Transcript Highlights:

• The last time this cap was set was in 2014.
• In place of the 10-state threshold, taxpayers that meet the definition of high-volume lender will not
• A high-volume lender is a taxpayer that... ...for these residential properties.
• A high-volume lender is a taxpayer that is either a specified financial institution or has an annual

Summary: The committee first heard a briefing on the proposed Senate capital budget, Substitute Senate Bill 6003, which would spend about $723 million total using debt-limit bonds, Climate Commitment Act funds, and other cash resources. Staff described major investments in housing and homelessness, human services, local infrastructure, flood response, water conservation and clean energy, K-12 school modernization and seismic work, and higher education projects. Members then took public testimony from a wide range of advocates and project sponsors, most of whom urged the Senate to preserve or increase funding for specific projects in the final budget, including affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, child care facilities, food banks, behavioral health and substance use treatment centers, tribal courthouse relocation, school modernization, community colleges, university projects, floodplain restoration, community forests, and local civic or cultural facilities. Several witnesses also asked the Senate to match or approach House funding levels on items such as the Housing Trust Fund, permanent supportive housing, the Community Forest Program, Floodplains by Design, and CCA-supported clean energy and water projects. The chair noted that amendments to the capital budget were due the next day at noon. The committee then received a briefing on Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2251, which would restructure Climate Commitment Act accounts by repealing three existing accounts and replacing them with two new accounts: a CCA operating account and a CCA capital account. Staff explained that the bill would preserve most existing uses while changing revenue distribution formulas, capping Ecology administrative costs, expanding allowable uses for EV-related costs, housing, and carbon capture/sequestration, and changing reporting and tribal consultation provisions. The bill also shifts some reporting from annual to biannual and modifies the thresholds for tribal-supported and overburdened-community investments. The fiscal note was described as relatively small, with the main impact being the revised revenue allocation structure. Public testimony on the CCA bill was mixed. Supporters, including the League of Women Voters, said the restructuring better aligns spending with the intent of the CCA and could improve investments for tribes and overburdened communities. Critics, including the Washington Policy Center, argued the bill still lacks strong requirements to ensure CCA spending is effective and objected to reducing the frequency of the state’s climate-spending report. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and it's really inquiring with them: are there lenders and CDFIs we should be looking at...
• It's really inquiring with them: are there lenders and CDFIs we should be looking at who service those
• They may be working with external lenders as well.
• But if there are lenders... You know, but that's not something that we can mandate.
• But if there are lenders in the communities, we can work with them.

Summary: The Senate Rules Committee met to consider several routine agenda items and a gubernatorial appointment. The committee first approved appointments not required to appear, including Gina Castro Rodriguez to the Board of State and Community Corrections, Richard Stein to the California Arts Council, and Nicholas Hardiman to the California Housing Finance Agency Board of Directors. Members also approved references to bills and committees, committee and subcommittee appointments, joint committee appointments, and floor acknowledgments. Two rule waiver requests by Senators Perez and Padilla to suspend SR 22.5 for additional bill introductions were discussed and ultimately approved on a divided vote. The committee then heard testimony from Andy Nakahata, nominated to serve as executive director of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank). Nakahata described his background in finance and infrastructure lending and said he would focus on stewardship, expanding access to IBank programs, and supporting small businesses and infrastructure projects statewide. Senators questioned him about geographic equity in lending, outreach to underserved counties, creditworthiness standards, the Transportation Infrastructure Accelerator, and whether IBank could better reach municipalities and health care providers. Nakahata said IBank tracks lending by county, works through financial development corporations, municipal advisors, and other networks, and can adjust loan sizes or partner with other funding sources when projects are not fully creditworthy. Public witnesses spoke in support of Nakahata, citing his expertise and leadership in public finance. No opposition testimony was presented. The committee then voted unanimously to move Nakahata’s nomination to the full Senate for confirmation. Afterward, the committee re-ran the earlier votes for the record, confirming the appointments and other agenda items, and then adjourned the public portion of the meeting to enter executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their priority is the aggregate cap.
• An aggregate cap, but this billion dollars has nothing to do with the aggregate cap, so the aggregate
• </c><00:25:33.399><c> is</c> having a fund with an aggregate cap is having a fund with an aggregate cap
• The 50% is really the catastrophic-fire cap.
• So it would eat up the whole bond cap we have, so we would have no money under the bond cap for low-cost

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on HB 982 HD1, a wildfire-related measure aimed at creating a wildfire recovery fund and a financing structure to address future catastrophic wildfire liability. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Division of Consumer Advocacy, and the Public Utilities Commission submitted comments and were available for questions. Supporters included IBW Local 1260, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Clearway Energy Group, Hawaiian Electric, Par Hawaii, and others, while Charter Communications and the Hawaii Association for Justice opposed or raised concerns. Life of the Land supported the bill but urged changes to the definition of a catastrophic wildfire and noted concerns about prudency review language. IBW Local 1260 asked to restore language from the original draft, and Charter warned the bill could impair existing contract and indemnity rights unless amended. A major focus of the hearing was Hawaiian Electric’s position on the HD1 version. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the original bill but objected to the HD1 requirement for an additional $500 million shareholder contribution, arguing it was not feasible and could delay or prevent the fund from operating. The company said the bill would help protect customers and improve credit ratings by creating a dedicated revenue stream and a bankruptcy-remote financing structure, which it said would lower borrowing costs over time. Members questioned how the $1 billion securitization amount was chosen, whether credit rating agencies had indicated it was sufficient, and how the bill would work in bankruptcy; Hawaiian Electric said the amount was a balance among interests, not based on a specific agency directive, and that it would follow up on bankruptcy questions. Opponents and skeptics raised concerns about liability caps, the new claims process, and unclear language on damages above the fund’s limits. The Hawaii Association for Justice argued the bill limits victims’ remedies and gives too much authority to the new entity without clear guardrails. Committee members also pressed Hawaiian Electric on comparisons to California, the feasibility of the shareholder contribution, and whether alternative capital-raising or divestiture options had been considered. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided; testimony and questioning continued with follow-up information requested from Hawaiian Electric and others.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so a lender may come in and just a borrower may come in and need $600,000.
• And so a lender may come in and just a borrower may come in and need $600,000.
• And so a lender may come in and just a borrower may come in and need $600,000.
• So anyway, this is something we need to be looking into. lenders that you identified who I think lenders
• is what what them um to those lenders is what what I'm<00:12:59.839><c> hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because the cap is simply the last year's cap plus wage and salary growth.
• If it was just changing the cap, so ignore the surtax for a second, just changing the cap, we modeled
• Because the cap is simply the last year's cap plus wage and salary growth.
• If it was just changing the cap, so ignore the surtax for a second, just changing the cap, we modeled
• of a tax cap.

Bills: H5006 , H5007

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state tax collection cap law (62F) so the cap would be based on the prior year’s actual collections plus wage-and-salary growth and would include surtax revenue. Committee chairs outlined the hearing process and noted that the measures would need additional signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot if not enacted by the legislature. The committee’s expert witness, Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, said the income tax proposal would lower the base rate in stages beginning in 2027 and would ultimately reduce state income tax collections by about $5.4 billion annually when fully implemented. He estimated savings would vary by income level, from a few hundred dollars for lower- and middle-income households to about $10,700 for taxpayers at the surtax threshold. He argued the proposal would improve tax competitiveness but would also require major budget adjustments, likely including reserve use, spending cuts, and possibly new revenue measures; he cited prior downturns and said the state’s rainy day fund is stronger than in past recessions, though spending growth and health care costs remain concerns. On the 62F proposal, he said rebasing the cap to prior-year collections would make refunds more likely, with modeled refunds totaling about $7.9 billion without the surtax and $10.1 billion with it over the last decade, and warned it could reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Proponents of both petitions, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, NFIB, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that Massachusetts faces an affordability and competitiveness crisis and that lower taxes would help families, small businesses, job creation, and outmigration. They said the income tax cut would put about $1,300 a year back into the hands of average families, help pass-through businesses reinvest, and improve the state’s ability to compete with lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, presented a model projecting average annual revenue losses of about $680 million during the phase-in and a total net income tax revenue impact of $2 billion to $2.2 billion, while saying long-term revenue growth would be stronger after implementation. The hearing ended with committee questions and a brief dispute over a planned voter testimonial video, which the chairs said was not appropriate for the hearing at that point.

Transcript Highlights:

• , liability wasn’t capped.
• </c><00:02:41.560><c> the</c> state treas treasurer to cap the state treas treasurer to cap the guarantee
• </c><00:02:52.879><c> of</c> housing to um uh change the cap of housing to um uh change the cap of 100,000
• </c><00:04:01.840><c> liability</c><00:04:02.480><c> wasn't</c><00:04:02.799><c> capped</c> wasn't capped
• liability wasn't capped wasn't capped liability wasn't capped correct<00:04:04.360><c> understand</c

Committee: Senate Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• Furthermore, I am seeking additional amendments to remove the fee cap limitation on staking commissions
• they don't want to do what, you know, these mobile home parks and ag cooperatives and hard money lenders

Summary: The committee took up AB 2285, a bill related to cryptocurrency staking and broader crypto regulatory issues. The author said the amendments would give California clearer guidelines for staking-as-a-service, maintain consumer disclosures, and remove a fee cap to make the business model workable. Supporters, including representatives of the Crypto Council for Innovation and the Satoshi Action Fund, said the bill would provide needed clarity and help Californians participate in blockchain-related opportunities. Opposition came from the Consumer Federation of California and credit union representatives, who argued the bill would weaken consumer protections, create an uneven playing field for state-chartered institutions, and move California into the middle of unresolved federal debates over the Clarity Act. They also raised concerns about fraud, money laundering, and the effect of the bill on DFPI’s authority and pending litigation involving Coinbase. The author responded that staking is distinct from buying crypto, that blockchain can improve traceability, and that the bill was still a work in progress with room for further amendments. Members discussed preemption, the pending federal framework, and whether the bill should wait until federal law is settled. The chair emphasized California’s role in setting policy and said other states were allowing consumers to benefit from staking. The committee ultimately adopted a due pass as amended motion and sent AB 2285 out on a 7-2 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Furthermore, I am seeking additional amendments to remove the fee cap limitation on staking commissions
• they don't want to do what, you know, these mobile home parks and ag cooperatives and hard money lenders

Committee: House Banking and Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, as the legislature, we could cap it.
• Lenders could be a major help in getting the issue resolved from the municipality.

Bills: SB2106 , SB1471 , SB2139 , SB2154 , SB1619

Committee: Senate Local and County Government

Summary: The Senate Local and County Government Committee heard and advanced several bills dealing with municipal authority, land use, waste management, and transparency. Senate Bill 2106, by Senator Brooks, would require municipalities that use a reversion ordinance to change zoning back to a prior designation to compensate landowners for any loss in property value; it passed 8-0. Senate Bill 1471, by Senator Boren, as amended, would allow cities and towns to impose narrowly tailored fees related to solid waste and packaging impacts, with revenue limited to waste collection, recycling, cleanup, education, and related contamination-reduction efforts; members discussed microplastics, bag fees, and concerns about scope and oversight, and the bill passed 6-2. Senator Nysha and the chair spoke in support of the measure as a conservation and landfill-reduction tool. Senate Bill 2139, by Senator Hicks, was presented as a cleanup bill directing county clerks to remove discriminatory language from recorded plats, including digital records, after an ordinance amending a plat is adopted and recorded. The committee adopted a committee substitute, struck title, and advanced the bill 8-0. Senate Bill 2154, by Senator Reinhardt, would require lien holders to be notified before foreclosure proceedings begin when a municipal lien is filed; Senator Nice asked whether the notice period could be defined as 10 business days, and the author agreed to discuss that with stakeholders. That bill also passed 8-0. Finally, Senate Bill 1619, by Senator Hamilton, was broadened from an original focus on data centers to a general transparency measure for municipal and county governments. It would prohibit officials from using nondisclosure agreements to conceal how public tax dollars are spent, while still protecting proprietary business information. Members discussed constituent concerns about secretive economic development deals, and the bill passed 8-0. The committee then concluded its business and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• special district, all of which would be home or partly located in an eligible county, or any other lender
• It would apply a $1 million cap on grants into the total outstanding loan amount per person, with changes

Bills: HB2564 , HB2760 , HB2765 , HB2898 , HB3260 , HB3800 , HB4341 , HB4396 , HB5195

Committee: Senate Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• The lender is ultimately controlling those funds until the lender determines the project is complete.
• The lender still has, and has not funded that retainage.
• If this bill was directed at the lender, that would be a very different story.
• If the lender wipes out the lien, everybody's losing. That's a broken project.
• And then if the lender wipes out the lien, so the lender forecloses on the project.

Bills: SB1468 , SB1612 , SB1789 , SB2530 , SB2571 , SB2717 , SB2967

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• We believe that the bill is consistent with the spirit and intent of the original cap for the 3%.
• I'm the Rio Arriba County Assessor, and this legislation will allow for the residential cap to remain
• This bill caps the property taxes at 3% in the setting of rezoning and is imperative because we are The
• Without this cap on tax increases, they wouldn't be able to afford to stay in their homes.
• Okay, so if you have a residential property and you have a 3% cap, and the city just says, "I'm going

Committee: Senate Senate Tax, Business & Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• And of course, going to a traditional lender, it's just not the best for a nonprofit developer.
• Senate Bill 2778 raises the board approval threshold from $2,000 to a permissive cap of $50,000.
• Boards can revisit or revise their cap at any time in a public meeting.
• This would be about a $10,000 cap now, roughly.
• So if we're looking at a $10,000, $50,000 cap, what type of equipment are we talking about here?

Bills: SB208 , SB628 , SB777 , SB1042 , SB2354 , SB2477 , SB2521 , SB2523 , SB2608 , SB2703 , SB2778 , SB2835 , SB2965 , SB2367 , SB3044

Committee: Senate Local Government

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government met with a quorum and limited public testimony to two minutes per person. The committee heard Senate Bill 628 by Senator Zaffirini, which would clarify that counties may enter interlocal agreements with emergency service districts to administer and enforce county fire codes, including for multi-county ESDs in the committee substitute. Witnesses from Travis County ESD-11, the Travis County Fire Marshal’s Office, and a member of the public supported the bill as a way to reduce duplication, costs, and jurisdictional confusion. Public testimony was closed and the committee substitute was left pending. The committee then heard several housing-related bills. Senate Bill 208 by Senator West would create a Workforce Housing Capital Investment Fund to provide zero-interest loans to nonprofit builders for workforce housing; Habitat for Humanity representatives, a Brownsville nonprofit developer, and housing advocates supported it as a way to finance infrastructure and land development for affordable homes. Senate Bill 2835 by Senator Johnson would allow cities to opt into single-stair apartment buildings for small-scale, multi-story housing; supporters said the design is safe and could expand housing supply, while the Texas APA expressed qualified opposition over code-process concerns and fire-safety questions. Both bills were left pending after testimony. Additional bills heard included SB 1042 updating the Kimble County Hospital District’s enabling law; SB 1708, a committee substitute protecting familial property divisions from platting requirements; SB 2778 raising the ESD expenditure threshold requiring board approval from $2,000 to up to $50,000; SB 2608 expanding LIHTC eligibility for certain public housing projects; SB 3044 adding board representation for Marfa and Presidio on the Presidio County Underground Water Conservation District and adjusting an exemption; SB 2367 extending park board authority to Waller County; SB 2523 clarifying ETJ reduction procedures and owner opt-out rights; SB 2521 requiring death-certificate reporting to appraisal districts to help address squatting and homestead exemption issues; and SB 2477 easing office-to-residential conversions in larger cities. In each case, the bills were laid out, testimony was taken, and the measures were left pending subject to call of the chair. The committee then recessed until 15 to 30 minutes after adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• It would ask whether there are lenders and CDFIs it should be looking at that serve those territories
• He continued that if the agency is not working with those lenders or if they are not interested in the
• He said that each project will likely put some equity into the project, may work with external lenders
• Andy Nakahata responded that the limitation is that the agency needs lenders working in those areas who
• If there are lenders in the communities, the agency can work with them.

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The Senate Rules Committee met to consider several governor’s appointments and procedural items. The committee approved, largely on unanimous or near-unanimous votes, the appointments of Gina Castro Rodriguez to the Board of State and Community Corrections, Richard Stein to the California Arts Council, and Nicholas Hardiman to the California Housing Finance Agency Board of Directors. It also approved references to bills, committee appointments, subcommittee ratifications, joint committee appointments, and floor acknowledgments. A motion to grant rule waivers for Senators Perez and Padilla to introduce additional measures under SR 22.5 drew opposition from Senator Grove and ultimately passed on a 3-2 vote in the final tally. The committee then heard testimony on the appointment of Andy Nakahata as executive director of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank). Nakahata described his background in finance and infrastructure lending and said he would focus on expanding access to IBank programs statewide, especially in underserved and rural areas. Members questioned him about outreach equity, county-by-county loan activity, creditworthiness standards, the California Transmission Accelerator, and financing for public hospitals and other infrastructure projects. He said IBank works through financial development corporations, municipal advisors, and other partners, monitors geographic reach, and can work with applicants to adjust loan size or identify additional funding sources when projects are not fully creditworthy. Public witnesses spoke in support of Nakahata, including representatives from Siebert William Shank and O’Melveny/other public finance firms, who praised his expertise and leadership. No opposition testimony was offered. The committee voted 5-0 to move Nakahata’s appointment to the full Senate for confirmation. After completing a final roll call on the earlier agenda items, the committee adjourned its public session and announced it would move into executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's really inquiring with them: are there lenders and CDFIs we should be looking at who service
• They may be working with external lenders as well.
• They may be working with external lenders as well.
• The limitation we have is that we need to have lenders who are working within those areas who are willing
• If there are lenders in the communities, we can work with them.

Committee: Senate Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• cap to account<00:25:19.919><c> for</c><00:25:20.080><c> this.
• You've seen California, I believe, went to $750 million with no cap.
• Texas went to $150 million with no cap. That is a challenge.
• You've seen California, I believe, went to $750 million with no cap.
• Texas went to $150 million with no cap. That is a challenge.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no lender they're spending it.
• would be protected just as a lenders would be protected just as a mortgage<00:05:23.919><c> lender</
• And mortgage lender would be protected.
• We're a preferred lender with the SBA.
• We're a preferred lender with the SBA.

Committee: House County and Municipal Government

Transcript Highlights:

• They're the ones that get the lenders, not the nonprofits.
• They get the lenders, and the lenders have a lot of paperwork that goes into this process.
• what you're trying to implement are really lender requirements.
• other lenders that will want to comply with the new law.
• So if lenders drop out, other lenders will come in and they will create overlays that match this program

Summary: The committee heard HB 2842, a deed-fraud prevention bill that would create an early alert system for property owners when escrow is opened on their property. The sponsor and several witnesses, including a victim, an Attorney General investigator, and the Department of Real Estate commissioner, described widespread deed fraud and said the bill would provide proactive notice before a fraudulent transfer is completed. The committee adopted the Blackman amendment shifting the reporting entity from DIFI to the State Real Estate Department, then passed the bill with a due pass recommendation by a 7-0 vote. Members then considered HB 2667, which would require recipients of state first-time homebuyer or down payment assistance programs to be Arizona residents for two years and to occupy the home as a primary residence for two years, while barring out-of-state investors from using the homes as rentals. The sponsor said the bill was intended to help younger Arizonans and keep assistance focused on residents invested in the state. Opponents and other members raised concerns that the bill could conflict with existing federal and lender requirements and could reduce participation in local down payment programs; after discussion, the committee passed the bill 4-3. HB 2020 was heard next and would reduce certain school-disruption offenses to a class 1 misdemeanor for minors and narrow the definition of interference with an educational institution. The sponsor and a parent described a case in which a student was charged too harshly after a school altercation, while a public commenter urged case-by-case discretion and warned against saddling children with felonies. The committee passed the bill 4-3. The committee also advanced HB 2793, which streamlines annexation procedures for single-owner annexations and updates notice rules, including electronic newspaper publication. After adopting two amendments, members passed it 4-3. HB 2327, which allows eligible individuals to restrict public access to certain identifying information held by county recorders, assessors, and treasurers, passed unanimously. HB 2858, creating a 1% Arizona-bidder preference in certain state procurement ties, also passed unanimously after amendment. HB 2660, which adds procedural protections and oversight for health profession licensing board actions, passed 4-2 after testimony from the sponsor and a physician who said board actions had chilled speech and due process. Finally, HB 2063, appropriating $1.5 million for the Independent Correctional Oversight Office, passed unanimously after strong support from oversight advocates and former corrections stakeholders, and HB 2681, extending civil-service appeal deadlines from 10 calendar days to 10 business days, also passed unanimously. The committee then discussed HB 2812, which would raise the sick-leave payout cap for retiring state employees from $30,000 to $57,000; witnesses supported the increase and members began discussing a possible amendment to allow retirees to transfer the payout into a health savings arrangement, but the transcript ends before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• They’re the ones that get the lenders, not the nonprofits.
• They get the lenders, and the lenders have a lot of paperwork that goes into this process.”
• what you’re trying to implement are really lender requirements.”
• other lenders that will want to comply with the new law.
• So if lenders drop out, other lenders will come in and they will create overlays that match this program

Summary: The House Committee on Government heard and advanced several bills, beginning with HB 2842 on deed fraud prevention. The bill would create an early alert system so escrow agents notify the Arizona Department of Real Estate when a property transaction is opened, allowing property owners to be alerted before a fraudulent sale is completed. Representative Contreras, a victim, and other witnesses described serious deed fraud cases and said the bill would provide proactive protection; the Department of Real Estate commissioner said most tracked fraud cases would have gone through escrow and outlined a simple registration and alert process. The committee adopted a Blackman amendment changing the receiving agency from DIFI to the State Real Estate Department and then passed HB 2842 with a do pass recommendation. The committee also passed HB 2667, which tightens eligibility for state first-time homebuyer and down payment assistance programs by requiring two years of Arizona residency and two years of owner occupancy, and barring out-of-state investors from using the homes as vacation or short-term rentals. The sponsor said the bill was intended to ensure the programs benefit Arizonans who are invested in the state, but committee members and representatives from local housing entities warned it could conflict with federal FHA rules, reduce lender participation, and create unintended consequences for local IDA programs. Despite those concerns, the bill received a do pass recommendation. HB 2020, which reduces certain school disruption offenses involving minors to a class one misdemeanor and narrows the definition of interference with an educational institution, also passed after testimony from a parent describing a student being charged with a felony for a school altercation and a nonprofit witness urging more trauma-informed treatment of children. Other measures advanced included HB 2793, which streamlines annexation procedures for single-owner annexations and modernizes notice requirements, with amendments clarifying treatment of municipally owned adjacent territory and allowing electronic newspaper publication; HB 2327, which allows eligible individuals to request suppression of identifying information held by county recorders, assessors, and treasurers to protect privacy while preserving title plant access; and HB 2858, which gives Arizona bidders a preference in state procurement tie situations, supported by local business groups as a way to keep public money in-state. The committee also passed HB 2660, which sets procedures and due process protections for health profession board licensing actions and adds JLAC to the list of entities receiving investigative reports, with the sponsor and a naturopathic physician arguing that board actions can chill speech and lack adequate oversight. Finally, the committee approved HB 2063 to appropriate $1.5 million for the Independent Correctional Oversight Office, HB 2681 to change civil service appeal deadlines from calendar days to business days, and HB 2812 to raise the sick-leave payout cap for retiring state employees from $30,000 to $57,000; members discussed possible future amendments to let retirees direct those funds into health savings arrangements. Most bills were reported out with do pass recommendations, and the committee adjourned after the final vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• this bill, AB 801, requires the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to examine every lender
• retreat from fair lending enforcement does not translate into reduced accountability for California's lenders
• of Regulation B that narrows and reduces accountability under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act for lenders
• Lenders and brokers of small business loans are required to get a license under the CFL.
• When we have met with our business coaches and lenders, access to capital becomes a topic, they bring

Summary: The committee heard AB 801, which would require the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to conduct fair lending examinations of lenders on a regular schedule. The author and supporters, including the Greenlining Institute and several housing and consumer groups, argued the bill was needed because federal fair lending enforcement has weakened and California borrowers of color continue to face lending disparities. Banking and credit union representatives opposed the bill as duplicative and costly, though they acknowledged the author’s amendments and continued negotiations. The bill was approved on a vote and re-referred to Judiciary, with some members voting no or not voting at first and later the measure passing on a fuller roll call. The committee then heard AB 871, which would strengthen elder fraud protections by requiring financial institutions to report suspected financial abuse to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center and notify customers of the report. The author and county and adult protective services supporters said the bill would improve pattern detection and help stop or reverse scams more quickly. Bankers opposed the customer-notification requirement, warning it could alarm seniors and that the reporting process would add operational burden, but the author and supporters said victim information is important for investigations. The bill passed with committee support and was re-referred to Judiciary. AB 1842 and AB 1847, both related to mortgage forbearance after major disasters and the Eaton and Palisades fires, were also heard. AB 1842 would create a statewide framework for forbearance after federally declared major disasters, and AB 1847 would extend relief for wildfire survivors; both bills were amended to narrow triggers, clarify repayment and documentation issues, and remove some reporting requirements. Supporters included local officials, consumer groups, and housing advocates, while mortgage and banking groups remained in opposition on some implementation points but said they were working toward compromise. Both bills were approved and re-referred to Judiciary. Finally, AB 2116, dealing with merchant cash advances and small business financing transparency, was heard with broad support from small business and consumer advocates and partial support from some industry representatives after amendments; opponents still raised concerns about disclosure authority and unconscionability standards. The bill was also approved and sent to Judiciary. The committee additionally adopted a consent calendar of unrelated bills.