HB1815, HB1831, HB1838, HB1853, HB1854, HB1859, HB1863, HB1871, HB1872, HB1918, HB1920, HB1952, HB1965, HB1966, HB1967, HB1969, HB1972, HB1973, HB1974, HB1975, HB1980, HB1985, HB2005, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB2062, HB2113, HB2114, HB2116, HB2138, HB2139, HB2156, HB2158, HB2159, HB2171, HB2208, HB2268, HB2270, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2289, HB2310, HB2315, HB2335, HB2338, HB2339, HB2340, HB2343, HB2361, HB2384, HB2387, SB2338, SB2431, SB2438, SB2593, SB2907, SB2671, SB2321, SB3084, SB2401, SB3033, SB2972, SB3032, SB2806, SB3014, SB2108, SB2981, SB2973, SB2423, SB2078, SB2322, SB2397, SB2896, SB2088, SB2347, SB2408, SB2970, SB2851, SB2713, SB2697, SB2312, SB2192, SB2363, SB2530, SB3028, SB2024, SB3007, SB2599, SB2596, SB2662, SB2930, SB3334, SB2378, SB3019, SB3231, SB2240, SB2372, SB2175, SB2046, SB2298, SB2922, SB2835, SB3263, SB2174, SB2128, SB2006, SB2489, SB3134, SB2982, SB2425, SB2849, SB2797, SB2795, SB2575, SB2521, SB2765, SB2386, SB2852, SB2022, SB2117, SB2277, SB2387, SB2688, SB2885, SB3132, SB3219, SB2169, SB2591, SB2090, SB2983, SB888, SB3249, SB2611, SB2429, SB2463, SB3154, SB3131, SB3152, SB3315, SB2448, SB2054, SB2140, SB2520, SB2377, SB2986, SB2010, SB2189, SB2026, SB3010, SB2818, SB2002

Keywords: lava insurance, homeowners, insurance market, subsidy, Hawaii, condominiums, annual report, filing fee, real estate, developer, residency, property regime, PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, local produce, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:29.360> year financial reports for the fiscal year financial reports for the fiscal
• So, like you given fiscal year.
• owed in each fiscal year up to 10 fiscal owed in each fiscal year up to 10 fiscal years<00:37:42.000>
• years appropriated and as future fiscal years appropriated and as future fiscal years come<00:37
• between now and the end of the fiscal between now and the end of the fiscal year. year. year.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Fiscal Committee met on December 19, with Senators Long and Lang serving as replacements. The committee approved the November 21 minutes and adopted the consent calendar after removing two Department of Health and Human Services items for separate discussion. It then took up an HHS request involving nursing facility rates, where Nathan White explained that $2.2 million would be transferred from a long-term care Medicaid eligibility contract to the nursing facilities budget. He said the funds would offset an otherwise projected 3.9% average rate decrease and bring the overall average change to zero for the next six months, with rates reset again in July under state law. Members asked about the budget adjustment factor, bed counts, and whether additional funds could raise rates further; White said the factor is statutory, capped at 28.76%, and that more money would lower the factor and increase rates. The committee also corrected a date in the request from February 1, 2025 to February 1, 2026, and approved the item. The committee next approved another HHS item related to rural health transformation grants. Members confirmed the request covered the full amount applied for this biennium, and asked about the technology component. HHS said the grant is not solely about AI, but about broader technology improvements such as electronic medical records, back-end systems, and tools to improve access and sustainability in underserved areas. The committee approved that item as well. The Judicial Council then requested funds for contract attorneys providing indigent defense on a fixed-fee basis. The council said current funds had already been exhausted and that the new appropriation would be used immediately. Members questioned the size of the request and the number of people awaiting counsel; the council reported about 150 incarcerated people and about 300 non-incarcerated people waiting for counsel, more than in recent years. It attributed the increase to competition for attorneys, public defender offices closing intake in some locations because of caseload limits, and broader case and court-system changes. One member raised constitutional concerns about delays in counsel for incarcerated defendants. The committee ultimately amended the request downward to $1 million, approved it, and then approved a motion to place several annual financial reports on file and release them to the public when available. The committee also discussed dashboard reporting from HHS, asking for more detail on community mental health center caseloads and budget-reduction information, and HHS agreed to provide more useful monthly detail.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, we note that the However, we'd note that the modest COLA is not sufficient to cover the true
• Social costs versus fiscal costs.
• In addition, we have noted, and it has been noted by this committee, that the administrative costs have
• year, in this state fiscal year, that are youth focused, which in this state fiscal year include 6.7
• And so I just also want to note on the AP admin rate.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major discussion focused on child care and early education, including proposed reductions tied to federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue changes, the shift of reductions from general child care to the California Alternative Payment Program, the end of funding for prospective pay implementation, a 2.01% cost-of-living adjustment, child care infrastructure grants, and a proposal to increase administrative funding for alternative payment agencies. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported removing prospective pay funding and urged caution on the administrative-rate shift, while also recommending more justification for the slot reduction approach and more detail on infrastructure grant alignment. Committee members strongly objected to eliminating about 6,000 child care slots, arguing the Legislature should preserve and expand child care access. The Department of Education supported the preschool QRIS block grant increase and the COLA but raised concerns about rate alignment for three- and four-year-olds and the lack of funding to maintain enrollment growth. The committee then reviewed trailer bill language affecting child care, including codifying age-based reimbursement categories, expanding documentation for enhanced inclusion rates, clarifying CalWORKs child care eligibility, aligning health and safety standards with federal requirements, coordinating disaster-related infrastructure funding, and updating oversight language. Administration officials said the proposals were intended to support the single reimbursement rate structure, improve safety compliance, and coordinate disaster recovery funding. LAO said it had no major initial concerns with the trailer bill language but would continue reviewing it. The hearing then turned to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS described projected caseload declines, a one-time augmentation for county administration to implement federal H.R. 1 changes, a proposed reassessment schedule for county administrative funding, and updated estimates that H.R. 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people. Members pressed the administration on the impact of H.R. 1, the “chilling effect” on immigrant households, county workload, and whether the state should backfill federal cuts, especially for families with children subject to new work requirements. The committee also discussed a one-time CalFood augmentation, state administrative expense funding, staffing for H.R. 1 implementation, and a small increase to the CACFP meal reimbursement rate. Finally, the committee began IHSS items, including the impact of reinstating the Medi-Cal asset limit, automatic IHSS termination tied to Medi-Cal loss, and related savings and caseload estimates, with the administration explaining that these proposals would reduce eligibility and that there is no broad substitute for IHSS for many recipients.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you talk about the fiscal note that we have in front of us, please?
• Can you talk about the fiscal note that we have in front of us, please?
• I just wanted to point out, if you read the language of the fiscal note, fiscal notes deal with extremes
• I just wanted to point out, if you read the language of the fiscal note, fiscal notes deal with extremes
• I just wanted to point out, if you read the language of the fiscal note, fiscal notes deal with extremes

Keywords: Consideration of HB 491 02:14 Consideration of HB 738 07:58 Guest presentation by Taiwan Consul General Elliott Wang 25:20 Consideration of HCR 50 36:37 Consideration of SB 19 49:29, 958, all

Summary: The House State Government Committee met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 491 by Representative Steve Riley. The committee adopted a proposed committee substitute, then heard that the bill would raise the threshold for certain capital project and equipment purchases from $200,000 to $500,000, remove a requirement for a special board meeting when replacing a board of regents member, allow certain employees or contractors to perform capital construction work up to $500,000, remove limits on retired police officers working at postsecondary institutions, and speed release of pension information to employers. Members asked about reporting and oversight of the higher threshold, and the witness said the records are maintained by institutions and available upon request. HB 491 passed on a 19-0 roll call vote. The committee then heard House Bill 738 by Representative Griffey, relating to state personnel and the constitutional officers. The bill would give independently elected constitutional officers more flexibility to hire unclassified employees and set salaries for classified employees up to the midpoint without Personnel Cabinet approval, while leaving pay scales, appropriations, and funding limits unchanged. Representative Griffey and witnesses from the auditor’s office said the measure was intended to reduce red tape, address salary compression, improve pay equity, and help recruit and retain staff; they also said it would allow offices to fill policy roles needed for audits and other work. Members questioned the fiscal note, salary caps, and whether the bill would affect future budget requests. The bill passed 18-1, with one pass, and the chair noted it would move favorably to the House floor. After those bills, the committee briefly welcomed Taiwan’s consul general, Elliot Wang, and Representative Adam Bowling spoke about Kentucky’s relationship with Taiwan, including trade, investment, and prior assistance during disasters. Wang described Taiwan’s economic ties with the United States, ongoing trade and investment developments, defense and education cooperation, and people-to-people exchange programs, noting Kentucky was the first state to sign an education cooperation MOU with Taiwan in 2021.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't have concern with fiscal note.
• that The fiscal note we have on the file bill shows a fiscal note of $229 million.
• I think if you do look at The fiscal note on this, we have a fiscal note of $40 million.
• But, we believe it should be a fiscal note, or a, I'm sorry, not a fiscal note, a fiscal positive.
• That language was pre fiscal note.

Bills: HB19, HB30, HB851, HB1663, HB1681, HB1769, HB1937, HB1979, HB2428, HB2433, HB2825, HB3159, HB3424, HB3486, HB3487, HB3504, HB3605, HB3879, HB3994, HB4382, HB4752, HB5444, HB5446, HB5447, HB3199, HB4847, HB19

Keywords: local government debt, property tax, ad valorem tax, bond election, certificate of obligation, anticipation note, school district tax rate, voter-approval rate, debt service cap, municipal finance, county bonds, flood control district, hospital district, public works, tax transparency, property tax notice, November uniform election date, general obligation bonds, local debt reform, taxpayer notice

Transcript Highlights:

• My next question is regarding the fiscal note on 5814 and what was assumed in that fiscal note.
• My next question is regarding the fiscal note on 5814 and what was assumed in that fiscal note.
• My next question is regarding the fiscal note on 5814 and what was assumed in that fiscal note.
• The short answer is yes: our fiscal note did assume all of that.
• estimate or our fiscal note, and that would have been included.

Summary: The House Finance Committee held a work session that began with welcoming new member Rep. Janice Zahn, who introduced herself as representing the 41st Legislative District. The Department of Revenue then gave an update on the Antio-related legislation following the Washington Supreme Court decision and the 2025 session changes. DOR explained its voluntary disclosure program and the new expanded voluntary disclosure agreement for taxpayers with unreported investment income, including broader eligibility and interest/penalty relief, but said utilization has been minimal so far because additional implementation questions remain unresolved. The committee next received the annual update on the Working Families Tax Credit. DOR reported record participation in 2025, with about $205 million refunded through October and a major increase in applications after TurboTax added the credit to its filing software. Officials said most dollars went to households with children, outreach efforts remained important, and community partners and state agencies helped increase uptake. Members focused heavily on fraud concerns, especially tax preparers allegedly filing claims without applicants’ knowledge or diverting refunds; DOR said it is using fraud detection tools, training preparers, and trying to make applicants whole, but current law does not provide direct penalties against preparers. The final portion covered implementation of engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5814, which expanded sales tax to certain services. DOR described the new tax framework, its guidance process, and the large volume of ruling requests and outreach since the law took effect October 1. Committee members asked about fiscal assumptions, the scope of taxable services, and whether the department had revised its implementation estimates; DOR said the fiscal note assumed broad application absent explicit exemptions and that no expenditure revision had been made. In stakeholder testimony, Expedia and T-Mobile argued the law creates complexity and competitive disadvantages for Washington businesses, while a construction training provider said the tax raises tuition for workers seeking required certifications. School and nonprofit representatives said the tax will increase costs for special education services, arts programming, and other public-facing activities, and urged exemptions or further legislative fixes. The chair closed by noting the committee would revisit 5814 in the next session and then adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:24:31.440> note and then say oh it's a zero fiscal note and then say oh it's a zero fiscal
• Um because there's a zero fiscal note.
• note." Great. It has a zero fiscal note. note." Great. It has a zero fiscal note.
• <01:33:05.840> note, eliminate the 1.1 million fiscal note, eliminate the 1.1 million fiscal
• > note<01:38:44.080> that's eliminate the fiscal note that's eliminate the fiscal note

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened, established a quorum, and approved the journal from March 4, 2026. Members then made a series of announcements recognizing visiting groups, including emergency managers, community health centers, the Colorado Chamber Alliance, medical equipment providers, the League of Women Voters, and upcoming committee meetings and Denver Zoo Day. The chamber also moved several bills to special orders later in the day. The House then took up third reading of several bills. House Bill 1026, expanding plan options for the Public Employees Retirement Association, passed 49-13. House Bill 102, concerning access to behavioral health providers and licensure for clinical social workers, passed 51-13. House Bill 1205, updating state law to reflect federal good neighbor authority agreements, passed 63-1. House Bill 1145, on water quality and mobile home parks, passed 42-12. House Bill 107, improving use of distributed energy resources, passed 48-16. House Bill 1127, requiring a report after fatal motor vehicle crashes, passed 42-22. House Bill 1277, continuing the kidney disease prevention and education task force, passed unanimously 64-0. The chamber then considered House Bill 1081, which would require utilities to evaluate advanced transmission technologies to improve Colorado’s electric transmission system. Members debated amendments, including L007 and L004, both of which were adopted, while L006 was rejected. Supporters said the bill would help reduce costs, improve reliability, and better use existing infrastructure; opponents of L006 argued it would add unnecessary mandates and costs. After amendment, House Bill 1081 passed. The House also took up House Bill 1228, creating an additional pathway to licensure for marriage and family therapists, which passed unanimously. House Bill 1120, implementing mobile home taxation task force recommendations to protect mobile homeowners’ equity and align tax sale procedures with constitutional requirements, was then considered; the finance committee report was adopted, and debate continued on a proposed amendment as the transcript ended.